[EyeBrock]

Derby said:

$1:

"A warrior nation? We are a nation of peace first and foremost. Its entirely why we have managed to live at peace for most of our history."

This is patently wrong.

Check out the wars I mentioned.

We may not be a 'warrior nation' but we are a 'nation with warriors' and we have gone to war many times in the past 300 years.

Wars that we have usually won or been a major player in the winning side.

Peace-keeping is something that we have dabbled in but we have never been a major contributor to like we were in the Great War, the Second World War or even in Korea and South Africa.

This whole myth of being a major player in the UN missions is just that, a myth.

When I think of peacekeeping I think of the Sinai and Rwanda.
Places we achieved little to nothing in and where we turned a blind eye to killers.

Again I ask the question:

Name me a recent UN mission that involved Canadian troops in a high profile situation that would stir the nation’s pride?

[DerbyX]

Gunnair Gunnair:

I have yet to hear anyone in the military complain about being used for non-military purposes (save for Toronto because that was ridiculous). Winnipeg and the ice storm were perfect examples of when the logistical and organizational abilities of the military are at their best.

Talk to Eyebrock. Talk to a few of the others here. I'm only reporting what the military members on this forum have told us.

Gunnair Gunnair:

As for peacekeeping - the problem with that is that the military was placed into scenarios where peacekeeping was not really an option - see Somalia and Rwanda. Even former Yugoslavia had a lot of issues becuase peacekeeping ROE hamstrung members to a dangerous level. That has, of course, soured the military - that and the fact that peacekeeping was a way for the government to employ the military on the cheap. Don't need tanks, new ships, new planes for low level work such as peacekeeping.

In other words its not the act of peacekeeping thats objectionable but the specifics of the deployment.

I agree that sending soldiers into situations where they are likely to get shot at without being able to respond effectively is a recipe for disaster.

I don't advocate that. Utilizing them in Palestine/Israel would obviously need to be done in such a way as the palestinians would not have any desire to shoot at them. If we couldn't do that then it would defeat the purpose.

Gunnair Gunnair:

Honestly now, what is your criteria then? Anglo-Boer War, WWI, WWII, Korea - none of these would have had Canadian participation if we followed that creed. Would you rather Canadians were isolationists or would you rather scrap the military in favour of a unified continental defence under the US?

The Boer war was a disgrace. WW1 (the war to end all wars) was a failure on all sides wasn't it. Hell they recruited for it as a grand adventure. WW2, while arguably Canada wasn't a target until we made ourselves one, our allies were. Remember I did say that we shouldn't be fighting wars where we and our allies are not threatened. Coming to the aid of our allies was the founding principle of NATO wasn't it.

Should we be isolationists without a military? No, but neither should we be invading countries and affecting regime change. I've already said that our navy and airforce should be stronger with the ability to operate independantly from the US. Advocating peace isn't the same as advocating scrapping the CF and/or absorbing it into some sort of full time Norad only initiative.

What should Canada be doing when we are not being threatened by a hostile military and neither are our allies?

Do you advocate Canada simply send its military from one world hotspot to another on our whims?

Gunnair Gunnair:

As someone with a lot of interest in politics, you above all should know that the Canadian military, amongst its many roles is a symbol of Canadian independence from the US - the ability to defend ourselves being a very important marker. As well, the military is an international political tool for pushing Canadian interests abroad - not in a military way, of course, but Canada cannot be an international player if it ain't going to contribute to the hard jobs out there.

That depends entirely on what you mean about "contribute" doesn't it? You yourself just said the military was placed in situations where peacekeeping wasn't an option.

We don't need to send our military abroad to be considered an international player. There are alot of ways we can help people in need but when guys like Bono chastize us for not contributing to sending money and/or medical aid to places like the SA aids crisis we tell him to go f*ck himself. Then we turn around and say its our duty to get involved and send troops.

Its awfully convenient of Canadians to claim on one hand we want to be an international player by sending the troops but then turn around and claim its not our responsibility when somebody asks us to send money for a crisis.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Derby said:

$1:

"A warrior nation? We are a nation of peace first and foremost. Its entirely why we have managed to live at peace for most of our history."

This is patently wrong.

Check out the wars I mentioned.

We may not be a 'warrior nation' but we are a 'nation with warriors' and we have gone to war many times in the past 300 years.

Wars that we have usually won or been a major player in the winning side.

Peace-keeping is something that we have dabbled in but we have never been a major contributor to like we were in the Great War, the Second World War or even in Korea and South Africa.

This whole myth of being a major player in the UN missions is just that, a myth.

When I think of peacekeeping I think of the Sinai and Rwanda.
Places we achieved little to nothing in and where we turned a blind eye to killers.

Again I ask the question:

Name me a recent UN mission that involved Canadian troops in a high profile situation that would stir the nation’s pride?

I did in fact respond to this post or did you not see it?

We don't need to be a major player in UN missions. We don't need high profile situations to "stir the nations pride".

Thats just stupid. That sounds as if you simply want to send the troops into combat just so we as a nation can feel better about oursleves and take greater pride in our country.

I don't need Canadian soldiers in battle to feel pride about being Canadian. What you advocate isn't the type of pride I want to feel.

[EyeBrock]

We have a volunteer military. We have had a volunteer militia that pre-dates Confederation.

There are plenty of people who believe it is a noble tradition to volunteer to fight in the Canadian Forces. Saying I would like to send troops into combat to feel proud is just silly.

Unlike you I have served.

I have seen the horror of war and terrorism.

