babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » After 32 years, Canadians pulling out of Golan Heights

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: After 32 years, Canadians pulling out of Golan Heights
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 26 March 2006 12:12 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Troops needed for Afghanistan quagmire

quote:
An era came to an end yesterday as the Canadian military formally gave up its 32-year-old peacekeeping mission on the Golan Heights and pretty much ended its longstanding connection with UN peace forces.

Op Danaca, Canada's 190-member commitment to the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force on the Syria-Israel border, was Canada's last contribution of any size to traditional peacekeeping.

The Canadian Forces said it needs the skilled soldiers from the operation for other important jobs, including Afghanistan.

Two token soldiers will be left with the force by summer and Canada's total military contribution to UN peacekeeping -- which 15 years ago involved up to 4,000 troops -- will be reduced to about 60 soldiers in a half-dozen missions. The largest Canadian contribution will be 32 people in Sudan.

In contrast, Bangladesh has about 9,700 troops on UN missions and Hungary contributes about 8,600. In all, there are about 68,000 soldiers on UN operations worldwide.

In Canada's case, there now will be more policemen than soldiers serving with the UN.

"With the end of this mission, you'll be able to fit all of Canada's UN peacekeepers on a school bus," said Steven Staples of the Polaris Institute.

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 12:18 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Troops needed for Afghanistan quagmire


We shouldn't hear any parliamentary protest about this noble move. Re-deploying troops from Golan to Kandahar is consistent with item #2 of the NDP's "Peace and Security" platform:

quote:
Jack Layton and the NDP will [...]

Reorient Canada’s defence procurement to support the priorities of peacekeeping, peacemaking, humanitarian and environmental support operations.


[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 March 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here we go. Unionist, what's the Bloc's policy on Afghanistan ? Haiti?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 March 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Here we go. Unionist, what's the Bloc's policy on Afghanistan ? Haiti?

Re-read my post, Fidel. Please. I said there would be "no parliamentary protest". That is because four parties (Cons, Libs, NDP, BQ) are all taking cowardly hypocritical pro-U.S. anti-people anti-peace stances on Afghanistan.

The reason I underline the NDP's position is that they are expected to be a little bit closer to the progressive forces than the other parties. We expose these things to incite, encourage, shame NDP militants into correcting their party's policy, if they can.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 March 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But I thought it was clear that the NDP was for NATO and UN ?. Regardless of what you and I think about our troops being in Afghanistan, I think the majority of Canadian's support Canada's role as peace keepers. Yes, we know it's FUBAR over there, but regular Canadian's actually tend to hand on to every word they're given by Ottawa and newspaper journalists.

But the NDP is calling for debate on our roles in both Afghanistan and Haiti. I agree with you, unionist. We shouldn't be there, and I think that a debate with everyone in Ottawa quoted in newspapers should help people understand that we shouldn't be there. I doubt the NDP will be saying things like "blowback" or attacking the imperialist agenda like we do here, and that's too bad, because I think most Canadian's don't have time or inclination to understand the situation over there. What do you think?. Do you think it's possible that propping up a despot may be a step above where they're at now in paving the way for future democracy ?. ie. the lesser of two evils, because these are options the U.S. ultimately provides to third world nations one way or another. I don't know, but we can bet that the U.S. won't be letting go easily. I really don't know.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pogo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2999

posted 26 March 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for Pogo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Unionist that we should be bringing up 'peacemaking' as many times as possible until the NDP changes it. Peacemaking and imperialism can easily be two sides of the same coin.
From: Richmond BC | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca