Congo
- Thread starter zakiuz
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Well, maybe if you told us what your source was we could judge how "sure" it is for ourselves.
- Reaction score
- 2,490
- Points
- 940
I think your source should consider Methadone.zakiuz said:
But then, I don't speak for all of "us guys" -- it's just my opinion.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
zakiuz said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
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.
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.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,992
- Points
- 1,010
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).
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).
- Reaction score
- 5,617
- Points
- 1,360
zakiuz said:
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
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 1,160
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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?
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
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,992
- Points
- 1,010
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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 4,411
- Points
- 1,160
Rider Pride said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 5,020
- Points
- 1,060
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.
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
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 4,026
- Points
- 1,110
zakiuz said:
Maybe he means " Soldier of Fortune"?
MM
- Reaction score
- 2,490
- Points
- 940
~shrug~medicineman said:
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.
Similar threads
