What’s your opinion about the war in Mali?

As you may have read in the news and on Ceasefire.ca, the Harper government is moving toward more direct military involvement in the former French colony of Mali in western Africa.

A Canadian military aircraft is transporting French (and probably in the near future African) troops and weapons into Mali, and our soldiers are training African troops in neighbouring countries.

What is your opinion about events in Mali and Harper’s response? Leave your comment below.

Update: Results of our online poll of Ceasefire.ca supporters:

Results from our online survey of Ceasefire.ca supporters (1516 responses)

Photo credit: DND

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

333 Responses to “What’s your opinion about the war in Mali?”

  1. margaret beresfordFebruary 24, 2013 at 6:43 pm #

    One thing no one has mentioned that I find very troubling is the assertion that our current Canadian government has set up 5 small military bases in various countries. As well our government is supposed to be or has purchased Drones. Now what realm of reality would cause our government to substitute Drones for soldiers if they were not getting involved militarily?? Far too many of these type of contrary actions just keep happening—when do Canadian taxpayers start being treated with respect? When does our government start being honest with us? When do they stop treated us as people they can’t trust and therefore the last to know? Almost makes one feel they are afraid of the true opinions of Canadians and that is the reason for so much secrecy on trade agreements and just about every other policy they want, but know we don’t.

  2. margaret beresfordFebruary 24, 2013 at 6:09 pm #

    The only crisis in Africa are the lengths taken to secure and control all the resources of Africa. If the two global economic powers would stop this zero sum race there might be hope. One side militarizing Africa with, at last count 35 military bases and a never ending focus on arms sales to further conflicts. The other side playing economic hard ball thru dependence via development. Corporations using their governmental front men are treating Africa like an open auction leaving no room for the indigenous people. So, is anyone surprised that even Aljazeera’s guests on Empire felt hesitant staying on subject when talking about Mali and why the French etc, had trouble explaining their right to determine how this conflict would be dealt with and they alone would decide when their “boots on the ground would leave”, or not.

  3. Dale DewarFebruary 6, 2013 at 11:52 am #

    We were one of the “other” votes on this survey. We believe that humanitarian services should be supplied to the victims of the war but we also believe that Canada should be heavily involved in understanding the roots of the war, learning how to apply interventions and taking steps to mitigate the spread of arms and violence throughout the region.

    Since our Special Forces Unit is already there “protecting Canadian interests”, it is also a bit after the fact to ask what we should be doing.

  4. annaFebruary 6, 2013 at 7:40 am #

    ..as usual,upgrading, training the mali army, giving them more weapons, will have a backlash in the near future…

    I predict a terrible new war in the coming future, that will spread like wildfire thru the whole of central Africa, from Mali to Sudan, all the way to Botswana, and not centralized wars, here and there. no. A big organized war. Lead by a insane murderous thug, worse than Pol Pot, Stalin or Hitler, who will have amassed a great army.
    It will be known as the great african war.
    ..there, I did it. I gave my prediction. Hope it doesnt come true, but unfortunately, it looks like it will.

  5. giovanniFebruary 5, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

    I WILL POST THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL:THERE WILL BE NO PEACE ON EARTH UNTIL THE PRINCE OF PEACE,JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, SETS HIS THRONE IN JERUSALEM.CANADA,FRANCE AND OTHER MORALLY DECADENT EUROPEAN COUNTRIES SENDING TROOPS TO LOOK AFTER THE INTERESTS OF SOME BLOODSUCKING MINING COMPANY IT IS AN OLD STORY.LET’S GO AND PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE MALIANS INSTEAD OF BOMBING THEM.

  6. CindyFebruary 3, 2013 at 12:02 am #

    Al Queda….an evil arm of the evil USA government.

  7. IOFebruary 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

    This is corp/gov protecting the interests of resource extraction from other countries. Canada has the worst mining record of abuses in the world. CIDA has been usurped by this shadow corp/gov. Democracy is in its death throes at this stage worldwide. We need to stop buying into the propaganda that this serves anyone except a few who are manipulating this “casino empire” to the exclusion of the majority. People are allowing this to happen without taking any steps to curb this epidemic virus. Northamerican “blackhole” is lost at sea.

    • margaret beresfordFebruary 24, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

      Well written, could not agree more. Please keep writing your views as far too many people believe mass media is still the source for information and analysis. One point to consider, Canada may have the worst mining record, but no one can beat the destructive spread of oil in Nigeria. Take care.

