It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Reputation of peace failing?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:58 PM
With the recent actions and comments from Harper, I acknowledge the idea of Canada losing its international reputation as a peace keeping country. In the near or distant future will Canada be looked upon as a country who is more willing to go to war than keep the peace.

I'll withhold my thoughts for now and just present the idea. In the future will Canada be still viewed as a country who pushes the peace?

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 12:30 PM
I really hope we can continue with our tradition of peacekeeping, but I'm not very confident of that occurring with Harper in power. What's so bad about Canada being a voice of sanity and moderation?

This is one of the rare occasions that Quebec's lock on 1/6 of the MP's will serve my interests. There is a rather large Lebanese-Canadian population in Quebec which does not look kindly on Harper's taking sides. Hopefully Quebec, peace-lovers that they are, will see that this government doesn't reflect their values and make sure there is no Conservative majority in the next election.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 01:05 PM
I'm hoping that Harpers pro-Israel stance is him catching foot-in-mouth diseaese, I hope it hurts him.
I hope fellow Canadians see through this turkey, and see him as the idiot that will show his right wingness to the max if he gets a majority.

I hope Canadians don't give him the chance.

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:10 PM
Duzey - You da' PERSON!!! Your blog - bottle it an' sell it eh left-coast sister!!! Style - insightful, sassy AND classy, bien sur.

I love the peacekeeping role that my country up until recently has played since 1956 - "Mike" Pearson was my #2 choice for Greatest Canadian behind you Duze'. I can understand why Harper is doing what he is told - Bilderberger, and think of the Peter Principle in regard to the "Calgary School's" marionette show.

Can you imagine how greasy poor old Peter McKay (a nice guy, likeable, smart and seemingly a perennial second banana) must feel having to execute policy that may not be of Canadian genesis or best interest. The sub-committee is "cuttin' him a new one" on CPAC right now. It isn't his fault. If we get another (Vic shudders) Conservative PM I want him. But wait there's more - it gets way greasier - greee-hee-heeeasy!

The Libs ain't of "hands unsoiled" in this dealio either. Seen the UN voting record toward those resolutions of nations currently "in dispute". Uh, there's a whole lot of abstentions that favour and influence the vote outcomes to the nation state of Israel and fewer which have advanced the causes of the folks on the other side(s).

The short story is that both Lib and Con parties have sort of a "Little Knesset" within each of them (think AIPAC) and they influence policy beyond that which seems reasonable to me - in cahoots with those who control virtually all MSM media planet wide. That's a "Big Stick", that was walked with softly until say '90-'91, then it just plain became overt and virtually unassailable. Bummer - but quite legal. It's weird, Orwellian and I can't say the same of the NDP... I may be wrong.

Our peacekeeping history is WHO "we" ARE and WHY we CAN (until recently) GO virtually ANYWHERE with that wonderful little patch of "Mike's" flag sewn to a backpack or or the bottom of a denim jacket or on a lapel pin or undies. In past I've had people in at least 10 or 12 countries over 30 years approach and greet me - complete strangers who wanted to talk to me just because of their concept of our people and nation as "good guys" not the Hollywood version the genuine article. "Peoples" like "us". I was given a "Bearhug" in Odessa that actually hurt then buddy kisses me on both cheeks - yuck - well meaning but - yuck.

This holds true in a positive way everywhere but the States. I have been verbally abused, kicked, punched and spit upon, detained and strip searched, anal probed, fingerprinted, retina scanned, investigated, and overcharged in the United States Of America since '03 and I LIKE Americans and all of America, especially the Nevada desert high-country. Go figure eh. Oh yeah and Daytona - my fav place to put on the leathers and lid an' tach 'er up to 17-5.

The current "mess" and our "great world leaders" measured responses insures trouble-a-comin' in my twenty, YYZ - we are in for a bumpy ride that I feel we deserve for drinkin' the "Kool-Aid" and givin' up our own foreign policy to a bunch of "hacks-of-small-ethos" who can't get elected without succumbing to external political pressure and "media-guillotin aversion". Sad, jimmied "'eh derby". Such measurement would indicate the need or a new ruler (triple entendre intended).

