• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CTV Poll about Darfur

Would you support sending Canadian troops to Darfur?


  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .

Armymedic

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Mentor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
It is here on the right side of the CTV header page:

http://www.ctv.ca/world

With accm article here:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060523/darfur_conflict_060523/20060523?hub=World

I want to see what the Army.ca crowd thinks.

You need not comment. In fact do not, unless you have a strong and well researched contibuting factor to your vote above.
 
So far on CTV.ca the poll is going like thiis:

Yes  2037 votes    (50 %)

No  2076 votes    (50 %)

 
Total Votes: 4113
 
I would support sending them on the condition that there was a strong enforceable mandate, with a multinational coalition of miltaries we can trust and last but not least, no blue hats.

Am I being too picky?

MM
 
Well, I generally do not get into detail with debates like this. If we provided security (1,800-2,300 troopers, logistics, medics ect) and assets (LAVs, 155's, food, medicine) to small pockets of inhabitants and refugees, other countries may follow suit. Blue hats are useless to a certain extent. Not to offend any bluehats. Bluehats cannot assure security to civilians against superior forces, ie JNA 1991-1999. JNA and friends were big and bad. Lots of ammo they had/have. Preventing small things like Srebrenica by "force" may be the peacekeeping of the future. What does it matter if we lose 30-100 troops in Darfur? It is the Army's, soldiers right? Thats what your signed up for, dying while trying to destroy the enemy or whatever "your" mission is. If Canada sent 1,800-2,300 troops, then maybe Germany will send 5-6000, Belgium 1000 and so on. Thats just my 50 cent.
 
mustialwaysremember WHERE do you plan on getting the troops (which weren't asked for) or the equipment.  WE ARE TAPPED OUT.
 
Sure we could send troops, but what if nobody else wants to come?

How about the 40+ soldiers we already have (and had for the last year) in and around Sudan? 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/sudan_e.asp

Further, what do you know about the country, the conflict, the history of the region? What is Sudan's climate like? More questions for you, even before we get talking troops and numbers.
 
mustialwaysremember said:
What does it matter if we lose 30-100 troops in Darfur? It is the Army's, soldiers right? Thats what your signed up for, dying while trying to destroy the enemy or whatever "your" mission is.

You're pretty free with my life and those of my colleagues.  We aren't paid to get ourselves killed, quite the opposite in fact.  To paraphrase Gen George Patton, our job isn't to die for our country, but to make that other poor bastard die for his.  There is a hell of a difference between risking one's life and getting themselves knocked off for s*&ts and giggles.  But please feel free yourself if you're into that sort of thing.

After the masacre of Belgian paratroopers in Rwanda in 94, I doubt very much that you'll see any troops from that country in Africa for awhile - I was kind of surprised to see them in Kabul actually.  Oh, BTW, the Belguiques have a serious issue with Romeo Dallaire over the same thing - best not to bring the two up in the same sentence.

Cheers.

MM
 
Armymedic said:
Sure we could send troops, but what if nobody else wants to come?

How about the 40+ soldiers we already have (and had for the last year) in and around Sudan? 

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/operations/sudan_e.asp

Further, what do you know about the country, the conflict, the history of the region? What is Sudan's climate like? More questions for you, even before we get talking troops and numbers.


It is hot and dry in the north around Khartoum. Slowly turns into Jungle in the south around Gom. Arab/Muslim-Persian/Chinese backed north has being bullying the "black" Christian south since before Mohammod was on his own killing spree. The north has lot's and lot's of arms too. China wants oil, Sudan wants M43/PGvL1 err..  But yeah troops would have a hell of a time there.
 
I would support sending them on the condition that there was a strong enforceable mandate, with a multinational coalition of miltaries we can trust and last but not least, no blue hats.

