# A Protesters Response To "The Ex Charging Bison" Thread



## kgerrard (29 Apr 2006)

Hello. I'll be one of the protestors. Since I don't expect we'll have much chance for face-to-face interaction, I want to say that I don't have anything against the soldiers, what I don't support is the missions on which they're sent. In my understanding, Canada has a recent history replete with morally bankrupt interventions in other countries, as well as at home.

So, I oppose the exercises because they are training for yet more killing under the guise of the "war on terror", when all it'll buy is is more resentment from those whom we (the West) have been trampling upon for the past century.

Remember that Osama bin Laden was actually trained by CIA to fight against Soviet troops in Afghanistan, and the Taliban is a product of American support. The history of meddling to the detriment of innocent bystanders (collateral damage) will only come back to bite us.

I'm glad to have found this forum to get at least some exposure to how the people participating think and feel.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Apr 2006)

kgerrard:

I have to respect someone who will appear on this site to rationally defend his/her position.  However, the tone of many of the so-called activists who will be opposing the exercise goes well beyond thoughtful opposition and descend into downright hatred.  Furthermore, many of the urban myths (one of which, "Osama bin Laden was actually trained by CIA to fight against Soviet troops in Afghanistan" you perpetuate) that the protestors use to support their positions are downright false.

Did you know, for instance, that UNOCAL cancelled the pipeline plan in 1998?  Yet this is quoted constantly as the "real" reason for US involvement in Afghanistan.  Did you know that there is no evidence - as in zero - to suggest that there is ANY US link to OBL?  Do you and your supporters realized that - unlike Iraq - operations in Afghanistan are sanctioned by the UN, supported by UN agencies (who ran the elections a couple of years ago) and - in over half the country - controlled by NATO?  Do you realize that, for the Canadian military, there is no connection between US operations in Iraq and our operations in Afghanistan?



> In my understanding, Canada has a recent history replete with morally bankrupt interventions in other countries, as well as at home.



It would be interesting hear what you would use as examples.  Our long mission in Bosnia?  Kosovo?  UN operations in Africa?

Anyway, I typically don't debate such issues here, but your coherent post attracted me...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Apr 2006)

kgerrard,

Welcome to this forum.  I'm glad that you took the time to see how members of the Canadian Forces view the world.  Although you present an opposing viewpoint, I think that you will find that most of here are more than willing to engage you in thoughtful debate, as long as it is kept respectful and polite.

As to your points, I cannot say that I agree with them.

Starting with Canada's "morally bankrupt interventions", which would those be?  France in 1915?  Italy in 1943?  France and the Netherlands in 1944?  Cyprus? Korea? Please explain further.

Afghanistan has not been "trampled on" by anybody but the Russian in about a century- and look how that turned out for the Russians.  And before you draw parallels between the Russians and us, it should be self-evident to you that we are not the Russians.  We do not aerially mine the countryside or practise scorched earth or violate the Laws of Armed Conflict- despite what you may have read on the internet.  We are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the duly elected Government (Teddy Ruxpin- I believe that you helped supervise that election, right?) under UN approval and with several other NATO nations.  The mission there is all about helping the country stabilize long enough for local Army, Police and Government to mature.  And if the Afghan gov't someday wants to drill for oil and gas, why are they not allowed to like any other nation on the planet?  

Now, with that all said, even if you still disagree with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, exactly what does that have to do with your opposition to an Army exercise in downtown Winnipeg?  The soldiers in this exercise are reservists and will not be going to Afghanistan (at least not as formed units).  Are you afraid of your own nation's army?  Have we given you any reason to be afraid of us?  If they exercise in the public eye, will that not allow the taxpaying public the opportunity to see exactly what they get for their tax dollar?  Would this not allow for more, not less public scrutiny of what we do?

Please, enjoy your stay with army.ca!


----------



## kgerrard (29 Apr 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Welcome to this forum.


Thank you.



> Starting with Canada's "morally bankrupt interventions", which would those be?  France in 1915?  Italy in 1943?  France and the Netherlands in 1944?  Cyprus? Korea? Please explain further.


I don't blanket-object to every mission. The missions with which we've been involved lately, however, don't seem as morally clear as where we are now. The recent history of Haiti, for instance.



> Afghanistan has not been "trampled on" by anybody but the Russian in about a century- and look how that turned out for the Russians.


What about the 2001 invasion?



> And before you draw parallels between the Russians and us, it should be self-evident to you that we are not the Russians.  We do not aerially mine the countryside or practise scorched earth or violate the Laws of Armed Conflict- despite what you may have read on the internet.  We are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the duly elected Government (Teddy Ruxpin- I believe that you helped supervise that election, right?) under UN approval and with several other NATO nations.


I don't believe we can simply install functional democracy. A lot of the people we're supporting as the government are deeply flawed. I recommend reading Afghanistan: the Night Fairies. http://thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma06chayes



> The mission there is all about helping the country stabilize long enough for local Army, Police and Government to mature.  And if the Afghan gov't someday wants to drill for oil and gas, why are they not allowed to like any other nation on the planet?


And who gets the rebuilding contracts?



> Now, with that all said, even if you still disagree with Canada's mission in Afghanistan, exactly what does that have to do with your opposition to an Army exercise in downtown Winnipeg?  The soldiers in this exercise are reservists and will not be going to Afghanistan (at least not as formed units).


 From the Free Press: "The operation is also part of a long-term plan to prepare 200 of the
brigade's soldiers to support a 1,000-person task force in 2008" Where might we be in 2008?

From the Rick Hillier, via the Globe and Mail: "Canada needs to be in Afghanistan for the long haul, according to General Rick Hillier, who says the mission is part of an international reconstruction effort that will take at least a decade — and probably a lot longer." I value his honesty.

So many of the people in the exercise in Winnipeg will likely be going to Afghanistan if we continue the capacity to which we agreed with the Americans, thereby relieving them of some troops that they can redirect toward the Iraq debacle. Canada is indirectly (directly, if you count JTF2) supporting the war in Iraq.



> Are you afraid of your own nation's army?  Have we given you any reason to be afraid of us?  If they exercise in the public eye, will that not allow the taxpaying public the opportunity to see exactly what they get for their tax dollar?  Would this not allow for more, not less public scrutiny of what we do?


I'm not afraid that you'll open fire in Winnipeg, but I'm afraid of what you'll do overseas and even on "Canadian" soil.



I realise now after seeing the summary that I missed a reply before yours. So, two replies in one message.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I have to respect someone who will appear on this site to rationally defend his/her position.  However, the tone of many of the so-called activists who will be opposing the exercise goes well beyond thoughtful opposition and descend into downright hatred.


While I agree that such a negative reaction is less than helpful, I empathise with the frustration one can feel regarding what is perpetuated in one's name. Canadian, in this case.



> Furthermore, many of the urban myths (one of which, "Osama bin Laden was actually trained by CIA to fight against Soviet troops in Afghanistan" you perpetuate) that the protestors use to support their positions are downright false.


Hmm, I've looked into it a bit just now and it seems you're right that no direct training occurred. However, it appears the CIA did supply money and materials to the mujāhidīn. So the meddling is less severe than I thought, but no less sinister.



> Did you know, for instance, that UNOCAL cancelled the pipeline plan in 1998?  Yet this is quoted constantly as the "real" reason for US involvement in Afghanistan.


Not by me!



> Did you know that there is no evidence - as in zero - to suggest that there is ANY US link to OBL?


That contradicts what I just read, but I can't say I know too much about it. If you can recommend a detailed history not written by anyone affiliated with FOX News, please let me know. (It'll go in the pile, I'm busy.)



> Do you and your supporters realized that - unlike Iraq - operations in Afghanistan are sanctioned by the UN, supported by UN agencies (who ran the elections a couple of years ago) and - in over half the country - controlled by NATO?  Do you realize that, for the Canadian military, there is no connection between US operations in Iraq and our operations in Afghanistan?


I discussed one above.



> It would be interesting hear what you would use as examples.  Our long mission in Bosnia?  Kosovo?  UN operations in Africa?


I only know about the last few years.



> Anyway, I typically don't debate such issues here, but your coherent post attracted me...


Haha, thanks.

I'll try to follow the thread, but given that the exercises are this week, I expect not too much replying will go on. I'm interested in a reasonable debate, I like honing my points.

If only this were Usenet. Clearly the quoting is inferior.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Apr 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> Thank you.
> I don't blanket-object to every mission. The missions with which we've been involved lately, however, don't seem as morally clear as where we are now. The recent history of Haiti, for instance.
> What about the 2001 invasion?



I can't address Haiti, as I wasn't there and haven't been involved.  However, I suspect it's been taken on as a cause celebre by the left because it appears to them to be a black and white example of "capitalist" meddling in a democratically elected President's affairs.  I also suspect that the situation in Haiti is much, much more complex than the left would have us believe.  Canada's initial involvement, for instance, was under UN auspices, something that is typically conveniently forgotten.



> I don't believe we can simply install functional democracy. A lot of the people we're supporting as the government are deeply flawed.


  You won't get any argument from me there - see some of my other recent posts regarding the Afghan National Police to see why.  However, as SeaKingTacco pointed out, I worked extensively on the security plan for the Afghan Presidential Election, hand in glove with the UN agency responsible for its conduct.  In a country as complex as Afghanistan, they ran surprisingly smoothly, with a surprising (given the typical level of Afghan corruption) lack of interference and fraud.  You have to start somewhere, and the Presidential election and the subsequent parliamentary elections were a good beginning - a lot smoother and more effective than in (say) Iraq.



> And who gets the rebuilding contracts?



You're confusing Iraq and Afghanistan, a common flaw.  In Afghanistan, there was little "rebuilding" to be done (partially because the country is desparately poor and didn't have much in the way of infrastructure to "rebuild") and no gravy train for Haliburton and the like to jump on.  The US Government is hardly pouring billions of dollars into contracting in Afghanistan - much (I can't say most) of the aid money comes from international agencies and NGOs.



> From the Free Press: "The operation is also part of a long-term plan to prepare 200 of the brigade's soldiers to support a 1,000-person task force in 2008" Where might we be in 2008?



Who knows?  Part of the Army's job is to be ready for deployment - anywhere the government of the day decides.  For all we know, this could be a UN-sanctioned mission in  the Congo or Sudan:  anything can happen between now and 2008.  In this particular exercise's case (it isn't an operation) you're dealing with reservists who MAY be called upon to volunteer for deployment sometime.  If I recall correctly, many of these Reservists are actually from Winnipeg itself.



> So many of the people in the exercise in Winnipeg will likely be going to Afghanistan if we continue the capacity to which we agreed with the Americans, thereby relieving them of some troops that they can redirect toward the Iraq debacle. Canada is indirectly (directly, if you count JTF2) supporting the war in Iraq.
> I'm not afraid that you'll open fire in Winnipeg, but I'm afraid of what you'll do overseas and even on "Canadian" soil.



"Many" is probably dramatically overstating the case.  "A few" would be more accurate, given our current deployment pattern.  You also need to check your facts.  JTF 2 is not operating in Iraq (the Christian Peacekeepers hostage rescue aside).



> However, it appears the CIA did supply money and materials to the mujāhidīn. So the meddling is less severe than I thought, but no less sinister.



Very true, but the mujahidin does not equal the Taliban, not to mention Al Qaida.  Many of the Northern Alliance that overthrew the Taliban (unlike Iraq, there was never really a US "invasion" of Afghanistan) were themselves mujahidin at one time, while some of the Taliban were old supporters of the Soviet-sponsored regime.  Afghan politics are very complex.  Indeed, if you do some reading, you'll find that the Taliban (the name, if I recall correctly, means "student") were young men trained - as refugees - in the Pakistani madrassas (sp?) with a rather peculiar ideology.  As for a reference, I'll try to dig something decent up - there are others here with their reading lists closer to hand; perhaps they can suggest something.



> ...not written by anyone affiliated with FOX News, please let me know.



Heh.  Some of us are a bit more liberal than you give us credit for.  Soldiers with experience tend to be cynical realists and will call 'em as we see 'em.   

Mods:  we've now hijacked this thread, please consider splitting this one off.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Apr 2006)

Done, 
nice to see a civil discussion on this subject.......


----------



## Wookilar (30 Apr 2006)

kgerrard,

First, I would also like to welcome you. As has been mentioned before, it is not often we get someone able to coherently and logically present a differing opinion. It is refreshing to see someone post more than one inflammatory sentence, one link, and never come back to support what they are saying. Thank you.

Secondly, on Haiti. I have a bit of an issue with the current views held by some about what we were doing there. Some people need to put down their _Mother Jones_ and pick up an actual history book (not that there is anything wrong with _Mother Jones_, it's writing is quite good, just not a good source for history). I was not on the last mission, but many of my friends were. I do remember the first mission. A decade ago. Canada's involvement in Haiti is a lot longer than most choose to realize. There are substantive reasons why we were asked to go there, again. One of the main ones was due to our success and experiences on that little island the first time around.

There are certainly some issues there, especially regarding the election (missing ballot boxes, among many other things), but in a country that has such a deep rooted tradition of corruption (as many developing nations seem to have), it does seem to be getting better. I see similarities in Afghanistan.

The key point is, these people need our help. We, as in Canada, are very good at this type of help. We have been doing it for decades. While I acknowledge that there are many problems inside industry (Haliburton), the media (Fox, et all) and the international organizations (corruption in the UN), I do not agree that just dropping everything, pulling out and leaving these people is the answer. The alternative, as I see it, is to continue working inside these countries, not only despite some of the international problems, but mainly because of some of the problems. We will not be able to fix anything from the outside, we must be engaged in a meaningful way in order to have any influence.

