A link to the original thread in the British and Commonwealth Militaries' forum of military.com:

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7421994136/m/2830069581001

The Congo and much of Africa are in great need of help, if only we still had the capability to do so.

quote:

Originally posted by userARMY:
The Congo and much of Africa are in great need of help, if only we still had the capability to do so.

2nd largest country in the world and their combined military manpower is just under 59,000 soldiers! Thats why Canada can't do any other missions when they are stretch for having troops in Afghanistan!
A lot of Canadians don't like to have a large military for that will cut into there very liberal health benefits they get!

By studying Canada's United Nations role in Rwanda, one can hardly blame them for not entering "Genocide Part II".

quote:

Originally posted by SSGDuke53:

quote:

Originally posted by userARMY:
The Congo and much of Africa are in great need of help, if only we still had the capability to do so.

2nd largest country in the world and their combined military manpower is just under 59,000 soldiers! Thats why Canada can't do any other missions when they are stretch for having troops in Afghanistan!
A lot of Canadians don't like to have a large military for that will cut into there very liberal health benefits they get!

Second largest in area, it's the 35 million of us that are the problem. Mind you, if every healthy male was in the Army (Swiss Style) we wouldn't need a public health system - we could have a VA instead. That would bring us up to a par, say, with India - the second largest on earth.

We wouldn't want the cost to cut into keeping GM Canada afloat, or the subsidized oil we sell you. The cost for the Canadian mission to assist the Afghans will soon reach the same level as the cost of all our peacekeeping missions since WW2.

Just imagine the cost to the world of having a Canadian version of the Wehrmacht standing watch for freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:
By studying Canada's United Nations role in Rwanda, one can hardly blame them for not entering "Genocide Part II".

As I read it the problem isn't so much a 'genocide' as a situation that's rife with corruption - on all sides, including the UN 'peacekeepers'.

The UN forces which have been deployed in the Congo for the past three years have been accused of widespread abuses against civilians, particularly women. Some have been withdrawn due to financial improprieties and sales of UN equipment and supplies.

There are some 'first world' UN forces (eg Belgian and French) that are 'undeployable' due to previous performances and others like Canada and the US are 'busy' .

I don't blame Canada for refusing... being involved with the UN sets yourself up for being sucked into a corrupt system/operation.
There needs to be a house cleaning at the UN upper echelons and start anew. It is like all political elements... too much power = corruption.

quote:

Originally posted by userARMY:
The Congo and much of Africa are in great need of help, if only we still had the capability to do so.

It's not our responsibility is it?

Too bad France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan won't help out a bit. I understand the EU has a larger GNP than the United States; why isn't the EU carrying some of the responsibility for helping the poor around the world?

I thought Africa was the domain of the French Foreign Legion. Are they all tied up with Chad?

quote:

Too bad France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan won't help out a bit. I understand the EU has a larger GNP than the United States; why isn't the EU carrying some of the responsibility for helping the poor around the world?

Most of these countries already have many ongoing deployments and missions around the world.
Keep also in mind that the EU is one of the largest donors of foreign aid.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:
By studying Canada's United Nations role in Rwanda, one can hardly blame them for not entering "Genocide Part II".

As I read it the problem isn't so much a 'genocide' as a situation that's rife with corruption - on all sides, including the UN 'peacekeepers'.

The UN forces which have been deployed in the Congo for the past three years have been accused of widespread abuses against civilians, particularly women. Some have been withdrawn due to financial improprieties and sales of UN equipment and supplies.

There are some 'first world' UN forces (eg Belgian and French) that are 'undeployable' due to previous performances and others like Canada and the US are 'busy' .

Pop
You qualify for a position in our State Department vintage 1994 when they too took months to decide "What does the word genocide mean". Secretary Christopher would not allow the United Nations send additional aid or "surge" of troops to Rwanda helping Canadians keeping the peace. The UN actually reduced his troop numbers and leaving him with few options. (Lt. General Romeo Dallaire) If I remember correctly his own countrymen didn't treat him much better on his return home.

http://www.genocideintervention.net/educate/crisis/demo...ic_republic_of_congo

Canadians are Canadians and not American thinking by any stretch. Fun country to visit and to spend lots of time in, great beer, gorgeous women, worldly attitudes.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Second largest in area, it's the 35 million of us that are the problem. Mind you, if every healthy male was in the Army (Swiss Style) we wouldn't need a public health system - we could have a VA instead. That would bring us up to a par, say, with India - the second largest on earth.

Yeah, when I saw the comment about "2nd largest country in the world", I was ready to jump on it, and then I saw that you already had. The estimate I saw was 33.2 million, not 35, but close enough.

Canada has about 1/10th of the population of the United States, and is spread out over an enormous land mass. It's a little bit harder to centralize a military force. Additionally, when you don't get into as many arguments with people, you don't need quite as much military force. Read that comment however you wish, but it's just a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Second largest in area, it's the 35 million of us that are the problem. Mind you, if every healthy male was in the Army (Swiss Style) we wouldn't need a public health system - we could have a VA instead. That would bring us up to a par, say, with India - the second largest on earth.

We wouldn't want the cost to cut into keeping GM Canada afloat, or the subsidized oil we sell you. The cost for the Canadian mission to assist the Afghans will soon reach the same level as the cost of all our peacekeeping missions since WW2.

Just imagine the cost to the world of having a Canadian version of the Wehrmacht standing watch for freedom.

WTF????????

If you're gonna MOCK Canada as I think you did in the above post, you might as well do it in the British and Commonwealth forums, not here.

Or better yet, try to mock Canada on the website forum www.army.ca and see how long before you're banned!!!!

Canadian version of the Wehrmacht? That's quite an insult. Her Majesty's Canadian Forces (And yes Canada is still a Commonwealth country) don't fight to conquer other countries as you implied with that statement. SHEESH!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:

quote:

Originally posted by rayevinsonsr:
By studying Canada's United Nations role in Rwanda, one can hardly blame them for not entering "Genocide Part II".

As I read it the problem isn't so much a 'genocide' as a situation that's rife with corruption - on all sides, including the UN 'peacekeepers'.

The UN forces which have been deployed in the Congo for the past three years have been accused of widespread abuses against civilians, particularly women. Some have been withdrawn due to financial improprieties and sales of UN equipment and supplies.

There are some 'first world' UN forces (eg Belgian and French) that are 'undeployable' due to previous performances and others like Canada and the US are 'busy' .

Pops, shut up and ante up! Your turn in the barrel or are you afraid that some American poster will take you to task, just like you TRY to do with America all the time...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

quote:

Originally posted by Lucky_Lieutenant:

quote:

Originally posted by userARMY:
The Congo and much of Africa are in great need of help, if only we still had the capability to do so.

It's not our responsibility is it?

Too bad France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan won't help out a bit. I understand the EU has a larger GNP than the United States; why isn't the EU carrying some of the responsibility for helping the poor around the world?

France is busy with piecemeal deployments around Africa (and elsewhere like Lebanon) and in any case they've already had a crack at Congo and given up. The Belgians certainly don't want to get involved for obvious reasons and the Germans also have bad form in Africa (and are restricted by their constitution and conscript Army anyway). Britain, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czechs et al are either deployed in or recovering from Iraq or Afghanistan. Spain and Italy are still sulking in their collective tents after the Neo-Cons couldn't keep their traps shut (although IIRC one or both is active in Lebanon). No idea what the Greeks are doing, engaging in willy-waving contests with the Turks and the ("not")-Macedonians if I know them.


And anyway, who the bloody hell wants to get involved in the Congo, it's a complete nightmare which everyone who's tried to solve has failed.

quote:

Pops, shut up and ante up! Your turn in the barrel or are you afraid that some American poster will take you to task, just like you TRY to do with America all the time...
Respectfully, SUNLINER81

neener neener
LOL

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:

France is busy with piecemeal deployments around Africa (and elsewhere like Lebanon) and in any case they've already had a crack at Congo and given up. The Belgians certainly don't want to get involved for obvious reasons and the Germans also have bad form in Africa (and are restricted by their constitution and conscript Army anyway). Britain, the Netherlands, Poland, the Czechs et al are either deployed in or recovering from Iraq or Afghanistan. Spain and Italy are still sulking in their collective tents after the Neo-Cons couldn't keep their traps shut (although IIRC one or both is active in Lebanon). No idea what the Greeks are doing, engaging in willy-waving contests with the Turks and the ("not")-Macedonians if I know them.


