Where Would You Rather Canada's Troops Be - Afghanistan Or Darfur?

[skanji]

Where Would You Rather Canada's Troops Be - Afghanistan Or Darfur?

[KsprayDad]

I would rather that we had a strong enough military to take care of Canada's interests in ALL theatres.

[B40]

C) Canada

[lip1978]

Damn tough poll, and it took my awhile to answer and justify it.

I chose Afghanistan because of the way the world changed on 9/11, and Canada's role within that world should be to respect its NATO responsabilities.
Let Spanish troops, and those who don't want to participate in the "War on Terror" help in Darfur, but right now, Afghanistan is a legitimate location for Canadian troops.

[asim99]

west bank...to keep those terrorist settlers from building the illegal settlements

darfur...but only as peacekeepers

they should not definitely be janitors tasked with cleaning american crap in afghanistan...

[skanji]

Damn tough poll, and it took my awhile to answer and justify it.

I chose Afghanistan because of the way the world changed on 9/11, and Canada's role within that world should be to respect its NATO responsabilities.
Let Spanish troops, and those who don't want to participate in the "War on Terror" help in Darfur, but right now, Afghanistan is a legitimate location for Canadian troops.

Good points, but I think Canada could really lead the world in what is becoming an unbearable situation in Darfur...even Bush is pressing the UN for action: http://www.boston.com/news/world/afr...ole_in_darfur/

We are really living the darkest time in our history.
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/

[teknoluv]

I'd say along the US border, since the only country on earth that has ever invaded Canada throughout our history is the US. ;p

[KsprayDad]

I'd say along the US border, since the only country on earth that has ever invaded Canada throughout our history is the US. ;p

Denmark is CURRENTLY invading Canada at Hans Island.

[Crotchety Old Man]

Seeing as Gordon O'Connor*, our new Minister of Defense's previous job was an eight year stint as a salesman for the "defense" industry - I imagine we can look forward to lots of purchase orders for new war stuff.

But that Darfur mission, that seems a little too human-aidey - that's old school Canada, right? We're all about joining the US's Global War on Terror® now. Why save people, when we should be concentrating on killing them? Let's get this (spending) party started**!

*[O'Connor]... spent eight years as a lobbyist for some of Canada’s largest military contractors. In his words, he was “helping defense companies navigate complicated government procurement rules.” He ended his career as a lobbyist only to run for public office. He won a seat and became a Member of Parliament in June 2004. He then became the Conservative Party’s Critic for National Defense and was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defense and Veterans Affairs.

When he was new to the House of Commons in November 2004, O’Connor’s lobbyist past was scrutinized by journalists. At the time he flatly denied that his work as a military lobbyist could pose a potential conflict of interest in his role as defense critic. “I don’t decide who wins and loses contracts,” said O’Connor at the time. Now that’s he’s Minister of Defense, he will decide who wins and loses contracts.

**The transformation of Canada’s military was well underway before the Conservatives took power, but there are indications that the Conservative Government will outdo the Liberals. Military spending under the Liberals was already at its highest level since World War II, with additional spending of $12.8 billion promised by in 2004. The Conservatives will add at least another $5.3 billion to this. They will also be expanding the Canadian forces by 13,000 soldiers, 8,000 more than the Liberals had planned, all geared at allowing Canada to play “a more aggressive role in fighting terrorism.”

The military’s new direction involves greater emphasis on interoperability with US and other militaries committed to “the long war.” Chief of Defense Staff, Rick Hillier, makes frequent appearances in the press, appealing for more money for the military. On February 25th, the second headline on Mike Blanchfield’s National Post article was Hillier’s assertion: “we need money.”

[KsprayDad]

Seeing as Gordon O'Connor*, our new Minister of Defense's previous job was an eight year stint as a salesman for the "defense" industry - I imagine we can look forward to lots of purchase orders for new war stuff.

But that Darfur mission, that seems a little too human-aidey - that's old school Canada, right? We're all about joining the US's Global War on Terror® now. Why save people, when we should be concentrating on killing them? Let's get this (spending) party started**!

You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.

Are you saying you think the Military doesn't need more money??!! Our 2003 expenditures on the military were only 1.1% of GDP...this to protect one of the largest land masses in the world. Switzerland (you remember them right? the 'neutral' country? They spent 1%.)

Would you rather NOT be fighting terrorsism. Would you rather the fight was in YOUR city in your house? Who is going to save your ass when that happens? Get your flowers ready...I hear they are really effective against radicals.

[hagbard]

Nonexistent. We should mine our own business.

[asim99]

You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.

you are funny!

[hagbard]

You are sitting here safe in Canada BECAUSE we are so close to the US.

Are you saying you think the Military doesn't need more money??!! Our 2003 expenditures on the military were only 1.1% of GDP...this to protect one of the largest land masses in the world. Switzerland (you remember them right? the 'neutral' country? They spent 1%.)

Would you rather NOT be fighting terrorsism. Would you rather the fight was in YOUR city in your house? Who is going to save your ass when that happens? Get your flowers ready...I hear they are really effective against radicals.

We don't need a military.

First off, who would want to invade us? Secondly, as you point out, anyone who tries will be up against the Americans. Third, the only real threat to Canadian sovereignty is the US, and they can undermine that with a single phone call (as they already do on a regular basis).

The only use for a military in this country is to provide cannon fodder for the American Empire. I'm certainly not going to aid them in doing that.

[dark169]

Stay in afghanistan, the simple fact is we can't do both and we already have commitments.

[masterhapposai]

africa

there's no logical reason to be anywhere else, in terms of priority.

The fact that black Africans in Darfur are exclusively Muslim has not stopped the Arab Janjaweed militias and the government from exterminating them.

look at that. there's nothing like it in afghan

To prefer to be in afghan over darfur says a lot about someone's character.

Important, too, is that Arab states should condemn Sudan; otherwise their anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rings hollow. How can they protest the killing of Palestinians when their kin exterminate Africans in Sudan?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0714/p09s02-coop.html