  8. Randy HenningFebruary 1, 2013 at 9:59 am #

    There is no best answer to this. Doing anything may simply cause more suffering for the people and further inflame the Islamic community. Doing nothing may allow extremists to inflict more suffering on the Mali people. And what are our own motives? Are they altruistic or just economic? If altruistic, then what about Bahrain and Syria and Saudi Arabia? What about Mali’s current military despots? Will we also oppose go to war with them? Or do we only oppose those who threaten international corporations and the plutocratic governments who do their bidding? Is that what it is about after all?

  9. LiseJanuary 31, 2013 at 11:40 pm #

    La guerre tue des gens, des 2 cotés. La guerre a un effet négatif sur tous ceux qui la côtoient. Echange, discussion, éducation dans ce pays ou les enfants sont si peu scolarisés. Regardez ce que fait la Fondation Gérin Lajoie pour aider le pays. Avec un travail pour le peuple, il y a surement des chances de trouver des solutions humanitaires

  10. Miroslav KolarJanuary 31, 2013 at 10:13 pm #

    I am absolutely against any foreign military intervention in Mali. It’s a long internal conflict. Maybe some of those rebels have good reasons to be angry, to require some sort of local rule/autonomy. Outsiders in Mali (and everywhere else) should always only try to help resolve conflicts using peaceful means. There has apparently been no fighting in Mali for some time, and there have been reports in recent days of the government soldiers killing in revenge civilians when returning to the North with the French.
    Humanitarian aid maybe – but care should be taken care it really gets to the civilians in need, not to any of the fighting sides. Maybe we should wait with any help till more information is available.

  11. CatherineJanuary 31, 2013 at 11:37 am #

    Is once again the spectre of Al Qaeda used to justify a military intervention whose real goal is to protect Canadian mining interests in Mali?

    This intervention seems, like so many others, only aimed at protecting multinational interests.

    For the time being, Canada should limit its role to humanitarian aid.

  12. benjaminJanuary 30, 2013 at 10:32 pm #

    currently I believe our main choices should be aid or nothing, likely leaning towards nothing, until we understand more.
    I believe that, like any hot topic in the news, we are likely focusing on a “crisis” and waiting for “Canada” to act so that we can feel assured of our governments’ decision making skills. There are many crises, of many kinds, both in Canada, and around the world, with urgent urgent needs.
    Therefore, there are key questions, like with any conflict, that we need to understand, as citizens, before supporting any decision especially regarding killing and use of military force
    What options have our government or our military pursued?
    Why are we interested? (clear “geopolitical” importance from the gold mining)
    Who are we aiding, by sending aid?
    who are the “rebels” and what is their cause? (we supported the ‘no fly zone’ in libya to aid the “rebels” without any true understanding of their ties to various regimes, assuming they were a unified civilizan resistance against evil)
    why are the rebels fighting?
    what caused the mali military to overthrow its own government?
    what economic options are available?
    diplomatic?
    military aided – non violent?
    military aided – policing to maintain human rights?
    do we know anything about any of the groups involved other than blanket dehumanized terms such as rebels and “aligned with al Qaeda”
    what was the UN’s decision making process for authorizing force?
    what do we aid in mali with our $130M per year?
    has its recent large increase been due to humanitarian aid or protection of economic interests?
    Who receives the money?
    what is the accountability and transparency of the aid?
    Regarding our “interests” as canadians: how do the gold companies benefit individuals and our quality of life in canada? who owns the companies? are they government? corporate? canadian owned? subsidiary?
    Do the canadian companies aid in canadian interests as a whole?
    what could our aid, and our current $130M per year buy us in canada to raise our quality of life?
    what could it buy mali?
    what will the gross cost of current military operations be?
    what would gross cost of extended combat ops be?
    what do we stand to gain as individual canadian citizens?
    what does our government stand to gain?

    this isn’t even close to an exhaustive list, but all of the answers to these questions, and how much our government knows about them, and how much we’ve been informed about them affects the world, and affects us all as canadian citizens, and canada as a global force for change.

    We as citizens have personal responsibility to understand the climate of the world and voice our desire for change and action in the most needed places, for example here at home first.

  13. Jacob RemepelJanuary 30, 2013 at 7:16 pm #

    On the face of it, with the information provided by friend and foe, the about civilized culture and political society, a reasonably free MALI,their people certainly need help to restore home rule — the Taliban and al Queda invaders are an awful burden. However, they are there because the US regime, NATO, and Canada have been spreading mayhem everywhere and are the underlying cause of all the current and recent disruption in Africa and elsewhere, all to enable greater exploitation of resources in African , Middle East and Far East lands.

