Discussion in 'Canada' started by Said1, May 7, 2005.
Wow, 150 peacekeepers, I guess it's better than nothing. It's not confirmed of course.
That will probably be 150 more than the US sends. Bush foreign policy toward Sudan has become as reprehensible as Clinton's policy toward Rwanda.
It's not written in stone. It's DND saying they're ready, not the gov. Hopefully they they're able to follow through.
If they're going to be wearing the blue helments, don't forget the bubble gum and condoms...
I think Canada sending troops is a good thing though. It could possibly be the opening for other nations to send troops to support the AU, like India, Australia, Brazil, etc etc.
Doesn't this have to do with the MP Gilmour who is being wooed by PM Martin for support?
I think Bush is fulfilling his promise made in the debates vs. Gore, that he would never involve U.S. troops in a matter than was not of national interest.
And while I'd support a move to restore order and Democratic government to Sudan, we can't do this everywhere, and I'm afraid to say the region just doesn't merit the same committment on the threat/need scale that Iraq does, not to mention many other countries like North Korea, who pre-empt Sudan as the most needy and threatening hotspot on the planet.
So it's not that we don't care, it's that anarchy and murder in the Sudan cannot be amended without 100,000 troops and Billions of dollars on our part... and we're already invested in a much needier, more imminent threat in the Middle East.
This is a chance for the countries who disavow freeing Iraq from Saddam, like Canada, to put their troops and money into a cause their mouthy politicians pretend to support... a truly humanitarian mission, and not a humanitarian mission tainted by any reasonable self-serving interests, which Canada's Liberals would say is abhorant to consider, even if the Iraqi people suffered more death and oppression under Saddam than the Sudanese ever did under their more or less tribal anarchy.
I guess this is why I find Canada's oh so exciting promise to Sudan of a paltry 150 troops as nothing but a posturing pretense of 'caring' about humanitarian issues. It's a farce of ridiculously small proportions of committment, and makes a mockery of the contribution made by friends of America to freeing Iraqis, and the world, from a truly dangerous tyrant. I can just hear the trumpets sound as the troops sail off, or more likely, fly coach class on a US airline, to liberate the Africans from themselves, or maybe just man some post behind some compound, and be forbidden to interfere in any combat, even if it's a massacre of unarmed civilians...but anyway, the sound of the trumpets will be glorious!
In Canada's defense, they are responding to the requested needs and desires of the African Union. Since neither NATO, the UN or a coalition of the willing led by powerful states like the US, Britain, Germany or India is showing up to save the day, Canada is doing its best (yea its probably political BS on Martin's part, but don't demean the true feelings of compassion and willingness to help many in Canada have for those in Darfur) for the AU at this point. Perhaps there will be more in the future, we don't know.
Plus, as everyone here knows, the Canadian miiltary is freaking falling apart. 150 ain't bad for a nation that can't even field a defense any more.
I only wish that if Canada wanted to truly try and make a difference, it would also stop being hypocritical and field a force to Iraq, even if it was just a token one.
In the main I agree with you Comrade. The US cannot restore or inject order everywhere that is needed, paying the costs in blood and treasure when not in the US interests. That does not mean that we cannot be part of a coalition, started by others who feel a compelling interest to do so.
What I wonder about the Canadian gesture, if it comes to pass, what will happen if some of their troops are lost? What would they do then?
Separate names with a comma.