MM

+1
 
mustialwaysremember the problem is as Quagmire has stated. We do not have the number of troops to support operations in both Afghanistan and Darfur. One of the flawed proposals recently was to take troops FROM Afghanistan and put them in Darfur. This would only result in doing a half-assed job in both areas. With your proposal of sending a few thousand troops as an addition to Darfur is also flawed. The government wants to recruit more people to the CF and the problem with that is not only the recruitment but you also need the numbers to train these recruits. Taking thousands away for Darfur would disable our capability to train these new recruits that we so desperately need. Additionally as you stated, "Darfur would be an exellent starting point for new recruits. Thrust them into the way of the new army", you cannot take Joe civvy and send them across the world to peacekeep... or as you have stated destroy the enemy. This may not have been what you were trying to portray however to myself this is how you have come across. Your solution seems to be take someone from the recruitment centre, give them their kit and put them on a plane and they'll learn everything over there which is unfeasible.
 
This is a good opportunity to point out that if the civvies want us to do our job in so many places, they should have given us the money and the support so that we would have a military capable of doing that. Its like cutting off a man's arms, laughing at him for not having arms, and then getting angry with him when he can't do what hes asked to do. I for one will point that out to anyone who brings this up with me.
 
Darfur has the potential to make Afghanistan look like a Sunday stroll.
We have VERY limited means of air transport.  Sea transport is mute.  We don't have any strong allies in the region.  If don't have the necessary support (see air power) for the troops.  The M777 you speak are less the a dozen CF wide I believe.  Our Tac heli is severely limited.  
The NDP harp about exit strategies about A Stan.  Well I would love to hear what it would be for the Sudan.  If the Sudanese military or militia's meet our smiling faces at the runway with a variety of death what are we to do.  Leave, stand and fight and have a CF genocide.  Thanks but no thanks.
 
Mustialways remember: I think I get what you are trying to suggest: that we should not dismiss taking on a mission just because there is a chance that Canadian soldiers might die. You didn't do a very good job of expressing yourself in English, but that seems to be the core of your argument.

Well...you're right-as far as that statement goes. We are soldiers, and risk-taking is part of the profession. In fact, we accept that the "unlimited liability" of what we do is the major thing that sets us apart from, say, the RCMP, or Blackwater, or others. And, so far, both as a military and as a country, we have proven that we are willing to accept various levels of risk at various times. If that were not true, we would never have been in places like Gulf War I , Yugo, Somalia, or Afghanistan.

But there is much more to what we do (and to what we expect from our Govt) than mere risk-taking. There is also risk assessment: how dangerous is it?;why is it dangerous?; is it worth the risk?  What are the true chances of success if we take the risk? What is the difference between accepting a certain level of risk and throwing lives and money away in a hopeless cause? Don't confuse risk-assessment with cowardice or "cold feet".

If you read around on this site, you will see that a number of other posters have identified the problems associated with the idea of deploying a half-assed mission to Darfur, even assuming that an enabling UN resolution existed (or could get through Security Council), that a UN force could  be assembled, and that we could generate, deploy, sustain, protect and recover a useful contingent. UN missions are (as any of us who have served on a few can tell you...) usually disorganized, ineffective shambles that violate most known military principles, thus not surprisingly producing sub-optimal results (to put it politely)

We are doing an important job in Afghanistan, and doing as well as we can. If we drift back to the bad old days of sending a few troops willy nilly, here and there, all over the world, we weaken our ability to do a good job properly in one place, by half-assing it everywhere.

Cheers

 
At the end of the CTV poll, it looks like the Canadian public does not support sending troops to Darfur either:

Would you support sending Canadian troops to Darfur?

Yes   6692 votes     (48 %)
No   7147 votes     (52 %)

Total Votes: 13839

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?&tf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNewsSub.html&cf=ctv/generic/hubs/ctvNews.cfg&id=40760&pollid=40760&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=CTVNewsTopStories&hub=TopStories&subhub=VoteResult


Or perhaps, given that a portion of the Canadian public does not want our troops in Afghanistan either, they just want the CF to stay home and go no where.

That would solve the need for the CF to have strategic airlift.
 
