I'm in total agreement about the countries you mentioned. They unfortunately likely have to be shamed into it. As for the UN's usefullness, it has almost run its course and it needs replacing and reducing.
Darfur is where our Peacekeepers should be
- Thread starter Karlin
- Start date
Ummmm.... don't UN member countries have a legal obligation to intervene when genocide happens? That would include us. The problem with saying "Well why don't THEY do it?" is that everyone will say it's someone else's responsibility. I would like everyone to step up, starting with us rather than complaining about who isn't doing what. For Canada that probably won't mean soldiers because we don't have any to spare, but there are other ways to help. I do understand we have our own problems, but they are nothing even close to this.
Apparently the UN has been forced to halve food rations to many of Darfur's refugees because of underfunding to just over 1000 calories per day. It takes twice that to keep a man healthy long term. Canada has cut it's contribution from 20 million last year to 5 million this year.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/28/darfur-060428.html
Apparently the UN has been forced to halve food rations to many of Darfur's refugees because of underfunding to just over 1000 calories per day. It takes twice that to keep a man healthy long term. Canada has cut it's contribution from 20 million last year to 5 million this year.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/04/28/darfur-060428.html
Re: RE: Darfur is where our Peacekeepers should be
I agree Lineman ... The UN needs a major clean up starting with Anan...
Lineman said:
I agree Lineman ... The UN needs a major clean up starting with Anan...
Re: RE: Darfur is where our Peacekeepers should be
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?
I'm Counting On You Lord, To Give Me That Crude
Prove That You Love Me; And I won't Be Rude
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?
I try to be civil but I'm full of gas
I can't wait to get out of this UN morass
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?
Everybody All-together!
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Watch what you say about Kofi"UNSCAM"Annan on here as he has a few Fans. Of course I'm not one of them then again if I was Kojo Annan who used his father's diplomatic status to import a Benz to avoid taxes I would be protective of him to.Canadian with a hyphen said:
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?
I'm Counting On You Lord, To Give Me That Crude
Prove That You Love Me; And I won't Be Rude
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me Some Oil For Food?
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?
I try to be civil but I'm full of gas
I can't wait to get out of this UN morass
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Media Pass?
Everybody All-together!
Oh Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
Saddam drove two Porsches, And I Won't Make Amends
I worked Hard To Support All My Dictator Friends
So, Lord, Won't You Buy Me A Mercedes Benz?
See? I told ya so!!!
- you buncha conservative wanks here would not support a good idea if it hit you over the head.
Ok, sorry about that, some of you had an open mind about this, but gee, see? - I was not being so crazy to suggest this - Jack Layton agrees, and look - a LOT of other Canadians polled also think Darfur is a better target for our troops than Afghanistan.
You were just being parrots/minions for the warmongers.
"Canada should take the Lead in Darfur" - NDP
http://tinyurl.com/jvvav
- you buncha conservative wanks here would not support a good idea if it hit you over the head.
Ok, sorry about that, some of you had an open mind about this, but gee, see? - I was not being so crazy to suggest this - Jack Layton agrees, and look - a LOT of other Canadians polled also think Darfur is a better target for our troops than Afghanistan.
You were just being parrots/minions for the warmongers.
"Canada should take the Lead in Darfur" - NDP
http://tinyurl.com/jvvav
We're always so eager to debate huge issues,like Darfur, after the fact.
Darfur has been heading for disaster for several years, and no amount of "official" talks,via the United Nations, has seemed to make a difference.
Part of the problem is agendas...every country has one and,of course,they don't match. And every country has priorities and they don't match.
Lost in the process are the human beings...and it has always seemed to me that African nations are most expendable(at least in the worlds' eyes)....how else to explain Rwanda,the starvation in Ethiopia,Somalia and now the Sudan.....to say nothing of the AIDS pandemic in that continent.
At times it just gets too overwhelming. For over sixty years I have seen images of the starving in Africa...at the same time,food experts have maintained there is enough food, that it's just a matter of distribution.
It has always been a matter of political will.
If we,in Canada,can still not convince our elected representatives to eliminate our many food banks(through adequate social services), I fear we will never convince them to make Africa a priority.
Darfur has been heading for disaster for several years, and no amount of "official" talks,via the United Nations, has seemed to make a difference.
Part of the problem is agendas...every country has one and,of course,they don't match. And every country has priorities and they don't match.
Lost in the process are the human beings...and it has always seemed to me that African nations are most expendable(at least in the worlds' eyes)....how else to explain Rwanda,the starvation in Ethiopia,Somalia and now the Sudan.....to say nothing of the AIDS pandemic in that continent.
