|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/29/2008
Posts: 145
|
D.Dickin wrote:Oh man  ... Have you forgotten about those small explosions (sarcasm) on September 11, 2001? You know, the greatest terrorist attack to happen on American soil? Almost 3,000 people died, but you have no recollection whatsoever? Since you like Wikipedia so much, take a look here. The war was started the second those planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings for no other reason than to make a shallow demonstration of their power. They declared war on the United States and the Western civilization, the U.S. simply reacted against Afghanistan, which is where the hijackers originated from. Six months later, Canada was called in to assist the new Afghani government in establishing itself, setting up elections, and rebuilding the communities. You're welcome, by the way. 82 of our best soldiers have died to protect ungrateful people like you, and yet the authority you've been given to make such accusations is upheld by the same soldiers you're badmouthing. Are you SERIOUS? Obviously what happened on 9/11 was a tragedy, no denying that. But the people who are actually FOR what happened on 9/11 are a small tiny group of people who disgrace their own countries and religion. But you're saying who cares, revenge is the best solution so the WHOLE FREAKING COUNTRY AND ALL OF ITS INNOCENT CITIZENS SHOULD PAY FOR IT? Stringer wrote:
You're hopeless.
Heyyy, something I agree with Stringer on. Edit: sorry that ^ was harsh. I just don't get how people can advocate wars under the guise of peacekeeping.
Narrator: Tobias went to a try-out for the Blue Man Group hoping to be seen.
*Tobias is hit by a car*
Narrator: Unfortunately, it was dusk, and he couldn't be seen.
~Arrested Development
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 4/6/2008
Posts: 59
Location: Toronto
|
"peacekeeping" - did you guys know that there is a part of Canada that is considered a third world country? it's called Pikanjikum and is pretty close to Thunderbay. So if we're from the Toronto area, it's actually pretty close to us. I never learned about this place until this year and I can't believe what I'm learning. The people that live in that village are First Nations and they are treated so unfairly by the Canadian government. Mining companies can go into their land and dig for oil without the cities permission. Not aven a notification is given to them. Also food like bread, milk or eggs cost 3 to 4 times as much as it does in the city, but junk food like chips and pop are the same and if not cheaper. What does this tell you? The First Nations was wanted to be sick so they all die off and are not part of Canada anymore. They live by the Indian Act which is totally unfair.
So why are we sending money to Kenya or Uganda when we have our own third world country in our backyard? Well the Canadian government doesn't want much people to know about it because one: it makes us look bad and two: the Canadian governemnt doesn't want people to help them because they want them extinct.
I'm serious, research Pikanjikum on google if you can' believe this.
But I agree with most of you guys, Canada IS known for peacekeeping...
utsc next year!
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
Stringer wrote:
You're hopeless. Was Canada peacekeeping when they helped removed the Nazi regime? After all, the Nazi regime was responsible for millions of deaths. Canada was just "peacekeeping" though, right?
WHAT?!?! That is a totally different situation. The WORLD was at war, CANADA was at war because England asked us to go. In case you don't know using a vaguely similar argument which has no bearing on the original argument is committing the fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Two totally different situations. simplicity16 wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:
Are you having trouble following what I have said? What is peacekeeping to you? Going into a country saying "Play Nice", and hoping everything goes right?
They are weeding out those that are threats to the peace that they are trying to keep. This is the first time that a peacekeeping mission has taken an offensive stance, but at the same time it was something that was in the works since Somalia. Peacekeeping so far has failed because guidelines have prevented peacekeepers from acting to prevent violence. I am sure that after NATO clears out, whether or not this was considered a success, it will definitely be a precedent for future peacekeeping attempts.
Um, what? Peacekeeping and offensive in the same sentence? Obviously you are another person that keep ignoring my posts that say that peacekeeping is evolving to being more proactive (means acting preemptively, in this case before major violence occurs) than reactive (waiting for violence to happen and then try to do something). This is as a result of unfortunate lessons learnt in the peacekeeping attempts of the 90s - Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkans. Reactive peacekeeping really worked in those situation eh?  I mean it's not like in 2/3 of those missions there were genocides. 
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
karyy wrote:"peacekeeping" - did you guys know that there is a part of Canada that is considered a third world country? it's called Pikanjikum and is pretty close to Thunderbay. So if we're from the Toronto area, it's actually pretty close to us. I never learned about this place until this year and I can't believe what I'm learning. The people that live in that village are First Nations and they are treated so unfairly by the Canadian government. Mining companies can go into their land and dig for oil without the cities permission. Not aven a notification is given to them. Also food like bread, milk or eggs cost 3 to 4 times as much as it does in the city, but junk food like chips and pop are the same and if not cheaper. What does this tell you? The First Nations was wanted to be sick so they all die off and are not part of Canada anymore. They live by the Indian Act which is totally unfair.
So why are we sending money to Kenya or Uganda when we have our own third world country in our backyard? Well the Canadian government doesn't want much people to know about it because one: it makes us look bad and two: the Canadian governemnt doesn't want people to help them because they want them extinct.
I'm serious, research Pikanjikum on google if you can' believe this.
But I agree with most of you guys, Canada IS known for peacekeeping... Huh? There are no oil companies in Pikangikum. The place is a wreck because there is no economy and it is very remote and hard to access. All of the food is expensive because it is remote and difficult to access. What is unfair about the Indian Act? It benefits First Nations people, not penalizes them.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:
You're hopeless. Was Canada peacekeeping when they helped removed the Nazi regime? After all, the Nazi regime was responsible for millions of deaths. Canada was just "peacekeeping" though, right?
WHAT?!?! That is a totally different situation. The WORLD was at war, CANADA was at war because England asked us to go. In case you don't know using a vaguely similar argument which has no bearing on the original argument is committing the fallacy of the Straw Man argument. Two totally different situations. simplicity16 wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:
Are you having trouble following what I have said? What is peacekeeping to you? Going into a country saying "Play Nice", and hoping everything goes right?
They are weeding out those that are threats to the peace that they are trying to keep. This is the first time that a peacekeeping mission has taken an offensive stance, but at the same time it was something that was in the works since Somalia. Peacekeeping so far has failed because guidelines have prevented peacekeepers from acting to prevent violence. I am sure that after NATO clears out, whether or not this was considered a success, it will definitely be a precedent for future peacekeeping attempts.
Um, what? Peacekeeping and offensive in the same sentence? Obviously you are another person that keep ignoring my posts that say that peacekeeping is evolving to being more proactive (means acting preemptively, in this case before major violence occurs) than reactive (waiting for violence to happen and then try to do something). This is as a result of unfortunate lessons learnt in the peacekeeping attempts of the 90s - Somalia, Rwanda and the Balkans. Reactive peacekeeping really worked in those situation eh? I mean it's not like in 2/3 of those missions there were genocides. You're hopeless. You obviously have no idea what peacekeeping is. Is America peacekeeping in Iraq?
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/29/2008
Posts: 145
|
Stringer wrote:
Is America peacekeeping in Iraq?
Of course! It was being PREEMPTIVE. You know, against non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Had absolutely nothing to do with oil. Nothing.
Narrator: Tobias went to a try-out for the Blue Man Group hoping to be seen.
*Tobias is hit by a car*
Narrator: Unfortunately, it was dusk, and he couldn't be seen.
~Arrested Development
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
This is a topic about Canada, and we are discussing whether or not CANADA is or is not peacekeeping. In both instances, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. invasions were not peacekeeping, in those instances, America was making an act of war. However, in Afghanistan, the Canadian mission which continues today is about peacekeeping, and stabilizing the region. Canadians aren't shelling the villages, and killing innocent people, they are helping ot rebuild infrastructure, clear landmines, and keep the civilians out of harm's way. THAT is peacekeeping.
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Senior Student
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/29/2008
Posts: 145
|
bigbadsheep wrote:This is a topic about Canada, and we are discussing whether or not CANADA is or is not peacekeeping. In both instances, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. invasions were not peacekeeping, in those instances, America was making an act of war. However, in Afghanistan, the Canadian mission which continues today is about peacekeeping, and stabilizing the region. Canadians aren't shelling the villages, and killing innocent people, they are helping ot rebuild infrastructure, clear landmines, and keep the civilians out of harm's way. THAT is peacekeeping. If that part is true, that means Canada is NOT being "offensive" and I would agree that Canada is peacekeeping.
Narrator: Tobias went to a try-out for the Blue Man Group hoping to be seen.
*Tobias is hit by a car*
Narrator: Unfortunately, it was dusk, and he couldn't be seen.
~Arrested Development
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
^They are doing that as well as the offensives that they are launching. The offensives are aimed at the Taliban and other insurgents, as they are the ones who are attempting to destroy the efforts Canada is putting forth.
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bigbadsheep wrote:This is a topic about Canada, and we are discussing whether or not CANADA is or is not peacekeeping. In both instances, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. invasions were not peacekeeping, in those instances, America was making an act of war. However, in Afghanistan, the Canadian mission which continues today is about peacekeeping, and stabilizing the region. Canadians aren't shelling the villages, and killing innocent people, they are helping ot rebuild infrastructure, clear landmines, and keep the civilians out of harm's way. THAT is peacekeeping. They are killing Taliban forces, which was the ruling government until the war was initiated. Absolutely clueless.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
Stringer wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:This is a topic about Canada, and we are discussing whether or not CANADA is or is not peacekeeping. In both instances, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. invasions were not peacekeeping, in those instances, America was making an act of war. However, in Afghanistan, the Canadian mission which continues today is about peacekeeping, and stabilizing the region. Canadians aren't shelling the villages, and killing innocent people, they are helping ot rebuild infrastructure, clear landmines, and keep the civilians out of harm's way. THAT is peacekeeping. They are killing Taliban forces, which was the ruling government until the war was initiated. Absolutely clueless. They weren't the ruling government when Canada went in. They had already been overthrown by the U.S.
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:This is a topic about Canada, and we are discussing whether or not CANADA is or is not peacekeeping. In both instances, Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. invasions were not peacekeeping, in those instances, America was making an act of war. However, in Afghanistan, the Canadian mission which continues today is about peacekeeping, and stabilizing the region. Canadians aren't shelling the villages, and killing innocent people, they are helping ot rebuild infrastructure, clear landmines, and keep the civilians out of harm's way. THAT is peacekeeping. They are killing Taliban forces, which was the ruling government until the war was initiated. Absolutely clueless. They weren't the ruling government when Canada went in. They had already been overthrown by the U.S. So? How do not understand this? America, with Canada's assistance (along with many other countries) invaded Afghanistan and removed the government. To this day, they are still seeking out and destroying Taliban forces. That is war. Canada was also part of the initial removal, as I have already stated. Quote:Joint Task Force 2, Canada's special-forces unit, has been active in that country since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We know that JTF-2 soldiers transferred detainees to U.S. custody in January 2002, participated in an attack at Tora Bora in December 2002, and transferred detainees to U.S. custody again during the summer of 2005. And they continued to wage war... Quote:The first deployment of regular soldiers came in January 2002, when 750 infantry from the Princess Patricia's Regiment were sent to Kandahar as part of an U.S. counter-insurgency task force. Four of these soldiers were killed, and eight others injured, in a "friendly fire" incident in April 2002.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
Quote:In a mobilization which the military is calling Operation Apollo, Canada is sending six navy ships, six transport and surveillance aircraft, and more than 2,000 members of its armed forces to participate in the attack on Afghanistan. Despite the relatively small strength of the contingent, it represents nearly one-third of the country’s naval fleet and is the largest combat force Canada has sent abroad since the Korean War.
In addition, the military is sending overseas Joint Task Forces 2, a commando unit trained to counter domestic terrorism. It will participate in ground and intelligence operations of an undisclosed nature. None of Canada’s CF-18 fighter-bombers will be utilized at this stage of the war, since they are not equipped for use on aircraft carriers or for mid-air refuelling. Sure sounds like "peacekeeping" to me. Notice the words "combat force", not "peacekeeping force".
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
Stringer wrote:Canada was also part of the initial removal, as I have already stated. Quote:
Joint Task Force 2, Canada's special-forces unit, has been active in that country since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We know that JTF-2 soldiers transferred detainees to U.S. custody in January 2002, participated in an attack at Tora Bora in December 2002, and transferred detainees to U.S. custody again during the summer of 2005.
For the 50th millionth time, Canada's special ops team was involved yes, but under the direction of the Americans. They reported to American commanders, and acted according to what the Americans ordered. There is a difference in Canada as a country being involved and Canada loaning their special ops unit to the Americans. In the theatre of war, one misinterpretation can lead to false information. "Canada was also part of the initial removal" suggests that Canada agreed to send troops directly to Afghanistan. They agreed to loan their special ops team to the U.S., that is a major difference. When dealing with discussions like this things must be extremely technical. And also where are you getting this information? Wikipedia again?
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
Stringer wrote:Quote:In a mobilization which the military is calling Operation Apollo, Canada is sending six navy ships, six transport and surveillance aircraft, and more than 2,000 members of its armed forces to participate in the attack on Afghanistan. Despite the relatively small strength of the contingent, it represents nearly one-third of the country’s naval fleet and is the largest combat force Canada has sent abroad since the Korean War.
In addition, the military is sending overseas Joint Task Forces 2, a commando unit trained to counter domestic terrorism. It will participate in ground and intelligence operations of an undisclosed nature. None of Canada’s CF-18 fighter-bombers will be utilized at this stage of the war, since they are not equipped for use on aircraft carriers or for mid-air refuelling. Sure sounds like "peacekeeping" to me. Notice the words "combat force", not "peacekeeping force". If this quote is coming from Wikipedia again, then the words 'combat force' may have been used at the discretion of the author, and not what was technically listed in military records. If this was directly from the CAF or DND, then it would have different meaning. So where is this quote from to clear up the obscurity?
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:Canada was also part of the initial removal, as I have already stated. Quote:
Joint Task Force 2, Canada's special-forces unit, has been active in that country since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We know that JTF-2 soldiers transferred detainees to U.S. custody in January 2002, participated in an attack at Tora Bora in December 2002, and transferred detainees to U.S. custody again during the summer of 2005.
For the 50th millionth time, Canada's special ops team was involved yes, but under the direction of the Americans. They reported to American commanders, and acted according to what the Americans ordered. There is a difference in Canada as a country being involved and Canada loaning their special ops unit to the Americans. In the theatre of war, one misinterpretation can lead to false information. "Canada was also part of the initial removal" suggests that Canada agreed to send troops directly to Afghanistan. They agreed to loan their special ops team to the U.S., that is a major difference. When dealing with discussions like this things must be extremely technical. And also where are you getting this information? Wikipedia again? No, it's from a news article. Wikipedia is very accurate anyway. Canada did not "loan" troops. They sent troops who operated under the command of Americans at times. That is how war works. What, do you think every country just does their own thing? Of course not, it's an allied force.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
Here's a nice article for you. BBC News, one of the most well-respected news organizations in the world. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4984880.stmQuote:At least 15 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since Canada joined in 2002 the US-led coalition that overthrew the Taleban. Overthrowing the Taliban. Quote:The polls show that many Canadians, whilst being proud of their soldiers, are uneasy about their direct combat role in Afghanistan helping to flush out Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters.
It is a stark contrast to the many peacekeeping missions Canada has been involved in over the past 15 years, our correspondent says. Wow. Does it get any more clearcut than that?
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
Stringer wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:Canada was also part of the initial removal, as I have already stated. Quote:
Joint Task Force 2, Canada's special-forces unit, has been active in that country since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We know that JTF-2 soldiers transferred detainees to U.S. custody in January 2002, participated in an attack at Tora Bora in December 2002, and transferred detainees to U.S. custody again during the summer of 2005.
For the 50th millionth time, Canada's special ops team was involved yes, but under the direction of the Americans. They reported to American commanders, and acted according to what the Americans ordered. There is a difference in Canada as a country being involved and Canada loaning their special ops unit to the Americans. In the theatre of war, one misinterpretation can lead to false information. "Canada was also part of the initial removal" suggests that Canada agreed to send troops directly to Afghanistan. They agreed to loan their special ops team to the U.S., that is a major difference. When dealing with discussions like this things must be extremely technical. And also where are you getting this information? Wikipedia again? No, it's from a news article. Wikipedia is very accurate anyway. Canada did not "loan" troops. They sent troops who operated under the command of Americans at times. That is how war works. What, do you think every country just does their own thing? Of course not, it's an allied force. They DID loan JTF 2 to the Americans, it is common practice to allow your allies to use your special operations soldiers in SPECIAL OPERATIONS. They did not send the PPLCI until after much of the fighting had been over, and rebuilding efforts were underway.Many countries allow their special ops teams to interact with the elite units of other allied countries to be exposed to training techniques and operating procedure (which is gained through field combat). As for your second post, the first quote is misleading. It makes it seem as if Canada was in Afghanistan at full force while the Taliban was being overthrown, in reality Canada did join the U.S.-led coalition that overthrew the Taliban[prior to Canada's arrival]. It's difficult to explain here, but basically the U.S. and U.K. overthrew the Taliban, thereby becoming the U.S. led coalition that overthrew the Taliban. Canada then joined the U.S.-led coalition that overthrew the Taliban. Does that make sense? Let me know, because I myself may find that obscure if I didn't understand the point I was trying to make. As for the second quote, I am not denying that Canada is involved in active fighting in Afghanistan, but it is not like the Americans and Iraq. While Canada is trying to flush out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fighters, they are also attempting to help rebuild and stabilize the country. They are rebuilding infrastructure, demining villages, and protecting civilian lives. That IS peacekeeping. Take a look at this: http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/site/nr-sp/view_news_e.asp?id=2596#nse Specifically the sections on: Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, Mentoring the Afghan National Army, Mentoring the Afghan National Police, and Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team. They are attempting to make Afghanistan self-sufficient once again.