Well, Gee...maybe they would like the CF to carry pikes and wear the stripped pataloons similar to the Vatican guard. Might as well look the part
 
pbi said:
Mustialways remember: I think I get what you are trying to suggest: that we should not dismiss taking on a mission just because there is a chance that Canadian soldiers might die. You didn't do a very good job of expressing yourself in English, but that seems to be the core of your argument.

Well...you're right-as far as that statement goes. We are soldiers, and risk-taking is part of the profession. In fact, we accept that the "unlimited liability" of what we do is the major thing that sets us apart from, say, the RCMP, or Blackwater, or others. And, so far, both as a military and as a country, we have proven that we are willing to accept various levels of risk at various times. If that were not true, we would never have been in places like Gulf War I , Yugo, Somalia, or Afghanistan.

But there is much more to what we do (and to what we expect from our Govt) than mere risk-taking. There is also risk assessment: how dangerous is it?;why is it dangerous?; is it worth the risk?  What are the true chances of success if we take the risk? What is the difference between accepting a certain level of risk and throwing lives and money away in a hopeless cause? Don't confuse risk-assessment with cowardice or "cold feet".

If you read around on this site, you will see that a number of other posters have identified the problems associated with the idea of deploying a half-assed mission to Darfur, even assuming that an enabling UN resolution existed (or could get through Security Council), that a UN force could  be assembled, and that we could generate, deploy, sustain, protect and recover a useful contingent. UN missions are (as any of us who have served on a few can tell you...) usually disorganized, ineffective shambles that violate most known military principles, thus not surprisingly producing sub-optimal results (to put it politely)

We are doing an important job in Afghanistan, and doing as well as we can. If we drift back to the bad old days of sending a few troops willy nilly, here and there, all over the world, we weaken our ability to do a good job properly in one place, by half-assing it everywhere.

Cheers

Right. So we go to different areas and assess before committing. Are these people called U.N observers? Anyways, I get what you mean about the half-assed commitment. There is no point given our man power situation. As for your statement in regards to my English, it's rough as I've been working with my hands and not my head since 2003, or high school. You would be suprised how some of my post replies pan out. :-[
 
Armymedic said:
Or perhaps, given that a portion of the Canadian public does not want our troops in Afghanistan either, they just want the CF to stay home and go no where.

[a portion of] The Canadian public doesn't want us in Afghanistan. They don't want us in Darfur. Hell some even say get out of Haiti which is laughable at best. They also don't want "soldiers in the streets" via the ex Charging Bison. Where does the Canadian public, or those that take part in these polls want us. Do they just want us to stay on our bases and out of sight... only to peer our heads on Nov 11?
 
Ha ha
Sure we are tapped out Quagmire.  I will tell you why.
There is an entrenched political opinion in this country that says 'because we do not like war, we should have no army'
and then the funding for the CF dries up to the point where there are not enough soldiers to even defend our borders.
Should we be in Darfur now?  Of course, but we should have been there at least 20 years ago.
It is true that the Sudanese government has powerful friends, ie. Russia and China, but the Americans have not been afraid to challenge those two powers in Taiwan.  By the way, we too challenged the two of them during the Korean war.

The more missions the CF goes on, the more publicity it will get.  The current popular opinion on military matters is based on ignorance, so more coverage means more support.
The alternative is international subjugation.
 
exsemjingo said:
Ha ha
Sure we are tapped out Quagmire.  I will tell you why.
There is an entrenched political opinion in this country that says 'because we do not like war, we should have no army'
and then the funding for the CF dries up to the point where there are not enough soldiers to even defend our borders.
Should we be in Darfur now?  Of course, but we should have been there at least 20 years ago.
It is true that the Sudanese government has powerful friends, ie. Russia and China, but the Americans have not been afraid to challenge those two powers in Taiwan.  By the way, we too challenged the two of them during the Korean war.

The more missions the CF goes on, the more publicity it will get.  The current popular opinion on military matters is based on ignorance, so more coverage means more support.
The alternative is international subjugation.


SA also challenged Russia during the Brush Fire wars in the 70's and 80's. They did well too. The only thing Russia and China can provide is souped up T-55's and AK's and SCUDs. Wait..those could be dangerous.
 
Back
Top