I am saddened everytime a Canadian/Brit/US warrior is killed in combat, but I am also deeply proud of the contribution our guys are making in standing up to people who want to kill girls for daring to be educated.

You tell us that we are traditionally peace-keepers and not warriors. You are wrong.

Stirring the nations pride has come out of the noble sacrifice our young people who have died in combat have made, serving their country.

You throw it back at me like patriotism and pride in the military is something we should be ashamed of. What is up with being proud?

It may not be the type of pride you want to feel but hundreds of Canadians are waving flags on highway bridges because they feel proud at the sacrifices our guys are making.

You are so off base on this stuff and I don't see anybody supporting your stance. Derby, you are on your own again.

Plus you still have not told me about a really good UN mission we as Canadians made a difference in.
Standing by and watching genocide in Rwanda doesn't count.

[ridenrain]

I wonder if the opposition will be setting up more booths at these anti-Israel events? It's always good to know who's on what side.

[DerbyX]

No, you are wrong. You are wrong saying that I said we are traditionally peacekeepers. I never said that.

You are wrong that we are a "warrior" nation. We are a nation that will fight if necessary but we don't resort to using the military as a weapon of first resort.

You are wrong asserting we are a warrior nation simply because we have fought wars. By that logic virtually every nation on earth is a warrior nation too.

You are wrong asserting I'm throwing back patriotism back in your face. You were the person claiming that our nations pride wasn't stirred over any of the peacekeeping missions (you really mean just your own). You said we needed wars to stir the nations pride. I said it sounded like you were saying we needed soldiers in combat to stir national pride which is just stupid.

You are certainly wrong that I said patriotism is something to be ashamed about.

You keep inferring that Canada's pride is interwined almost exclusively with the military and that pride needs to be stirred by having the troops in an actual war.

Its that notion thats retarded as it sounds like this war is being fought exclusively to stir the pride or that its entirely justified because it does.

Stirring the nations pride isn't justification for fighting wars and Canadians can feel pride over Canada for alot of things.

I'm all alone eh? Think Streaker would agree?

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

No, you are wrong. You are wrong saying that I said we are traditionally peacekeepers. I never said that.

You are wrong that we are a "warrior" nation. We are a nation that will fight if necessary but we don't resort to using the military as a weapon of first resort.

You are wrong asserting we are a warrior nation simply because we have fought wars. By that logic virtually every nation on earth is a warrior nation too.

You are wrong asserting I'm throwing back patriotism back in your face. You were the person claiming that our nations pride wasn't stirred over any of the peacekeeping missions (you really mean just your own). You said we needed wars to stir the nations pride. I said it sounded like you were saying we needed soldiers in combat to stir national pride which is just stupid.

You are certainly wrong that I said patriotism is something to be ashamed about.

You keep inferring that Canada's pride is interwined almost exclusively with the military and that pride needs to be stirred by having the troops in an actual war.

Its that notion thats retarded as it sounds like this war is being fought exclusively to stir the pride or that its entirely justified because it does.

Stirring the nations pride isn't justification for fighting wars and Canadians can feel pride over Canada for alot of things.

I'm all alone eh? Think Streaker would agree?

What part of my quote did you not understand?

$1:

We may not be a 'warrior nation' but we are a 'nation with warriors' and we have gone to war many times in the past 300 years

Come on derby, you used to have a large chunk of logic in your posts. Now you want to be compared with streaker?
Get that white poppy on and be a true peacekeeper. Hopefully there are no bad guys with guns about.

What's going on with you derby? I detect a different tone from you of late. I notice others have commented in a similar ilk. You alright mate?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Come on derby, you used to have a large chunk of logic in your posts. Now you want to be compared with streaker?
Get that white poppy on and be a true peacekeeper. Hopefully there are no bad guys with guns about.

What's going on with you derby? I detect a different tone from you of late. I notice others have commented in a similar ilk. You alright mate?

You said I stand alone. I simply corrected you.

I'm not any different then I was before. I'm certainly not holding a different position about the war in Afghanistan.

I simply don't hold your opinion about peacekeeping being a bad thing. In the context of the threads topic I think it would work in providing a security buffer in Palestine.

Seems to me we should be working towards helping them find peace because the whole cycle of violence thing isn't really working out to well.

[martin14]

In order for peacekeeping to work, both sides must want it.

That is not the current situation in Gaza with Hamas.

[DerbyX]

martin14 martin14:

In order for peacekeeping to work, both sides must want it.

That is not the current situation in Gaza with Hamas.

True. We would need to approach the palestinians directly and let them know we are their to help them. We don't force it on them or else we are back to square one.

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

martin14 martin14:

In order for peacekeeping to work, both sides must want it.

That is not the current situation in Gaza with Hamas.

True. We would need to approach the palestinians directly and let them know we are their to help them. We don't force it on them or else we are back to square one.

Out of curiosity - what is your stance on Darfur?

[roger-roger]

It would also be ineffective, how will peacekeeprs stop the Hamas from firing rockets?

[DerbyX]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Out of curiosity - what is your stance on Darfur?

Whats yours?

[Gunnair]

DerbyX DerbyX:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Out of curiosity - what is your stance on Darfur?

Whats yours?

I think there is cause to be in there for peacemaking and potentially regime changing.

You?

[DerbyX]

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

It would also be ineffective, how will peacekeeprs stop the Hamas from firing rockets?

The entire idea is to not give them reasons to fire those rockets and get the population behind the effort. By getting their permission to help alone means they will have a vested interest in not allowing any groups to jepordize the peace.