Peacekeepers for Israel & Palestine

[Deleted member 585]

VOTE HERE:
http://www.nationalpost.com/postvote/votepop_wide.html

The question:
"Should Canada send troops to help keep the peace between Israelis and Palestinians?"

The National Post will send the results to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham.

------------------
UPDATE... National Post Vote closed... results on page link above.

 

[Redneck052]

Yes. Only if the CF withdraws from another commitment over seas, perhaps a minor roll. Speacking of which, is the Golan Hieghts at Roto 99 yet?

 

[Deleted member 585]

True -- and, decreasing numbers on another op. or pulling out of one entirely, won‘t allow us to escape the reality of being thinly-spread. McCallum‘s objection to increasing troop strength hinders our ability to meet mission obligations, jeopardizes the health of deployed soldiers, and marginalizes our peacekeeping reputation.

I disagree with McCallum‘s reasoning that few, "smarter" troops are as effective as many, not-as-smart troops. He intends to spend money on military technology... will this technology somehow enable a soldier to fire two rifles at once, accurately and effectively? Some things are nearly impossible to multi-task.

Heh, I‘d have thought Golan had 99 rotos by now... though it‘s only 75 as of March 2003.

Cheers.

 

[rolandstrong]

Maybe we should send the RCMP. They were the first recommended for Iraq...i guess they are up to the task.

 

[Rogers86]

maybe we should recruit more soldiers to send over there

 

[Sundborg]

Yes, it is what Canada needs right now.

 

[Spr.Earl]

It‘s a lost cause,because niether one want‘s to give in.

 

[Redneck052]

With the apparent failure of the lastest attempt of peace in the region, I would think that the government would slowly back down from that offer of a commitment.

Look at Afgan., when all the hard work was going on, Canada was gone. We were there for awhile, but, six/ seven months, that was just in the beginning. Yes we are back to afgan. now, but for how long?

We need to look at commitments, tour/operational restraints on personel (ie- the 365 policy), and we need to look at the way that Canada deploys, supports, and maintains our commitments.

 

[riggah052]

I personally believe that this would be a very big error on the part of the government to commit troops there. There is too much hatred on either side to really settle this issue, just look at the history of the region.
Since the jewish settlements were started in the region just after the second world war, there have been several major campaigns, started by arab countries, to remove them. Look at the six day war, Egypt and Syria (both armed by the eastern bloc) attacked Isreal at the same time, and while they came close they did not win. However, the isrealis were prepared to launch nuclear weapons in their own defence, what does this tell you?
The palestinians have been using terror tactics because they can‘t fight a coventional war and hope to win.
The Isreali‘s don‘t want an international force to watch their borders and Hezbollah could focus more pressure on the U.S. by killing said soldiers.
No matter what country send soldiers to the area, I don‘t think it will be a good scene.
:cam:

Only the dead have seen the end of war -Plato

 

[WINDWOLF]

I agree with you Riggah052,but Canada has
always fought the battles no one else could.
We have not lost one yet.Grunts go where
they are told to go & do the impossible.

The middle east is a problem that will not be solved in our life time i believe.The hatred
goes to deep & for every death,two must die
from the other side.A no win senario for both.

If enought countries simply band together
and say "Stop or we will stop you ourselves"
& mean it by inserting troops.The dieing may
come to a end.

This may be a simplistic veiw,but it,s mine.

cheers

 

[riggah052]

Simplistic, maybe ... but effective and I share your hope that it will come to an end.

Regards

 

[Travis]

NO NO NO. Why cant some other country GET INVOLVED! Like Russia lol... its majorly america canada, France ( These guys do a TON )and uk.

And i mean the Congo Crisis needs peace keepers 100X more. 3 MILLION DEAD! Thats the biggest conflict since World War 2. And the ENTIRE world turns there back to it.

 

[WINDWOLF]

It,s a big world with alot of problems & only
so much can be done.

Russia?they have enought problems already.
They may look good on paper but they are a
hurten unit.oops,missed the icon.

The Congo doesn,t need peacekeepers,they need
combat hardened troops to start & then UN
to clean up with after it,s over.

Let the French deal with this,they need to win
at least one.

We have our hands full as it is RE: 18 mnth
hold on all future ops.
:mg:

 

[Deleted member 585]

Good idea Windwolf, the French do need to win one. :dontpanic:

On our global commitments: for starters, ideally the CF would regain a strength of 80,000 - 85,000 and spend more than 10 percent of it‘s budget on equipment -- while ceasing the use of the equipment budget to fund operations.

The following quote is an embarrassingly valid (albeit abrasive) assessment of the state of the CF.

Interview with David Jones, former minister counsellor for political affairs at the American Embassy in Ottawa (quoted in Talking Heads Talking Arms: Playing the Ostrich):

"... Canadians have come to the judgement that they could either be inadequately defended expensively or inadequately defended cheaply. And they‘ve come to a rational judgement that spending less money is the way to go.

Now, whether that has a long-term societal effect on Canadians‘ psyche or self-worth or anything of that nature, I don‘t know. I‘m not a Canadian. I haven‘t been placed in this position. I haven‘t implicitly surrendered my defence to somebody else."

This isn‘t the fault of seamen, soldiers, or airmen... parliamentary inadequacy is to blame.

The government plans to double the international development budget between 2003 and 2010. Since the military is also an important component in implementing international and foreign policy -- shouldn‘t the defence budget also be significantly increased?
:rage:

 

[inferno]

How much could CANADA contribute to the Congo? I mean realistically, how much could we throw them that would be of any logical use?

The states maybe. Send in an army with huge mass. Help the situation.

But sending 700 Canadian troops? I mean really. That‘s even extending what we could offer anything internationally right now.

We need to regroup, and deal with domestic issues right now. We can‘t bother with committing to any int. stuff at the moment.

 

[WINDWOLF]

Inferno,what domstic issues would that be?
& how would the force be involved?
:sniper: