# Congo



## zakiuz (22 Mar 2011)

Hi I'd like to know about your thoughts on the ''next Afghanistan''. I'm talking here about Congo in particular. I had informations from very sure source that Congo is next. What do you guys think ?


----------



## Michael OLeary (22 Mar 2011)

Well, maybe if you told us what your source was we could judge how "sure" it is for ourselves.


----------



## zakiuz (22 Mar 2011)

I sure would like to but I won't. Anyway the point of the topic is what do you think about Congo for the next destination.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> I had informations from very sure source that Congo is next. What do you guys think ?


I think your source should consider Methadone.


But then, I don't speak for _all_ of "us guys" -- it's just my opinion.


----------



## GAP (22 Mar 2011)

Actually the next one is Libya....go figure....


----------



## Armymedic (22 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> I had informations from very sure source that Congo is next. What do you guys think ?



Nope. UN is well engaged and established with a full second-nation multinational compliment. 

Also, not in our Government's "zone of influence", and they do not have the political capital nor cash to return to an ongoing "feel good" mission.

Finally, it is not making the news currently. Because of the lack of MSM coverage, it is not on the radar of most Canadians, therefor not politically prudent for our government to "do something" in Congo.


----------



## Dissident (22 Mar 2011)

The point of his question was what are we talking about? Idle speculation? Or do you have knowledge about it?

Some context to your question would help. You will find there are some very smart people around here(the main reason I come here), but they do not entertain idle curiosity. 

Someone who just drops out of nowhere, has no profile to speak of and asks big questions is bound to be ignored if they do not show some substance behind a question like you asked.


----------



## zakiuz (22 Mar 2011)

I more think of Libya like a temporary one. Sure every destination is temporary but Lybia isn't the same. Plus, no Infantry is there. It's a war mainly against Gaddafi and his people, not terrorism.

I don't see anything esle than Congo since 5.4 millions people were killed since the beginning of the battles over there. UN asked Canada for help to Congo already.

I don't think I need 1,000 posts on the forum to ask a ''big'' question. It's just that I was discussing about the next destination of Canada since 2011 will be the end of the operations of Canadian military, then I saw a journal article about that and I was wondering what you guys thaught about it, simple as that.


----------



## MJP (22 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> I more think of Libya like a temporary one. Sure every destination is temporary but Lybia isn't the same. Plus, no Infantry is there. It's a war mainly against Gaddafi and his people, not terrorism.
> 
> I don't see anything esle than Congo since 5.4 millions people were killed since the beginning of the battles over there. UN asked Canada for help to Congo already.
> 
> I don't think I need 1,000 posts on the forum to ask a ''big'' question. It's just that I was discussing about the next destination of Canada since 2011 will be the end of the operations of Canadian military, then I saw a journal article about that and I was wondering what you guys thaught about it, simple as that.



It is a big non starter for all the reasons RP pointed out.  Canada has no interests in the Congo and isn't in our sphere of thought.


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Mar 2011)

We are still "operating" in afghanistan, Zakiuz. The mission may be different but we are still conducting military operations. I have no idea where this whole Congo thing even came from. Besides, it doesn't matter who thinks they have a big secret that we are going to Congo (Speculation and poor one at that). One election that results in a change of govt and all the plans can be changed overnight.

You don't think you need a 1,000 post on the forum? You may end up with it anyways. 

Zakiuz, please fill out your vague profile and be more specific with your "source" otherwise you will not be taken seriously. I would also suggest you do some background checking and get your facts before you post on here (Your lack of knowledge about our ops in A-stan is noted).


----------



## zakiuz (22 Mar 2011)

Ok that's what I was looking for. It's not that my source is top secret or something, it's just that people would take it serioulsy if I said SOF. But thanks anyway, I'll fill the info.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Ok that's what I was looking for. It's not that my source is top secret or something, it's just that people would take it serioulsy if I said SOF. But thanks anyway, I'll fill the info.



No, if you explained that you had read this in a particular publication right off the bat I am sure that folks would be much more prepared to discuss.

We have lots of pretend "black ops" trolls whom we either punt or ignore...........

Bruce
Staff


----------



## Armymedic (22 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Ok that's what I was looking for. It's not that my source is top secret or something, it's just that people would take it serioulsy if I said SOF. But thanks anyway, I'll fill the info.



Just for your info: If you said your source was SOF, I would say your source is FOS. 

And no, that's not just the reflection in the looking glass.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

There is a fair sized "cheering section" for Congo in the larger _'let's do *something* in Africa'_ crowd that appears. to me, to be clustered in our universities.

The _'let's do *something* in Africa'_ crowd cites two imperatives:

1. People are [insert whichever is appropriate] starving/being murdered/dying of disease - and worse they are oppressed black people; and

2. Canada would be "nice" if we went and did something inoffensive, which means ineffectual, in Africa. Being "nice" is thought to matter - but not, I suspect in Washington, Beijing, London or New Delhi, and since they are about the only places that matter it makes one wonder why we might bother.

Anyway some 'leaders' of the _do something because it's the "nice" thing to do_ gang are Gerald Caplan and Stephen Lewis (not people to whom the government listens).

There is also a much smaller _realpolitik_ 'let's do *something* in Africa' crowd that includes some smart people like Bob Fowler, but they make a much different, better but still unpersuasive case - not because _something_ shouldn't be done but rather because it, Africa, is not on anyone's priority list ... except maybe China's and if (when?) it acts it will be swiftly and we will, most likely, be unable to respond in any meaningful way.


----------



## Armymedic (22 Mar 2011)

E.R.,
I am of the belief/opinion that if we (the NATO/Western we) are going to do something in Africa, it will be in hunting down areas of Al-Quieda influence, and not so much in a role of peacekeeping nor helping those poor hungry Africans, as efforts such as these have met with bloody (literally as well as figuratively) resistance.

Would you agree?


----------



## ArmyRick (22 Mar 2011)

I agree with RP. Hunting down extremist/rogue regimes/al-queda may be the mission.

Before any "feel good" mission could even seriously be considered, what would the end state be? How would we achieve it? What benefit would there be to Canada? Do we have the man power or resources to do it? If its going to be  nasty mission, do we have the stomach for it? Are we the most appropriate nation for it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Mar 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> E.R.,
> I am of the belief/opinion that if we (the NATO/Western we) are going to do something in Africa, it will be in hunting down areas of Al-Quieda influence, and not so much in a role of peacekeeping nor helping those poor hungry Africans, as efforts such as these have met with bloody (literally as well as figuratively) resistance.
> 
> Would you agree?




That is, I think, far more likely that anything proposed/wished for by Caplan, Lewis _et al_ - but it may be the wrong thing to do. It may be that our _vital_ interests are economic and not related to security.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2011)

I'm going to be blunt here. What I'm going to say is a personal observation, as I see it. Fell free to rebutt and change my mind.

Western nations no longer have any interest in Africa. The way I see it, France, Belgium, free Dutch, et al, colonized Africa.

Did they treat the natives as equal? Of course not. Did the start to industrialize, bring mass farming, hydro and common market trade. Did they move the continent into the modern era? Damn right.

Things 'seemed' to progress in Africa for around a hundred years. Things were getting better and becoming modern to where they competed with the rest of the world.

Revolution took over, the native Africans ran the colonials out, by political force or violence. It is still happening today, although most non Africans that owned anything have left.

In a generation, Africa has moved back into tribal groups and activity, torn down any marketable businesses that they had and put themselves back to where they were a hundred years ago.

All they have left is tribal governance and despots. These same despots allow countries like China to set up and rape resources by way of bribes.

No one wants to say it, because 'it's not politically correct', but the basic world feeling is they can stew in their own juices. They made their bed, they can sleep in it. The modern world tried to convert and change the 'dark continent', but they'd rather live their tribal lives and culture.

Sorry about their loss. It sounds crude and insensitive, but every time we try help we get our ass bit. 

The world has stopped  :brickwall: to the detriment of thousands of innocent people.


----------



## medicineman (23 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Ok that's what I was looking for. It's not that my source is top secret or something, it's just that people would take it serioulsy if I said SOF. But thanks anyway, I'll fill the info.



Maybe he means " Soldier of Fortune"?

MM


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Maybe he means " Soldier of Fortune"?