Lastly, just to add what has been mentioned about the 200 pers Reserve component of a task force in 2008. This has been our attempted standard operating procedure since Rotation 11 Operation Palladium (Bosnia, 2002/03). We have been including Reservists in large numbers to as many of our tours as possible, for a number of different reasons. Do not assume that the fact they are training for a task force translates directly to "will be sent to Afghanistan.". Those of us in the military long ago learned that you are never sure where you are going until you are on the plane and it has left the ground. There are always many places around the world we could be helping out at any given time. It is up to our elected representatives where we go (you have contacted your MP, MLA and the Prime Minister's office on these issues also, I would hope?) I'm being serious, by the way. Someone that can put their views together, is able to bring something to the table to have an intelligent discussion, should really ensure they reach a wide audience.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Apr 2006)

kgerrard,

I have a few questions for you
(1) Have you actually been outside North America?
(2) What is the solution then to not having so called flawed intervention in Afganistan? Do we pretend their are no serious problems going on?
(3) Where were you on September 11, 2001? I think you forget, you sting America they are likely to bite back. Hard.
(4) What would your solution and response to 9/11 have been if you were the US President?
(5) What do you suppose the role of an Armed Forces is? Hint NOT peacekeeping first and foremost.
(6) So what if soldiers pull the trigger to save lives and kill bad people (They are real you know), so do cops when a criminal is threatening innocent life, do you protest the police as well?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (30 Apr 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't blanket-object to every mission. The missions with which we've been involved lately, however, don't seem as morally clear as where we are now. The recent history of Haiti, for instance.



I think I can shed some light on the recent intervention in Haiti.  I was on the last mission there from almost to day one to the last day (HALO not HAMLET).  When I arrived a curfew was in effect, schools were closed, there was in little to no power in Port au Prince, people were scared to go on the streets.   People were so scared of gangs that they would not remove bodies from the streets because they might then be targetted.  Within a month of our arrival the curfew was being reduced (to the point it was removed eventually), kids were back in school, large parts of the city had power, and people were out and about again.  Not only were street killings down, the Canadian and US were removing upwards of 100 dump trucks of garbage from the streets every night, this is how bad the infrastructure had broken down.

The problem in Haiti is with the cycle of events that has grown up over time.  A corrupt government (Duvalier) was replaced  by a fairly uncorrupt government (Aristide) who was not nice to the former supporters of Duvallier.  Over time the Aristide government became comfortable as the rulers of Haiti and became corrupt.  Other factions in Haiti wanted to have elections.  Aristide waffled on that point.  There was a revolt.  Rinse and repeat...  

There is no big conspiracy theory, just a greedy Haitian criminals who want to keep the country unstable so they can continue to prey on the weak and vulnerable.  The fact that other countries keep intervening may or may not be a good thing.  It could be creating a "need" mentalitiy which may perpetuate the cycle.  I know that intervention saves lives though.

Foreign military forces were deployed to stop killing in the streets.  The foreign governments tried to implement some form of government and then leave.  In fact the "Western" militaries were all gone within six months, leaving only a few "Western" police, and Latin American militaries invovled in trying to stabilize one of their own.

The Western oppression/death squad theory has been perpetuated by former Haitian/Haitians in exile in Canada who are not happy with the fact that Canada was not willing to sit by and let a country decend into violence because the government did not have the will, desire, or ability to maintain control in a civilized manner.  Aristide was doing a bad job.  Normally a president doing a bad job would *not* mean military intervention.  Unfortunately as he was doing such bad job it was resulting in people being carved up in the streets and there was no indication it was going to get better, something more forceful that a CARE Canada mission was needed.  The fact that the US and France agreed that this mission was required should give you an indication of how bad things were.  What other foreign policies do they agree on?

Whether or not the current forces are doing a good job there I cannot comment on.  I know they are trying.  The RCMP is still involved in training the Haitian National Police.  Do you really think that a RCMP officer would continue to support, train, and encourage another police officer who was involved in murder?  I cant see it.  No doubt there are police officers who secretly support the gangs or Aristide or Duvalier but I cannot see a RCMP officer shrugging off that fact if he knew it and carrying on.

D


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

hippie-boy,  

welcome to the site, and Well Done. It takes courage to do so (even over the internet) but more importantly, it takes some intellect. 

I won't address your points and questions directly, mostly because they've been addressed on this site repeatedly, but rather with a general question or two for you, that I hope gives you something to think about. You don't have to reply to it. Just think about it.

You, like so many young "protestors", and like their elders before them, seem to think that Canadian soldiers are some sort of 'other' species. Why would you think that the very same boys and girls you grew up with, played hockey with, dated, went to parties with, etc would turn around and commit some sort of horrific war crime?

That has always baffled me, and I'm hoping that you can provide an answer. You seem to think that your neighbours, and possibly even family members that you have known for their entire lives, could suddenly become prime candidates for the Waffen SS! Canadian soldiers, like Canadians everywhere, have an abhorrence for the same sorts of behaviour that you do.

The difference is, instead of making loud noises, and destroying public and private property here, in Canada, where we can do so in perfect safety, and achieve no result, we choose to enlist, allowing us to go into dangerous areas and make them safe for the people who live there. 

By joining the Canadian Army, we can ensure that Aid workers can do their job without being robbed, we can ensure that medical assistance gets through without being hijacked, we can ensure that banditry is stopped, we can teach the armies and police forces of various nations the Might must serve Right, we can enforce free and fair elections, ensuring that the will of the people of that nation is carried out, and we can do all this far more effectively than any civilian agency. Because we have the strength of arms and the strength of convictions to fight for it, to kill for it, and to die for it. We also have the logistic train, and logistic training, to make it work efficiently. We function as a team, and have more and better resources.

The job of the Canadian Army is, basically, to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, treat the sick, and kill evil men. And we do it for two basic reasons:

1. it's morally Right. Only a heartless man can go to a Third World nation, ruled by tyrants, or by lawlessness, and not be sickened by what he sees. However, whereas civilian agencies proceed to hand out charity, and treat the symptoms, we treat the symptoms and the disease. Civilian agencies can only hand out charity, which does nothing to stop the perpetuation of corruption and tyranny. We make fundamental changes that go a long way to stopping the lawlessness. By making positive changes in the electoral processes, by teaching the various military and law enforcement agencies to stop being corrupt, and by shooting various terrorists and criminals, thereby removing them from the equation.

2. by doing so, we keep Canada safe from the depredations of terrorists and criminals. We keep evil regimes form launching attacks on Canadian soil. In short, we spend our lives in terrible conditions, away from those love, we fight, we kill, and we die, so that you will always have the freedom to protest our doing so. You're welcome.

As so many other individuals will be along to tear away the blinders from your eyes, and show you that so many of the "facts" that you have been told are complete and utter rubbish, I just thought I'd skip right to the what I felt is the relevant points.

We, Canada's soldiers, are no different from the very people who are so roundly denouncing us, except that we have the courage to truly stand for the same convictions, and we take those convictions to the extreme. We die for them.

Protesting against us is as childish as the teen-agers who "rebel" against their parents by displaying their 'individuality' and wearing one of several uniforms - goth, skate-boarder "punk" (as one of the original Punk generation, I despair at what our movement has become), 'Rasta" peacenik, etc. And it accomplishes much the same thing: it makes them look very foolish.


----------



## scotty884 (30 Apr 2006)

I gots me a simple question for any protestor.  I was wondering are you protesting cause you dont want people who basically dedicated there lives for this country not to do some very important training in your city?  So you want these soldier's who more than likely will be put intoi harms way with no training, and no idea how to deal with the situations which would be thrown at them during this exercise?  In short you want soldiers like myself and others on this site not to train to do our jobs but to just sorta go and get ourselves into a bad situation and come out hurt or in the wrose case DEAD?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2006)

To make that one a little clearer; can we ask you if you think that people in any profession should not train to do their jobs proficiently and safely? Would you want to be treated by a Paramedic whose only training was to put on his/her uniform, and have no medical training at all?  Would you want your local Fire Department to come and rescue you in a multi-story building, after only training to put out grass fires?  Would you feel safe in the proximity of a Police officer who had never trained on the use of his/her firearm?  Would you feel safe under the knife of a surgeon who had left Medical School in the 1940's and had never bothered to upgrade his surgical skills?  

To maintain a Professional Military, they have to train.  They have to train for any eventuality.  That way should the need arise, they will be able to deal with it effectively and with as little loss of life as possible.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2006)

> That way should the need arise, they will be able to deal with it effectively and with as little loss of life as possible



On either side.  Whether some wish to believe it or not, professional soldiers abhor casualties. They are a necessary evil, but we don't enjoy taking them or causing them.  The better trained we are, hopefully the more we can lower the casualty rate, particularly amongst innocent civilians and our side.  As for the enemy- if we can beat them without killing them, so much the better.  But, that is really their choice, not ours.

As a side issue- I wonder how many protesters of this type believe in the concept of "evil"- that some people and systems are just plain bad for humanity?  I find that most military people are all too familiar with evil as a very real force in the world- and try to do their part, however small, to get rid of it.


----------



## kgerrard (30 Apr 2006)

This has quickly grown beyond my ability to respond. We're having our first event in less than two hours, so it'll have to wait. I've selected this one post to respond to because it's short.



			
				cbtygunner said:
			
		

> I gots me a simple question for any protestor.  I was wondering are you protesting cause you dont want people who basically dedicated there lives for this country not to do some very important training in your city?  So you want these soldier's who more than likely will be put intoi harms way with no training, and no idea how to deal with the situations which would be thrown at them during this exercise?  In short you want soldiers like myself and others on this site not to train to do our jobs but to just sorta go and get ourselves into a bad situation and come out hurt or in the wrose case DEAD?


I'm protesting because I'm against the military manifestation of Canada's foreign policy. This thread highlights how contentious the issues are; to me, the big missions on which members of Canadian military institutions are currently deployed are at best ineffective, and at worst highly damaging.

I definitely support a presence in nations attempting to build stability and sustainable infrastructure. That may be one aspect of what we're doing, but I think the negatives greatly outweigh the positives in our case. Western nations have a history of "help" that is domineering and unproductive.

I don't want soldiers to die, but nor do I want anyone else to. I'm not a pacifist and I believe a defensive body is necessary. If we executed truly humanitarian and defensive missions, I would favour training! And the argument that this is preëmptive defense is completely wrong to me.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> As a side issue- I wonder how many protesters of this type believe in the concept of "evil"- that some people and systems are just plain bad for humanity?  I find that most military people are all too familiar with evil as a very real force in the world- and try to do their part, however small, to get rid of it.


Okay, so I couldn't resist this. I think evil is relative, but definitely real. Unfortunately, I feel our version of the military is one of those systems. Hence my participation in organising a public response to this training, as I would like to rid the world of damaging institution. That may sound harsh, but I'm far more against the machinery of the system than the cogs that make it up.


Did anyone read that article I read, The Night Fairies? I'm interested in how members of the military would respond, because to me it's a good description of how wrong things are moving in Afghanistan. It's Amerocentric, but it would seem to be relevant nonetheless.


I do so want to respond to most of the above as there are many points I feel need clarification. Hopefully I'll find/make the time.


And a quick note that it's wholly unproductive to call me a young'n. While it's true I'm relatively young, people of many ages, backgrounds, races are coming out to object. And it's not like I simply woke up one morning thinking "War is bad!" This is part of a broad analysis for me connecting the economy, the environment, human rights, et cetera.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Apr 2006)

Would mind answering my six simple questions?


----------



## sober_ruski (30 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Did you know that there is no evidence - as in zero - to suggest that there is ANY US link to OBL?


I agree with you on everthing else 'cept that part.
Bush family has(d) strong ties with bin Ladens. bin Ladens got the contracts to rebuild after various bombings of US property, bin Ladens kick started Bush jr's oil business, a bin Laden had a meeting with Bush sr. during 9/11. 
US did arm (not officially, but how else would you explain them having stingers?) mujahideen (sp?0 during the Afgan conflict in the 70's-80's. Bushes and Saudies (gov-t) had strong economic ties while Saudies were paying off ObL for NOT going through with the revolution thing.
Buuuuut, USSR were supplying tech and pers to NVA, so I guess you can it even.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2006)

> Okay, so I couldn't resist this. I think evil is relative, but definitely real. Unfortunately, I feel our version of the military is one of those systems. Hence my participation in organising a public response to this training, as I would like to rid the world of damaging institution. That may sound harsh, but I'm far more against the machinery of the system than the cogs that make it up.



But isn't that a bit like saying "I want to rid the world of house fires- so let's ban fire departments"?  Look, whether you want to believe me or not, the military provides our society a service.  When diplomacy and everything else fails, we are our Government's last resort and the only ones in our society that may utilize controlled offensive violence.

You may also chose not to believe it, but some people (and governments) do not want to "cut a deal" or ''negotiate".  They want to kill, rape and maim their neighbours and take their stuff.  We (like the police) are the insurance policy for our society.  Trust me, some of the evil in the world is a bit more than "relative"- it is objective.  And it could care less that you don't believe in it.  In fact, real evil hopes that you don't believe it really exists.  That every problem in the world is merely a matter of a difference in "equally valid, but different" opinions.

And if you are implying that all military forces are morally bankrupt and contain just barely constrained pyschopaths (the "damaging institution" part), you have been watching too many movies. All armies are not created equally.  True, some are little better than armed mobs. Ours is not. Most of us in our military (especially as we get older and wiser) spend a great deal of time examining our profession from a moral standpoint.  Killing is not something we take lightly- notwithstanding the black humour that soldiers usually display.  Some of the most moral and deeply "spiritual" people that I know are soldiers.  I do not expect to change your opinion of us, all that I ask is- keep an open mind.  Some of what we are telling you just might be true.

Anyway, I will try to get to your Nightfairies article.  I am currently balancing a university course against yardwork...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (30 Apr 2006)

> Bush family has(d) strong ties with bin Ladens. bin Ladens got the contracts to rebuild after various bombings of US property, bin Ladens kick started Bush jr's oil business, a bin Laden had a meeting with Bush sr. during 9/11.




Been watching a lot of Michael Moore, have you?  FYI, even if true (a huge if), the bin Ladens are a massive industrial concern in the Middle East - to the point where on 9/11 there were bin Ladens living in the US itself.  Having commercial relations with a _relatively_ innocent group of companies does not equate to supporting OBL.  Again, if there's evidence - anywhere - to suggest an American link to OBL the terrorist, I have yet to see it.