    By all means, let Canada help restore the well-being of people in MALI without adding greater mayhem,but Canada’s real contribution to peace and well-being everywhere is to separate from US and NATO imperialist aggressive wars. Bring home every soldier, airman and sailor. Join with the best UN countries to initiate economic and political changes to arrest climate warming and recover environmental sustainability.

    I do not under-estimate the difficulty, but I do not want to underestimate the massive, dangerous disruption of the environment, the climate, and social stability if we continue the imperialist excessive exploitation of small nations and the entire planet. To reverse the process and restore sustainable economies must be Canada’s and world priorities. .

    That must be every nation’s priority.
    Jacob Rempel, Vancouver.

  14. Ian WalkerJanuary 30, 2013 at 5:36 pm #

    I visited Mali shortly after independence, in 1968, and can speak somewhat from direct experience of these beautiful people.
    The Economist was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying ‘We cannot leave Mali alone.’ Hmmph. I never agree with The Economist, and not this time either.
    When France granted independence to French West Africa, two options were made available: 1) neo-colonialism, where the French continued to own and control the economy, but the locals were allowed to hold public office (e.g. Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal, Niger) 2) total freedom, where the French took everything home, even unscrewed the pencil sharpeners, and left the locals to run things themselves (only Guinea and Mali chose this).
    When we arrived in Mali in June 1968, of a population of 4.5 million there were exactly 4 non-Africans in the country, including 2 CUSO volunteers.
    Mali was totally left alone. The Malians insisted that any aid took the form of investment that included full training for a Malian staff, with the trainers to return home in a limited time. Most of their aid then came from China, some from Egypt and Cuba; none from the West.
    The determination to ‘not leave Mali alone’ is revanchist and backward, and definitely not good for Mali.
    Incidentally, Malians are some of the best musicians anywhere. Their first real national investment was in four radio stations, so they could listen to their own music.
    The people are charming, friendly, outgoing. How I would love to return.

  15. Jennifer WadeJanuary 29, 2013 at 12:09 am #

    In spite of what Robert Fisk has said about the war in Mali, the BBC did a half hour program on Mali last week and indicated the situation is very serious in such countries. It appears that wherever the infrastructure is weak, Islamic extremists begin to operate and one cannot help but wonder if traps are not purposely being set in desperate lands to weaken the resources of the West. On the other hand, can one possibly stand by and watch the killing of civilians as the West has done in Syria where over 60,000 have been killed and no action has been taken? Future generations will wonder how that could have happened.

    For those who say let the Africans sort out their own conflicts, well the war that has gone on in the Congo for almost 25 years has seen the killing of almost five million people. How long does one watch slaughter and mayhem and the destruction of all structures before acting to try to stop the fearful terror experienced by so many in so much of Africa on a daily basis?

    • TDJanuary 29, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

      While what you say generally is true, it is for the same reason I agree more with Patricia S., Ron G. and Roland R. — it’s my opinion that any assistance from Canada needs to be restricted to “support” & humanitarian aid. — Many tricks can be used to deplete our defenses, already at risk. – All of these issues have histories of which most of us are just barely aware.

    • ChesterJanuary 30, 2013 at 2:19 pm #

      As is often the case the situation in Mali is more complex than our esteemed news media let us know. It is true that al Qaeda and other extreme islamist elements are involved in Mali just as they are in Syria and have been involved in Egypt, Iraq and Libya. Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other like-minded movements have piggy-backed legitimate actions by repressed peoples in all of these countries, including Mali. In Mali it is the Tuareg who are fighting legitimately for their rights. Like the Kurds they are a nation without a country and their traditional livelihood is being systematically destroyed by current governments in the Sahara, the Maghreb and the Sahel. They are being left in a position of poverty. But we cannot allow extreme muslimist movements growing out of wahabbi and salafa convictions to take over the entirety of North Africa, because these run contrary to our own traditions and pose a threat our way of life. I do not endorse a military role for Canada aapart from some logistic support and strongly urge the Canadian and other governments to provide aid in a manner and to a degree that will have a strong positive impact on poverty stricken areas of the globe and that will address the daily needs of their populations.

  16. Roland RiouxJanuary 28, 2013 at 10:30 pm #

    Canada should not get involved in Mali at any time. France got involved not to help Malians, but to protect their own interest. Let France use its own forces, (Foreign Legion). Who are well prepared and experienced in African wars.