Hear about our new guy at the UN installed July 1st and announced YESTERDAY or the day beore? Squeaky clean - NOT. Ncnee. Uh, this is Ehud "Baby Omlettes" Olhmert's old breakfast buddy from when he was posted to other M-E posts. Honest check it out (public access engines'll do), he knows ALL about the turf - Syria, Lebanon and other postings. Freakin' scary. Total "highstick" from behind.

Listen, "breakfast buddies" mean one thing and one thng only in biz and politics and it ain't friendshp - alliances of the "deal". Ask any exec - it's how it is done unless there's "clubs" invloved (double entendre intended). Nope we ain't "fit of forces" or "clean of hands" enough to "continue" peacekeeping using the ice of dirty water for a curling sheet. Taint no way to do it clean.

Uh, I've talked with some folks who escaped from the "Ruit" (pronounced root) couple of shrap wounds and mental wounds that'll last a lifetime. Thanx Mister Harper for measuring that response; we wouldn't want to anger or kill any more Canucks now would we Stevie Baby who wears eyeliner and changes his hair colour to suit the gravity of the occaision. You didn't hear what happened on the plane back with the PM - Rhana was on that plane. Total slide job - a managed event. Intimidation of fearful Canucks - most reprehensible.

Sure guys, keep it up... and I won't be able to wear "Mike's" flag in my own 'hood. Like the Rankins sing, "I hope you feel the same way too." Anythin' I can do Duzey, just u2u me an' keep bloggin. This is a Canadian thread that I wish to thank the ATS Amigos-3 for hosting from all of us People of the Leaf who used to be Keepers of Peace.

Victor K.
Qana v1.0, Qana v2.0... What's next?
Never forget our 9.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by V Kaminski]

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 02:55 PM
If I am not incorrect I thought the concept that Canada was a peace keeping country was a creation of the Liberal Party of Canada?

It is not unreasonable to think that a different political party with supposedly conservative leanings may have a differing perspective for the country in it's internationalist roles.

That does not mean that I fully support Israel or I like the massive jewish influence in Western affairs but from a political perspective I do not see why the status quo has to be maintained as written in stone.

I also find it interesting that Canada has up to 50,000 expats in Lebanon.. far more than any other country in the world including the USA the king of immigration.

Makes me wonder what was going on to cause that to happen?

posted on Aug, 1 2006 @ 09:44 PM
I suppose that it is fair to say that peacekeeping was a Liberal creation. After all, Lester Pearson was a Liberal and he's the one who started it. Add this to the fact that Canada has only been governed by Conservatives for 11 years out of the last 36 and I can see how the policy might be associated with them. However, none of the other 3 Conservative Prime Ministers we've had since 1968 have felt the need to mess with our Canadian identity in such an irresponsible manner.

The current government doesn't have a majority, and without a majority they simply don't have a mandate to make a such huge shift in our foreign policy. Many Canadians, myself included, see peacekeeping as part of who we are as Canadians.

Peacekeeping is an important aspect of Canada's national heritage and a reflection of our fundamental beliefs. It is a dynamic concept that responds to changes in the international environment in order to continue to develop security for people affected by war. Canada builds on our established peacekeeping tradition to make strong and imaginative contributions to international peace and security.

Peacekeeping is also a significant component of Canada's foreign policy and our contribution to the multilateral security system. Fifty years of experience in peacekeeping and participation in an overwhelming majority of peacekeeping missions mandated by the United Nations Security Council has established an international reputation for Canada.

This is one of those rare occasions when the Foreign Affairs Dept. says it better than me.

I'm not sure why there are so many expats in Lebanon, but I suspect it is because Canada took in a huge number of Lebanese after their civil war and many have returned there but kept their citizenship.

PS. Thanks for your kind words, Victor. They're appreciated.

[edit on 1-8-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Aug, 2 2006 @ 09:59 AM
Now, as the board's token Canuck right-winger, I feel the need to speak up.

I feel that peacekeeping is definitely a part of who we are, and where we come from. But, then again, we haven't had the tools to do it really well since the early nineties. Our military -you know, thems folks wot keeps the peace- have been so tradgically underfunded that only now are we able to make and keep the peace. There's more to it than wearing those pretty blue helmets and smiling a lot.