> US did arm (not officially, but how else would you explain them having stingers?) mujahideen (sp?0 during the Afgan conflict in the 70's-80's.



No one's denying that they did.  However, as I pointed out in my initial post, there is quite a difference between the Taliban and the old mujahidin...

kgerrard:



> I'm not a pacifist and I believe a defensive body is necessary. If we executed truly humanitarian and defensive missions, I would favour training!



Your argument is rather disingenious, no?  On one hand, you maintain that military bodies are evil (a valid point of view for a pacifist, considering what we do), yet on another you'll say that "a defensive body" is necessary.  Unfortunately, there is little room for such relativism in the armed forces.  There is very little difference between "offensive" and "defensive" training - virtually none in most instances - yet we'll hear the uninformed constantly trying to distinguish between an "offensive" and a "defensive" weapons system or exercise. 

Furthermore, concerning the exercise you're about to protest, who is to say that it isn't in preparation for a humanitarian or a "defensive" mission?  As I pointed out in my original post, we have very little idea of what international affairs will look like in 2008.  The government could well launch the Army on a mission in Africa, for the precise objectives you'd indicate you'd support, yet here you are attempting to deny soldiers the opportunity to prepare, simply because you've decided that you disagree with one particular operation.  Remember, the Army does not pick the operations upon which it is dispatched and we have to train for every potential eventuality.

As for the rest, what SeaKingTacco said, +1...

Cheers, 

TR


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Apr 2006)

_This should go in the "Sudan" thread but I thought this was interesting just based on the timing and tone of this thread._

Sudan accepts Darfur peace proposal
Last Updated Sun, 30 Apr 2006 11:49:14 EDT 
CBC News
The Sudanese government has accepted a peace plan for Darfur prepared by the African Union, but militants in the troubled region have not so far agreed. 
The government of the North African country has agreed to formally sign the document, head negotiator Majzoub al-Khalifa said Sunday. 

That means authorities will disarm the mainly Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, which it had been backing to fight the militants in Darfur along its western border. 
But the mostly non-Arab tribes who began fighting in 2003 against the Arab-dominated government were still holding back, trying to win better terms in the agreement.  
The deal is a good step forward, UN high commissioner for human rights Louise Arbour told CBC Newsworld, speaking from Khartoum. 

But "at this point, it is far from certain the agreement will be signed by all parties," she cautioned. 
The fighting in Darfur has killed about 180,000 people and displaced more than two million, the UN says. 

Even if all the parties sign, the fighting may continue. There was a 2004 ceasefire, but it was ignored. 
The African Union has 7,000 peacekeepers in Darfur, but it may require more international soldiers  to keep the peace if there is no agreement, Arbour said.  

She is heading to Darfur to assess the situation on the ground. 
The fighting and a lack of money has made it increasingly difficult for the UN to take care of the refugees. 

Thousands of people were expected to attend Darfur rallies across the United States and Canada on Sunday. 
The Save Darfur coalition wants the U.S. and Canadian governments to do more to stop the violence in Sudan. 
Rallies are set for Vancouver, Toronto, Washington and at least 16 other U.S. cities. 



_Mr.Gerrard,
Just who do you think they are discussing here?
....unless you truly believe these people are beneath saving........._


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Apr 2006)

Read the Night Faires article.  It is hard for me to argue against the opinion of someone living on the ground in Kandahar- especially since I have not been there.  You will have to engage the opinion of some of the others on the board who have been there- I would just be speculating.

Cheers.


----------



## Korus (30 Apr 2006)

Ok, I went through "The Night Faries". It has an interesting perspective, but there are a couple of things Miss Chayes writes that are a stretch of the truth, to put it nicely.
First;


> Parliamentary elections last fall, hailed as free and fair--or at least as free and fair as anyone could expect in a place like Afghanistan--have allowed many Western observers to regard the nation-building process here as a success. In Kandahar, those elections were considered a joke--even by the people who won. Less than a quarter of the population voted, and, as most locals predicted, the counting process functioned like a bazaar with plenty of extra zeros for sale.


The turnout for the 2005 parliamentary elections, according to the JEMB, was about 51.5 percent(1) of all voters, which compared to Canada's 64.9% voter turnout in the 2006 Federal Elections(2) may seem like a dismal turnout. Considering it's a country where women's rights have been squandered for years under the Taliban, a deeper look provides interesting results. In Kandahar alone, the male voter turnout was 76.3%, while the female voter turnout was 23.7%(3). Now, I don't have the stats to prove this, but I'm assuming that the voter turnout between males and females in Canada is very close... So, it stands to reason that although many women did not vote for whatever reason, be it from fear, threats, or simply choosing not to vote, the voter turnout from the male side of things was pretty good. Imagine what kind of voter turn out it would be had women not been oppressed for so many years under the Taliban? (As well, the JEMB Report in reference 1 is a good read if you want some factual information on the elections, as opposed to pure heresay)

Now, no doubt you've heard about all the warlords elected into parliament. But, believe it or not, lots of good people were voted into power as well, people who are struggling to better their country. There was a CBC special a while back, shortly after I returned from Kandahar in February, where they had a very good example of one woman elected into parliament fighting to expose the warlords within the system, amongst other things, trying to improve her country. She was allowed to do this because of the US, other countries, Northern Alliance, and various NGOs who went into Afghanistan in 2001, deposed the Taliban, and helped set up an environment where elections COULD be held.. So just because the bad people gather a lot of attention in the parliament, doesn't mean that there aren't many good people trying to make things better for the country. 



> Even the "suicide bombings" in Afghanistan that have garnered mentions in the Western press of late are often something else. In one case I investigated carefully--the target, an Afghan official, was a friend of mine--much evidence contradicted the notion that the attack was a suicide bombing, as it was immediately labeled: the condition of my friend's body, the type and location of the survivors' wounds, and eyewitness descriptions. Everything pointed to a remote-controlled mine planted ahead of time. But no Afghan or U.S. official bothered to collect this evidence or to examine it seriously when it was presented to them.



Now, the only firsthand experience I have on this is seeing a suicide bomber's ear that landed in a very unlikely place....  But I'm sure there are members of this forum who were actually at these events. Try telling them that they weren't suicide bombings... Even if that once specific case was an RCIED as Miss Chayes alleges, that does not discount all the other suicide bombings that occured.

And yes the "Night Faries" do exist, and are a problem.. But, the question I must pose is that if Afghanistan is so much worse off now than before with the Americans and other foreigners around, what will happen if we all just pull out and leave? I have my theory on what will happen, and based on my experience and knowledge about the country, it does not paint a pretty picture.

Finally, I want to address the protesting of the training.. It's your right as a Canadian citizen, and indeed as a human to protest. That's why we chose to take up arms to defend that right. You can protest the mission all you want. But please try to understand that, as mentioned earlier, the training that the troops will undergo on this exercise will save both Canadian and Afghan lives when the soldiers get over there and are put in the dangerous positions. If you want to stop the mission, protest to the government and policy makers, please don't put people's lives in danger by trying make the troops go overseas unprepared.

(1) http://www.jemb.org/pdf/JEMBS%20MGT%20Final%20Report%202005-12-12.pdf
(2) http://www.nodice.ca/elections/canada/voterturnout.php
(3) http://www.results.jemb.org/province.asp?ProvinceID=28


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Apr 2006)

I just read the article and then "googled" the lady.......quite the woman!!

However after reading a few of her interviews it sounds like she would like more security/soldiers to properly train the local Police forces that they are supposed to be the "good guys".

That and a little military jaunt into Pakistan might not hurt either.....I don't see where she supports your arguement at all.

Who is behind these attacks? 
Quote from Sarah Chayes,

_This is not an indigenous, spontaneous uprising. All of these attacks originate in Pakistan; top Taliban leaders live and organize their activities openly in the Pakistani city of Quetta; the border is for all intents and purposes open. The problem of terrorism in Afghanistan is intimately linked to the regional strategy of Pakistan. The U.S. military fights Taliban members when they can be found in concentrated groups inside Afghanistan. But once they cross the border, they are beyond reach. The U.S. government, by not holding Pakistan accountable for its open support of the Taliban, is in fact contributing to the problem. _


----------



## A O G 101 (30 Apr 2006)

This is a link to their Events in winnipeg.


http://stopthebison.friendsofgrassynarrows.com/


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Apr 2006)

I think, guys, not to put too fine a point on this, the concern kgerrard and friends seem to have is not so much that you are assisting governments overseas to secure the terrain within their borders, but that you will become better able to handle situations such as Oka, Gustafsen Lake and the WTO riots in Quebec.



> Monday, May 1
> Winnipeg Walkout
> Memorial Park
> 1:00PM
> ...





> Why are we opposing this? Or, "But Canadian missions are only for peacekeeping. What's the problem?"
> 
> The problem is that Canada's peacekeeping reputation is already in tatters around the world. We don't need to look that hard to see why. Here are the kinds of operations the military is training for.
> 
> ...



It appears we have a problem.

The above was taken from the Agenda posted by A O G 101.


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

tinfoil hat wearers. Same sort of lunatic who equates a parking ticket with repression. People who confuse Liberty with licence, and a Right with a privilige. And, conveniently, never seem to grasp the concept of Responsibility, or Duty.

Clowns. 
But, we'll continue to guarantee their rights to be morons, whether they appreciate it, or not.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Apr 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> tinfoil hat wearers. Same sort of lunatic who equates a parking ticket with repression. People who confuse Liberty with licence, and a Right with a privilige. And, conveniently, never seem to grasp the concept of Responsibility, or Duty.
> 
> Clowns.
> But, we'll continue to guarantee their rights to be morons, whether they appreciate it, or not.



+1


----------



## Screw (30 Apr 2006)

So whats the answer protester? Lets pull out of everywhere- and cut ALL aid off to these countires since their governments are corrupt and just let the chips fall where they will. The stronger will enslave the weaker but thats fine because we wont DIRECTLY have the blood on our hands.


----------



## SprCForr (30 Apr 2006)

For a short take try:

"Taliban - Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia" by Ahmed Rashid
Published by Yale University Press 
274 pgs
ISBN: 0300089023

This book details the origins and rise of the Taliban up to Sept 2001.

I'm still tracking down a copy of his "Jihad - The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia"


----------



## sober_ruski (30 Apr 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Been watching a lot of Michael Moore, have you?  FYI, even if true (a huge if), the bin Ladens are a massive industrial concern in the Middle East - to the point where on 9/11 there were bin Ladens living in the US itself.  Having commercial relations with a _relatively_ innocent group of companies does not equate to supporting OBL.  Again, if there's evidence - anywhere - to suggest an American link to OBL the terrorist, I have yet to see it.


I do not watch the ranting of fat useless hypocritical pieces of crap. I HAD to watch Bowling in my academic writing class, i've had enough of that crap.


----------



## paracowboy (30 Apr 2006)

ruskie,

there is no link between Osama bin Layin'around, and the CIA, the Bush family, or the Mickey Mouse Club. You see, Osama hates America, and has almost his entire life. During the Soviet-Aghan struggle, he literally threw himself onto his cot and had a hissy fit because nobody in the camp would kill and American reporter. But, he wouldn't grab his ever-present AK and do the job himself, either. He's a coward, as are all terrorists. Because terrs are nothing more than bullies.

Osama binlazin' funded his fighters (for lack of a better word - the Afghan Mujehedeen despised the Arabs as cowards, and dilettentes) with his own money, and by fund-raising in the Middle East, principally the Kingdom of Saud. The Americans funnelled their financial support through the ISI. This is all open source material, and anyone who has half an interest can find it easily.

Not as easily as just believing the belt-fed, fully-automatic, large-caliber, gas-operated bullcrap spewed out by any number of liars with an agenda, mind you.


----------



## Wookilar (1 May 2006)

kg, my friend, you really have to talk to the people writing some of that tripe. And get them to take off their hats, our mind altering lazers we borrowed from the Russians obviously are being amplified by all the tinfoil.

Case in point, Gustafsen Lake. No landmines, no .50 cal's. Know what we did? Drove the Mounties around in armoured wheeled vehicles (Bison's, 2 of them). That's it. That's all. The RCMP was in charge of the entire operation and only requested a vehicle to protect them while they were doing patrols.

Like I said earlier (and echoed by many others), most of your compadres cannot put two coherent sentences together. All you have to do is ASK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE!!!!! We might even answer politely.


----------



## Armymatters (1 May 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> kg, my friend, you really have to talk to the people writing some of that tripe. And get them to take off their hats, our mind altering lazers we borrowed from the Russians obviously are being amplified by all the tinfoil.
> 
> Case in point, Gustafsen Lake. No landmines, no .50 cal's. Know what we did? Drove the Mounties around in armoured wheeled vehicles (Bison's, 2 of them). That's it. That's all. The RCMP was in charge of the entire operation and only requested a vehicle to protect them while they were doing patrols.
> 
> Like I said earlier (and echoed by many others), most of your compadres cannot put two coherent sentences together. All you have to do is ASK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE!!!!! We might even answer politely.



And to add a quick note, it is well within the RCMP's legal rights to request that the military make resources avaiable to them. This legal ability (written into Canada's laws) is called _Military Aid to the Civil Power_ (MACP), which is found in the National Defence Act. This right is used by the Solicitor General of the affected province (who wields the power), which makes the request for military aid to the request to Chief of the Defence Staff at DND, which is legally bound by law to execute the request. However, the Chief of the Defence Staff alone can determine the nature and level of forces to be committed. The requesting province is then billed to pay the cost of the military aid, although the Federal government, which does not want to appear "cheap" after a major crisis affecting a province, most often waives it.  These procedures are very formal, to prevent an abuse of such powers, as the military is given a police role.

A related power is _Military Aid to the Civil Community_ (MACC), which unlike MACP, the military does not operate in a police role, and instead, operates in other roles, such as assisting firefighters to deal with a forest fire, rescuing people trapped by storms, floods, etc. The procedures for making a request under this is less formal, and decision-making is decentralized, and the province will have to foot the bill for making the request.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

"*In Ts'peten, also known as Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, in 1995, native demonstrators trying to protect their land from further encroachment were met with armoured peronnel carriers, .50 calibre machine guns, and land mines. The federal and provincial governments rejected any involvement by an impartial, independent, international adjudication process to settle the conflict, and even the presence of neutral peacekeepers, with the famous declaration "There shall be no alien intervention into the affairs of this state."*

 :rofl:

Yah!  And I, like, totally heard about the sarin gas that the RCMP had hidden in the trees to protect the sonic pain field generators, and my roomate knows this guy who saw ten protesters get taken in a black helicopter and they were, like, never heard from again!  Soldiers are so, like, totally militant!  Gawd, like, take it easy, shuh!


----------



## kgerrard (1 May 2006)

I'm going to respond to one message at a time when I have a chance. Clearly I'm outnumbered, who knows how long I can last. While I'm reasonably confident in my position, I don't always have the necessary facts at my fingertips, and it can be wearying to have to repeat oneself.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I can't address Haiti, as I wasn't there and haven't been involved.  However, I suspect it's been taken on as a cause celebre by the left because it appears to them to be a black and white example of "capitalist" meddling in a democratically elected President's affairs.  I also suspect that the situation in Haiti is much, much more complex than the left would have us believe.  Canada's initial involvement, for instance, was under UN auspices, something that is typically conveniently forgotten.


Of course it's complex, and I would never pretend otherwise. An appeal to the authority of the UN holds little weight with me. Were the documents of the Ottawa Initiative not secret, we would know more.



> You won't get any argument from me there - see some of my other recent posts regarding the Afghan National Police to see why.  However, as SeaKingTacco pointed out, I worked extensively on the security plan for the Afghan Presidential Election, hand in glove with the UN agency responsible for its conduct.  In a country as complex as Afghanistan, they ran surprisingly smoothly, with a surprising (given the typical level of Afghan corruption) lack of interference and fraud.  You have to start somewhere, and the Presidential election and the subsequent parliamentary elections were a good beginning - a lot smoother and more effective than in (say) Iraq.


There won't be much progress on this front with me, because I don't believe parliamentary governments are optimal. Moving the direction in that discussion seems less than worthwhile to me.



> You're confusing Iraq and Afghanistan, a common flaw.  In Afghanistan, there was little "rebuilding" to be done (partially because the country is desparately poor and didn't have much in the way of infrastructure to "rebuild") and no gravy train for Haliburton and the like to jump on.  The US Government is hardly pouring billions of dollars into contracting in Afghanistan - much (I can't say most) of the aid money comes from international agencies and NGOs.


Hmm, thanks for pointing that out. But a quick search showed a significant list of contracts, including over $300 million for everyone's favourite Halliburton.



> Who knows?  Part of the Army's job is to be ready for deployment - anywhere the government of the day decides.  For all we know, this could be a UN-sanctioned mission in  the Congo or Sudan:  anything can happen between now and 2008.  In this particular exercise's case (it isn't an operation) you're dealing with reservists who MAY be called upon to volunteer for deployment sometime.  If I recall correctly, many of these Reservists are actually from Winnipeg itself.


The Free Press article referred to it as "Operation Charging Bison", which caught on. I realise there's no guarantee that they'll be deployed to Afghanistan, but doesn't it seem likely? Regardless, these exercises are an opportunity for us to voice our disagreement with the direction Canada's military and foreign policies are moving.



> "Many" is probably dramatically overstating the case.  "A few" would be more accurate, given our current deployment pattern.  You also need to check your facts.  JTF 2 is not operating in Iraq (the Christian Peacekeepers hostage rescue aside).


That contradicts what I've read but I can't back that up, especially since JTF2's deployment is secret.


----------



## Taylor187 (1 May 2006)

kgerrard, have you ever thought that maybe everything you read on Fox News, CNN and the favorite for your type of people, guerrillanews might be fictitious, and or spiced up with the personal views of a writer?

I dont mean to take a stab at you in general, but it has to be said. Everything read on news websites, or you see on your T.V. is not accurate information. The news that you see is the real story wraped in a sellable package with ficitious information added in to make it exciting.

Like I said, I dont mean to make a stab at you, but it seems every person I know who is anti-U.S., anti-war, anti-military quotes people that they dont know, never met, and have no clue if the information is true. It just looks pretty, sounds good and is an easy argument to stand behind when you cant think of one yourself.


----------



## kgerrard (1 May 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> Secondly, on Haiti. I have a bit of an issue with the current views held by some about what we were doing there. Some people need to put down their _Mother Jones_ and pick up an actual history book (not that there is anything wrong with _Mother Jones_, it's writing is quite good, just not a good source for history).


I've never read it. My sources are films, the book Canada in Haiti, and talks, including one by someone from Haiti.



> The key point is, these people need our help. We, as in Canada, are very good at this type of help. We have been doing it for decades. While I acknowledge that there are many problems inside industry (Haliburton), the media (Fox, et all) and the international organizations (corruption in the UN), I do not agree that just dropping everything, pulling out and leaving these people is the answer. The alternative, as I see it, is to continue working inside these countries, not only despite some of the international problems, but mainly because of some of the problems. We will not be able to fix anything from the outside, we must be engaged in a meaningful way in order to have any influence.


I agree that they need our help, as do many across the world. I don't believe the military is an effective support. Some of the acts in which soldiers engage are surely beneficial, but I think we need to radically rethink our tactics. There's no public debate about this: it's "Either we're in or we're out", not "How should we be conducting ourselves on humanitarian missions?"



> It is up to our elected representatives where we go (you have contacted your MP, MLA and the Prime Minister's office on these issues also, I would hope?) I'm being serious, by the way. Someone that can put their views together, is able to bring something to the table to have an intelligent discussion, should really ensure they reach a wide audience.


I don't believe the parliamentary system is responsive to the needs and desires of the populace. Pat Martin, my NDP MP, is dreadfully far from caring about most things that are important to me.


----------



## Fusaki (1 May 2006)

> I agree that they need our help, as do many across the world. I don't believe the military is an effective support. Some of the acts in which soldiers engage are surely beneficial, but I think we need to radically rethink our tactics. There's no public debate about this: it's "Either we're in or we're out", not "How should we be conducting ourselves on humanitarian missions?"



So what would you suggest? How - in your opinion - should we better conduct our involvement in Afghanistan? You stamp your feet and pout over the way things are currently being done, but havn't offered any sort of alternative.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 May 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't believe the parliamentary system is responsive to the needs and desires of the populace. Pat Martin, my NDP MP, is dreadfully far from caring about most things that are important to me.



I guess the majority of the electorate that decided to vote disagreed with you.  So, how does your personal dissatisfaction with your MP create the case that the problem lies with the parliamentary system?  Did you plan to be a personal advisor to the candidate you voted for, to ensure your personal opinion was catered to?


----------



## Ahkenaten (1 May 2006)

Hello. Long time reader. First time poster. 

Kgerrard first I would like to congratulate you on your conduct here in spite of being outnumbered. But I have questions I would like to put in your head. First I would like to talk about your brain....and my brain and the way everyone's brain works. In a nutshell the way the brain navigates a universe is NOT by asking questions, but by confirming or excluding preconceived answers. When we do not know the answer to something we create a 'best guess' answer and then endeavour to confirm this guess or exclude it. This is because the human brain CANNOT function without answers. Consider the old "if a tree falls in the forest does anyone hear it?". Now the point of this question is to put a person in a state where their brain accepts that they cannot answer a question. This, supposedly will lead to an almost trance-like operation of the brain known as 'meditation' and is meant as an escape from the tiring and frustrating existence of a mind (all of us) that is, as Morrison put it, "squirming like a toad"....always looking for answers and often never liking them as they may not correspond to the preconceived answer the mind already provided itself with.

What does this have to do with Afghanistan? Well, for starters, we're not in Afghanistan and we have questions. We do have preconceived answers but as thinking adults we understand these answers are only estimates and guesses so we look for sources of information to either confirm or deny these guesses. Where do we look? The media. Where else? 

How does the media work? Well an international reporter is more, often than not, paid by the story. The story does not print they do not get paid. Subsequently a reporter finds the stories they believe have a high chance of being printed.

"IF IT BLEEDS IT LEADS."

There is also the issue of how a reporter wants to be viewed. They know that a pro-military operation story will be perceived, as propaganda and butt-kissing, but a negative story seems to imply that the reporter is covering the "hard stories" and finding the "hard answers". Baloney. Because they decide what is newsworthy, they also decide and manipulate (intentionally or not) our perception of Iraq OR Afghanistan.

Why is this important? Let me ask you: When was the last time you read in the paper or saw on the news a story about the Red Cross and all the good work they are doing in Iraq? (Notice that? I asked a question when I am already fairly certain of the answer.) I'm thinking that most people had no idea beyond peripheral assumption that the Red Cross was working in Iraq...._until one of them gets kidnapped._ Then and only then we learn of the Red Cross and not of all the fine work that they do but rather about how dangerous Iraq is and look here, Red Cross workers were kidnapped....must be a strange violent and uncontrolled place, right?

What about reconstruction? When was the last time you read about a reconstruction story? Personally I can't remember the last time I read about one. Does that mean they aren't going on? No, of course not, right? But since we never read about all the Iraqi's helping the Red Cross and all that the Red Cross is doing to help them, or about reconstruction or about the Iraqis or Afghans who are working for democracy or change, but instead only what happens when things go bad. We don’t read about the IEDs that were found and disarmed, we only read about the ones that take life. 

Then there is the classic "liberal media" or "underground media" like Alternative Radio etc. I listen to them all the time. They are not always 'wrong', but there is no doubt that these people have chosen their "side" and will not tell any stories that do not conform with it (no different than the Bush admin.'s mouthpiece Fox news) They lie. They lie easily as much as any other media source lies or manipulates or makes it up as they go along. They lie for the same reason Fox will: Because they believe they are fighting the "good fight" and that justifies anything. They are the "I told you so" crowd and for most of them reality or the shaping of reality is more about fashion than actual reality. Who would they be to their peers if one day they woke up and didn’t tow the line? They would be excommunicated and their "Rage-Against-The-Machines" girlfriends would leave them. Yes: it is that simple.

You will not read about Afghan fathers who want their children (girls as well) to attend school. You will find it hard to read about the people who believe and live for and fight for things like 'freedom', which let's face it, has become a cliché word without meaning. We do not understand because we live with about as much freedom as one can experience in this life or world. We will not read about the kids who are NOT being stoned to death or beaten for playing or singing. You will only read bad news because bad news is all that sells papers. Honestly, if you past a newspaper box with the front page heralding a new construction or government initiative would you bother to read the by-line? But if the headline read, "1000 Afghans killed, 20 Canadian soldiers killed" you'd stop, right? 

Whether it's 90% good news and 10% bad news or the other way around all you will ever read is the bad news. This shapes our perception to a point that most of us are too proud to admit or realize. 



facta, non verba.


----------



## S McKee (1 May 2006)

While I believe it is everyone’s right to protest I find that many in the anti-military camp really haven't the foggiest idea about they are talking about. The "land mines" at Gustafsen Lake is a prime example; if the writer actually knew about the CF he/she would have known that Canada has banned the use of landmines. Rather than protesting an organization that protects your right to free speech and pays for that right with the lives of your fellow citizens, maybe you should be protesting China's policy of harvesting organs from executed political prisoners (read Ezra Levant's column featured in today's Calgary Sun). I'm a firm believer that all Canadian males should have to fulfill a period of obligatory military service, that way they would realize the cost of maintaining the freedom in this country. But I guess any protest no matter how misguided is a good reason to cut class.


----------



## A O G 101 (1 May 2006)

I wonder kgerrard,if you will explain to these fine people ,The protest theory behind the 9/11 lie, I can't say I'm not wondering myself,Not that I haven't heard multiple explanations from so called "conspiracy theorists'.But I would like to know yours,Has they say,(know thy foe).

The following is from Winnipeg's 'Independant media centre' website. 

Sun 30 Apr: SOUL 911 music and protest

Posted by dr j 

We are planning an event for April 30th, 2006 at the Pyramid cabaret. The purpose is to help keep the protest spirit high, and help people become informed about the truth of 911. People will get a free DVD, and CD with all the evidence you need to know the truth, information the government and media don't want you to have. 

Please come out and get informed about the truth of September 11, 2001. Know the truth about 911 and pass it on. There will be a film early at 6:30 and hip hop, reggae, and dance performance all night. Keep the protest spirit high and informed. Check out the web site "stop lying.ca" for a list of articles and videos. Get informed on the crime of the century, and pass on the truth. Help the international "911 truth movement", help get the word out, and the images out. 

This non -profit (3 dollar) event is to honour the truth of 911 that the government and media won't touch. 
Operation charging bison is based on the events of 911, its based on a lie. Learn the truth, and stop the lie.


----------



## ArmyRick (1 May 2006)

The truth about 9/11?

I could only imagine what clownery they will tell. The truth is that thousands of thousands of innocent life was lost because some pieces of garbage flew some airplanes into the world trade center.

Oh let me guess? The CIA planned it all and went for th pentagon but of course the one aimed for the white house missed? RIGHT!

There comes a point when so called "free speech" is actually propaganda.  We know what propaganda has done in the past.


----------



## Franko (1 May 2006)

kgerrard,

As someone who has participated in operations in Bosnia and Afghanistan, along with domestic operations in Oka and the Ice Storm I am willing to entertain any and all questions in regards to those missions.

Hopefully I can shed some light on how operations are conducted and that the POV you share with so many other protesters is based purely on speculation and paranoia.

Fire away.    

Regards


----------



## Centurian1985 (1 May 2006)

kgerrard, 

I applaud your efforts against overwhelming odds.  You seem to be a 1-against the world here, and have received some words of praise from members in other forums (thus attracting my attention).

