It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Canada sending 100 troops and $170M to Sudan

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   
For the past 15 years Sudan has endured a living hell full of civil wars and famine. The Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, announced on Thursday that they will be sending 100 troops and $170 million to help aid in the Sudan crisis. The PM knows that this is not going to be the end of the struggle in Sudan, but will provide more help if more is asked of them by the Sudanese people.
 



www.cbc.ca
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin on Thursday announced $170 million in aid and 100 troops for Sudan's war-ravaged Darfur region but an Independent member of Parliament whose vote could keep the government alive said it isn't enough.

"Canada may not be able to single-handedly bring an end to the fighting and bring peace to Darfur, but Canada can do a great deal and can make a lasting difference," said Martin, who added the money is in addition to the $90 million already promised.

The money will be used to train and equip an African Union-led peacekeeping mission, while the soldiers will provide military expertise and take part in the peacekeeping mission.

Canada must be realistic about its ability to offer military help, said the prime minister, but added that Canada's role will be decided by Canadian military advisors.

"If they come back to us and say that they want more, they will be provided more," said Martin.

David Kilgour praised the millions in aid dollars but he criticized the size of the troop deployment, saying the killing and raping must be stopped before humanitarian aid can be effective.

The Independent MP wants Canada to send a force of at least 500 troops, as recommended by Human Rights Watch, saying he's not satisfied with 100 soldiers.

Several dozen troops "can't do much to stop a genocide in an area the size of France," he said. "I don't see how that stops mass murder and mass rape."

"If these were white families, would we even be having this debate?" he added.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think that what the Canadian PM is doing is great! I have always felt that if there was ever a worthwhile cause to offer military and financial aid, it would be in Sudan. I think the PM said it best, "If these were white families, would we even be having this debate?" IMO, the US has turned a blind eye to Sudan, due to the allegations that Sudan is harboring terrorist and WMD's. I'm afraid that the only way the US would ever make a real effort to provide serious aid would be if Sudan discovered mass amounts of oil.

Related News Links:
www.csis.org
www.cnn.com
www.alternet.org
www.msf.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Get ready! U.S. Shuts Sudan Embassy
politics.abovetopsecret.com...
World ignoring genocide in Sudan
Whys No One Is Stopping The Genocide In The Sudan?




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   

I'm afraid that the only way the US would ever make a real effort to provide serious aid would be if Sudan discovered mass amounts of oil.

Well...

Sudan Foreign Minister: Oil Exports to Surge to 2M b/d in 2008

May 10, 2005


Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail, after a meeting with Brazil's Foreign Minister Celso Amorim late Monday, said he expects his country to export 500,000 barrels of oil a day in August, and 2 million b/d in 2008, the Arab-Brasilian Commerce Chamber said on its Web site Monday.

"Preliminary studies show that Sudan is situated on a true lake of oil," Ismail was quoted as saying.

There you go...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Wow! Perhaps the US will be off to Sudan sooner that I thought.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Years ago, when the US started bombing the hell out of Serbia, in a television interview, Zbigniew Brezinski (sp?) was asked why Serbia is a priority, while two million people in Sudan are in imminent danger and can quite possibly die. The answer was that the US doesn't have as much strategic interest in Sudan as it has in Central Europe.


Need we say more?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
What the hell is this? :shk:
My oh my, a cluster of nothing but anti-US rhetoric, in ATSNN of all places.
Quite amazing that this topic of Canada and Sudan can erode from that topic to simple unadulterated US bashing.

Holy #. Never ceases to amaze me about some members here.





seekerof



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Simply stating fairly obvious facts is now "US-bashing."

As I have said again and again, I do admire the Right's clever use of language, if nothing else



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Throwing money at problems is never a good idea. The Sudanese government is killing people. I'd like to see how much of that money actually goes to any kind of humanitarian aid and how much goes into bureaucrats pockets.

From Hellmutt's link:

The prospect of potentially lucrative oil contracts in Sudan has been met with interest by companies such as France's Total SA (TOT), Marathon Oil Corp. (MRO), Kuwait Petroleum Corp. (KPT.YY), or London-listed White Nile Ltd. (WNL.LN).


Yes, it seems the US is absolutely drooling over Sudanese oil. Ah well, it just goes to show how much US-hating is misplaced.