  _~shrug~_

I'm hesitant to hurt his/her feelings, but I'm suspecting strongly that, for whatever reason, zakiuz may have more glossy views of the credibility of "the source" than we see here.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2011)

If we have any national interest in the region at all, it would be focused on North Africa (stabilizing the new regimes in Egypt and Tunisia,regime change and stabilization in Libya) and potentially kinetic actions along the African East Coast from the Sudan, through Somalia and into the Horn of Africa to uproot Al Qaeda cells and eliminate pirate strongholds. The Arab peninsula, Syria and possibly Iran are also areas that "should" be on our radar.  We still have to be prepared for domestic operations and northern sovereignty, ongoing missions in Afghanistan and Haiti, and need to keep an eye on unraveling Mexico, piracy and instability in the East China sea littorals, stand by to help Japan, etc. etc.

Of course we would need a much larger force than we could muster today (at least an Army corps) with appropriate logistical, air and naval assets to provide support while deployed. I await any indication the Canadian public is willing to pay to stand up and support a force that size, or any politician who is willing to go to the wall to support such a thing on principle.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2011)

First it was "I had informations [sic] from very sure source that Congo is next," subsequently implying that the source was SOF [_oooooh_], followed up by the admission, "I saw a journal article..."

 :   

If you have a question or a comment, post it -- no lame posing required.


----------



## Container (23 Mar 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm going to be blunt here. What I'm going to say is a personal observation, as I see it. Fell free to rebutt and change my mind.
> 
> Western nations no longer have any interest in Africa. The way I see it, France, Belgium, free Dutch, et al, colonized Africa.
> 
> ...



Ahh the true things no one likes to say.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> Ahh the true things no one likes to say.


I think it's more that some don't want to _hear_ these things, true as they may be....


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2011)

Waiting for BlackBetty to come in here and sort some people out
op:


----------



## George Wallace (23 Mar 2011)

A la "_Wild Geese_" or "_Dark Under the Sun_"  (with Rod Taylor) ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2011)

The last thing Africa needs are more mercenaries - that vast majority of whom were failed soldiers (if you could call them that) with small brains and smaller penises.*

There were (and still are) a few exceptions - a small_ish_ number of ex-regular soldiers, most from Africa itself; but in my personal experience, which is many, many years old but does include a bit of time in black Africa, mercenary = incompetent and cowardly.

The mythical _soldier of fortune_ was, and remains, just that: a myth.


_________
* And that includes _old Etonian_ and ex-Scots Guards and SAS officer Simon Mann:






Simon Mann on trail in Equatorial Guinea after (another) bungled military operation - the only thing not mythological about mercenaries is their incredible capacity to screw up even the simplest task.


----------



## zakiuz (23 Mar 2011)

Now that's a real discussion. The article was just something that made me think why Congo. I do agree of maybe CF would be there not for the food distribution but for real missions. I think that Congo is possibly next because it's the one that needs help the most. CF could establish in North Africa or in Iran like they could in Congo. Congo is asking for help.


----------



## MikeL (23 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Now that's a real discussion. The article was just something that made me think why Congo. I do agree of maybe CF would be there not for the food distribution but for real missions. I think that Congo is possibly next because it's the one that needs help the most. CF could establish in North Africa or in Iran like they could in Congo. Congo is asking for help.



The CF could establish in North Africa or Iran? Like base our Operations out of there  :  I highly doubt any of thouse countries, especially Iran would welcome our troops there.

Why is the Congo the place that needs the most help? What are you basing this off of? Compared to which other countries? What Canadian interest is in the Congo? etc


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Now that's a real discussion. The article was just something that made me think why Congo. I do agree of maybe CF would be there not for the food distribution but for real missions. I think that Congo is possibly next because it's the one that needs help the most. CF could establish in North Africa or in Iran like they could in Congo. Congo is asking for help.



Have you even read what's been posted? No one is interested, with the exception of the Chinese, some bleeding hearts and late night ads for 'Send me your money, and I'll send you a picture of a starving kid, and you keep sending me money'


----------



## Journeyman (23 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> I think that Congo is possibly next because it's the one that needs help the most.


Based on what?


(Your statement that Congo "needs help the most," not "I think")


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Based on what?
> 
> 
> (Your statement that Congo "needs help the most," not "I think")



Yes please enlighten us. Thank you.


----------



## zakiuz (23 Mar 2011)

Based on the actual civil war which made 5.4 millions deaths. According to New York Times, 45,000 people dies evey month over there. If you're intrested here's an article about Canada-Congo. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/798458--un-askscanada-for-help-in-the-congo

P.S : Why am I ''watched'' 10% ? What does it mean ?


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Based on the actual civil war which made 5.4 millions deaths. According to New York Times, 45,000 people dies evey month over there. If you're intrested here's an article about Canada-Congo. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/798458--un-askscanada-for-help-in-the-congo
> 
> P.S : Why am I ''watched'' 10% ? What does it mean ?



The Congo has been a dog's breakfast since the 60s. How do you propose the UN stop it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> ...
> P.S : Why am I ''watched'' 10% ? What does it mean ?




See here. Some members think you are spouting nonsense, wasting bandwidth, etc; others may agree with you.


----------



## 57Chevy (24 Mar 2011)

Congolese surveyed believe there can be an internal solution to the problems in eastern Congo, with residents most likely to spontaneously mention the government (51%) and the president (33%) when asked to name the party responsible for bringing peace. Despite its presence in the region for more than 10 years, relatively few Congolese view the United Nations as responsible for peace.

poll article: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127556/congolese-hopeful-peace-eastern-congo.aspx


----------



## Journeyman (24 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> P.S : Why am I ''watched'' 10% ? What does it mean ?


Asking means you clearly didn't read the site's guidelines and administrative notes as you agreed to when you joined, which explains such things,......


What it means is that Big Brother is now actively targetting you, watching, tapping your phone, downloading _everything_ you surf online. You really ought to take whatever tinfoil you have left and run......run Forrest run....as fast as you can.   :nod:


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Mar 2011)

Zakiuz,

I beleive we asked you once if not, here we go. Fill out your PROFILE. Who are you? Are you a 15 year old kid or a 65 year old man? You have already shown a poor ability to structure or back up an argument. 

Come up with some credible (or slightly credible) sources for your info. Your bogus SOF source? Yeah sure pal. Real SF types usually know not to talk to people who talk or post alot. Sorry don't buy it and if you beleive it, maybe you should check your source.

Do you have any military expirience? Do you study political sciences? Are you a Conolese Canadian or a Hamitlon tennager? We really would like to know you a little more. At the very least, would PLEASE enlighten us with any military expirience, your approximate age and education level? Anything else would be nice too.


----------



## zakiuz (24 Mar 2011)

I meant CF could NOT go in north africa or iran, sorry. I did my profile. 10% watched is ridiculous, because people don't agree with you, you should be banned ?


----------



## zakiuz (24 Mar 2011)

And for the survey, it's an interseting article, but it was made in Nov 2009 and was about bringing peace within the next 12 months, we're in 2011 nothing changed, that's why I'm more likely to think it's not by themself that they will bring peace.


----------



## Container (24 Mar 2011)

Well then I guess its up to us to go fix it.....oh wait....

Until they want change enough to help out there is no peace. Even if we don a blue beret for a few years.


----------



## zakiuz (24 Mar 2011)

Maybe our help is what they need to motivate them to change in a better way!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Mar 2011)

There seems to be a scratch on this record.  Can someone remove the needle and put on another?


----------



## Container (24 Mar 2011)

Ohh!

The what if/speculation game! Seriously zak- look at how many times people have tried to insert themselves into Africa's affairs. Thousands of years of the power of the day trying to drag them kicking and screaming into "the now". They refuse to have any operating government beyond tribal alliances. Even on best intentions it only lasts a few years- in my reading anyways. Unless Canada and the allies want to move in and live there forever and ever there isn't anything you can do. If an African mission opened up to me I'd love to go. But I'd be under no delusions about what mission success would be.

Dictator/ coup/ new dictator/ country splits/ 2 dictators/ new coup/ military government/ redraw country lines/ new dictator

What if maybe your aunt had testicles? She'd be your uncle! Maybe's and What If's are pretty limited in their usefullness I find.


----------



## zakiuz (24 Mar 2011)

You can't compare how the situation was thousands of years ago and now. People change, of course the mission would fail if all the soldier went there thinking it's a lost cause. Africans are not all about tribal alliances. They do have technologies and proper system, (not all of course).