I wont repeat the arguments of others on other subjects I am interested but will instead restrict myself to your comments about Haiti.  I keep seeing demonstrators saying 'get out of Haiti' and reading editorials against our involvement there.  This boggles my mind - Haiti had imploded long before Canada was involved.  Why do people in your faction believe we are their as part of some takeover of Haiti?

Now, you have many others to respond to so I dont expect an immediate response, but I am really curious as to what your answer is on this.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (1 May 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The truth about 9/11?
> 
> I could only imagine what clownery they will tell. The truth is that thousands of thousands of innocent life was lost because some pieces of garbage flew some airplanes into the world trade center.
> 
> ...



Oh, it gets better than that.  I have seen videos and "testimony" from people who will swear that the twin towers were rigged with C4, and the way they came down was as a result of a controlled demolition. There is also a video around that "proves" the Pentagon was hit with a missile, not a jet.  And it was "obviously" a CIA missile.  Pretty sure it was disproven as a photoshop fraud on Snopes, but the Michael Moore set are still taking it as gospel  Why?  So Bush could support his blood thirsty, war mongering, Haliburton supporting, empire building mania?   Why else?  
We are getting to a point in this information age that unless you didn't do it/see it personally, you shouldn't trust it 100%.


----------



## FredDaHead (1 May 2006)

I don't think I have much to add to the conversation, but I wanted to congratulate and thank everyone involved.

kgerrard, (I hope I spelled it right) although you aren't really changing my perception of most protesters, you are showing me that there are some of you who oppose the military and can put forth a proper, clean discussion that doesn't degenerate into name-calling or hate-mongering or any other such conversation that ends up being destructive.

To the rest of you, you are showing, once again, that, in general, your side of the argument is generally argued for with much more respect and formality than the other side.

Having been in kgerrard's situation (arguing a side with everyone else arguing against) I know it's not easy, and when it happened to me, it very quickly degenerated in insulting my intelligence and saying I was brainwashed. I'm happy to see it hasn't happened here, and I think it speaks volumes about this website: we can have arguments with completely opposed viewpoints without letting the civility slip.

So to wrap it up: good job to all of you, keep up the interesting conversation coming.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 May 2006)

>but I'm afraid of what you'll do overseas and even on "Canadian" soil.

Contrary to some of the beliefs out there, even Canadian reservists who have been selected and trained for specific missions (rotos) don't go anywhere if the missions are scrubbed.  It would be really, really helpful if some of the fringe media would inform themselves of how the army must maintain a state of readiness against all reasonable contingencies.  Much of the conflict in the world today takes place in urban areas.  Presumably one should prepare to do anything from delivering humanitarian aid to high-intensity battle in urban areas.  Oddly, the army has already thought of this.  The tool has to be ready.  It's up to the people who control the tool to make sure it's employed properly, not to make sure the tool is weak.

I understand how some people fear what might happen on Canadian soil.  If I thought they would be cool with the idea of groups of rednecks arming themselves and forming little enclaves minding their own business on their own property a la Ruby Ridge and Waco, I'd understand how they could support any other group arming itself and/or threatening violence.  However, I think the window of tolerance for that is somewhat hypocritically defined, so I'll stick with the general idea that the government should act decisively to thwart anyone who gets ideas of private revolution.


----------



## doncab (2 May 2006)

Since nobody answered ArmyRick's questions, maybe i'll take a stab at it.  I haven't participated in any of the protests, but i'm probably coming from a similar place.  I've also had a great time reading these forums since the viewpoints we usually hear are from the people running the missions, instead of those participating, it sort of reinforces why we need to talk to each other more often!

That being said, i'll try and answer your questions.

(1) Have you actually been outside North America?

Well, this is more for the other person.  However, most of the information that our opinions is based on comes from people who have.  Personally, I have a few friends who have travelled to Palestine, South America etc working with the international solidarity movement who share their experience.  Also, I think a pretty reasonable picture can be obtained by simply reading government and related documents with a critical perspective.  What I think you're alluding to is that since you, or your co-workers have been in these places you have a better picture of the situation.  This is true to an extent, but remember your going into the situation with years of training geared specifically towards giving you the mindset to accept these missions as just, so you can act accordingly.

(2) What is the solution then to not having so called flawed intervention in Afganistan? Do we pretend their are no serious problems going on?

Take the current mission.  In response to a criminal act (the attack on the world trade centre) the U.S. presented Afghanistan with the ultimatum that it hand over suspected members of terrorist groups or face attack.  The only catch: the U.S. refused to provide any evidence, to Afghanistan or anyone else.  I think the question is "what right do we have to attack countries without evidence?"  If the roles were reversed, what would be the outcome?  Latin America is a great example.  The years of U.S. state terrorism  directed at Latin America that claimed thousands of lives, not to mention the original 9/11 hijacking of an air Cubana jet plane in the 70's, even earned a condemnation by the U.N, vetoed by the U.S. and Isreal.  These activites are, unlike the claims of the US in afghanistan, fully documented.  You can read books of de-classified internal documents relating to the terrorism directed at cuba for example.  Does anyone rightly believe that Cuba or Nicaragua has the right to bomb Washington?  Well, maybe some do, but personally i think that military campaigns are the wrong way to deal with these kinds of issues.  I think the U.S. should have first produced evidence, then taken it to the International Criminal Court.  While this was impossible from a small Latin American country, it would have been a piece of cake for the states.

(3) Where were you on September 11, 2001? I think you forget, you sting America they are likely to bite back. Hard.

I was in Winnipeg, but i managed to go to New York the following year and check out Ground Zero and talk to some New Yorkers about it.  I think America Biting back so hard is the problem, they end up biting everyone else in the room too.  Remember during the cold war when the governmnet realized that the U.s was referring to us as "Occupied Canada" and we had to "ask them to leave?"  The main problem is that when America, or Canada "bite's back" we end up killing all sorts of innocent people who had nothing to do with it, to me that's reason enough to pursue another solution.

(4) What would your solution and response to 9/11 have been if you were the US President?
Well, first off i would never want such a crummy job but in the even it was forced on me i would gather the evidence that proved who was responsible for the attacks, and try them in international court.  Then I would address the LEGITIMATE grievances of people like OBL, such as reducing the presence of American military bases in the middle east, stop supporting terror in the middle east, and supporting Isreal with massive financial and diplomatic support as well as a long record of vetoes in the U.N. and their lack of interest in Isreals nukes compared to that of other countries in the region.  But even if i was a "hawk" ad wanted war with someone i could have done it better.  i could have a) respected the geneva conventions b)sought U.N security council approval for any invasion etc.

(5) What do you suppose the role of an Armed Forces is? Hint NOT peacekeeping first and foremost.

The Armed forces are in my view a tool of violence at the disposal of the ruling classes that run the country, to be used at home or abroad when necessary or desired, primarily abroad.  According to Rick Hillier it's to be "able to kill people" which i think is fairly accurate, and that's generally what i'm opposed to.  A big group of well-trained, heavily armed men and women at the disposal of someone as clearly insane as Paul Martin or George Bush (or Reagan for that matter).  In Canada's case, were mostly a support force for the U.S. at present and historically speaking for Europe.  Peacekeeping is a great idea though, but again States aren't benign entities, they act in their own self-interest so until now most peacekeeping missions have been flawed at best, damaging and destructive at worst.  

(6) So what if soldiers pull the trigger to save lives and kill bad people (They are real you know), so do cops when a criminal is threatening innocent life, do you protest the police as well?

Again, i'm not too concerned about the bad guys/girls.  But the predictable side effects that come with military interventions such as killing inoocent men, women and children in grotesque and brutal fashion, as well as the resulting political instability that accompanies foreign military forces wherever they go.  In regards to the police, some do protest the role of police in society as well as they have also killed or imprisoned many innocent people.  Obviously the question you're asking must be "is it worth it?"  and the answer is "yes, as long as every other option has been exausted."  again, in far too many cases this logic is not applied, so people naturally continue to question the validity of police and military.  

Hopefully this gives you an idea of where some of us are coming from.  and again, i think this dialogue is great!


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

doncab et al:

When you organize your marches and demonstrations do you assign "Parade Marshalls" to control the behaviour of the crowd?  How do you handle the situation if somebody gets out of line and starts breaking the rules you have set?  Or do you set rules?  How do you handle "outsiders" - anarchists or, assuming you believe in such things, agents provocateurs from the government that infiltrate the assembly?

The obvious reasons for the questions are doncab's comments pertaining to the necessity for the police and the army.   I think that by focusing on the side-effects of the application of force, and the occasional misapplication of force that you miss the purpose of being able to apply the force in the first case.

Is an HIV treatment that cures only 95% of the population to be rejected because 4% aren't cured and 1% die horrible, agonizing deaths as a result of the treatment?

Society, not the ruling classes but society at large, needs the tools of coercion, no matter how blunt or imperfect they may be, to protect itself when suasion and consensus fail.


----------



## doncab (2 May 2006)

Kirkhill:

actually, allot of time anarchists are actually the ones planning these things!  Usually people use common sense i'd imagine, i think methods of dealing with violence at a protest would be situational so it's hard to say how without an example.  As for "outsiders" i think generally everyone is welcome, and any government "agents" would be promptly publicly exposed, and would most likely leave soon after.

I would definitley agree that society needs to protect itself, but i think coercion is part of the problem as well.  Coercion is a powerful tool that is used against us in our everyday lives (advertising, newspapers etc.) and I think if there was less coercion we wouldn't have allot of the problems that lead people into committing violent acts (poverty, lack of hope).

Also, right now the tools aren't in the hands of a functioning democratic society they're in the hands of a select few who are also the benefactors of said coercion and influence and to me that's the vital component.  I'm all for Neighborhood Watch.  This brings up the critical issue which is who are the police really there to protect, the citizens or the system?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> According to Rick Hillier it's to be "able to kill people" which i think is fairly accurate, and that's generally what i'm opposed to.  A big group of well-trained, heavily armed men and women at the disposal of someone as clearly insane as Paul Martin or George Bush (or Reagan for that matter).



I was wondering how much milage the peaceniks would try to get from misquoting the CDS on that one.  The quote, in context, is as follows:
*He also gave a blunt assessment of the role of the Canadian Forces, which he said are designed to protect Canadian interests at home and abroad.
"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people," Gen. Hillier said.*

Funny how many hippies have dropped the "able" out of that quote to suit their purpose.  However, I am in complete agreement with your statement of being uncomfortable with "someone as clearly insane as Paul Martin".  Thank god he is not the Prime Minister anymore.  You knew that, right?  Because you voted in the last election?  Right?



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> Again, i'm not too concerned about the bad guys/girls.



Yeah, that is pretty clear with you socialists.  So  intoxicated with self righteousness that you can't fathom how life is for some people.  That is what the "have you ever been abroad" comment was alluding to.  There are whole big chunks of our revolving rock where the people don't have any value for human life, and will do anything to anyone.  If anything, Afghanistan is a country that has been crapped on, rode hard and put away wet for decades.  If you and your people were not so eager to be the next generation of Viet Nam style protesters who "can stop a war with love and peace" you would support the CF and their efforts to PROMOTE equality and human rights.  Get over Bush.  Get over Iraq.  Get over yourselves.  If ever there was a country that needed Canada, with it's two pronged ability for winning over the indigent population with big hearted and open minded individuals and policies, coupled with a highly professional and very effective military force, it is Afghanistan.  
Don't be shy to get a bit of information on FIBUA tactics (fighting in built up areas, we still call it that, right?).  They will be training so they can REDUCE innocent casualties, to themselves and the locals.  Know what is safe and effective for clearing a village?  Tomahawk missiles.  Lots of 'em.  Pretty easy to cross a parking lot.  But we don't do that, we try to keep the place as in tact as possible to turn it over to the people whom we are trying to help.  And the stuff that gets wrecked, we end up rebuilding, even if we didn't wreck it!
So while you are screaming "SHAMESHAMESHAME" at some 18 year old reservist who is trying to do his job and learn some things to help save the lives of him and his platoon mates in a potential future conflict, take maybe a minute to think about why they may someday be deployed and who they will be helping.  
We all believe in principles.  Just some of us are more willing to do something to uphold and preserve them than others.



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> As for "outsiders" i think generally everyone is welcome, and any government "agents" would be promptly publicly exposed, and would most likely leave soon after.



Hah.  Long hair, a Grateful Ded t-shirt and sandals.  That's all it takes.  You people were hopelessly outgunned during the OAS in Windsor in 2000.  Besides, why would police "once exposed" be expected to leave?  Isn't your message for everyone?  Or are you hoping to "make a statement for peace" by causing property damage and violence?



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> Also, right now the tools aren't in the hands of a functioning democratic society they're in the hands of a select few who are also the benefactors of said coercion and influence and to me that's the vital component.  I'm all for Neighborhood Watch.  This brings up the critical issue which is who are the police really there to protect, the citizens or the system?


Don't turn this into a police thing.  We just show up and keep the peace.  BTW, citizens that are law abiding are part of the "system", so we protect both.


----------



## DJ (2 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> In response to a criminal act (the attack on the world trade centre) the U.S. presented Afghanistan with the ultimatum that it hand over suspected members of terrorist groups or face attack.  The only catch: the U.S. refused to provide any evidence, to Afghanistan or anyone else.  I think the question is "what right do we have to attack countries without evidence?"


