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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Yeah, that couldn't be because Putin wanted to see the US fritter away it's economic & military advantages in a futile invasion and grinding occupation, could it?

Nawww... a KGB agent would never do anything that sneaky...

As far as the allaged Iraq/AQ link goes, it is utter bunk. Saddam and the radcal Islamists were avowed enemies, hell OBL wanted Islamists to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, not the US, that is part of the reason he hates the US so much. If anything, OBL sees secular Arab governments and the Saudi royals as his primary enemy, with the US coming second, because it supports them (and Israel.)

Not one shred of reliable evidence has ever come forward that Saddam was working with Al Quaeda, if it had the Bush administration would be all over it and it would have been a cover story in every news source in the US. Hell Bush ordered the CIA to find any evidence of a link, and they were unable to come up with anything worth discussing outside Freeper lala land.



[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Actully what the Canadian Government is trying to accomplish is votes. Alot of Liberals do not support the war in the middle east but the Conservatives do. So basically the liberals look soft and because of the election spark in Canada the Liberals are trying to gain votes before there forced into an election.

Not only that
-It makes them look good that there helping Sudan
-there is a large portion of Africans In Canada
-Converted conservatives voters from liberals voters with convert back to Liberal because the main reason was not standing alongside the Americans



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Yeah, that couldn't be because Putin wanted to see the US fritter away it's economic & military advantages in a futile invasion and grinding occupation, could it?

Nawww... a KGB agent would never do anything that sneaky...


Actually, by all the evidence i have seen it was a sneaky trap set up by the communists...err...i mean the Russian mafia/KGB... for the US to go to this war. The problem is that Saddam was trully intending to do this, because the Russians were helping him, by selling banned military technology, etc... while at the same time giving us some intelligence for us to fall in the trap.

It is exactly what Russian military defectors who are now living in the west have been telling us at least since 1984.



Originally posted by xmotex
As far as the allaged Iraq/AQ link goes, it is utter bunk. Saddam and the radcal Islamists were avowed enemies, hell OBL wanted Islamists to kick Iraq out of Kuwait, not the US, that is part of the reason he hates the US so much. If anything, OBL sees secular Arab governments and the Saudi royals as his primary enemy, with the US coming second, because it supports them (and Israel.)


Actually what is "utter bunk" are the claims that Saddam would never work with the radicals, such as Bin Laden.



Iraqi defectors say that Saddam trained terrorists for attacks against US and EU

STILL AT WAR: One of the men making the allegations was a lieutenant general and used to be one of the most senior officers in the Iraqi intelligence service

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK
Saturday, Nov 10, 2001,Page 6

Two defectors from Iraqi intelligence said Wednesday that they had worked for several years at a secret Iraqi government camp that had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995.
They said the training in the camp, south of Baghdad, was aimed at carrying out attacks against neighboring countries and possibly Europe and the US.


The defectors, one of whom was a lieutenant general and was once one of the most senior officers in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, said they did not know if the Islamic militants being trained at the camp, known as Salman Pak, were linked to Osama bin Laden.

They also said they had no knowledge of specific attacks carried out by the militants. But they insisted that those being trained as recently as last year were Islamic radicals from across the Middle East. An interview of the two men was set up by an Iraqi group that seeks the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.

The defectors said they knew of a highly guarded compound within the camp where Iraqi scientists, led by a German, produced biological agents.


Excerpted from.
www.taipeitimes.com...

I guess you have never heard the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Again....are we going to stick to the topic in this thread, or are we, once more going to endure all the rethoric, lies and exagerations from a certain group of people for their own agenda against the US and the present administration?....

I prefer to stick with the topic of this thread...



[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soul_Contagious
Actully what the Canadian Government is trying to accomplish is votes. Alot of Liberals do not support the war in the middle east but the Conservatives do. So basically the liberals look soft and because of the election spark in Canada the Liberals are trying to gain votes before there forced into an election.


I agree with you there, this is nothing more than a political move by the Canadian government, so they can look good to the world, and their own people, as giving some aid to Sudan... i doubt the money is going to end up helping the non-Arab blacks of Sudan thou.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:16 PM
link   


I guess you have never heard the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."


I've heard it, usually in the context of this argument.
I don't think it applies when "the enemy of my enemy" is also my enemy.

You know that OBL was financing Kurdish Islamists fighting against Saddam, yes?

As far as going OT goes, you were the one that brought up the "Saddam was a threat" canard, not me.

