Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

irateplatypus · 03-06-2005, 12:17 PM

well, to be fair... the canadians to pony up some troops in most efforts but the numbers are nowhere near "quite a few". at least, not in terms of what it takes to execute an entire operation. oftentimes it's a token contingent with a limited mission... you won't see canadians in prolonged combat roles taking the brunt of deployments. they have neither the resources nor the political backing for such things. i'm not trying to disparage canadian soldiers or their contributions... but the fact is that they're limited by a number of factors.

that's why i have to bite my tongue when the canadian government lectures the US on international military ops. they have not spent the resources necessary to keep the bite equal with their bark. it's not necessarily a reflection on the canadian people (and certainly not on their servicemen), just that they (and many other countries) want to come to the UN and NATO tables on equal footing with the US... all-the-while knowing the US will be the one to spend the resources and manpower to accomplish the mission. if the US asserts itself in equal measures with the contributions requested of it... it's depicted as another example of American bullying.

apparently we aren't the world's police... but we are the world's bankroll and beast-of-burden.

this brings us to yet-another problem with sustaining the UN as a military presence. the structure of the organization lends itself to equal representation among security council members, while the actual operation is always funded disproportianately

about the causes... Rwanda is a former colony of belgium, yet belgium is essentially neutered militarily. the U.S. has no colonial history in Africa... why is it being looked upon for either a cause or a solution? there was no leadership from either Brussels or Paris... if they will not act in instances of clear genocide in their (very recently departed) colonies, when can we trust them to act justly? why is their approach to diplomacy so respected in some circles? what victories does their school of thought have to tout?

03-06-2005, 12:17 PM	#27 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	well, to be fair... the canadians to pony up some troops in most efforts but the numbers are nowhere near "quite a few". at least, not in terms of what it takes to execute an entire operation. oftentimes it's a token contingent with a limited mission... you won't see canadians in prolonged combat roles taking the brunt of deployments. they have neither the resources nor the political backing for such things. i'm not trying to disparage canadian soldiers or their contributions... but the fact is that they're limited by a number of factors. that's why i have to bite my tongue when the canadian government lectures the US on international military ops. they have not spent the resources necessary to keep the bite equal with their bark. it's not necessarily a reflection on the canadian people (and certainly not on their servicemen), just that they (and many other countries) want to come to the UN and NATO tables on equal footing with the US... all-the-while knowing the US will be the one to spend the resources and manpower to accomplish the mission. if the US asserts itself in equal measures with the contributions requested of it... it's depicted as another example of American bullying. apparently we aren't the world's police... but we are the world's bankroll and beast-of-burden. this brings us to yet-another problem with sustaining the UN as a military presence. the structure of the organization lends itself to equal representation among security council members, while the actual operation is always funded disproportianately about the causes... Rwanda is a former colony of belgium, yet belgium is essentially neutered militarily. the U.S. has no colonial history in Africa... why is it being looked upon for either a cause or a solution? there was no leadership from either Brussels or Paris... if they will not act in instances of clear genocide in their (very recently departed) colonies, when can we trust them to act justly? why is their approach to diplomacy so respected in some circles? what victories does their school of thought have to tout? __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill