Canada may send 150 troops to Sudan

[Said1]

Wow, 150 peacekeepers, I guess it's better than nothing. It's not confirmed of course.

Canada may send 150 troops to Sudan
Last Updated Sat, 07 May 2005 20:28:06 EDT
CBC News
OTTAWA - Canada is reported ready to send up to 150 military personnel as peacekeepers to war-torn Sudan.


INDEPTH: Sudan


A child refugee from Darfur washes clothes outside her shack at the Iridimi refugee camp near Iriba in eastern Chad, September 2004. (AP file photo)
Ottawa would also donate some used military equipment and increase its humanitarian aid for the northeast African country.

An official announcement is coming in the next few days, the Canadian Press reported Saturday.

The federal government has already earmarked $20 million in aid for Sudan. And Gen. Rick Hillier told CBC News Friday that Canada was making plans to send troops to the Darfur region of Sudan by the end of the summer.

Continued

 

[onedomino]

Wow, 150 peacekeepers, I guess it's better than nothing. It's not confirmed of course. URL=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/07/canada-darfur050507.html]Continued[/URL]

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.

 

[Said1]

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.

 

[Comrade]

If they're going to be wearing the blue helments, don't forget the bubble gum and condoms...

 

[Said1]

If they're going to be wearing the blue helments, don't forget the bubble gum and condoms...

Ok.

 

[NATO AIR]

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.

Yep.

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?

 

[Comrade]

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.

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!

Sqqqeeeeek!

 

[NATO AIR]

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!

Sqqqeeeeek!

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.

 

[Comrade]

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.

 

[Annie]

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!

Sqqqeeeeek!

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?

 

[Said1]

I really can't see them going over there alone, given the danger and what not. I gues the top brass at DND will probably drop a neutron bomb in the northern region if anything happens to them. :huh:

 

[Annie]

I really can't see them going over there alone, given the danger and what not. I gues the top brass at DND will probably drop a neutron bomb in the northern region if anything happens to them. :huh:

Perhaps they can put together a 'coalition of the willing?' Of course, they'd have to be outfront then.

 

[Said1]

Perhaps they can put together a 'coalition of the willing?' Of course, they'd have to be outfront then.

Yep, out front where they won't be hard to miss.

 

[Annie]

Yep, out front where they won't be hard to miss.

Will be interesting to see if anything does come of this. It may be the wave of the future. Letting 'smaller' militaries do this type of actions, which of course should have been done by the UN, but if put into effect, would probably be more effectual and less costly.

 

[Said1]

Will be interesting to see if anything does come of this. It may be the wave of the future. Letting 'smaller' militaries do this type of actions, which of course should have been done by the UN, but if put into effect, would probably be more effectual and less costly.

Ok, I'm not in such a pissy mood anymore. :baby:

I don't think the intent is for the Canadians to be invovled in any type of "combat" so to speak. It's my understanding their invovlement will be limited to logistical support and/or training, things of that nature. Announcements are planned for tomorrow I think.

 

[Annie]

Ok, I'm not in such a pissy mood anymore. :baby:

I don't think the intent is for the Canadians to be invovled in any type of "combat" so to speak. It's my understanding their invovlement will be limited to logistical support and/or training, things of that nature. Announcements are planned for tomorrow I think.

I wasn't and am not in pissy mood. Funny thing about any kind of deployment, it's not always what is planned. (voice of experience.)

 

[Said1]

I wasn't and am not in pissy mood. Funny thing about any kind of deployment, it's not always what is planned. (voice of experience.)

Hopefully they've learned a thing or two from past operations in N. Africa. But like any other organization, you can only be as effective as your leaders allow you too be, we'll see I guess.

 

[Comrade]

Hopefully they've learned a thing or two from past operations in N. Africa. But like any other organization, you can only be as effective as your leaders allow you too be, we'll see I guess.

Well, we ought to at least wish the Candanians luck in this endevour... and hope their example will serve to motivate other countries to help pitch in. Just don't let France get involved, or else you may find yourself exposed on your flanks when they withdraw.

To their credit, the lead Candian General running the Rwanda affair fought tooth and nail to stay and protect their charges, while the rest of the UN abandoned them to their fate. If anything, we know the Canandians will try to do the job, even if they are eventually sabotaged by other leaders or organizations.

 

[Said1]

Well, we ought to at least wish the Candanians luck in this endevour... and hope their example will serve to motivate other countries to help pitch in. Just don't let France get involved, or else you may find yourself exposed on your flanks when they withdraw.

To their credit, the lead Candian General running the Rwanda affair fought tooth and nail to stay and protect their charges, while the rest of the UN abandoned them to their fate. If anything, we know the Canandians will try to do the job, even if they are eventually sabotaged by other leaders or organizations.

I just finished reading Delaire's (SP?) book detailing his experiences in Rwanda, excellent read.

 

[Comrade]

I just finished reading Delaire's (SP?) book detailing his experiences in Rwanda, excellent read.

I forget the name, but theres also a great documentary on the Canadians truly honorable actions in Rwanda going around on the history channels. Did you catch this yet?