----------



## Container (24 Mar 2011)

Im really not trying to be rude. Im really not- but your good intentions will do Africa no good. Especially the part about us doing the "real missions" instead of handing out food?

Who exactly would you have us go fight? The infrastructure in Africa, in my experience, is crap. And thats in the parts that people visit. The places you'd have us riding white horses into have even less.

Showing up to fight....somebody.....armed with good intentions and positive thoughts....because, gosh darn it, you saw something on TV and decided that you really had to do something......ANYTHING will get you nothing.

Africa does not want change. The UN "peace operations" training I received had to go out of its way to mention that no matter what its not okay to have forced sex with people who aren't interested. This is training that is suggested for African police mentors.....does that sound like society that just needs a chance to change? Until they take the reins of their own society, learn to treat each other with respect, value human life we can do nothing for them.

And when that day comes that the good people demand change and need our help- I'd be willing to help.

I wasnt comparing thousands of years ago to now. I was comparing the fact that FOR thousands of years, this century on back, nobody has been able to help out Africa. There is a difference.


----------



## zakiuz (24 Mar 2011)

Ok I see. Thanks for sharing !


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Maybe our help is what they need to motivate them to change in a better way!



We tried that in the Congo in the 60s. It didn't work out very well.  Somalia didn't work out very well and anything in Africa doesn't seem to work out well for us.

Africans do not want the white man running their continent, or us telling them how to run their continent.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> Based on the actual civil war which made 5.4 millions deaths. According to New York Times, 45,000 people dies evey month over there.



There are lots of places where tragedy strikes, but please explain how intervening in the Congo is in Canada's vital interest? Even if the Congo were to be depopulated, I fail to see how it would affect Canada or Canadians.

It sounds cold (and it is), but given our very limited resources, this sort of calculation needs to be done before we go anywhere or commit to doing anything.


----------



## zakiuz (25 Mar 2011)

It's not in vital interest of Canada, and Afghanistan isn't too. One of the main goal of the afghan mission is to rebuild the country, why not rebuild Congo since congolease are living the deadliest civil war that ever occured.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> It's not in vital interest of Canada,



I am losing patience.

List three "vital interests of Canada", and then I will listen.  Failing that, I would even be satisfied if you cut and paste a Wikipedia (shudder) definition of "vital interest".

I guess what I am trying to not so delicately say is that while this may be an opinion forum, the expectation is that the opinions will be, at the very least, *slightly* informed.


----------



## frank1515 (25 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> It's not in vital interest of Canada, and Afghanistan isn't too...



I don't post often but this one caught my attention. I certainly believe that being in Afghanistan is in Canada's interest. I'm not saying the combat mission itself is in its interest, but having a presence there is certainly important. Here's why...

1. NATO. As a contributing member to NATO, it is imperative that we pull our own weight in that organization. To have a viable say in the matters which contains to NATO, having a large number of contributing troops in a high profile mission certainly helps at the negotiation table.

2. We can do the job. (when I say we, I mean the armed forces, as I am not a member of the armed forces... yet) The Canadian Armed Forces are there because they are an armed force, capable of doing good, and we have the resources to get the job done.

3. Terrorism. One of our closest political/economic/trade partners was deliberately attacked by a recognized terrorist organization. What does Afghanistan have to do with this? Members of Al-Qaieda and the Taliban cross the Afghano-Parkistani border like it's a walk in the park (or they used to anyways). Helping out friends in need will only make us stronger against a common enemy... Don't be so naive to think that it's impossible for Canada to get attacked, because New York ain't so far from Toronto or Ottawa.

That's my opinion. I hope I have satisfied the higher beings in proving that I am not a complete ignorant little brat that wants to be heard. If anybody wants to know my background, feel free to PM.

Frank


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2011)

frank1515 said:
			
		

> 1. NATO.



Uh really - does spilled milk in Brunnsum really matter to Joe and Jane Smith in Raymore, Saskatchewan?



> 2. We can do the job.



That's an interest?



> 3. Terrorism.



You'll have a hard time finding someone in Afghanistan looking to knock down the CN Tower....