At times it just gets too overwhelming. For over sixty years I have seen images of the starving in Africa...at the same time,food experts have maintained there is enough food, that it's just a matter of distribution.
It has always been a matter of political will.
If we,in Canada,can still not convince our elected representatives to eliminate our many food banks(through adequate social services), I fear we will never convince them to make Africa a priority.
Karlin said:
jack layton is an extremist!
you cannot decide on military deployment based on poll number at a given time....especially after the troops are deployed. Polls change over time and we cannot go into a conflict, sustain a few casualties, and let a weak Canadian public make the decision to pull out.
Mr. Layton is oblivious to any facts put before him. As you said Hank, he's chasing votes without any thought to if it's even possible to get into the Sudan. I wonder if he knows his suggestion would require the US military taking the CF there?
Re: RE: Darfur is where our Peacekeepers should be
hah...I'm sure once he hears the US is involved he'll be the first to do the 180...what a useless swine
Lineman said:
hah...I'm sure once he hears the US is involved he'll be the first to do the 180...what a useless swine
RE: Layton's Reaction
I would hope that the Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto—Danforth and the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada is going to consider the best interests of Canada when determining which endeavours to support and which to oppose, in relation to the Republic of the Sudan; we should be taking action based on the needs of Canada, rather than "reacting", so to speak, to whatever the opinion-of-the-day of the administration of the United States of America may happen to be.
I would hope that the Honourable Jack Layton, P.C., M.P., the Member for Toronto—Danforth and the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada is going to consider the best interests of Canada when determining which endeavours to support and which to oppose, in relation to the Republic of the Sudan; we should be taking action based on the needs of Canada, rather than "reacting", so to speak, to whatever the opinion-of-the-day of the administration of the United States of America may happen to be.
Finally, lets recall that Sudan has not stopped developing oil production over the past few years. China has a strong presence there with tens of thousands of Chinese workers. Chevron is equally present in the south, as well as TotalFina-Elf is. The local oil production can still be considered as medium if compared to large oil fields, but the Sudanese have the advantage of having their fields little exploited and they could continue to be oil suppliers for the next fifteen years.
The extremely complex situation in Darfur is being ignored by analysts and by the commentaries published on the western mainstream media, particularly in the United States. US media analysts deal with the Darfur issue only as an ethnic conflict, or more precisely as the “genocide” of “Africans” at the hands of the “Arabs”. If it is a fact that the conflict leads to massacres that cruelly affect sedentary populations, it is false to suggest that confrontation is based on such ethnic or “racial” reasons and that such a division is the cause of the conflict. In effect, nomadic and sedentary populations are all made up of black people with Arabic characteristics (since more or less a long time now) after they largely mixed. However, such a population distinction allows for a rhetoric that better mobilizes western public opinion and helps hide oil-oriented interests in Sudan behind emotion and fear.
The United States has occupied the chair of the UN Security Council since early February and precisely since the very beginning of the Darfur issue, which had disappeared from the front pages of newspapers for some time, but it now comes back making headlines. US responsible ones for the issue have multiplied statements calling for a massive military intervention. Last February 3, Undersecretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer told reporters that the United States expected to take advantage of its chairing the UN Security Council to “try to strengthen the role of the African Unity in Darfur”. Later, with the support of Kofi Annan, the United States called for a deployment of NATO troops; that is to say, the implementation of an old US desire.
Such official statements are backed by press forums with the participation of democrats or people from organizations closed to George Soros, and who urge the United States to take action in the conflict as they launch a rhetoric very similar to that used in the past to justify the bombing of Serbia as a reaction to problems in Kosovo.
The leader of the democrat minority at the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, senator Joseph R. Biden Jr for Delaware, does not make a mystery out of the issue. In the Baltimore Sun and in the Gulf News, he calls for a NATO operation led by the United States similar to the operations carried out in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In retaking the rhetoric of the duty to intervention or its most recent version, the “protection responsibility”, he assures that Jartum has lost sovereignty after attacking the population. From that point, the fate of the Darfur population depends on the responsibility of civilized nations in collective, whose incarnation would be NATO.
The authors of a report on Darfur, submitted by the Physician for Human Rights NGO, John Heffernan and David Tuller, also call for an international mobilization in the San Francisco Chronicles. For these authors, there is no doubt that the Jartum regime in the only one held accountable. Let’s recall that Heffernan is also a member of the Democratic Party (he was the president of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in Guyana) and he led the Coalition for International Justice in Washington. This organization played a major role in the issues regarding former Yugoslavia, and it was founded by George Soros.