And anyway, who the bloody hell wants to get involved in the Congo, it's a complete nightmare which everyone who's tried to solve has failed.

You brought up a good point/something to think about...It is amazing how few some member nations of NATO contribute to the effort in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Both Greece and Turkey have been in NATO for many years, yet brand new members have put forth MANY more soldiers/military personnel in the GWOT.

After reading your post above I hit the google button and found two links with the names/flags/personnel count and dates that they were/are involved. Even a couple of "Banana Republics" and "Spice Islands" sent soldiers.

{ Apparently "neutral" Switzerland sent some help to A-stan.,,,yet others do nothing...or next to nothing---BUT they have F-16s and other modern weapons. I guess they keep them for Parade Duty at home...??}

As to the Congo (and other places on that continent) --- Let the African countries who live in the "neighborhood" provide the "Blue Helmet" types.

I self-edited what I REALLY want to say about that mess... but it has something to do with a history lesson about what happens in almost every country where the European Colonial governments taught/educated/trained the locals in Parliamentary/Constitutional/Vote-by-ballot type governmental systems and laws/legal/court systems...within a few years of the European-Colonials withdrawing...you get problems, then chaos. Theennnn, the U.N. sticks their nose into the situation(s) and the problems get worse....and asks the U.S.,the U.K. and Canada to help out---kinda like when the phonograph needle got stuck in the grove on the vinyl...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by Enssantor:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Second largest in area, it's the 35 million of us that are the problem. Mind you, if every healthy male was in the Army (Swiss Style) we wouldn't need a public health system - we could have a VA instead. That would bring us up to a par, say, with India - the second largest on earth.

We wouldn't want the cost to cut into keeping GM Canada afloat, or the subsidized oil we sell you. The cost for the Canadian mission to assist the Afghans will soon reach the same level as the cost of all our peacekeeping missions since WW2.

Just imagine the cost to the world of having a Canadian version of the Wehrmacht standing watch for freedom.

WTF????????

If you're gonna MOCK Canada as I think you did in the above post, you might as well do it in the British and Commonwealth forums, not here.

Or better yet, try to mock Canada on the website forum www.army.ca and see how long before you're banned!!!!

Canadian version of the Wehrmacht? That's quite an insult. Her Majesty's Canadian Forces (And yes Canada is still a Commonwealth country) don't fight to conquer other countries as you implied with that statement. SHEESH!!!!

You need to take a chill pill. Pops is Canadian, so he can mock HIS country all he wants.

quote:

Originally posted by NSNN:

quote:

Originally posted by Enssantor:

quote:

Originally posted by popsiq:
Second largest in area, it's the 35 million of us that are the problem. Mind you, if every healthy male was in the Army (Swiss Style) we wouldn't need a public health system - we could have a VA instead. That would bring us up to a par, say, with India - the second largest on earth.

We wouldn't want the cost to cut into keeping GM Canada afloat, or the subsidized oil we sell you. The cost for the Canadian mission to assist the Afghans will soon reach the same level as the cost of all our peacekeeping missions since WW2.

Just imagine the cost to the world of having a Canadian version of the Wehrmacht standing watch for freedom.

WTF????????

If you're gonna MOCK Canada as I think you did in the above post, you might as well do it in the British and Commonwealth forums, not here.

Or better yet, try to mock Canada on the website forum www.army.ca and see how long before you're banned!!!!

Canadian version of the Wehrmacht? That's quite an insult. Her Majesty's Canadian Forces (And yes Canada is still a Commonwealth country) don't fight to conquer other countries as you implied with that statement. SHEESH!!!!

You need to take a chill pill. Pops is Canadian, so he can mock HIS country all he wants.

Enssantor is Canadian also(immigrant), so it's one Canadian squaring away another.
Seemingly, much needed.