No. They are Sisyphus, pushing the same damned rock up the hill. Lester would have been smart enough to find a structure more relevant to today's world than the old "policemen who can't shoot back" squad.
Liberals to unveil plans for UN peacekeeping force
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
No. They are Sisyphus, pushing the same damned rock up the hill. Lester would have been smart enough to find a structure more relevant to today's world than the old "policemen who can't shoot back" squad.
Not getting involved with coalitions more concerned with geo-political gain and control of resources who start illegal wars and unwarranted military actions is probably the best thing we can do.
Yup. We should drop out of the Commonwealth AND La Francophonie ASAP.
Last edited:
Trudeau gave them back to Harper as a retirement gift.
Classy, real classy. About what one expects from a Progressive.
No, we need to ratchet up our involvement in global initiatives.
More regulatory measures would be a blessing as well.
Bigger army ... faster (any!!) amphibious deployment capability. We need both if we want to get back into the World Wide Boy Scout business. Both have atrophied seriously since the hayday of "Peacekeeping" and there is no longer enough Canadian Armed Forces left to even pull it off. Our forces have been getting smaller ... smaller .... smaller ... smaller ... since Lester invented Peacekeeping. Both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty as well of selling out our defences to a foreign power in exchange for goodies that are handed out to get them elected.
This is pure, unadulterated idiocy.
Anyone that thinks UN peacekeeping missions are useful in Africa has never heard of Rwanda..........with the exception of Romeo D'Allaire, who is more than a little PTSD thanks to his experience there. UN soldiers stood by and watched, on the orders of the UN, as hundreds of thousands of Rwandans were murdered. Belgian paratroopers surrendered their weapons on the orders of the UN and were subsequently murdered.
Or we could tald about Srebrenica, where the UN promised a safe haven for Muslims if they surrendered their arms......then ordered UN troops out at the first real sign of trouble, letting Serbs murder thousands of men and boys.
Which was SOP.......UN troops consistently set up "safe havens" under their "protection" but were ordered not to resist any attackers.
I had to laugh at the CBC insisting UN practices had changed since their failure to defend civilian populations.....yeah, now UN troops rape them as well.
What ****ing stupidity! Every time I think the moron we elected PM can't get any more ridiculous, he out does himself.
But look at all the cool bombs they get to drop on people before that happens. Nothing says 'Peace' better than a squadron of fully armed fighter jets.
Last edited:
You're right, it' so much preferable to live under a despotic regime that tortures it's own citizens.
Hey don't you have overcrowded private prisons doing the same thing? Yes you do and Washington has punished its citizens almost to a point of revolution. Just a few more months.
................
Peacekeeping can work. When the right factors align, a properly armed and equipped neutral third party can be a critical ingredient of transforming a ceasefire into a stable peace. Canada has done honourable service on these missions in the past, and there’s nothing wrong, in theory, with seeking to do so again. But unless Canada intends to lead a mission on its own, or in partnership with like-minded nations under their own rules of engagement, Canadians have to question if this is the best use of our military resources, or even worth pursing at all.
Too many of the UN’s recent peacekeeping forays have been absolute debacles. As flattering as it is to tell ourselves that they failed for lack of sufficient Canadian involvement, the truth is probably this: the UN is too dysfunctional to operate effective peacekeeping missions in the parts of the world most urgently in need of the help.
You may have read in recent days a report about a horrific incident in South Sudan. A purportedly secure compound in the capital of South Sudan, home to foreign aid workers, including Americans and other Westerners, was besieged by armed men in South Sudanese Army uniforms. The people inside the compound called for help, notifying a nearby — one mile away, according to the report — UN base that they were under attack. The message was received and logged.
And nothing was done.
The troops besieging the compound forced their way inside eventually. They took the aid workers prisoner. At least one man, a local, was executed. The men were beaten and threatened, some apparently tortured. At least five women were gang raped, by as many as 15 soldiers. Americans were singled out for particular abuse.
It was, in other words, an entirely typical atrocity of the type too often seen and heard of in failing states and war zones all the world over. It’s exactly the sort of reason the international community came up with the concept of peacekeeping and stabilization missions in the first place.
But this incident does more than illustrate the need for such missions. It also illustrates how, under the current UN structure, they’ve become impotent. There are 17,000 UN troops in South Sudan. The aid workers’ compound was minutes away from local UN military headquarters. The staff there knew there was an attack against civilians, including foreign aid workers, unfolding. They logged the incoming distress calls in their logs. But the local UN quick reaction force declined to deploy. Local troops, who were waiting around for the UN to lead the mission, also stood down. Individual battalions of troops assigned to the UN mission, including Ethiopian, Chinese and Nepalese soldiers, were then contacted. None bothered to come to the aid of a group of civilians under attack by an armed force practically in their backyard. Local troops eventually rescued the civilians, except for three Western women who were taken by the attackers. The UN was asked to send a rescue party to find them, and declined.