A person of usual reference in the US press as to the Darfur issue is democrat John Prendergast, also member of the International Crisis Group, managed by George Soros. Prendergast denounces the US attitude towards Darfur in the Los Angeles Times joined by actor Don Cheadle as co-author. Both criticize the CIA indulgence in respect to Salah Abdallah Gosh, Chief of the Sudanese Secrete
www.voltairenet.org/article136538.html
The extremely complex situation in Darfur is being ignored by analysts and by the commentaries published on the western mainstream media, particularly in the United States. US media analysts deal with the Darfur issue only as an ethnic conflict, or more precisely as the “genocide” of “Africans” at the hands of the “Arabs”. If it is a fact that the conflict leads to massacres that cruelly affect sedentary populations, it is false to suggest that confrontation is based on such ethnic or “racial” reasons and that such a division is the cause of the conflict. In effect, nomadic and sedentary populations are all made up of black people with Arabic characteristics (since more or less a long time now) after they largely mixed. However, such a population distinction allows for a rhetoric that better mobilizes western public opinion and helps hide oil-oriented interests in Sudan behind emotion and fear.
The United States has occupied the chair of the UN Security Council since early February and precisely since the very beginning of the Darfur issue, which had disappeared from the front pages of newspapers for some time, but it now comes back making headlines. US responsible ones for the issue have multiplied statements calling for a massive military intervention. Last February 3, Undersecretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer told reporters that the United States expected to take advantage of its chairing the UN Security Council to “try to strengthen the role of the African Unity in Darfur”. Later, with the support of Kofi Annan, the United States called for a deployment of NATO troops; that is to say, the implementation of an old US desire.
Such official statements are backed by press forums with the participation of democrats or people from organizations closed to George Soros, and who urge the United States to take action in the conflict as they launch a rhetoric very similar to that used in the past to justify the bombing of Serbia as a reaction to problems in Kosovo.
The leader of the democrat minority at the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, senator Joseph R. Biden Jr for Delaware, does not make a mystery out of the issue. In the Baltimore Sun and in the Gulf News, he calls for a NATO operation led by the United States similar to the operations carried out in Bosnia and in Kosovo. In retaking the rhetoric of the duty to intervention or its most recent version, the “protection responsibility”, he assures that Jartum has lost sovereignty after attacking the population. From that point, the fate of the Darfur population depends on the responsibility of civilized nations in collective, whose incarnation would be NATO.
The authors of a report on Darfur, submitted by the Physician for Human Rights NGO, John Heffernan and David Tuller, also call for an international mobilization in the San Francisco Chronicles. For these authors, there is no doubt that the Jartum regime in the only one held accountable. Let’s recall that Heffernan is also a member of the Democratic Party (he was the president of the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs in Guyana) and he led the Coalition for International Justice in Washington. This organization played a major role in the issues regarding former Yugoslavia, and it was founded by George Soros.
A person of usual reference in the US press as to the Darfur issue is democrat John Prendergast, also member of the International Crisis Group, managed by George Soros. Prendergast denounces the US attitude towards Darfur in the Los Angeles Times joined by actor Don Cheadle as co-author. Both criticize the CIA indulgence in respect to Salah Abdallah Gosh, Chief of the Sudanese Secrete
www.voltairenet.org/article136538.html
RE: Darfur is where our P
Well your hope may be misplaced Five. The NDP has never been really "clued in" to the international stage. They tend to live in a bubble that doesn't fit in to the 21st Century. Sure it's easy to spit out claims that Canada should go to Darfur, but it's another to actually be informed in saying so. Currently (as I highlighted in another thread) Canada does not have the key manpower to committ to both the Sudan and Afghanistan. It's a problem that has plauged our nation for decades; too many obligations, not enough boots to put on the ground. Currently we're full swing in to Afghanistan, and that mission, sadly to say, is more of a priority to Canada than the Sudan is. I know the bleeding hearts on these forums will argue that Afghanistan is "for oil", or "for oppression", and that the Sudan is for helping others. In reality, which some members of these forums inhabit, Afghanistan is a both helping Canada in the long run, and helping the people of Afghanistan. Yes it'd be nice to deploy to the Sudan, in fact i'm all for it, however I know we dont have the man power. If NDHQ manages to bootstrap a force for Darfur, it'll be tiny, ineffective, and last perhaps 3-6 months, like we did with Eritrea. Sending troops for the sake of sending troops isn't a good stand point for a nation to adhere to. If we're going to deploy to the Sudan, we should do so with a robust force, and remain until our goals are accomplished. Such as it is, we currently do not have the man power nor the logistical infastructure to participate in both the Sudan and Afghanistan. War is hell.
Well your hope may be misplaced Five. The NDP has never been really "clued in" to the international stage. They tend to live in a bubble that doesn't fit in to the 21st Century. Sure it's easy to spit out claims that Canada should go to Darfur, but it's another to actually be informed in saying so. Currently (as I highlighted in another thread) Canada does not have the key manpower to committ to both the Sudan and Afghanistan. It's a problem that has plauged our nation for decades; too many obligations, not enough boots to put on the ground. Currently we're full swing in to Afghanistan, and that mission, sadly to say, is more of a priority to Canada than the Sudan is. I know the bleeding hearts on these forums will argue that Afghanistan is "for oil", or "for oppression", and that the Sudan is for helping others. In reality, which some members of these forums inhabit, Afghanistan is a both helping Canada in the long run, and helping the people of Afghanistan. Yes it'd be nice to deploy to the Sudan, in fact i'm all for it, however I know we dont have the man power. If NDHQ manages to bootstrap a force for Darfur, it'll be tiny, ineffective, and last perhaps 3-6 months, like we did with Eritrea. Sending troops for the sake of sending troops isn't a good stand point for a nation to adhere to. If we're going to deploy to the Sudan, we should do so with a robust force, and remain until our goals are accomplished. Such as it is, we currently do not have the man power nor the logistical infastructure to participate in both the Sudan and Afghanistan. War is hell.
Who are these "Lot of other Canadians" you speak of? Do you have their names to prove these "Lot of other Canadians" think Darfur is better for Canadian Troops than Afghanistan? Do you really think Canadian Soldiers lives wouldn't be in just as much danger in Darfur? :roll: :confused1:Karlin said:
RE: Darfur is where our P
This is the same populace that has claimed ignorance as to what exactly the mission is in Afghanistan? How can a social body deem one operation better than the other when they know nothing of either conflict? The only reason Darfur is more "popular" is because it'd be a U.N. Peacekeeping mission, something Canadian society clings to like a security blanket. Heaven forbid this nation shakes off a stigma and stands up for something truely worthy. Digusting.
This is the same populace that has claimed ignorance as to what exactly the mission is in Afghanistan? How can a social body deem one operation better than the other when they know nothing of either conflict? The only reason Darfur is more "popular" is because it'd be a U.N. Peacekeeping mission, something Canadian society clings to like a security blanket. Heaven forbid this nation shakes off a stigma and stands up for something truely worthy. Digusting.
Sassylassie said:
Why the united states wouldnt use their military for a real purpurse this time? instead of being in a illegal war and occupation , where only a few people supports.Even us, since we arent in afganisthan for the humanitarian purpurse, maybe we should send those same people in a place where the world needs them, and this time for a real and good cause.
How pedestrian. We has a wealthy nation have the ability to help those less fortunate than us. By rights we should be out there everywhere can be, doing what we do best. Whether it be peacekeeping, peacemaking, or some fancy hybrid, Canada is good at what we do, and to say we should just abandon others when they need us most is utterly unCanadian.
Actually aeon, you're out of your element as per. The U.S. does use their military for the betterment of the World. Somalia and the Former Yugoslavia are excellent examples of the U.S. stepping in to help as best as they could. In fact, without the U.S., the Balkans would have taken decades longer to settle than it did. I myself, having worked closely with American military personel, have been in a position to see them at work, and they do their jobs with the security and stability of the World in mind, because they know that if the World is unstable, their lives are unstable. They remember Pearl Harbour, and have learned from it. As for "only a few people supporting Afghanistan", try a coalition of over 45 nations aeon. You really should actually get informed before you start speaking about something. It just makes you look like an ass when others prove you wrong. Afghanistan has a lot of support, including that of your vaunted U.N. With regard to humanitraian, actually we are, even though you say we're not. I've told you first hand what I did while I was there, and the news is fully of things we do for Afghans. A great example is roving medical patrols. Every day a UMS will bombed up, load in to vehicles, and hit small villages all over Kandahar Province, bringing medical aid to remote locations. We offer them everything from physicals to dental cleanings to vacinations to surgery. In fact, Canada has become known as the nation to deal with in regard to medical issues. Every day Afghans bring their sick to Camp Nathan Smith for treatment, including the little boy with the terminal cancer, who we made life easier for at the expense of thousands of Canadian tax dollars. Sadly he passed away, but his final days were in comfort thanks to Canada. You say we aren't helping, but we are, in a big way. We dig wells, we provide school supplies, we build clinics, we donate technology, we train the Army, we train the Police, we give medical aid, hell we even employ hundreds of Afghans at the camp doing labour work for excellent pay. You are so out to lunch aeon that it makes me honestly wonder if you suffer from a mental short coming. I'm not trying to insult you, I really do wonder if you're having a hard time grasping reality, telling the difference between fact and fiction, because the things you say with regard to our mission in Afghanistan are utterly baseless and ignorant.