I for one support the efforts in Afghanistan to make the peace and increase the prosperity of the Afghan people. But, then again, I know that after the Medak Pocket, the myth of peacekeeping was busted up for me. Here's the sketchy wikipedia link:

Medak Pocket Offensive

The UN is an ineffective agency in every regard, especially peacekeeping, and Canadians suffered for it. Not only that, but by whaling on the military at every opportunity, the Liberals effectively destroyed our capacity to wage peace. Even in the glory days, the Canadians could do nothing to stop the slaughter of Serb civillians in the abovementioned incident. Every Canadian who has an interest in peacekeeping should pick up a copy of Ghosts of Medak Pocket by Carol Off.

I'd say that Canada pushes the peace, but Harper has a loud mouth. I mean, I'm a moderate Israel supporter, and someone who potentially could end up between Israel and one of the many many people who want to see every Israeli dead.

My contention remains that the Liberals destroyed our ability to wage peace by gutting our armed forces. We are understrength, unable to reach warzones, and the UN -the agency we largely affiliated with- is no longer trusted. So, in order to maintain our position as peacekeepers of the world, one of two things needs to happen.

A) We must attach ourselves to a trusted organization (most probably NATO) in order to secure a way there and an operational 'umbrella' to work under, or

B) We must devlop our military to point where we can unilaterally enforce the peace while our leaders negotiate a settlement.

I'd like to see B) happen, but it's not bloody likely. it'll take the better part of a decade to get the Forces up to snuff for defence of our own nation.


posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 04:51 PM

Originally posted by DeusEx
Now, as the board's token Canuck right-winger, I feel the need to speak up.

Who the heck started the affirmitive action program in this forum?

I have no problem with you blaming the Libs for the lack of military funding, we just need to remember that it wasn't just the previous Liberal government who sliced and diced the crap out of it. Every government, including the previous Conservative ones, slashed the defence budget. I'm been trying to find my tables showing the breakdown of funding cuts by PM, but I can't. :bnghd: I have them somewhere. It's quite frustrating because I have it in my head that Trudeau, followed closely by Pearson, instituted some of the largest cuts. I just can't prove it, and I'm pretty sure you aren't just going to take my word for it.

I'd like to do without the UN as well. I do think they provide some valuable services, but in it's current form with all those bloody veto powers, it's useless for it's purpose.

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:10 PM
It should be noted that we haven't had a ton of Conservative governments (comparitively) since Trudeau. And don't talk smack about Trudeau. He was the best thing to happen to the country...minus the military cuts. And the true killing blow was done during the Somalia Incident years...when Kim Campbell was in power.

The very same woman who murdered our gun rights, hooray!


posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 08:46 PM
Vic (embarassed) says Trudeau. DeusEx - I'm flumoxed. Pierre Elliot Trudeau - now there was a man who could "do" stuff. I'm not a big fan of some of his "antics" Fuddle-Duddle, Liona Boyd, the NEP (which I liked but I'm not from the West) "war", and especially taking Canada off the gold standard and "floating' the dollar. I remember the Canadian dollar valued at $1.08.

That being said, he was a truly great leader, the ladies LOVED the guy and he had no-fear of anyone anywhere anytime. His decisive reaction to the Laporte/Cross kidappings and the FLQ crisis was well, what this country needed. He (with the exception of the US) raised our capitol internationally to a level above the detente - to that of actively engaging the world in ways no other PM before or since has. Shook his hand once at a reception-diplo-shmooz in Cyprus. Tiny fellow physically big in every other way - smart and ballsy.

I'll always remember - his statement, "just watch me" now that had impact.

On a sadder note we have 4 more dead in Afgani - I think one RCR and 3 PPCLI. I salute their memory and valued service to our nation. I hope they did not suffer.

Victor K.
Remember our 9.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by V Kaminski]

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 09:07 PM

Originally posted by DeusEx
And don't talk smack about Trudeau.

Actually, the part about the Conservatives was only brought up so that I could mention Trudeau was the one that made the biggest cuts. It was special, just for you.