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
Rank: Student Body President
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/5/2008
Posts: 1,422
Location: Wilfrid Laurier University
|
bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:bigbadsheep wrote:Stringer wrote:Canada was also part of the initial removal, as I have already stated. Quote:
Joint Task Force 2, Canada's special-forces unit, has been active in that country since shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We know that JTF-2 soldiers transferred detainees to U.S. custody in January 2002, participated in an attack at Tora Bora in December 2002, and transferred detainees to U.S. custody again during the summer of 2005.
For the 50th millionth time, Canada's special ops team was involved yes, but under the direction of the Americans. They reported to American commanders, and acted according to what the Americans ordered. There is a difference in Canada as a country being involved and Canada loaning their special ops unit to the Americans. In the theatre of war, one misinterpretation can lead to false information. "Canada was also part of the initial removal" suggests that Canada agreed to send troops directly to Afghanistan. They agreed to loan their special ops team to the U.S., that is a major difference. When dealing with discussions like this things must be extremely technical. And also where are you getting this information? Wikipedia again? No, it's from a news article. Wikipedia is very accurate anyway. Canada did not "loan" troops. They sent troops who operated under the command of Americans at times. That is how war works. What, do you think every country just does their own thing? Of course not, it's an allied force. They DID loan JTF 2 to the Americans, it is common practice to allow your allies to use your special operations soldiers in SPECIAL OPERATIONS. They did not send the PPLCI until after much of the fighting had been over, and rebuilding efforts were underway.Many countries allow their special ops teams to interact with the elite units of other allied countries to be exposed to training techniques and operating procedure (which is gained through field combat). As for your second post, the first quote is misleading. It makes it seem as if Canada was in Afghanistan at full force while the Taliban was being overthrown, in reality Canada did join the U.S.-led coalition that overthrew the Taliban[prior to Canada's arrival]. It's difficult to explain here, but basically the U.S. and U.K. overthrew the Taliban, thereby becoming the U.S. led coalition that overthrew the Taliban. Canada then joined the U.S.-led coalition that overthrew the Taliban. Does that make sense? Let me know, because I myself may find that obscure if I didn't understand the point I was trying to make. As for the second quote, I am not denying that Canada is involved in active fighting in Afghanistan, but it is not like the Americans and Iraq. While Canada is trying to flush out Al-Qaeda and the Taliban fighters, they are also attempting to help rebuild and stabilize the country. They are rebuilding infrastructure, demining villages, and protecting civilian lives. That IS peacekeeping. Take a look at this: http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/site/nr-sp/view_news_e.asp?id=2596#nse Specifically the sections on: Operational Mentor and Liaison Team, Mentoring the Afghan National Army, Mentoring the Afghan National Police, and Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team. They are attempting to make Afghanistan self-sufficient once again. Of course they're rebuilding after they took out the Taliban, just like the US is doing in Iraq. It's basically the same situation in both places, except America doesn't have allies in Iraq. The point is it is a war, not a peacekeeping operation like you stated.
-Stringer
|
|
Rank: Valedictorian
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/4/2008
Posts: 526
|
America is not trying to rebuild Iraq like the ISAF force is trying to in Afghanistan.
UWO '12 Social Science
|
|