As far as being "anti-American" goes, that cute little psych-out trick won't play with me. I am more a patriot than you will ever be, I want this country to live up to the ideals we claim to stand for, and I damn well am going to speak my mind when we don't.

True patriots are not the ones waving the flag while they seek subvert the basic principles it stands for, true patriots are those that defend those principles, whatever it costs. The real "anti Americans" are the ones that are leading this country into foolish wars that do nothing but weaken us, and who cynically betray our principles. The Founding Fathers set out to create a free Republic, not an expansionist militaristic Empire.


But this is all somewhat OT, so I'll drop it, here in this thread anyway.

[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

I've heard it, usually in the context of this argument.
I don't think it applies when "the enemy of my enemy" is also my enemy.


Reaaally?... i guess the Russians were never the enemies of the people in the Middle East when they were trying to invade the ME back in the 80s.... I guess the Russians, and radical Islamic countries...and even terrorists are not working with the Russian government now....such as Russia selling them military technology, sending military personnel to train Muslim countries, all of which profess to be enemies of the west/US....

You don't seem to have any idea of what has been happening in the world for the past 25 years it seems, not to mention your lack of knowledge of any of the events and battles that have been waged for the past 2,000 years.... Enemies have often united to fight common enemies....


Originally posted by xmotex
You know that OBL was financing Kurdish Islamists fighting against Saddam, yes?


You know that the Russians were the enemies of Muslim countries back in the 80s yes?..... You do know that now the Russian government is helping these Muslim countries....yes?....



Originally posted by xmotex
As far as going OT goes, you were the one that brought up the "Saddam was a threat" canard, not me.


Actually all i said was that one of the reasons why we went to Iraq was because Iraq posed a direct threat to the US. You said it did not and there was nothing to be worried about... and I presented evidence that you are wrong.


Originally posted by xmotex
As far as being "anti-American" goes, that cute little psych-out trick won't play with me. I am more a patriot than you will ever be, I want this country to live up to the ideals we claim to stand for, and I damn well am going to speak my mind when we don't.


First, you don't know anything about what I have done for this country to claim that you are more of a patriot than me, that first.

However, you are right you can speak anything in your mind, even if it is a lie....but I am also free to present evidence that what you are claming is a lie, or you are ignorant of the events on this thread. The motto of this site is Deny Ignorance, and when someone is not denying ignorance, I am free to present evidence that debunks false claims/lies and exagerations.


Originally posted by xmotex
True patriots are not the ones waving the flag while they seek subvert the basic principles it stands for, true patriots are those that defend those principles, whatever it costs. The real "anti Americans" are the ones that are leading this country into foolish wars that do nothing but weaken us, and who cynically betray our principles. The Founding Fathers set out to create a free Republic, not an expansionist militaristic Empire.


But this is all somewhat OT, so I'll drop it, here in this thread anyway.

[edit on 5/13/05 by xmotex]


A true patriot telling lies/exagerations, and trying to proclaim he knows what he is talking about, when he has no idea, yet blames the government and those who are serving, or served in the military and understand the reasons behind this war and can prove it?.....

We are creating an "expansionist militaristic Empire"?.... Really?.... in what world are you living that we are the owners of Iraq?....

Are Iraqis not voting for their own government?....

Again, more lies, exagerations and rhetoric from someone who claims to be a patriot.

If you want to continue this conversation, i suggest you do some research and start a new thread, otherwise let's get back to the topic instead of trying to further your own agenda by claiming your lies are true.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
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


another america fan...

w0w...





posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
NO TSA, Seekerof has a valid point, one I want to echo, again.

LET'S PUT A SOCK IN THE US POLITICS IN THIS THREAD, IT'S NOT PART OF THE TOPIC .



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
NO TSA, Seekerof has a valid point, one I want to echo, again.

LET'S PUT A SOCK IN THE US POLITICS IN THIS THREAD, IT'S NOT PART OF THE TOPIC .


hell yeah...

i never said his point was not valid...

america has NOTHING to do with this thread...

how did it some up???

(don't answer that)...





posted on May, 13 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by Aelita
Need we say more?

[...] you and your fellow anti-US cohorts who posted prior to you [...]

Hey, leave me out of this! There was nothing anti-US in what I said. I simply pointed out that "Sudan is situated on a true lake of oil" as quoted from a 3-day-old news article, to correct a wrong statment made in the initial post. Clear? Go back and read it again if you don´t remember what I wrote. Only me and the thread-author posted prior to him.