    Canada would do well to look after its own people.

    The billions spent in Afghanistan, Libya, and now Mali would go a long way to help our Native People, hospitals, education, etc.

    • CatherineJanuary 31, 2013 at 11:46 am #

      You are totally right! Charity begins at home.

  17. Steven StaplesJanuary 28, 2013 at 3:29 pm #

    I just want to thank everyone for the amazing comments. I have updated the chart on this post displaying the responses from our email survey of Ceasefire.ca supporters. – Steve

    • Ron GreeningJanuary 28, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

      Canada needs to invest adequately in foreign affairs, especially in unstable, impoverished regions, enough that our government can more often join with constructive governmental and non-governmental forces to head-off crisis or shape outcomes, and less often toss holy-hot-potatoes with other rich worried nations.

      I would be willing to support any skilful role for Canada, from direct military action, through humanitarian aid, to complete hands-off, if only I had confidence that:

      • Canada had built sufficient local intelligence and had enough history of engagement to act with skill, awareness and local credibility.
      • Canada had built a history of diligence (credibly discrete of profit motive) to support human rights, diminish hunger and violence and to promote effective governance responsive to fundamental needs of all stakeholders.
      • The Canadian government was being frank with Canadians as to probable costs, risks, objectives and expectations of either intervention or of leaving people to their fate.
      • The Canadian government was effectively honour-bound to be open to Canadians with policy mistakes as a political sacrifice to democracy properly commensurate with the death and suffering of all the people entangled in war events.
      • Canada supported its warriors materially, socially and psychologically, and it effectively monitored the actions of its armed forces for congruence with enduring values of compassion and justice.

      I do not support unconsidered pacifism. Thugs exist and are much best to be disempowered.

      Regards,
      Ron

      • S. FarrowJanuary 28, 2013 at 11:13 pm #

        Thank you, Ron…
        I was struggling to find words, and you have articulated exactly my thoughts and feelings. The people involved in this conflict (ie Al Quaeda) are as far as we can see, thugs, and do need to be disempowered. But I share your sceptisism as to the Canadian government’s information sharing and motives. Thanks for adding to the discussion.

      • TDJanuary 29, 2013 at 9:37 pm #

        Due to general agreement with the above, at this time Canada should restrict assistance only to “support” & humanitarian aid.

  18. Patricia StrungJanuary 28, 2013 at 2:20 pm #

    this is not our war to fight. It is an internal matter for Mali. Our involvement in this will lead to dire consequences for us here in Canada. In the home grown variety. Leave Canada out of this war.

  19. Gilles FecteauJanuary 28, 2013 at 8:48 am #

    In this case, I believe military intervention is required. You have religious extremist using arms stolen from Libya and forcing their view on civilians.

  20. robertJanuary 28, 2013 at 8:28 am #

    With so much government smokescreened secret deals, corruption, lies, deciet, election fraud, murder on ethnic groups not only in canada, envirnomental destruction etc. we can hardly believe anything that is said as a justification for joining in on another war murdering innnocent people. we are not stupid it is about time to put the corrupt elite behind bars to stop them destroying this planet, you and me.
    murder for humanitarian reasons? it is time the the truth is revieled.
    let us remember lybia:
    http://youtu.be/2zDY3jvcp44

  21. David RamsayJanuary 28, 2013 at 3:49 am #

    If this is a “mission” of the Security Council, does this represent the views the General Assembly? If Canada justifies its involvement under the provisions of Responsibilty to Protect, why did our government not take action after the military coup replaced the democratically elected government and human rights organizations reported the abuse civilians were experiencing? What is the criteria the Canadian government is using to determine whether this is a civil war and which side we should support? What have been the political donations to the Conservative party from the Canadian mining companies involved in Mali? Is invoking the threat of Al Queda involvement serve the same purpose as the “red scare” did……fanning the flames of fear rather than seeking diplomatic solutions? And when will we begin to address the conditions that lead people to seek conflict to resolve them?

    • TDJanuary 29, 2013 at 9:35 pm #

      This is the result of a long history that will not be resolved through Canadian forces involvement; our forces are needed for defense here. —
      Assistance should be restricted to “support & aid” only.

