Canada may send 150 troops to Sudan

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I thought I heard on The CBC that the 150 troops were going there to protect the camps that have been set up?


Frankly though....I think many countries aren’t prepared to fill body bags over this, so they waited till the damage was done, then sent in some soldiers. I certainly don't want any Canadian soldiers dead over it....
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
I thought I heard on The CBC that the 150 troops were going there to protect the camps that have been set up?

Then you heard wrong. The announcement was for technical help. While what they will do will help to protect the camps, it is not, as the opposition is trying to paint it, a few regular soldiers.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Yes it's a unit of military advisors, not an infantry unit or anything like that. I heard on CBC radio this morning that Sudan isn't gonna let them in anyway, so it's all moot.

I wonder why the government of Sudan wouldn't want any competent help? Hmmm.

Oh yeah! Cause they're the one's behind the massacres in the first place! 8)
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Canada may send 150 t

I don't think the government of Sudan has a whole lot of say in this, Facts. The AU is already there, under the auspices of the UN, and our people are going in as part of that.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
if we were invited there by the combatants that is a good thing, however if this is another coalition of the willing bla bla, I am not in favor of it at all. Look what happens when the United Nations, makes resolutions, and America behaves like an attack dog, invading places like Iraq. It often turns out we do more harm than good.
The best example is Iraq. The West believed the could just take over the oil and divided up among corporate groups, turning Iraq into an economic zone controlled by the west. Liberty was the excuse. As it turns out unfortunately, over one hundred thousand people have been liberated from their lives and the war goes on, because the western powers are not wanted there.
Unless some kind of a deal in brokered by the participants, and they need help controlling the peace, we should not interfere in the internal affairs of another country. The time the UN or other allies should become involved is when the conflicts spill over into nations next door. Civil wars should be allowed to come to a natural conclusion. To go in without an invitation is to plant yourself in the middle of a family fued.
The one place the world went in and did so correctly was in Afghanistan.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Canada may send 150 t

This isn't so much a civil war as mass slaughter, Grumpy. We do have an obligation to interfere to protect the weak, especially since Canada's Talisman Oil helped to create situation.

That does not mean that we should take over the Sudanese government, but it does mean that we need to help stop what is essentially a genocide. The solution needs to be found locally though. If we want a lasting peace in Sudan, it has to come from them. We cannot impose it on them the way the US has tried to do in Iraq.
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Re: RE: Canada may send 150 t

Reverend Blair said:
I don't think the government of Sudan has a whole lot of say in this, Facts. The AU is already there, under the auspices of the UN, and our people are going in as part of that.

Yup it will be interesting to see what happens. Sudan will be happy to take our money and equipment, but they don't want our eyes there.

damngrumpy said:
Unless some kind of a deal in brokered by the participants, and they need help controlling the peace, we should not interfere in the internal affairs of another country.

I understand what you're saying, and it's hard not to agree. On the other hand, it's the 21st century, and the world is becoming just too small a place for civilized people to turn a blind eye to genocide.

Did we really mean it when we said "never again". Or did we just mean "never again against us".
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
To "Just the Facts" ?

Excellent questions you ask, and excellent points you make.

It points out that any choice we make here, begs a conflict between stopping genocide and interfering with a country's internal crap.

And once a choice is made EITHER WAY, the slippery slope commences.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Canada may send 150 t

Yet the involvement of the United Nations and the world community is presently bringing many civil conflicts to an end. Oddly enough, this is putting even more stress on peacekeeping forces as countries that are bringing conflicts to an end are asking for peacekeepers to ensure that fragile peace holds while real agreements and treaties are negotiated.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
You're right Reverend Blair, the UN is doing some work there, full of mistakes, blunders, waste and any other criticism naysayers like to spotlight.

On top of organizational difficulties and questionable moral behavior of the UN troops and bureaucracy, you know that the conflict about stopping genocide and interfering with internal national problems is a slippery slope that knows no end in sight.

No one will ever know where the line is drawn ONCE they get involved.

It always looks more straightforward and clear BEFORE you get involved.