Back to topic
This was obviously a political move by Paul Martin :
PTS: Canadian Government Refuses To Resign

[edit on 2005/5/13 by Hellmutt]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
NO TSA, Seekerof has a valid point, one I want to echo, again.

LET'S PUT A SOCK IN THE US POLITICS IN THIS THREAD, IT'S NOT PART OF THE TOPIC .


True, i hate it when we get off course, but I hate more to allow lies and exagerations being spread.

i agree thou, and continue to say that this is just a political move by Canada, nothing more. I just wonder how exactly are 100 soldiers going to make sure that the non-Muslim Sudanese get the much needed food and aid, when the government of Sudan, and the Arab Militia, which is backed by the Sudanese government have been stopping all aid to these people.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Here is a link from November last year.


Sudanese army surrounds Darfur refugee camps

PUBLISHED: November 3, 2004

The Associated Press

KHARTOUM, Sudan -- The Sudanese army and police surrounded several refugee camps in the war-torn region of Darfur on Tuesday and denied access to humanitarian groups, the United Nations said. The Sudanese government denied its security forces closed off the camps but said angry Arab tribesmen have gathered in the area.

The U.N. World Food Program said several camps were surrounded -- apparently in retaliation for the abduction of 18 Arabs by Darfur rebels -- and that the world body was forced to pull 88 relief workers from other areas where there has been an upsurge in violence in recent days.

The World Food Program fears the government may start forcing people from the camps back to their home villages, where there is less protection from government-backed militias known as Janjaweed that have been attacking towns, said spokeswoman Christiane Berthiaume.


Excerpted from.

Sudanese army surrounds Darfur refugee camps

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey 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.



Of course, everything is political at the end of the day. Though I believe that this announcement is a timely one, let’s not forget that this didn’t just come out of nowhere. Last September Paul Martin did speak to the UN on the subject of reforms needed at to enable the organization to more effectively and rapidly respond to humanitarian crises around the world.

Martin @ UN

And then he followed up with a visit to the Darfur region in November.

Martin visit to Sudan

So this has been in the works for a while now. In fact the initial aid spoken of was $37 million. That figure has now been increased to $170 million. Not chump change to say the least and it’s a start. Besides, anything that Senator Romeo Dallaire gets on board with is okay by me – he’s a wonderful man who experienced firsthand the horror of the Rwandan genocide through his appointment to that hopelessly underfunded and ineffective UN peacekeeping mission in 1993-94.

Don’t know who Dallaire is? Look here And www.thirdworldtraveler.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Here
And if you have a chance, read his book (winner of the Governor General’s Award) Shake Hands with the Devil – the Failure of Humanity in Rwanda; and rent the video The Journey of Romeo Dallaire

I don't care why Martin did it because help should have been sent to Sudan sooner and not just by Canada – the sad fact is that IT IS because its Africa that it hasn't happened! Its the same reason there is still famine, and children still die of diseases irradicated elsewhere in the world. As Dallaire has said - "Are all humans human? Or are some humans more human than others?"



Originally posted by Duzey 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.


I suspect he will and it would be the right thing to do, regardless of the vote. You know, as much as I am disgusted by Gomery, I am incensed by Stephen Harper and his Conservatives and their antics now. He has practically been having hissy fits over this – what can we expect if he ever gets to power (God forbid!). The Bloc is running with this…its like they won the lottery. So even though I know what the outcome of the Gomery inquiry is going to be…I still prefer the devil I know to the one I don’t (the only thing I need to know about him is that he wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal apologizing on behalf of Canada for not going into Iraq – I’ll never forgive him for that!)




[edit on 13/5/05 by AlwaysLearning]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The US has been working on sending aid to Sudan and we have spoken against the unwillingness of the UN, or in this case Kofi Annan, to declare that genocide is occurring in Sudan.

The US has given ultimatums to the government of Sudan and has requested time and time again for the UN, Kofi Annan to declare a state of emergency because genocide is happening in that region. The UN, Kofi Annan, has been responding that no genocide is happening in Sudan....which is part of the reason why i think he should be fired from his position as head of the UN.


Seekeroff gave links in which we can clearly see the US has already allocated $800 + million dollars to help the Sudanese people, and more money is being requested to be sent as aid.

The problem is that the Sudanese government is probably going to stop, or try to stop any aid given to these people, as they have done already...and only 100 soldiers are not enought to make sure that this aid is recieved by the people it is intended for.

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Muaddib - I believe that its 100 military experts with some equipment to assist the African Union in its peacekeeping efforts there. I think, though that this number will be increased next week. I hope so.