  22. robert korolJanuary 27, 2013 at 8:07 pm #

    Has our governemnt forgotten that we contributed 20% of the 10,000 air stikes on Libya, including its vital infrastructure to support rebels whose centre of opposition to the Gadaffi regime was Benghazi? Recall that it was the hub of opposition to the regime that asked for help from NATO to oust that “dictator” who provided free health care and education to the end of a first degree at university! And, may I add, who provided his people living in the coastal cities of his country the best quality water via an aquaduct system from the south Sahara aquifers in Libya? The result of our bombings being:
    1) we helped to push that country into 3rd World status ($400 billion neede to repair the damges done from the total air strikes – according to a UN report),
    2) untold deaths and injuries to civilians of that country and the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi (“thank you very much for your earlier aid of weapons and air strikes!”),
    3) those rebels, many of whom were al Qaeta operatives, are now involved in Mali.

    Bottom line – Sometimes al Qaeta are the “bad guys” (9/11 comes to mind), and other times, (Libya and Syria) they seemingly are “good guys”. Are they now suddenly “bad guys” again?

    Since we do not know who to support in Africa and the Middle East, our government should simply provide humanitarian aid. Let us only be involved militarily when our own country is threatened by outside forces.

    Bob

    • Murray LumleyJanuary 29, 2013 at 12:17 pm #

      This is the best analysis I’ve seen here.

  23. Hector LeisersonJanuary 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm #

    Canada should not get involved in the present conflict in Mali. According to
    Robert Fisk, who has the best credentials for his knowledge of that area, this
    is an internal civil war, which is going on for at least 30 years. There is
    no justification for the West to be involved in military activities, including the loan of transport of military equipment and soldiers. Canada
    should return to be a peaceful country. and not go the militaristic dirfection that Ottawa and the federal govt. wants. This is just inmoral.
    The labelling of one of the factions as islamists, Al-Qaeda, etc. sounds like
    propaganda.
    As for the real business reasons of Canada’s interest in Mali, wer should
    know that Mali is the 3rd. largest producer of gold in the world, and a number
    of Canadian gold mining companies are operating there. Some of them, according to google: 1. Rodex Resources Inc (TSX:RBX), now holder of titles for 9 exploration permits; 2.Avion Gold Corp: holds 80% of the Tabakoto and Segal gold projects in Mali; 3. Frontline Gold Corp; 4.Norquest LTD; 5.Tamico SA, subsidiary iof Newson Canada; 6.reat Quest – Candian exploring for Phosphat abd Gold; 7.Menex Gold.Inc; 8.IAM Gold Corp;8.African Gold Group.Inc., Candian Co. holding 12 gold concessions. REFERENCE at gogle:
    “Canadian gold mining companies operating in Mali”. HISTORY: after getting independence from France in 1960, the Republic of Mali created a good Constitution, and choose a quasi-socialist economic structure. In 1968 a military coup took power (the current government is military), got rid of the constitution, etc (Encycl.Britannica 1982). Clearly France is supporting this military regime, ideal of the business of French companies… but Canada should be out of this war. Clearly Mali did not attack Canada, but neither Irak nbor Afghanistan attacked the US. When a war is started, nobody can predict the consequences… but the arms industry is very happy all the time!

  24. Terry RobertJanuary 27, 2013 at 10:42 am #

    I am torn at the moment on this issue. It seems we might be entering an extended period, 25, 50 years of more of conflict with extreme religious groups.

    I tend towards preferring a world response through the U N to remove abusive regimes and to assist countries under attack on the model of peace keeping but with a more aggressive approach.

    I think it will become necessary at some point to avoid another Rywanda or Afghanistan or Mali. The World Court as judgement is an excellent beginning after the the dust is settled, but the world should not stand by in the face of governments’ torturing, otherwise abusing and killing their citizens.

    How we do it is the big question. We don’t want to impose values except where the the values elsewhere are obviously wrong. Who determines this, how are the decisions made to intervene will be a long process. Even how do we develop the will to do this will take time.

  25. Robyn PetersonJanuary 27, 2013 at 9:14 am #

    Canada is still working out her role militarily in the world. This process is certainly confusing. Still, Canada does have an honourable military past, and the majority of Canadians do support our trying to make a difference in the world. The “peacekeeping” role is seen as being particularly valued. The French-led operation in Mali has the sanction of the United Nations. If Canada can play a modest supportive role in that operation we should certainly do so. There are times when savage force and inhuman impositions on large numbers of people need to be confronted. That said, we must remain alert to the exact configuration of the existing Mali government. If it can demonstrate its legitimacy through fair elections, all well and good. If it becomes despotic and corrupt, then we should review our role. If our role is modest to begin with, and essentially involves air logistics, then we can withdraw our support, if we need to, with minimal entanglements.