Edit:

What facts? The fact is that Sudan is sitting on a "lake of oil" and the immediate knee-jerk reaction is "the US would have been there if there was oil".

That's not stating a fact. It's stating the same old tired and often misguided rhetoric.





[edit on (5/13/0505 by PistolPete]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

as posted by Aelita
Need we say more?


Quite frankly, between you and your fellow anti-US cohorts who posted prior to you, all of you need to simply think.

How so?
Try these from April 2005:


Zoellick said the United States will devote more than $1.7 billion to reconstruction efforts and humanitarian aid in Sudan for this year, and "there will be more" over the next two years. Congress already has allocated $850 million to help the Sudanese in 2005 and the president has asked lawmakers to approve another $880 million.

U.S. to promise $1.7B in aid for Sudan

More here:
U.S. to Promise $1.7B in Aid for Sudan

Someone mentioned OIL, in relation to the US?
:shk:
Pathetic and 'a' typical for those less inclined to research Sudan and its oil, huh?!

Try these:
China: Protectorate of Sudan and its oil
Sudan's oil makes China a defender against U.N.
Oil-hungry China takes Sudan under its wing


posted by xmotex
Simply stating fairly obvious facts is now "US-bashing."

Obvious my butt.
Always the US, huh?

More subjective than objective, as par.
NO mention or bashing of the UN, French, Canadian, and Chinese misteps on this issue of course, huh?
Simply pathetic.







seekerof

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Nope but when talking about Canada and the Sudan, where the hell does the US come into it?


Simply stating fairly obvious facts is now "US-bashing."

As I have said again and again, I do admire the Right's clever use of language, if nothing else



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
It's great that the US has pledged the aid to Sudan. I don't mind my tax money going there at all.

However, there is no telling for how long the bloodshed will continue. And it has already for a while. Pretty much since mid-90s when the whole thing escalated. Regardless of how much money will be eventually pledged (it is contigent on the end of hostilities, which might mean that we'll wait till the minority will be killed off), not enough is being done to stop the killings.

There is no anti-US sentiment in stating this. It just pains me that humanitarian reasons are brought up whenever the administration needs to justify another overseas military operation, and those same facts can be hushed where there is no need to rally public opinion behind another invasion.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
We've been giving humanitarian aid, yes.
And this is a good thing.

But you don't see the kind of "we must invade!" rhetoric you see towards other countries in the region, notably because the Islamists that run the Sudan are primarily a threat to black Africans (who have no constituency within the US .gov), and not Israelis (who do).

Despite the fact that this is an Islamist regime that once sheltered OBL.
But they have generally been more compliant to US wishes and interests than their ideological cousins, so the genocide in Darfur is mostly ignored.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Canada is sending 100 soldiers and $170 million and people think this is a good idea....

The Arab militia and the government of Sudan have more than 100 soldiers, that's first of all....second of all both the Arab militia and the Sudanese government have been stopping all aid going to Sudan, and people think that 100 Canadian soldiers are going to help?.....


The Arab militia and the Sudanese government are going to take the money away from the Canadians, and the Canadian troops will be going back home, if they are still alive...., with a bootprint where the sun don't shine...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
100 troops?


Either they'll be locked up in a Hilton or be killed very quickly!



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

But you don't see the kind of "we must invade!" rhetoric you see towards other countries in the region, notably because the Islamists that run the Sudan are primarily a threat to black Africans (who have no constituency within the US .gov), and not Israelis (who do).


Oh....so now some people start claiming we are not there full force because of racism......


Some people don't seem to think that perhaps we are not there because even thou the Sudanese govenrment is totalitarian, and is committing genocide, (something that Kofi Annan states is not happening over there despite the evidence...) that it hasn't really made any moves against the US, or threatened the US like Saddam did.....

We went to Iraq for many reasons...one of those reasons was because Saddam was a threat to the US and our allies. Even thou genocide is happening in Sudan, we can't really be in several parts of the world, and although we are trying to help as best we can. I don't think we will be sending any troops there anytime soon. For the simple fact that Sudan is not threatening the US.

This goes to show that we are not "invading countries for the oil" as some people are claiming....