It is an absolutely astonishing story of failure … and yet not at all that astonishing. Time after time, we have heard reports of civilians under attack while UN forces nearby do absolutely nothing. Just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that UN peacekeepers in South Sudan ignored the mass rape of women who had sought shelter at a UN compound. The AP reported that the peacekeepers declined to intervene when the women were attacked by local forces, and watched as women and girls were attacked. Indeed, we’ve heard too many stories of the UN forces themselves being the attacking force, raping their way through villages they’re there to protect.
And how did the UN respond to these incidents? After the rapes near its compound last month, a spokesperson said, “The mission takes very seriously allegations of peacekeepers not rendering aid to civilians in distress and the (local UN) command is looking into these allegations.” They must still be looking into it, because that sounds a lot like what they said after the incident at the aid workers’ compound. And no doubt it’ll be what they say next time, too.
The UN is supposed to be an institution that makes the international community responsible for the safety of vulnerable populations. In reality, it does the opposite —it absolves countries of taking real action by offering up instead the comforting fiction of engagement and commitment. The locals, who turn to the UN for help and are ignored, understand this better than Canada’s government seems to.
And yet we are apparently determined to offer up hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Canadian troops. These troops will be sent thousands of miles from home, away from their families and at great expense, to take their place in a system that is so dysfunctional it cannot stop the rape of women and girls that unfolds literally on the doorstep of their barracks. Canada’s troops, fine and brave as they are, can only ever be as effective as the system they are assigned to serve in, and unless the UN is willing to completely overhaul its operations, so that atrocities such as this stop happening with such bleak regularity, there’s no point tainting our troops and our proud military with any affiliation with disgraces such as these. Unless the Liberals are willing to guarantee the public that any mission Canadian troops would serve on would include rules of engagement that not just authorize but require our troops to use whatever force necessary to stop attacks on civilians, the troops shouldn’t be sent. Absent that guarantee and major reforms, there’s no point.
Come to think of it, pushing for that kind of meaningful reform of the broken UN sounds like a fine idea. The world does need peacekeepers, but it needs better peacekeepers, and better leadership, than the UN is capable of providing. This is a place Canada could lead. Perhaps the Trudeau government and our highly capable Minister of National Defence should make a priority of fixing what’s broken, rather than taking part in the dysfunctional process in exchange for praise and a chance to reassure the world, once again, that Canada’s back.
Matt Gurney: Don’t send Canadian troops to dysfunctional UN missions | National Post
Peacekeeping can work. When the right factors align, a properly armed and equipped neutral third party can be a critical ingredient of transforming a ceasefire into a stable peace. Canada has done honourable service on these missions in the past, and there’s nothing wrong, in theory, with seeking to do so again. But unless Canada intends to lead a mission on its own, or in partnership with like-minded nations under their own rules of engagement, Canadians have to question if this is the best use of our military resources, or even worth pursing at all.
Too many of the UN’s recent peacekeeping forays have been absolute debacles. As flattering as it is to tell ourselves that they failed for lack of sufficient Canadian involvement, the truth is probably this: the UN is too dysfunctional to operate effective peacekeeping missions in the parts of the world most urgently in need of the help.
You may have read in recent days a report about a horrific incident in South Sudan. A purportedly secure compound in the capital of South Sudan, home to foreign aid workers, including Americans and other Westerners, was besieged by armed men in South Sudanese Army uniforms. The people inside the compound called for help, notifying a nearby — one mile away, according to the report — UN base that they were under attack. The message was received and logged.
And nothing was done.
The troops besieging the compound forced their way inside eventually. They took the aid workers prisoner. At least one man, a local, was executed. The men were beaten and threatened, some apparently tortured. At least five women were gang raped, by as many as 15 soldiers. Americans were singled out for particular abuse.
It was, in other words, an entirely typical atrocity of the type too often seen and heard of in failing states and war zones all the world over. It’s exactly the sort of reason the international community came up with the concept of peacekeeping and stabilization missions in the first place.
But this incident does more than illustrate the need for such missions. It also illustrates how, under the current UN structure, they’ve become impotent. There are 17,000 UN troops in South Sudan. The aid workers’ compound was minutes away from local UN military headquarters. The staff there knew there was an attack against civilians, including foreign aid workers, unfolding. They logged the incoming distress calls in their logs. But the local UN quick reaction force declined to deploy. Local troops, who were waiting around for the UN to lead the mission, also stood down. Individual battalions of troops assigned to the UN mission, including Ethiopian, Chinese and Nepalese soldiers, were then contacted. None bothered to come to the aid of a group of civilians under attack by an armed force practically in their backyard. Local troops eventually rescued the civilians, except for three Western women who were taken by the attackers. The UN was asked to send a rescue party to find them, and declined.
It is an absolutely astonishing story of failure … and yet not at all that astonishing. Time after time, we have heard reports of civilians under attack while UN forces nearby do absolutely nothing. Just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that UN peacekeepers in South Sudan ignored the mass rape of women who had sought shelter at a UN compound. The AP reported that the peacekeepers declined to intervene when the women were attacked by local forces, and watched as women and girls were attacked. Indeed, we’ve heard too many stories of the UN forces themselves being the attacking force, raping their way through villages they’re there to protect.
And how did the UN respond to these incidents? After the rapes near its compound last month, a spokesperson said, “The mission takes very seriously allegations of peacekeepers not rendering aid to civilians in distress and the (local UN) command is looking into these allegations.” They must still be looking into it, because that sounds a lot like what they said after the incident at the aid workers’ compound. And no doubt it’ll be what they say next time, too.
The UN is supposed to be an institution that makes the international community responsible for the safety of vulnerable populations. In reality, it does the opposite —it absolves countries of taking real action by offering up instead the comforting fiction of engagement and commitment. The locals, who turn to the UN for help and are ignored, understand this better than Canada’s government seems to.
And yet we are apparently determined to offer up hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Canadian troops. These troops will be sent thousands of miles from home, away from their families and at great expense, to take their place in a system that is so dysfunctional it cannot stop the rape of women and girls that unfolds literally on the doorstep of their barracks. Canada’s troops, fine and brave as they are, can only ever be as effective as the system they are assigned to serve in, and unless the UN is willing to completely overhaul its operations, so that atrocities such as this stop happening with such bleak regularity, there’s no point tainting our troops and our proud military with any affiliation with disgraces such as these. Unless the Liberals are willing to guarantee the public that any mission Canadian troops would serve on would include rules of engagement that not just authorize but require our troops to use whatever force necessary to stop attacks on civilians, the troops shouldn’t be sent. Absent that guarantee and major reforms, there’s no point.
Come to think of it, pushing for that kind of meaningful reform of the broken UN sounds like a fine idea. The world does need peacekeepers, but it needs better peacekeepers, and better leadership, than the UN is capable of providing. This is a place Canada could lead. Perhaps the Trudeau government and our highly capable Minister of National Defence should make a priority of fixing what’s broken, rather than taking part in the dysfunctional process in exchange for praise and a chance to reassure the world, once again, that Canada’s back.
Matt Gurney: Don’t send Canadian troops to dysfunctional UN missions | National Post
Whipping out the CF18s man.
Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia - Politics - CBC News
Whipping out CF18s.
Bagotville is CF18S main whipping out point.
Canadian-led battle group will deploy to Latvia, part of NATO move to deter Russia
New NATO brigade raises the stakes for interfering in the Baltic states, Canada's top general says
Murray Brewster · CBC News
July 8, 2016....
See! Whipping out CF18s and 450 pair of boots.
Oh and BTW we are already in the Black Sea too.
Frigates have been whipped out ages ago.
You guys say that about everywhere. Reality is that Libya and Iraq had some of the highest standards of living in the world before US intervention. Libya had free education including university, free total health care (glasses, dental,orthodontics etc), free daycare and more. It had low taxation and amazing social structure and low crime rates and didn't actually toture the citizens. It also had the balls to sell its oil not using the US dollar to trade which is why the Americans invaded and bombed it to hell. Iraq was a similar situation. Had free university and healthcare. Low unemployment. Great infrastructure. There were some issues of violence between the Shiites and Sunnis but Saddam was pretty tough on that sh^t. Again they would not comply with using the US dollar to trade oil so they needed to be bombed and invaded and have a new dictator installed who would comply with the US government and banks.
Do some research if you don't believe me. See for yourself what they had in those countries before US intervention and what they have now.
Last edited:
Harper...CANADA ...commited genocide there
for the bankers
Some people who you would think are smart enough to be able to see that and don't
can describe the inside view of their bellybuttons quite well though
"NATO bombs cleared the path for IS in Libya
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/nato-bombs-cleared-the-path-for-is-in-libya/article23044006/
Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails
Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton’s recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/13/exposing-libyan-agenda-closer-look-hillarys-emails
F-18s?
naw...this is about bat**** crazy **** for brains F-Tards
HIEL HARPER!
for the bankers
Some people who you would think are smart enough to be able to see that and don't
can describe the inside view of their bellybuttons quite well though
"NATO bombs cleared the path for IS in Libya
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/nato-bombs-cleared-the-path-for-is-in-libya/article23044006/
Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary’s Emails
Critics have long questioned why violent intervention was necessary in Libya. Hillary Clinton’s recently published emails confirm that it was less about protecting the people from a dictator than about money, banking, and preventing African economic sovereignty.
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/03/13/exposing-libyan-agenda-closer-look-hillarys-emails
F-18s?
naw...this is about bat**** crazy **** for brains F-Tards
HIEL HARPER!
Last edited:
I say go to all of them.
Five possible UN missions for Canada
Research has shown that peacekeeping is the only valid military exercise left.
Five possible UN missions for Canada
Research has shown that peacekeeping is the only valid military exercise left.