If I have to deal with the fact that Harper is the first PM in over 35 years not to cut the defence budget and actually spent some money there, then you should have to deal with the fact that Trudeau made the biggest cuts of all to the military. It's only fair that I not suffer alone.

Now that you've mentioned Somalia, that makes me wonder (in a hypothetical and off topic kind of way) what would happen in the US if that were to happen there. They've had all sort of accusations, yet no hard proof. We got to see it live on tape, no room for any doubt.

posted on Aug, 3 2006 @ 10:13 PM
Duzey, quit complaining. It's a good thing. We're still below 100k regulars in the forces, hell, we're below 100k servicemen even with the reserves. We needed that money, bad.

I think that the Americans would call it a few bad apples, like we SHOULD have. Instead of disbanding what was our only special forces regiment, punishing everyone for the bad choices of a, who am I kidding. Para was rotten to the core, but 50% of the reg could have been salvaged. The issue was that Para was used as a dumping ground.

At any rate, to bring us back on course, we're only getting our peacekeeping reputation back now. Despite enormous leaps in gear and training, the forces are still desperately undermanned and underequipped for peacekeeping. In fact, I am under the impression the ones we had in Lebanon weren't even armed.

How can we keep the peace if we can't even guarantee that our men are propperly geared?


posted on Aug, 8 2006 @ 11:01 PM
I'm not complaining about the money, I'm lamenting the fact that I have to admit that Harper did something right.

It's going to take a long time to get the numbers up. Until then, we should probably be more realistic about the number and type of missions we join. Something I would personally like to see is the reopening/rebuilding of CFB Chilliwack. Fat chance of that seeing as Chretien transfered 62 hectares of the base to Canada Lands Company and they built condos on it.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 08:45 AM
I'm thinking they need to return the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada to active service as a regular reigment. I mean, c'mon. Everyone wants another regular regiment. We also have to get the liberal crap out of the school, so the kids stop thinking they can be rock stars and join the army already.

The good news is, we apparently have intelligence satellites now. I didn't know, I'm not a comms weenie. Indirect linkay here!

Once again, people complain about this wonderful technology. Oh, when will they learn? But yes, back to peacekeeping. This is, of course, the art of getting between two fighting dogs and not getting bit. Another good analogy is having soldiers stick their rifles up the noses of both sides of a conflict, telling them to stop, or else. To do that, you need rifles. And trained soldiers. Quite possibly blue helmets would work, but they only turned our men into targets in the Balkans. If we're going to be a respectable, peacekeeping nation, we have to be able to A) do it effectively, which largely means doing away with the UN, and B) have the military equipment, technology, and manpower to put a force between the two sides strong enough to bloody both side's noses if they get uppity.


posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 03:37 PM
I don't think we are able to go it alone at the moment, but if we ever get enough troops I wouldn't be adverse to starting up some other kind of peacekeeping organization or working on our own.

I think the UN peacekeepers are a noble idea, unfortunately the UN is unworkable for this anymore. Politics and peacekeeping are not the best bedfellows.

Our sats are pretty cool, aren't they? You can find lots of neat stuff at the Canadian Space Agency.

posted on Aug, 9 2006 @ 04:48 PM
Problem is that a lot of countries, after bad experiences with peacekeeping (Rwanda, anyone?Somalia?) aren't willing to pitch more than a token contribution to most missions. It's basically been the US, UK and Canucks carrying the weight out there. It'll take a few successes before anyone is willing to give us a chance, but definitely it's a good idea.

But we have to take the first steps, and not get our asses handed back to us because of decades of underfunding.


posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 09:12 PM
A piece of good news for the Forces:

By Oct. 1, the Defence Department will aim to have 30 per cent of recruits enrolled within a week, and 50 per cent more enlisted within a month. "We've thrown, if you will, a transformational grenade in the middle of our recruiting process," Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, said after giving a speech at the annual Canadian Bar Association conference.

"(In) a 15-minute conversational interview, you can pretty much make a judgment whether this is a winner - a swimmer or a non-swimmer."

Canadian Forces recruitment accelerated

Now we just need to make it an attractive career choice and get people in the door. Too bad it didn't come in time to save you some major hassles, DE.