  26. rob clementJanuary 27, 2013 at 5:24 am #

    Unlike the vast majority of Canadians i have visited Mali and all the centres where there has recently been fighting. To see this once peaceful backwater ripped apart by needless fighting is a sad state of affairs. That the weapons being used in Mali now are part of improperly secured caches of weapons left over from the Libya uprising speaks to a lack of proper post conflict weapons control.
    The Government needs to come clean as to what it’s strategic, economic and military goals are so Canadians can make an informed decision as to what we are doing and why.
    Canada should, ideally, return to it’s universally revered role as Peace Keeper and should not be seen by either side as an aggressor. This will lend it credibility in any post-conflict nation rebuilding efforts.

  27. Hussan ZiaJanuary 27, 2013 at 1:39 am #

    The vast majority of Canadians would not even know where Mali is — a very poor mismanaged African nation. It has no capability to threaten Canada or any other country in the world except itself. Why in the world should Canada wish to get involved in its affairs militarily defies logic and reason.

    What the French are doing is a repeat of nineteenth century colonialism. There is no excuse for Canada to become a participant in this misadventure and make enemies where none need exist. Have we learnt nothing from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya? Chicken always come home to roost.

  28. DarleneJanuary 27, 2013 at 12:30 am #

    ACTION REQUIRED NOW!!!! I believe that we as Canadians must provide military support (not troops on the ground at this time)to Mali and the French. I also cannot stress how important it is that we continue to provide human aid to Mali citizens who are becoming displaced. Children are always at the greatest risk at times like this…..I have a child/family that I support in Mali and know first hand that children and families are not only dieing but if they are successful in fleeing their homes, are starving and children are being misplaced from their families…..Aid requirements are growing rapidly. We must do our part to support this country – the surge of teorrists into this country is no different than Afghanistan and if allowed to take hold will not only have a huge impact on Mali,and Canadian interests, but also neighboring countries in Africa…..the time to act is now before this conflict escalates any further. I believe that Canada can, and should, provide military support without putting troops on the ground; however, the Harper government definitely needs to have a long term strategy that must be completely revealed to Canadians from the onset – Canadians will not buy in to more military spending without knowing the full plan. ** My prayers are with the people of Mali.**

  29. DavidJanuary 26, 2013 at 11:53 pm #

    Yet another example in the all too familiar story of industrially developed nations using the capitalist system of corporate greed to pillage the resources of ‘underdeveloped’ nations to feed their insatiable greed for profit and control. Interesting to watch which nation supports which side in these conflicts which often turn into wars; and remember, as Phil Ochs sang so many years ago now…..The Economy Needs A War. What a sick and dysfunctional time in history we are living in…..governments like the Harper regime are definitely not for the electorate of their respective countries. Absolutely no long term plan for cleaning up the environment; just profit taking until it’s all gone. What a sad world this has become indeed.

  30. MarilynJanuary 26, 2013 at 10:02 pm #

    Our involvement in Mali has everything to do with its amazing resources and
    Canadian resource extraction companies operating there. In the interests of
    the citizens of Mali? I think not. If Harper is hell bent on supporting
    Canadian corporations he should focus on financing research into alternative energy, and subsidizing start-ups of companies who hope to make and market
    equipment that lessens our dependence on fossil fuels. I’m sick and tired
    of watching countries go to war over resources. I’m sick and tired of seeing
    Canada’s reputation as a fair and peaceful country being destroyed.

    • MarcyJanuary 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm #

      I agree with you Marilyn,
      I want to add that we have a lot of humanitarian issues to be resolved inside of Canada, such as the plight of native people.
      I believe that nations need to solve their own political problems. Canada should not get involved in other nation’s politics just as other countries should not get involved in our political affairs.

  31. Marian NollJanuary 26, 2013 at 9:59 pm #

    I’ve not heard that Canada is at war with Mali, so I see no reason to send troops. Certainly, we must not send troops to protect our gold “interests.” The mine owners probably have enough “protectors” without the Canadian government’s interference.

  32. MofizuddinJanuary 26, 2013 at 9:15 pm #

    Try to bring all the relevant parties on the negotiation table and make all necessary efforts to resolve the matter peacefully.

  33. RobJanuary 26, 2013 at 6:07 pm #

    This is a war for resources. Gold! We have become the terrorists!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. MILNEWS.ca News Highlights – January 24, 2013 « MILNEWS.ca Blog - January 24, 2013

    [...] Mali (4a)  ceasefire.ca’s looking for your comments on Canada’s role in Mali – remember, be nice [...]