Anyways, time for someone else - let me try.

na·tion·al  in·ter·est 
[nash-uh-nl ˈɪntərɪstl]

–noun 
1. the ability of Canadians to get up, have a bowl of Cheerios, drive their SUV to work, put in 9 to 5, fill up on the way home and catch the news after American Idol.

Therefore:

1.  Stable trading relations and unfettered borders with the United States

2.  Good access to Asia for Canadian natural resources.

3.  Reliable source of petroleum (who cares where it's from) to fuel our domestic economy.

Did I get any right?


----------



## frank1515 (25 Mar 2011)

If milk is spilled in Brunnsum no one in Canada would care, no. That wasn't my point. My point is, the CF is in Afghanistan, in part, to support our NATO allies. I believe this to be a valid argument. I guess having the knowledge to do the job is not an interest, so I will agree with you on that one. We can't deny that if the American's wouldn't have been attacked on 11 Sep 2001, we would not be in Afghanistan, so I believe that fighting terrorism is in our interest, yes. To show support to the Americans, is keeping a good working/trading relation with them.

My  :2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> It's not in vital interest of Canada, and Afghanistan isn't too. One of the main goal of the afghan mission is to rebuild the country, why not rebuild Congo since congolease are living the deadliest civil war that ever occured.



They don't want our help. Repeating your same tired line over, and over, and over isn't going to change them, or us. We are not going to the Congo in the forseeable future and we don't want to.

Get over it and get off you're moldy old soapbox. Reiterating your same point time and again, no matter how you try frame it or say it, does not constitute valid discussion.


----------



## GR66 (25 Mar 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> na·tion·al  in·ter·est
> [nash-uh-nl ˈɪntərɪstl]
> 
> –noun
> ...



Bingo...give the man a prize!  You can spruce up the wording to make it sound more academic or politically correct but that is more or less the underlying truth of the matter.  

That doesn't mean that Canadians do or should ignore moral issues that we face in the world.  Unfortunately there are so many problems in the world that DESERVE be fixed that it's simply impossible for us to have any real positive effect on more than a small number of them.  Therefore where we DO focus our effort should be on those problems that also coincide with our vital national interests.  

Oh...and #1 IS the reason we're in Afghanistan.  Stable trading relations and unfettered borders require good POLITICAL relations with the United States.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> It's not in vital interest of Canada, and Afghanistan isn't too. One of the main goal of the afghan mission is to rebuild the country, why not rebuild Congo since congolease are living the deadliest civil war that ever occured.



Its obvious so I'll say it again:

Africans DO NOT WANT the white man telling them how to run the African continent, nor do they want Europeans or North Americans to run their affairs.

The Africans will sort themselves out. It will be bloody....has been bloody. Remember that our wars (France vs England, WWI and WWII) were extremely bloody affairs.

I do appreciate your noble sentiments.


----------



## zakiuz (25 Mar 2011)

OK, maybe they don't want white man help. Right now the only help their getting is with the AK47 pointed at their faces everyday. I'm less convinced for Congo now.. And for the vital interest thing, it's in interest of Canada to go to Afghanistan but is it VITAL interest ?

EDIT : Just close that thread since everybody seems to hate on it, but thanks for those who shared.


----------



## Container (25 Mar 2011)

the military is not a charitable group of do-gooders. You want to make a diffierence coach kids.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2011)

When Canada first deployed to Afghanistan (Kandahar in 2002) DFAIT listed three "aims" or "roles" (I cannot remember what they called them) which were, roughly:

1. To defend Canada by helping to replace the Taliban with a government that would not allow the country to be used, again, as an _al Qaeda_ base;*

2. To enhance Canada's reputation in the world by doing a full and (more than) fair share in implementing the UNSC Resolutions on Afghanistan; and

3. To help the Afghan people.

Items 1 and 2 are legitimate _vital interests_, and would be for any country. Item 3 is not. It is something that is nice to do and it is a "supporting" role for 1 - it is easier to help the new government establish itself and take control if one helps the people, etc, but we (just like everyone from Australia to Zambia) have no vital interest in "helping" anyone else - it may be nice to do, people may like us more and they may even want to "help" us in return, but "helping" doesn't make it up to the _vital_ interest level. 

Lord Palmerston, who may have been the best foreign minister of any country, any where, in any era, famously said: _"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”_ Our interests, especially our _vital_ interests matter: they, and they alone, are an acceptable reason to spend our treasure and the lives of our men and women in uniform on military operations. When we send people to fight and die we must understand "why." And that "why" must, always, equal "*vital interest*." We must always try to have as few, very well understood, vital interests as we can manage - although we may find that we have too many and that some are too complex; that's one of the perils of power and, make no mistake, Canada has some power and many interests, too.






Lord Palmerston


__________
* Remember, please, that Osama bin Laden had, specifically, named Canada (along with a very few (less than 10)) others as a prime target for attack; thus we had a legitimate need to defend ourselves.


----------



## Newapplicant78 (25 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Waiting for BlackBetty to come in here and sort some people out
> op:






BB has nothing to say.  :-X

However, here is an article *zakiuz* may want to read.

Factual reference 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/04/30/canadian-military-congo-deployment.html



> Military plans post-Afghanistan review
> Canadian Forces won't deploy large force to war-torn Congo: sources
> Last Updated: Friday, April 30, 2010 | 4:14 PM ET CBC News
> 
> ...






Nothing like a little R&R  8)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2011)

zakiuz,

I don't know if you're trolling, are really this thick, or you just don't get it.

You have been told innumerable times and yet you come back asking why.

We are not here for your entertainment or to increase your post count.

You have incurred the wrath of many much wiser and worldly than yourself and still don't think any of it your fault and refuse to take responsibility.

Post one of your dire pleas, for the Congo, or whatever you want to call them, again and the thread will be locked and you'll graduate to the Warning System.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## 211RadOp (25 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> Nothing like a little R&R  8)



I'll believe it when I see it.  Last time the CF took an "Operational Pause", my unit had the most man days worth of deployment in it's history.


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> Factual reference


Look at the date of that article. You would more correctly refer to that as a _historical_ reference, rather than _factual_.


----------



## zakiuz (26 Mar 2011)

Thanks for the article.


----------



## armyvern (26 Mar 2011)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> I'll believe it when I see it.  Last time the CF took an "Operational Pause", my unit had the most man days worth of deployment in it's history.


Hahaha ... wait for it.  8)


----------



## Journeyman (26 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hahaha ... wait for it.  8)


BUt if it's an NDP coalition, we'll be deploying everywhere.....but with Spanish Army ROEs   ;D


----------



## medicineman (26 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> BUt if it's an NDP coalition, we'll be deploying everywhere.....but with Spanish Army ROEs   ;D



"Make bombastic speeches and/or run quickly in the opposite direction when guns are shown OR hide in our OP's"?

MM


----------



## armyvern (27 Mar 2011)

medicineman said:
			
		

> "Make bombastic speeches and/or run quickly in the opposite direction when guns are shown OR hide in our OP's"?
> 
> MM



Just plain, old ... bombastic.


----------



## Newapplicant78 (27 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Look at the date of that article. You would more correctly refer to that as a _historical_ reference, rather than _factual_.



Are you still trying to take make an arse out of  me.  :crybaby:
Historical or not, the only other article I could Google up was an article, outlining why a Canadian/DRC mission would not take place and the many obstacles for Canadian Troops.

http://www.cdfai.org/granatsteinarticles/Do%20We%20Really%20Want%20to%20go%20to%20the%20Congo.pdf

Please timeline this one for me Journeyman.   :blotto:


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> the only other article I could Google up was an article,



So in other words, there is not too much interest in Canada for a mission there.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Mar 2011)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just plain, old ... bombastic.



We shall use foul language and foul sign language.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> Are you still trying to take make an arse out of  me.  :crybaby:
> Historical or not, the only other article I could Google up was an article, outlining why a Canadian/DRC mission would not take place and the many obstacles for Canadian Troops.
> 
> http://www.cdfai.org/granatsteinarticles/Do%20We%20Really%20Want%20to%20go%20to%20the%20Congo.pdf
> ...



Cut the crap. He doesn't have to help you with something you've already accomplished yourself. He's just putting a datum context on your out of date article, and no member here is required to do your research for you. 

At the speed things move today and the way our fickle population change their minds, even an article from Mr Granatstein, dated April last year, is out of date already.