  

Even though I'm a guy with multilateralist/hippy roots, I can't agree with this example.  This is an excerpt from the book  _War Law_ by Michael Byers, an international lawyer and professor who is generally quite critical of the U.S.:  
"....At the time [the aftermath of 11 September 2001], there were several legal justifications available to the United States for the use of military force in Afghanistan.  First, the United States could have argued that it was acting at the invitation of the Northern Alliance, a group which still controlled a portion of the country's territory and could have been cast-albeit tenuously-as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.  Invitation is widely accepted as a legal basis for intervention under customary international law, since the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force is only directed at non-consensual interventions.  Second, the United States could have sought explicit authorization for military action from the UN Security Council.  Such authorization would certainly have been granted, given the widespread sympathy that existed for the United States at the time as well as the heightened concern about terrorism felt by governments everywhere....
...the United States adopted a two-pronged legal strategy.  First, it implicated the Taliban.  By giving refuge to Bin Laden and al-Qaeda and refusing to hand them over, the Taliban was alleged to have directly facilitated and endorsed their actions.  The United States even gave the Taliban a deadline for surrendering bin Laden, a move that served to ensure there complicity.  Moreover, the Taliban's continued control over Afghanistan was viewed as a threat, in and of itself, of even more terrorism.
...*Subsequent statements by the Taliban that endorsed the terrorist acts further raised the level of their alleged responsibility.*   (my emphasis) "  



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> Peacekeeping is a great idea though



It is a great idea in my mind too.  However, the nature of the beast has changed horribly.  J.L. Granatstein wrote a great piece I think, (sorry, another excerpt): 
"He (Pearson) appreciated the role that the UN could play, but he was also one of the founders of NATO, and he was never a believer in peacekeeping above all other means of statecraft.  Peacekeeping was a tool, a device to freeze a crisis while statesmen sought a political solution to resolve it....
...Pearson's 1956 triumph (Suez) was misinterpreted by his fellow citizens, as they fell in love with the United Nations and peacekeeping and continue today to raise their blue-helmeted soldiers to the levels of icons and myth-Canada as the universally beloved, tolerant, and idealistic peacekeeping exemplar to the world.  Being Canadians, however, they understand nothing of how dangerous and difficult peacekeeping and peacemaking have become in the last decade.  Nor do they seem to realize that Canada in 2003 has just over two hundred soldiers on UN duties.  Given their chronic lack of interest in the military, they do not know that the present Canadian Forces, with well under 55,000 trained soldiers, sailors, and airmen and women, are incapable of doing more for the UN because they are so thinly stretched and ill-equipped.  Yet being Canadian, they accept the contradictory idea that the Canadian Forces remain the world's ideal peacekeepers... 
...*Canadians do not realize that the major reason the Canadian Forces have proven themselves capable of peacekeeping is that the nation trains its men and women for war. * "There is no such thing as a Canadian 'peacekeeper,'" according to Military historian Dr. Sean Maloney.  "There are Canadian soldiers.  Peacekeeping covers a small band in the spectrum of conflict.  Canadian national security demands that we have an armed forces capable of fighting."  *It is a truism that a war-trained soldier can fight and also do peacekeeping.  A peacekeeping-trained soldier, however, cannot fight in a war-at least, not without dying quickly.*" (emphasis added again).  

I too am of the opinion that war=bad.  The West shouldn't be interfering with their ethnocentric bias etc...However, don't we have a responsibility to help others?  If you saw somebody who got hit by a car, would you stop to help?  We, as a G8 nation, have the resources to help people.  We should not turn a blind eye whilst a genocide is ongoing.  I find a lot of hypocrisy with many (although not all) of the anti-military types who blast soldiers for fighing in wars overseas and then turn around and cry-out about our governments not doing enough about the situation in a different country.  Other options should be used first, however, these are often taken-advantage of by the people who are inflicting the pain upon others, to the detriment of the people who really need our help.  I can not sit idly-by while other people who are too weak to defend themselves are victimized.  I will help them.  Often, unfortunately, the only way to do that is through force.  As true today as when Pearson was in power.  

edit for emphasis adding and a missing 's'.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 May 2006)

Doncab, I respect the fact that you actually answered the questions that Kgerreard ducked. However I don't think you have the most realistic view of the world outside Fortress North America.

9/11 was a crime or maybe more accurately it was an act of war. Force, lethal force is what was required to stop these guys from doing such acts. Presenting evidence and building up a case? Yeah right. Sorry pal, if you had a loved one in those towers I'll bet you would be screaming for Bin Ladens head on a platter.

Bottom line, no social justice bullsh*t (usually double talk to cover up other inappropriate activities IMO) Force is required at times to stop or control unwanted behaviour. Sit ins, candle light vigils, protest, sanctions, etc RARELY work. Lets live in the real world.

Man points a gun at innocent people in public, the cops hopefully put one round in his skull and his torso. Rogue terrorist groups fly plains into towers killing THOUSANDS of innocent people, send a military force in to lay the smack down.

Enjoy the utopia you live in, mean while we the soldiers will protect it (police too).


----------



## Wookilar (2 May 2006)

Wait, I'm confused. You mean that there really are TWO peace activists that can back up their beliefs?

kg and don, I appreciate you sticking around and debating your views with us. We may disagree on just about everything, but I can respect someone else's views when they are deeply held.

I really do not think we will get anywhere with all of this. It is the choir talking to the armchair anti-generals. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in our world views. Our friend kg does not even support democratic systems (as we have them right now) where as we have sworn to die (or kill) to protect said democracy (actually, for those that don't know, its to protect Canada's sovereignty, the Constitution and the people).

I see the biggest issue with the "peace" types is the lack of realistic solutions to the current problems. 
We cannot pull out of Afghanistan. To do so would be irresponsible and prove everything that our "enemies" have been saying.
We cannot immediately go into Sudan. We have no one to send. Literally. And anyways, according to our new friends here, we should be sending in Oxfam, CIDA and other NGO's to do what they can first. What? They don't want to go? What do you mean they are being murdered by a corrupt regime and corrupt rebels who are no better?

There's a little thing called "reality" that often gets in the way of these arguments. I wish this was Star Trek Next Generation, but it's not. People are bad, greed exists as does evil. All the foreign aid in the planet will not wipe out that. And do not start on about we caused the evil in the first place ...the CIA...racism....supporting illegal regimes..... You will not get much argument here about many of these things. Remember, we've been there, we've dealt with the corrupt, with the ethnic cleansing, with the rebels and regimes. These are the things that exist, and we try to stop them the best way we know how.

If you have some REALISTIC methods of making the CURRENT situation in Afghanistan/Iraq/Haiti/Sudan/Indonesia/Spain/Turkey/Kashmir (et al) get better without loss of life, I will back you 100%. But until that time, I will keep serving in the hellholes of the world, as an extension of Canada's foreign policy, because I believe (I know!) that what I do saves lives.


----------



## toughenough (2 May 2006)

I don't really want to jump into this conversation, but there's a point that I'd really like to bring forward...



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> (2) What is the solution then to not having so called flawed intervention in Afganistan? Do we pretend their are no serious problems going on?
> 
> Take the current mission.  In response to a criminal act (the attack on the world trade centre) the U.S. presented Afghanistan with the ultimatum that it hand over suspected members of terrorist groups or face attack.  The only catch: the U.S. refused to provide any evidence, to Afghanistan or anyone else.  I think the question is "what right do we have to attack countries without evidence?"  If the roles were reversed, what would be the outcome?  Latin America is a great example.  The years of U.S. state terrorism  directed at Latin America that claimed thousands of lives, not to mention the original 9/11 hijacking of an air Cubana jet plane in the 70's, even earned a condemnation by the U.N, vetoed by the U.S. and Isreal.  These activites are, unlike the claims of the US in afghanistan, fully documented.  You can read books of de-classified internal documents relating to the terrorism directed at cuba for example.  Does anyone rightly believe that Cuba or Nicaragua has the right to bomb Washington?  Well, maybe some do, but personally i think that military campaigns are the wrong way to deal with these kinds of issues.  I think the U.S. should have first produced evidence, then taken it to the International Criminal Court.  While this was impossible from a small Latin American country, it would have been a piece of cake for the states.



Bringing forth evidence happens in court. ObL was suspected of something, therefore he should be turned in to let the legal system work things out. This is the reason why every "Cops" and "Dallas Swat" type shows go to painstaking lengths to state that the people arrested are presumed innocent until such time that sufficient evidence has been provided for a Judge/Jury to find this person guilty. Any evidence against ObL would have been used in court.

However, the Taliban refused to turn him over. Fair enough. We'll go in and get him. Ask Mr. Hussein how that works - he happens to have been given a trial and a chance to prove his evidence before the world. Do you honestly believe that delaying further would make ObL easier to catch? The more delay, the more of a head start he would have on 'us' (us being figurative term). To this day, we still cannot find him.

Perhaps another six month delay and we would have walked in and picked up him up right away? How can you realistically argue that? What kind of situation would Canada be in if a child molester, or rapist was allowed to stay 'on the streets' until after a trial?

toughenough


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 May 2006)

toughenough said:
			
		

> Perhaps another six month delay and we would have walked in and picked up him up right away? How can you realistically argue that? What kind of situation would Canada be in if a child molester, or rapist was allowed to stay 'on the streets' until after a trial?



Umm, actually, the judges let them stay on the streets before, during and generally after the trials even when they are guilty for the most part.  Grim reality.  Everything else you posted is bang on.  

I don't expect we will see much from these two for a bit, as I believe today is the big day to go out and try to ruin a well organized urban warfare training exercise?  Wouldn't it be CRAZY if somehow a honey pot of CS "accidentally" got set off just down wind of the kum-bay-ah circle? :evil:


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

ArmyRick, I decline to respond to your questions due to your rudeness to me via private message. Note that I'm responding to posts (mostly) in order, but I clearly can't cover everything.



			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The problem in Haiti is with the cycle of events that has grown up over time.  A corrupt government (Duvalier) was replaced  by a fairly uncorrupt government (Aristide) who was not nice to the former supporters of Duvallier.  Over time the Aristide government became comfortable as the rulers of Haiti and became corrupt.  Other factions in Haiti wanted to have elections.  Aristide waffled on that point.  There was a revolt.  Rinse and repeat...


That revolt was supported indirectly and directly by foreign forces which adds uncertainty as to its legitimacy.



> The fact that the US and France agreed that this mission was required should give you an indication of how bad things were.  What other foreign policies do they agree on?


Ones that are beneficial to them as rich nations with heavy corporate ties?



> Whether or not the current forces are doing a good job there I cannot comment on.  I know they are trying.  The RCMP is still involved in training the Haitian National Police.  Do you really think that a RCMP officer would continue to support, train, and encourage another police officer who was involved in murder?  I cant see it.  No doubt there are police officers who secretly support the gangs or Aristide or Duvalier but I cannot see a RCMP officer shrugging off that fact if he knew it and carrying on.


You have a rosy portrait of the RCMP in mind that blinds you to its faults. While I recognise that the majority of officers likely have good intentions, I suspect they have an analysis limited by the government's lack of complete honesty.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 May 2006)

Quote,
_Ones that are beneficial to them as rich nations with heavy corporate ties?_

Sorry, son, but this one is just stupid. What does Haiti possibly have that a "greedy corporation" would want?  

Poverty and violence for all.........not much of a slogan.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> You, like so many young "protestors", and like their elders before them, seem to think that Canadian soldiers are some sort of 'other' species. Why would you think that the very same boys and girls you grew up with, played hockey with, dated, went to parties with, etc would turn around and commit some sort of horrific war crime?


You defeat yourself with that argument. Aren't the people I grew up with capable of terrible evil? War criminals exist.



> That has always baffled me, and I'm hoping that you can provide an answer. You seem to think that your neighbours, and possibly even family members that you have known for their entire lives, could suddenly become prime candidates for the Waffen SS! Canadian soldiers, like Canadians everywhere, have an abhorrence for the same sorts of behaviour that you do.


Apparently not, since we elected a Conservative minority.



> The difference is, instead of making loud noises, and destroying public and private property here, in Canada, where we can do so in perfect safety, and achieve no result, we choose to enlist, allowing us to go into dangerous areas and make them safe for the people who live there.


I've carried out no such destruction.



> By joining the Canadian Army, we can ensure that Aid workers can do their job without being robbed, we can ensure that medical assistance gets through without being hijacked, we can ensure that banditry is stopped, we can teach the armies and police forces of various nations the Might must serve Right, we can enforce free and fair elections, ensuring that the will of the people of that nation is carried out, and we can do all this far more effectively than any civilian agency. Because we have the strength of arms and the strength of convictions to fight for it, to kill for it, and to die for it. We also have the logistic train, and logistic training, to make it work efficiently. We function as a team, and have more and better resources.


If I had faith that the assistance necessary were the lone goal, I would be completely behind the deployment and recognise the necessity of training.



> The job of the Canadian Army is, basically, to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, treat the sick, and kill evil men. And we do it for two basic reasons:
> 
> 1. it's morally Right. Only a heartless man can go to a Third World nation, ruled by tyrants, or by lawlessness, and not be sickened by what he sees. However, whereas civilian agencies proceed to hand out charity, and treat the symptoms, we treat the symptoms and the disease. Civilian agencies can only hand out charity, which does nothing to stop the perpetuation of corruption and tyranny. We make fundamental changes that go a long way to stopping the lawlessness. By making positive changes in the electoral processes, by teaching the various military and law enforcement agencies to stop being corrupt, and by shooting various terrorists and criminals, thereby removing them from the equation.


I agree that less privileged nations deserve our aid, especially when we helped destroy them. However, I feel our military interventions are generally _part_ of the disease.



> 2. by doing so, we keep Canada safe from the depredations of terrorists and criminals. We keep evil regimes form launching attacks on Canadian soil. In short, we spend our lives in terrible conditions, away from those love, we fight, we kill, and we die, so that you will always have the freedom to protest our doing so. You're welcome.


To the contrary, I believe we are simply moving Canada up the list of potential terrorist targets with this, the latest in a history of interventions that _create_ terrorism.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

kgerrard: It is possible that many of us here wear rose-coloured filters.  I suggest though that yours may be a bit muddy.  

By the way, don't you find it somewhat ironic that by protesting these exercises you may actually be adding to the training value of the exercise?  Usually the CF has to hire people to play your role and you are doing it for free.   As a taxpayer I thank you for your service to the nation.

Cheers.

PS, I am fascinated by the concept of anarchists planning anything.  Who decides and how do you enforce the consensus?


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Okay, so I'm violating my ordered response, but this was irresistable.





			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Sorry, son, but this one is just stupid. What does Haiti possibly have that a "greedy corporation" would want?