On a side note, it's truly pathetic what a big Hillier fan I am. Appointing him was the only bright spot of Paul Martin's reign. I think that Gen. Hillier is the man who can save our military. The government (us, technically) might be the ones paying the bills, but he's the man with the vision and ideas.

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:04 PM
Hillier should be running the Goddamn country already. The forces love him like a father, he's media saavy, practical...

Only thing wrong with him is that he's a soldier, and Canadians just don't like soldiers.

This is a good sign, though. The recruiting process now is, to say the least, a nightmare. I started off unsure about the forces, handed in my paperwork at the Moss Park Armory. I wanted to be a paratrooper, the QOR (Queen's Own Rifles) was going to be my unit. But...after two months, they hadn't so much as sent my papers across town to be processed. So, I went into the main recruiting center (about an hour from me), and asked them what the hell was going on. They checked two massive stacks of paperwork (the entry forms are about five or seven pages), and said I could wait some more, or reapply there. So, I made up my mind. I sat down and went for it. Regulars/Enlisted/Infantry. Handed in my papers, and the recruiter looked at me funny, made sure I knew what I was getting into, and said "Alright".

Two weeks later, I did my CFAT (Canadian Forces Aptitude Test), and then two weeks after that, my interview and medical. There goes a month of my life. Passed CFAT and interview with flying colors, offered my choice of battalions. 3RCR, I insisted. I still had to clear some stuff with my optometrist, and my family physician, which took three weeks because they couldn't contact my physician or optometrist directly. They weren't allowed. I'm good for service, apparently. I went that in 16 July. I called last week, and they said that the medical forms I sent in could be in the medical officer's inbox, his outbox, or anywhere between here and ottawa. Yes, he has to send them to Ottawa before they can clear me to do my fitness test, which is kinda pathetic (19 pushups, 19 situps, 1.5km run). So, i'm waiting to hear back from them on that.

Then, according to everyone I've talked to, about another eight weeks for the entire package to go to ottawa, and for them to send me a proper offer of employment (I signed my conditional at the interview). It's horrible. I hope the other recruits don't have to suffer through this 'hurry up and wait' nonsense.


posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:36 PM
Wow, that's quite the ordeal.

Originally posted by DeusEx
Only thing wrong with him is that he's a soldier, and Canadians just don't like soldiers.

Hillier may be a soldier, but he's also a Newfie. All Canadians love Newfies and that could overcome the military stigma. Hillier for PM!

Anyhoo, back to the (original) topic at hand....

Will the statement that we would not get involved in any Lebanon peacekeeping hurt our reputation as a peacekeeping country? I'm not saying that I would support such a move, obviously we just don't have enough troops or gear for that. I just wonder if it would have been more prudent to say something along the lines of 'Our assistance has not been requested and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it' and then hoped that we weren't asked? France doesn't seem to want any help.

[edit on 16-8-2006 by Duzey]

posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:57 PM
Honestly.. who thinks of you as peacekeepers????? I am not joking, maybe it is because I live in America or something.. but Canada the peace keepers does not ring a bell for me.

What do I think of when I think of Canada? .. I think of assisting force. Canada cannot go to war with another country alone and win.. It cannot deploy troops into a hostile area and keep the peace on it's on.. it just can't, you don't have the man power, NYC Police have more units then your army..

Canada is a great friend of America, of Britain, of the western world. You invaded Normandy aside us, you walked beside Britain in battle against the Germans. You helped in the deserts of Africa with British troops, you assisted in Korea, you assisted in Afghanistan when other countries looked the other way, you gave lives to fight in these battles to help your friends. You are not peacekeepers, you are peaceful people, but not peacekeepers. You are friends, you assist us, we do not use you in any way, we do not expect Canada to fight with us, but you do and we are grateful to have friends like you. You have always fought the right battles, you are always on the side of humanity and you have never lost a war with us. Is that not ok? Is that not enough? Why do you want to be a police force in the world? Why do you think Canada HAS to be peaceful? Do you think your troops are unethical or something, that partaking in wars with your friends somehow demean your moral standards?

This is not a hostile post against Canada, I truly do think of Canada as a friend.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in