A small hint for the future, just because you use smilies doesn't mean it's not trolling.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## zakiuz (27 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So in other words, there is not too much interest in Canada for a mission there.



If Google said do it must be true.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> http://www.cdfai.org/granatsteinarticles/Do%20We%20Really%20Want%20to%20go%20to%20the%20Congo.pdf
> 
> Please timeline this one for me Journeyman.   :blotto:



The Globe and Mail - 6 April 2010 (among other sources)

Defining Canada's role in Congo 

Caveat: I am not Journeyman.

PROTIP: To find article sources on line, try Googling a phrase or sentence that is likely unique to the article.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Mar 2011)

zakiuz said:
			
		

> If Google said do it must be true.



Surely, if Canadians were even marginally interested, there would be more smash on this in the media.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The Globe and Mail - 6 April 2010 (among other sources)
> 
> Defining Canada's role in Congo
> 
> ...



Already identified as being April 2010 in my above post  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (27 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> Are you still trying to take make an arse out of  me.  :crybaby:


I sincerely apologize for having left the impression that I'm interested, personally, in any individual site members or others' perceptions.

My point, as has been mentioned, was merely to add context (in this case, a date) to what has been posted, in order to assist readers in making an informed opinion.


----------



## Newapplicant78 (28 Mar 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I sincerely apologize for having left the impression that I'm interested, personally, in any individual site members or others' perceptions.
> 
> My point, as has been mentioned, was merely to add context (in this case, a date) to what has been posted, in order to assist readers in making an informed opinion.




The article I posted was dated April 30, 2010 however, the second article was undated.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> The article I posted was dated April 30, 2010  however, the second article was undated.



Which is why he correctly identified it as being more a _historical_ document. Your undated one was identified by more than one of us as being from the beginning of April 2010 also. In the context of this discussion, that makes the second one (first by date) _historical_ also.

If you wish to participate, please read the responses carefully and try to follow along before formulating a nit picky, and abysmally useless, response to others here.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Newapplicant78 (29 Mar 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Surely, if Canadians were even marginally interested, there would be more smash on this in the media.




Alright so it's _historical_ and most of the articles on this topic are _historical_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2011)

Black Betty said:
			
		

> Alright so it's _historical_ and most of the articles on this topic are _historical_.




Look, Betty, the current, ongoing disasters of Central Africa - corruption, rape, ineptitude, murder and so on - are not _historical_, they are very real, right in our faces, human tragedies. Regrettably, for the victims, Central Africa doesn't matter. It could matter and, given Africa's stocks of e.g. strategic minerals, it should matter but until Africans decide, for themselves, to fix things for themselves no one but the Chinese will care and I guarantee you that the Chinese care even less about Africans and the tragedies that befall them than do the corporate elites and bankers on Wall Street and in Zurich.

So, Betty, there must be reasons why Obama, the 'leader' of the West, thinks Libya is important but Congo is not; there is: he sees some advantages for the US in intervening in Libya but he sees none in black Africa. It is, always, a matter of national self interest, and Africa, African 'leaders,' have managed to make themselves and their problems _indifferent_ to most of the important nations of the world.

I wish Africa well in the tender embrace of the Chinese ... but it may be the continent's best chance. The Chinese are, more or less, investing in Africa and, for a change, demanding some return on their investment. Maybe some African leaders will grow up and see that there is some "way" beyond handouts from the West, out of the holes which they, African 'leaders,' have dug for their countries.


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Mar 2011)

shared in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act

A Peace of Conflict

The DR Congo, MONUC and Joseph Kabila  (March 21, 2010)
http://apeaceofconflict.com/2010/03/21/the-dr-congo-monuc-and-joseph-kabila/
article excerpts;
The UN mission in the Congo is the largest and most expensive in history with now more than 20,000 personnel on the ground. 150 UN personnel have lost their lives since the mission’s inception in 1999.

Congolese President Joseph Kabila calls for their immediate departure. Human Rights Watch has accused MONUC of complicity in massive abuses against the local population. Locals protest the UN headquarters, tell rumors of lizard-eating UN troops,.....

The full article is quite informative and worth the read.
from another article dated April 2010; Mr. Kabila states that he would like the entire force out by late August 2011


----------