Cheap labour for sweatshops. For a Canadian example, look up Gildan.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To make that one a little clearer; can we ask you if you think that people in any profession should not train to do their jobs proficiently and safely? Would you want to be treated by a Paramedic whose only training was to put on his/her uniform, and have no medical training at all?  Would you want your local Fire Department to come and rescue you in a multi-story building, after only training to put out grass fires?  Would you feel safe in the proximity of a Police officer who had never trained on the use of his/her firearm?  Would you feel safe under the knife of a surgeon who had left Medical School in the 1940's and had never bothered to upgrade his surgical skills?
> 
> To maintain a Professional Military, they have to train.  They have to train for any eventuality.  That way should the need arise, they will be able to deal with it effectively and with as little loss of life as possible.


Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training rapists to be most effective.

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 May 2006)

Quote,
_I agree that less privileged nations deserve our aid, especially when we helped destroy them._

Now I'm getting a bit steamed, I hate this stupid old throw-in arguement.
Sorry sunshine, I have not destroyed anything/anyone............Who the $@^& is "WE"?
Maybe you and your friends somehow tour the globe "destroying them" but sorry, me, well I look after what I can so save the standard "guilt throw-ins" for some wah-wah class.

Cheap friggin" labour?.......makin" what?    Oh. I forgot the huge Haiti industrial basin. Pleeease, there are lots of places more stable/cheaper than there.....


----------



## William Webb Ellis (2 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> (1) Have you actually been outside North America?
> 
> Well, this is more for the other person.  However, most of the information that our opinions is based on comes from people who have.  Personally, I have a few friends who have travelled to Palestine, South America etc working with the international solidarity movement who share their experience.  Also, I think a pretty reasonable picture can be obtained by simply reading government and related documents with a critical perspective.  What I think you're alluding to is that since you, or your co-workers have been in these places you have a better picture of the situation.  This is true to an extent, but remember your going into the situation with years of training geared specifically towards giving you the mindset to accept these missions as just, so you can act accordingly.



You should be careful, while honesty is the best policy, you are dealing with many people, that have left the country and "been there done that".  While your information is second hand theirs is firsthand, and is often gain through hard work.

Cheers


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Your argument is rather disingenious, no?  On one hand, you maintain that military bodies are evil (a valid point of view for a pacifist, considering what we do), yet on another you'll say that "a defensive body" is necessary.  Unfortunately, there is little room for such relativism in the armed forces.  There is very little difference between "offensive" and "defensive" training - virtually none in most instances - yet we'll hear the uninformed constantly trying to distinguish between an "offensive" and a "defensive" weapons system or exercise.


Perhaps to you, but you seem to see the argument as Military vs. No military. I believe we need a debate on what sort of military we have. I would favour one more interested in working alongside citizens of countries that need help instead of the paternalistic techniques we currently employ.



> Furthermore, concerning the exercise you're about to protest, who is to say that it isn't in preparation for a humanitarian or a "defensive" mission?  As I pointed out in my original post, we have very little idea of what international affairs will look like in 2008.  The government could well launch the Army on a mission in Africa, for the precise objectives you'd indicate you'd support, yet here you are attempting to deny soldiers the opportunity to prepare, simply because you've decided that you disagree with one particular operation.


It's true, but when else do I have a chance to voice opposition to things like the mission in Afghanistan? Were the media interested in a more in-depth analysis instead of soundbites, it would be clear that I (and some others) support humanitarian missions when our presence is requested.

I'm running out of steam, but I realllly want to respond to the Gustafsen Lake stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 May 2006)

kgerrard:  I think you may be starting to push things a bit here when your rhetoric takes you to equate training soldiers with training rapists.  Up until now it has been a fairly civil debate and I appreciate how wearing it must be to be one against many defending your principles.

That aside I wonder if you could think about this question, it is one that I have posed to some of my more progressive acquaintances in the past:  I have little trouble believing that a courageous individual could sacrifice themselves for their beliefs, but if you were confronted with a woman with a gun at the head of your child and you had a gun in your hand could you stand by and sacrifice your child for your beliefs?  Or would you expect somebody else to do the killing?

Cheers.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I just read the article and then "googled" the lady.......quite the woman!!
> 
> However after reading a few of her interviews it sounds like she would like more security/soldiers to properly train the local Police forces that they are supposed to be the "good guys".
> 
> ...


This is what I'm saying. Our presence in Afghanistan is ineffective. The governments directing the continuing struggle are blind to some of its causes. Until we are prepared to take direction from affected parties instead of carrying out our own ideas of how things should work, I can't support these deployments.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> So whats the answer protester? Lets pull out of everywhere- and cut ALL aid off to these countires since their governments are corrupt and just let the chips fall where they will. The stronger will enslave the weaker but thats fine because we wont DIRECTLY have the blood on our hands.


No. If we are to provide aid to deserving nations, we should work with people at a grassroots level to help them build institutions that are responsive to them and not corporate interests.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> kg, my friend, you really have to talk to the people writing some of that tripe. And get them to take off their hats, our mind altering lazers we borrowed from the Russians obviously are being amplified by all the tinfoil.
> 
> Case in point, Gustafsen Lake. No landmines, no .50 cal's. Know what we did? Drove the Mounties around in armoured wheeled vehicles (Bison's, 2 of them). That's it. That's all. The RCMP was in charge of the entire operation and only requested a vehicle to protect them while they were doing patrols.


The Globe and Mail reported on October 8, 1996, that land mines were used. Explain.



> Like I said earlier (and echoed by many others), most of your compadres cannot put two coherent sentences together. All you have to do is ASK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE!!!!! We might even answer politely.


I value the input of people who were there, but they're not always fully informed or trustworthy. On any side.


----------



## scoutfinch (2 May 2006)

kgerrard:

How about instead of your constant critique you present a realistic, implementable solution to the horrors that are happening on a daily basis around the world.  I would be genuinely interested in your comments in this regard.  

That being said, I suspect that the requirements of *realistic* and *implementable* might hamper your efforts somewhat.  

I have worked in refugee camps for NGOs.  I know first hand the ugliness that humans can perpetrate against one another.  I also know that the worst of this can be done by UNPROFESSIONAL militaries, those that are not constrained by the democratic institutions of civil society. 

I also know that the only mechanism to arrest the barbarism of these forces is the application of force by PROFESSIONAL militaries.  I am prepared to listen to your arguments to the contrary but only if you can support it with fact.  

scoutfinch


----------



## scoutfinch (2 May 2006)

The *land mines* to which you refer are buried in the ground, designed to go off under the weight of a vehicle and are intended to provide warning to police of encroaching vehicles.  They disable vehicles but do not injure occupants.

They are referred to as in ground explosive devices or early warning devices.  They are a far cry from *land mines* used in a military context.  

If this is what you are relying on as fact, I suggest that you place your arguments in proper context so that they carry some weight.  Like many within protest movements, your hyperbole and exaggeration simply weakens your arguments, makes you appear hysterical and you lose credibility.  You may have something important to say, but you mihgt as well be screaming into the wind if no one will listen to you because they don't trust you to tell the truth and place it in context.


----------



## Peacenik (2 May 2006)

Quote of the week: "I am fascinated by the concept of anarchists planning anything.  Who decides and how do you enforce the consensus?"

KGerrard
I am interested to know whether or not you think we should go to Darfur or even if we should have sent the Grizzlies?  

As an aside:
I've found that most of my protester-type friends and relatives (hippie family) are so anti-establishment that they don't even vote.  I really only vote to represent my demographic, so I'm not a vote-or-die type, but the strange thing is that they don't vote or write their MP's or even letters to the editor and they are the ones out protesting the new wal-mart, globalization or western hypocrisy in general...  

I too would rather we didn't have troops deployed anywhere.  Keep them home with their families, and only "break glass in case of emergency."  But if we have to be there, I'm glad we've sent our best, and I'm glad they were well prepared.  

I sharpened all my kitchen knives yesterday.  Even the ones I might not use for a month... just in case.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2006)

Peacenik said:
			
		

> I've found that most of my protester-type friends and relatives (hippie family) are so anti-establishment that they don't even vote.  I really only vote to represent my demographic, so I'm not a vote-or-die type, but the strange thing is that *they don't vote or write their MP's or even letters to the editor *and they are the ones out protesting the new wal-mart, globalization or western hypocrisy in general...



Refusing to use the system to change the system  ... does that approach to protesting not define "western hypocrisy" in its purest sense.  Perhaps you should also consider participating in the democratic process as another viable method, although that may require individual dedication and commitment to task, which is somewhat less fun than throwing rocks and chanting at young soldiers.




			
				Peacenik said:
			
		

> I too would rather we didn't have troops deployed anywhere.  Keep them home with their families, and only "break glass in case of emergency."  But if we have to be there, I'm glad we've sent our best, and I'm glad they were well prepared.



Please define what you feel constitutes an "emergency" and explain exactly how these sheltered troops should be trained and prepared for it if it happens.


----------



## Wookilar (2 May 2006)

Maybe I'm picking nits, but do not trust anything the press says regarding military equipment.

Case in point, our buds killed by the IED on the weekend were riding in a light armoured vehicle, according to the press. All of the major outlets are calling it a "light armoured vehicle" and the "alternative" media feed of that. If they were riding in a LAV, there would have been a flat tire, some bent plating, not the result that we had.

I do agree with you that starting with grass roots organizations for distribution of foreign aid would be more equitable and effective in stabilizing developing nations. However, for that to be effective, there has to exist a safe and stable environment for those agencies to operate in. Pick any food relief effort in the last 15 years that was not hampered by the interference of irregulars/warlords/courrupt officials, etc. You need a proffesional military force to provide that environment. If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

We also seem to agree on some of the root causes of some of the current situation in Afghanistan (i.e. Pakistan). However, I disagree that we should do nothing until we get consensus on the ground. You say that our involvement in 'Astan is "ineffective." My question is, by what standard? Women's rights, children's rights, supporting efforts to minimize the world's opium production, overall security, a better form of government that they had (by any standard), etc., etc. Tell me how we, as in the Canadian effort, are not being as effective as possible given the current geopolitical situation.

You do not seem to be taking on the "realistic" alternatives.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 May 2006)

"Please define what you feel constitutes an "emergency" and explain exactly how these sheltered troops should be trained and prepared for it if it happens."


I kind of read his last para as saying that being prepared is a good thing.


----------



## Peacenik (2 May 2006)

What I'd rather and what is realistic are two different things... 

Currently with such a small military, interoperability is extremely important, so training has to consist of everything
up to and including validation of said training.  IE deployment, and deployment with our allies.   I'm not so bold as to 
suggest that we change what we are doing... do you see four leafs on my shoulder?  All I'm saying is that I would rather
we weren't in harms way as I think everyone's families would rather.

I guess my post wasn't soldier proof...


----------



## S McKee (2 May 2006)

My last post on this, because we're obviously not going to convince our Birkenstock wearing friends that we don't live in an evil society controlled by faceless industrialists, who use the military as an agent of oppression for their nefarious purposes. Hey we're all entitled to live in our own fantasy world. I would like to point out that if they were in a country like China, Iran, or North Korea and if they expressed any views contrary to the government they would have their feet beaten and be shot. Yet you utter not a peep about these countries..I don't get it. Anyway, enjoy your freedom my naive friends and when your out there sticking it to "The Man" remember your right to make an a$$ of yourself in public was paid for with the blood and lives of members belonging to "unethical" profession of arms. 

PS. No members of the Professional Rapists Association were harmed protecting  your rights.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (2 May 2006)

Wow......nice to know that all the men and women in green and blue, risking there lives everyday to keep this country safe. have the support of people like you. How about you read this, it may change your opinion, it may not, either way. I'm happy to be part of the Forces and like everyone else here I'm happy to do my job and keep this country safe so people like you have the RIGHT  to criticize what we do and how we do it without even having been in our shoes. Cheers! 

Editor's note: The following letter, from a Canadian soldier stationed in
> >Kandahar, was sent to us by his mother, Sandra Doak of Whitby, who asked
> >that we share it with readers:
> >
> >We have heard news that more Canadians would rather see us come home
> >because
> >too many soldiers have been killed. They believe we are not needed here.
> >
> >These people obviously haven't got a clue about what is really going on
> >here
> >and if they are going to make a decision as to what is right or wrong in
> >this situation, they had better do some research.
> >
> >I could not sleep at all after hearing some of the recent news and I can
> >not
> >explain to you the anger and shame I feel at what our fellow Canadians
are
> >thinking.
> >
> >We are more than willing to die in order to give the people of
Afghanistan
> >peace. Are Canadians so greedy that they want us pulled out of
Afghanistan
> >so that we cannot accomplish this great and necessary task?
> >
> >I believe Canada has lost what it really means to be a Canadian. Our
> >military is not just for our own protection but for the protection and
> >well-being of everyone in this world that may need our help.
> >
> >What kind of people are we who would back down from this obligation?
> >
> >We have lived in peace for a long time. Every good person in this world
> >deserves what we have and I will not, as a Canadian, stand idly by and
not
> >at least make an attempt to give these poor people what we have.
> >
> >If we were to pull out now, then our soldiers who have died will have
died
> >in vain and I cannot accept this.
> >
> >If you know of anyone who does not think we should be here please do your
> >best to explain to them why.
> >
> >


----------



## Wookilar (2 May 2006)

I think that makes some excellent points that many have simply forgotten to make, they are so basic to what we believe in. 

Peacenik,

I am prepared to put my life on the line to help others. Wherever and whoever they may be. I guess you think we here in Canada are more valuable human beings than others not lucky enough to be born here.

I do not really care why someone is starving/scared/cold. Why not? Because to change much of that around the world will necessitate a change in western civilization and our world view that is held by the vast majority. I do care that they are. I choose to do something real, that will have a positive effect on those people that are suffering. I leave the larger sociological/political questions to those that are better able to influence others and stir them to action. Me, I'll help save the lives that I can while the rest of you figure out just how to do the rest.

I know, for a fact, that there are people in this world that are alive because of my work. I also know that there are people in this world, that have been hurt or killed, also because of my work. I accept that.