[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
What Canada is doing is a political move, nothing more. It is not going to help the non-Arab people of Sudan who are getting killed and starved to death by the Sudanese government and the Arab militia at all...



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   
While I would like to say we are doing this for noble reasons, Muaddib hit the nail on the head. It's politics. The Liberal government is trying to show that our Parliament is not completely paralyzed and can still function; now that the Conservatives and the Bloc are forcing the issue of an election.

From the original article:



"If they come back to us and say that they want more, they will be provided more," said Martin.
David Kilgour praised the millions in aid dollars but he criticized the size of the troop deployment, saying the killing and raping must be stopped before humanitarian aid can be effective.


I expect to see an announcement of an increase early next week. David Kilgour has made it very clear that the price of his vote on the budget next week is 500 troops to Sudan. I don't think it will be the whole 500, but Paul Martin will probably make some kind of deal for his vote. He has to if he wants to stay in power.



[edit on 13-5-2005 by Duzey]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Is anyone else sending troops to Sudan, or is Canada going to continue embarrassing everyone alone?

One hundred troops may not be much, but there's more coming one way or another. For a country with a shoestring military budget, we're keeping the peace in quite a few places right now.

DE



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Don't worry, soon we'll elect a new Clinton for president here, and as soon as a nice big "D" is stamped on troops buttocks, we'll be happy to send more into a quagmire of car bombings, provisional governments, and "insurgency"

But it will be better received on ATS because it's all "D" approved.

Even if it is exactly the same as another conflict with an "R" on the orders.

Besides, many people here have been pointing out that the Sudan theatre (which the UN avoids for what reason?) may very well be where much of Saddam's nasty chemical arsenal was shipped or sold to, and even utilized.

But whenever we suggested this, the good "D" tools scoffed and said we were making an "excuse to invade". And fought against it.

Once again, if any other nation does something, it's a "Good Thing". If the US under a Republican administration does exactly the same thing, it's a "Bad Thing"

Makes me sick. Doing the right thing shouldn't be approved or attacked based on partisan politics. But here, even if your opponent does the Right Thing, he must be attacked and vilified. Bush Sr in Kuwait, Mr. Clinton in Bosnia, Bush Jr in Iraq, and next Mrs Clinton in Sudan or North Korea. Right things started, but not fully committed to, because of the partisan need to stir up dissent to feed their own greed for power.


Originally posted by DeusEx
Is anyone else sending troops to Sudan, or is Canada going to continue embarrassing everyone alone?

One hundred troops may not be much, but there's more coming one way or another. For a country with a shoestring military budget, we're keeping the peace in quite a few places right now.

DE



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   


Oh....so now some people start claiming we are not there full force because of racism......


Not racism per se, simply that the Israelis have a powerful lobby in the US government, and black African's don't.



We went to Iraq for many reasons...one of those reasons was because Saddam was a threat to the US and our allies.


Oh please, Saddam and his regime were entirely contained, hell we controlled the airspace over half the country and had them on thier knees economically. Saddam was a "threat" to nobody except his own population. What the hell was he going to attack the US with, spitballs? Harsh rhetoric? His fearsome moustache?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Putin Says Iraq Eyed Attacks on America
By Simon Saradzhyan
STAFF WRITER

MOSCOW - Giving an unexpected boost to U.S. President George W. Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime had posed a threat to the United States, President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Russian intelligence agencies had received information that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks against American targets and warned U.S. intelligence.

The announcement appeared to surprise the Bush administration, which is under fire in an election year for still not proving Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaida, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"After the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, intelligence repeatedly received information that the official services of the Saddam regime were preparing terrorist acts against military and civil targets on the territory of the United States and beyond," Putin told reporters Friday in the Kazakh capital, Astana, where he was attending a security summit of several former Soviet republics.


Excerpted from.
www.sptimes.ru...

The Russians had been providing their own intelligence evidence since 9/11 that Saddam was planning to carry out terrorist attacks on the US and US interests. The Authorities in Spain also found that at least one of the terrorists they caught that was involved in 9/11 had a link with the Iraqi embassy, among some of the other evidence...

Do we need to go over all the evidence again?.... or are we going to stick to the topic of this thread instead of having to endure more spewed lies and rethoric from the left to fulfill their own agenda against the Republican party...



[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



new topics




 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join