Off Topic

Liberals pledge up to 600 soldiers, $450-million for UN peacekeeping operations

  • Last Updated:
  • Nov 18th, 2017 7:25 am
Deal Addict
Apr 30, 2011
2640 posts
236 upvotes
RICHMOND HILL
RoverOne wrote:
Feb 1st, 2017 7:31 pm
I would rather be court martialed then do anything for the UN.
FTFY

I would rather disobey my superiors and the chain of command than follow orders.

But really, why bother saying "If I was a Canadian soldier" if you know that you're going to do something this drastic.
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
26183 posts
6056 upvotes
GTHA
Are traditional peacekeeping missions a thing of the past?
Retired Major-General David Fraser says 'the risks are going to be significant' for whatever mission Canadians peacekeepers are sent on.

Jr. Member
User avatar
Jun 5, 2017
127 posts
6 upvotes
Guelph, Ont
im certainly not against canada playing a role in peace keeping and helping out other countries, but what id like to see is canadian forces in africa training troops to better deal with illegal poaching and having actual canadian troops go on patrols and engage poachers and bring them to justice. profits from poaching go towards terrorism in africa.
Sr. Member
Aug 21, 2008
537 posts
45 upvotes
Ottawa
The last thing the criminal UN wants to do is to foster peace.
Deal Addict
Apr 22, 2014
2730 posts
386 upvotes
Oshawa, ON
brandonly wrote:
Nov 14th, 2017 8:04 pm
im certainly not against canada playing a role in peace keeping and helping out other countries, but what id like to see is canadian forces in africa training troops to better deal with illegal poaching and having actual canadian troops go on patrols and engage poachers and bring them to justice. profits from poaching go towards terrorism in africa.
Better yet what id like to see is canadian forces in canada training troops to better deal with illegal poaching and having actual canadian troops go on patrols and engage poachers and bring them to justice. profits from poaching go towards ...

how does that sound now?
signature removed for inappropriate content
Deal Guru
User avatar
Nov 15, 2004
14181 posts
1532 upvotes
Toronto
So we're committing money, labour, and resources to support Saudi Arabia's foreign policy objectives as head of the 'human rights council', but completely ignoring the problems at home and close to home.

These troops would be much better used supporting government forces against the cartels in Mexico, Colombia, and other areas. If not there, then as disaster relief to prepare for the increasingly cataclysmic natural disasters that are happening worldwide.
Could HAVE, not could OF. What does 'could of' even mean?
Penalty Box
User avatar
Aug 23, 2006
2945 posts
186 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Nov 15th, 2017 11:16 am
So we're committing money, labour, and resources to support Saudi Arabia's foreign policy objectives as head of the 'human rights council', but completely ignoring the problems at home and close to home.
That is what Canadian mean. I remember years back when CTV power-play started. MPs from all parties were so against some issues in Saudi and their authoritarian style in governing.
And yet they were all present at dinner party served by Saudi Government that same evening.
This is nothing new as its called as being Canadian.
“There are some things money can’t buy, and for everything else there’s MasterCard. Well, get out your checkbooks ladies and gentlemen, because it seems like the entire liberal cabinet can be bought. TRUDEAU: I CAN’T BE BOUGHT...LMAO. Because its 2017
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 1, 2013
3437 posts
195 upvotes
tk1000 wrote:
Nov 14th, 2017 5:45 pm
Are traditional peacekeeping missions a thing of the past?
Retired Major-General David Fraser says 'the risks are going to be significant' for whatever mission Canadians peacekeepers are sent on.
So you are surprised to find out that soldiering involves risk? Smiling Face With Open Mouth
[OP]
Deal Expert
User avatar
Dec 7, 2012
26183 posts
6056 upvotes
GTHA
The new peacekeeping plan...


CheapScotch wrote:
Nov 15th, 2017 7:00 pm
So you are surprised to find out that soldiering involves risk? Smiling Face With Open Mouth
No :|
Deal Fanatic
Nov 21, 2011
7770 posts
1252 upvotes
Edmonton
Awesome idea. We're not in enough debt as is.
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28228 posts
4202 upvotes
Ottawa
There is no "Peacekeeping" to be done. Not one area of conflict can be assisted with peacekeeping in the traditional way as they are all combative. "Peacekeeping" in the traditional sense of the term went away with the advent of terrorism and that type of methodology. How can you keep the peace if you don't know who is who?
With Trudeau offering equipment, all that does is continuing what we do anyway....supply support to countries in need.
One thing I do like is that he is "doubling" female participation. I really believe he will not be able to attain that goal. When Military women find out they are going to have to go on deployment, I think it will clear the Military of women LOL.
Is it solipsistic here? Or is it just me?
Jr. Member
User avatar
Jun 5, 2017
127 posts
6 upvotes
Guelph, Ont
Pete_Coach wrote:
Nov 16th, 2017 8:49 am
One thing I do like is that he is "doubling" female participation. I really believe he will not be able to attain that goal. When Military women find out they are going to have to go on deployment, I think it will clear the Military of women LOL.

thats a pretty silly, sexist thing to say about female soldiers dont you think.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 21, 2004
7875 posts
565 upvotes
brandonly wrote:
Nov 16th, 2017 8:23 pm
thats a pretty silly, sexist thing to say about female soldiers dont you think.
Multiple cases in the news recently about female soldiers complaining about being deployed. Saying they are being "forced" to choose between career and family. Kind of funny to join the NAVY and then complaining about being posted to a SHIP that SAILS away!
Deal Expert
User avatar
May 10, 2005
28228 posts
4202 upvotes
Ottawa
brandonly wrote:
Nov 16th, 2017 8:23 pm
thats a pretty silly, sexist thing to say about female soldiers dont you think.
Sexist thing to say by me or by Trudeau?
He said he want to increase by 50%...is that wrong?
Me, I said it may clear the Military of women. Nothing sexist, just factual. Women in the Military do not want to be deployed, whether it is on UN missions or other deployments or to Alert for a few months or onboard a ship or even on exercises for weeks at a time. I know, I have had to deal with those situations. I know as deploying a woman, especially one with a family, it becomes a paperwork nightmare. One excuse after another, visits from the chaplains, doctors letters and so on. Deploying women has always been a difficult thing so I see no easement of the problems unless orders are give to take the deployment or get out.
So, no sexism, just a reality check of the way it really is.
Is it solipsistic here? Or is it just me?

Top