[edit on 13/5/05 by AlwaysLearning]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
The problem is that the Sudanese government is probably going to stop, or try to stop any aid given to these people, as they have done already...and only 100 soldiers are not enought to make sure that this aid is recieved by the people it is intended for.


Soldiers being sent by Canada: 100, plus eventual reinforcements.

Soldiers being sent by US: 0

It's a start. It's a foothold. A major city perhaps, where they can dispense aid and keep the peace.

The best way to make the US do something is appeal to their arrogance, so how far behind can marines be? You don't want the French to beat you there, do you? Oh, wait, they already have. French Canadians. The best of both worlds. Are you going to tolerate that?

DE



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Attempts aside DeusEx, the UN has nearly 11,000 troops there, including French, and they are not making a dent in what has been and is going on in Sudan.
UN Admits Sudan Policies Failing

100 more men is going to do what?

Its good to see that you look at things from a cup-half-full perspective though.





seekerof

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Darfur covers an area of some 493,180 km² (196,555 miles²), with an estimated population of 6 million people. It is largely an arid plateau with the Marrah Mountains (Jebel Marra), a range of volcanic peaks rising up to 3,000 m (10,100 ft), in the center of the region. The north comprises a sandy desert, while bush forest exists in the south. The region's main towns are El Fashir, Nyala, and El Geneina.
from Wikipedia

Yeah, like eleven thousand people can police THAT? A few hundred more soldiers mgiht mean more troops out patrolling the desert. Every little bit helps, right?

I guess the US has already been SHAMED.

It's not the UN's fault the African Union fell short on troops. It would be nice to see the Russians take a more active role, or the French, but they already have their hands full. Maybe we can get some South Americans to help out- I would like to see a much larger Canadian prescence, but we have peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq (oddly enough) , Haiti, the Congo, Israel, Cyprus, and Sierra Leone.

www.forces.gc.ca...

Total is 1,523 men and women abroad from a force of 60,00 regulars and 15,000 reservists. The actual number of active troops is somewhere closer to 52,000.

Even running on a shoestring budget, there's more to be done.

DE



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Been "shamed"?!

What you been smoking, DeusEx?

Hey buddy, that "52,000" men been able to halt the genocide that is still currently taking place in Sudan? What....Canada going to send another 100 so they can sit back and watch, too?

Your making excuses for the United Nations inactions and failings in Sudan. For every word wasted by the UN discussing options in Sudan, another 5,000+ die while another 25,000+ are displaced and become refugees.

Nice.
Remember: the cup is half-full, not half-empty, correct?
There are how many members in the UN?
Why is it that when something needs to be done, the US gets the finger pointed at them, but then when the US does get something done, then the US is the fault, breaking "international" laws, etc.?

Tell you what, keep the US out of this, since of course, we are the nation contributing the greatest amount of money towards reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in Sudan. US needs to do nothing more. Its time that the other UN members learn to act instead of relying on the US to bail them out, k?




seekerof

[edit on 13-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning
I don't care why Martin did it because help should have been sent to Sudan sooner and not just by Canada – the sad fact is that IT IS because its Africa that it hasn't happened! Its the same reason there is still famine, and children still die of diseases irradicated elsewhere in the world. As Dallaire has said - "Are all humans human? Or are some humans more human than others?"


You know I can't disagree with any of this; I'm just very cynical when it comes to politics. I know this didn't just come out of the blue. But you do have to admire the timing of the announcement. More Americans should follow Canadian politics; it's absolutely fascinating to watch the maneuvering that goes on up here. I would enjoy it more if these idiots weren't in charge of running the country, though.

I'm pleased we are sending the help to Darfur, and I think that this fits well with the new direction they are taking the military in. I like a lot of the new ideas; smaller, specialized units who will have their own transport and not have to hitch a ride. Sending troops where we think they can actually do a bit of good. More peacekeeping. And you know how fond I am of Lester B. Pearson, AL.


As sick of the Liberals as I am, I won't vote for the Conservatives. I have every faith that they will implode again, just like last time. Harper can't control the radicals aka former Reformers. I'll be voting Independent again. Being from BC, my vote doesn't really count in the long run anyway; the government is formed before I make it to the polls. And now with the popularity of the Bloc, we don't even get to elect the opposition party anymore.


And yes, Dallaire's book is on my reading list. Being cheap however, I have it on reserve with the library, and my turn hasn't come yet. I've heard it is excellent.

[edit on 14-5-2005 by Duzey]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join