In order to save as many lives as possible, we must put our selves in harms way. As has been said before, and no one has denied, there is evil in the world. Whether you believe Nike and Pepsi to be the true evil or the power hungry megalomaniacs in the world (the ones in control of the weapons, of any country) is where it comes down to personal values. I am willing to risk my life to at least give some one else the same opportunities that we enjoy in this country. As it stands now, too many do not have any choice, in anything.

My life is as important as anybody else's. Any body else's life is, therefore, as important as mine. Difference between you peace types and me, I am willing to die and kill to support my views. 

What is the difference between myself and a terrorist then? Well, depends on how much validity you put onto international/domestic law. I do not go out and target innocent civilians (despite what others say) nor will I willingly associate myself with those that would. I do not believe that our Canadian government (of any political affiliation) is controlled by evil transnational corporations (or the US, pick your devil you feel more in tune with). I do not believe that I have been manipulated by: Reebok, Starbucks, Bush, WalMart, Christian right-wing fundamentalists, BP ( NOT the pizza joint), Gulf, or anyother "evil" you care to mention. 
My deeds and actions may have been influenced by my care and concern for the rest of humanity, liberal democratic ideals and my Mom (but you can't prove a thing!).


----------



## ArmyRick (2 May 2006)

Kgerrard said
"Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training *rapists* to be most effective.

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable."

Comparing us to rapist? HOW DARE YOU!!! YOU thought my remarks to you on PM were rude, they would be alot worse if I see you in person.

I am a Canadian Soldier. A man of honour, Duty, Integrity and Discipline (The army ethoes that you would know nothing about).

I choose this proffession and I am very proud of it.

Their is no debate or hippie smoke up discussions about it. Freedom is not free and must be defended. Sometimes by lethal force. Accept it or get over it.

As far as you comparing us to rapist, pal, I would say somethings about how I feel about that remark unfortunately its not my own web site and I will abide by the rules.
 :threat:


----------



## silentbutdeadly (2 May 2006)

Hey Rick, 

Don't get to fired up , these people talk like there smart, but there stupid about what really goes on in the REAL world  not the one we protect! Cheers


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2006)

Peacenik said:
			
		

> I too would rather we didn't have troops deployed anywhere.  Keep them home with their families, and only "break glass in case of emergency."  But if we have to be there, I'm glad we've sent our best, and I'm glad they were well prepared.





			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please define what you feel constitutes an "emergency" and explain exactly how these sheltered troops should be trained and prepared for it if it happens.







			
				Peacenik said:
			
		

> What I'd rather and what is realistic are two different things...
> 
> Currently with such a small military, interoperability is extremely important, so training has to consist of everything
> up to and including validation of said training.  IE deployment, and deployment with our allies.   I'm not so bold as to
> ...




Please, do not insult my intelligence.

You post was clear enough for your purposes when you first submitted it.

In effect, the message you left was that if you were making the decisions, then soldiers wouldn't be deployed, they would be kept in Canada and only employed "in case of emergency".

I asked you to define emergency and describe what level of preparedness would satisfy you.

You have now decided to avoid that question and accuse me of misunderstanding you - and that is vacillation on your part.  You made the statement, have the strength to back it up.  Don't cheap out on it by trying  to imply that your touchy-feely wish that they were all safe in their girlfriends' arms was your main point.


----------



## S McKee (2 May 2006)

Hey ArmyRick so far we're just unethical and misguided and I guess being likened to a "professional" rapist isn't as bad as being called a babykiller. They haven't crossed that line.....yet.  Maybe we should tell these guys the schedules for the  Re- pat flights so they can show up at the airport and spit on the troops. Don't get too upset man, it's no sense aurguing with a flowerchild, they're in their own little universe and they're quite happy there. They suffer from what's called "whitemans guilt" you know every conceivable evil in the world can somehow be traced back to, or blamed on the West. Nevermind that if it wasn't for Western Society most of the world would still be living in mud huts. Oh wait..they are, maybe they think we should be living like the Flintstones too, that way everybody can be equally miserable. (rant off)


----------



## TMM (2 May 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As far as you comparing us to rapist, pal, I would say somethings about how I feel about that remark unfortunately its not my own web site and I will abide by the rules. :threat:



+1.

I'm saying a lot right now under my breath because I'm too much of a lady to post it here!

Being female I am not only livid that someone pulled the rapist card, but also played it against members of the CF. I'm in a definite minority, a leftie, feminist who is a military supporter and while I can agree with some statements made by both sides in this thread, I can't let that one particular one go. You will not win friends or change opinions with a comment like that. If anything, it is a dis-service tho those who get the point across without going over the top.

 Anyone with a fraction of a brain would know that rapists have no control, no discipline, no care or concern for anything or anyone except the next victim. The modus operandi and personality of the troops I've met first hand is the total opposite. 

I've stared straight on into the eyes of a rapist and into the eyes of a soldier; no comparison.

Comparing Canadian troops and their training to rapists in even the slightest manner pisses me off, and I don't think I'm the only one.


----------



## career_radio-checker (2 May 2006)

Well usually I'd be posting my opinion on here faster than a fat kid could eat a cake but as someone already pointed out there is little use trying to change someone's point of view. The best we can do is prove the protesters wrong by demonstrating the ethos, morality and professionalism of the Canadian Forces. So I wish the soldiers training  on EX Charging bison the best of luck and I hope you put on a 'disappointing' show for the protesters. GET SOME!!!! :threat:

By the way I read the paper, sounds like there are only 75 protesters in total.


----------



## parkie (2 May 2006)

The old vet here!
It’s nice that you young protestor types can have your say, Don’t you think? I know I think it’s nice; after all, I paid for it, Thousands of my friends too! Your views are nothing new, they were around when I went to war, many here felt there was a peaceful solution to the Nazi’s, Hard to believe, but it’s true. Of course for the life of me I can’t think what kind of solution we could have come to with the nazi’s, Unless, Maybe their ‘The Final Solution’, that they had for the Jewish people, I guess that’s a solution. But, War, is needed, unfortunate, but it is. Somebody has to stand for those to weak to stand for themselves, and the strong always will. This has been around since the time of the Greek philosophers, one of them said. ‘The weak always cry for Justice and equality-The strong pay no heed to either’.
So you see, your side of the story has been around for thousands of years. I can remember, young men telling your side of the story when I was enlisting, We called them cowards, Of course, they took great offence to that, And wanted to fight with “us ‘ the soldiers of the day, But when conscription came? Where were they? Some hid in chicken coops and in little shacks in the backwoods to keep from anybody finding them.
 I watch these Taliban on television, take people to a football stadium and slaughter them. Good enough for me, Go get em boy’s. I’m very proud of our young soldiers. But, that’s just me an Old, Old man, you have your Justice and equality, and I pay no heed to that! When I see somebody doing something bad to somebody who can’t defend themselves, I do something about it. For the rest? Well, There’s always the chicken coop.

Please don’t reply. Don’t want one.

                                   parkie


----------



## J.J (2 May 2006)

Parkie



Peacnik

 :tsktsk:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 May 2006)

Kgerrard what good will you had just went bye bye so any hope for reasonable debate has been eroded by your stupid choice of words.


----------



## ArmyRick (2 May 2006)

Parkie, well said old timer


----------



## Screw (2 May 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> No. If we are to provide aid to deserving nations, we should work with people at a grassroots level to help them build institutions that are responsive to them and not corporate interests.



Okay-you and your buddies get on a plane and go help out at the grass roots level. Then we'll send our brand shiney new CSOR and JTF-2 to get you guys out. You can even come back to Canada. But after that you have to STFU unlike the Christian hostages freed in Iraq. Where is the breakdown in communication where you and your kin fail to grasp the fact that they want to kill you? I'd also love to know where you thnk the giant RCMP conspiracy is coming from? Whats leading you to all these wild assumptions? If you've got a book you'd like to me to read Ill check it out. I can entertain an idea without accepting it.

Screw.


----------



## kgerrard (2 May 2006)

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> kgerrard, have you ever thought that maybe everything you read on Fox News, CNN and the favorite for your type of people, guerrillanews might be fictitious, and or spiced up with the personal views of a writer?


I don't read any of those sources. And yes, I'm familiar with the concept of bias.



> I dont mean to take a stab at you in general, but it has to be said. Everything read on news websites, or you see on your T.V. is not accurate information. The news that you see is the real story wraped in a sellable package with ficitious information added in to make it exciting.
> 
> Like I said, I dont mean to make a stab at you, but it seems every person I know who is anti-U.S., anti-war, anti-military quotes people that they dont know, never met, and have no clue if the information is true. It just looks pretty, sounds good and is an easy argument to stand behind when you cant think of one yourself.


Whom shall I consult? I can't travel to every place, see every perspective. Do you expect me to simply believe people on an online forum, instead?



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> So what would you suggest? How - in your opinion - should we better conduct our involvement in Afghanistan? You stamp your feet and pout over the way things are currently being done, but havn't offered any sort of alternative.


Working with grassroots, Afghanistani-led initiatives. They know better than us how their country should work, we need to step back and follow the lead. This is beyond our capacity, I feel, however, as we have a long history of "white man's burden".



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I guess the majority of the electorate that decided to vote disagreed with you.  So, how does your personal dissatisfaction with your MP create the case that the problem lies with the parliamentary system?  Did you plan to be a personal advisor to the candidate you voted for, to ensure your personal opinion was catered to?


This relates to my statement that my position against our current mission in Afghanistan is part of a broad analysis of problems across the world. I favour a form of government that is responsive to the populace in a more direct way rather than the abstract connexions we have today. It doesn't seem like this is the appropriate place to go into much detail about it, however.

Ahkenaten, I recognise that the media are unreliable narrators of the global story. The tendency to focus on the negative doesn't show many of the positive developments the military is helping. However, I don't believe we're doing the best job possible. Shall I simply settle for "good enough"?

A O G 101 and others, don't conflate me with the conspiracy theorists. The announcement of "Operation Charging Bison" (as the Free Press called it) brought a lot of people out of the woodwork.

Franko, I don't know what to ask. It would be much more effective to have a conversation over coffee, but that seems impossible.



			
				Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I wont repeat the arguments of others on other subjects I am interested but will instead restrict myself to your comments about Haiti.  I keep seeing demonstrators saying 'get out of Haiti' and reading editorials against our involvement there.  This boggles my mind - Haiti had imploded long before Canada was involved.  Why do people in your faction believe we are their as part of some takeover of Haiti?


Yes, Haiti was an ongoing disaster. Does that justify us helping remove a democratically elected leader? Is democracy only worthy for us?



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I understand how some people fear what might happen on Canadian soil.  If I thought they would be cool with the idea of groups of rednecks arming themselves and forming little enclaves minding their own business on their own property a la Ruby Ridge and Waco, I'd understand how they could support any other group arming itself and/or threatening violence.  However, I think the window of tolerance for that is somewhat hypocritically defined, so I'll stick with the general idea that the government should act decisively to thwart anyone who gets ideas of private revolution.


I'm generally referring to declarations of soverignty and such by First Nations.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is an HIV treatment that cures only 95% of the population to be rejected because 4% aren't cured and 1% die horrible, agonizing deaths as a result of the treatment?


If there's a superior one, yes. And what I want is for us to work toward something better.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Don't turn this into a police thing.  We just show up and keep the peace.


The police and military are similar in that they're tools of oppression of the state.



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> I really do not think we will get anywhere with all of this. It is the choir talking to the armchair anti-generals. We are pretty much diametrically opposed in our world views. Our friend kg does not even support democratic systems (as we have them right now) where as we have sworn to die (or kill) to protect said democracy (actually, for those that don't know, its to protect Canada's sovereignty, the Constitution and the people).


I agree that we won't get anywhere. I like to expose myself to counter-arguments so I can gather more information, but there are diminishing returns. I don't support the "democratic" systems we have today, but I'd be all for legitimate democracies. But again, this exceeds the scope of this discussion.



> If you have some REALISTIC methods of making the CURRENT situation in Afghanistan/Iraq/Haiti/Sudan/Indonesia/Spain/Turkey/Kashmir (et al) get better without loss of life, I will back you 100%. But until that time, I will keep serving in the hellholes of the world, as an extension of Canada's foreign policy, because I believe (I know!) that what I do saves lives.


I don't pretend that loss of life is avoidable. I do feel, however, that our methods need significant overhaul.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way, don't you find it somewhat ironic that by protesting these exercises you may actually be adding to the training value of the exercise?  Usually the CF has to hire people to play your role and you are doing it for free.   As a taxpayer I thank you for your service to the nation.


I recognise the delicious irony, but I feel obligated to protest nonetheless. The military's missions are carried out in my name as a Canadian (as reluctantly as I accept that label), so I must publically state my disagreement with our policies.



> PS, I am fascinated by the concept of anarchists planning anything.  Who decides and how do you enforce the consensus?


Just as members here feel the public misunderstands the military, anarchism is also greatly misunderstood. Perhaps it's funny to you, but it simply indicates your ignorance of the concept.


People seem to have misinterpreted my rapist comparison. The claim was that one can't oppose training a professional to do their job, but I believe one can if one opposes the _profession_. I apologise for anyone who felt I was calling them rapists.

Let's not forget, though, that Canadian military history is not always a shining example of perfection.


----------



## scoutfinch (2 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> kgerrard:
> 
> How about instead of your constant critique you present a realistic, implementable solution to the horrors that are happening on a daily basis around the world.  I would be genuinely interested in your comments in this regard.
> 
> ...



Kindly take a few moments to respond to my above quoted post.  I am interested in your innovative solutions to the problems moreso than your critiques of the solutions currently implemented.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 May 2006)

> Let's not forget, though, that Canadian military history is not always a shining example of perfection



And we all know how protestors are always the pillar of society as well...lets see vandalism, looting, throwing fore bombs at ploce officers. Yup, we definitely need to act more like you.



> Just as members here feel the public misunderstands the military, anarchism is also greatly misunderstood. Perhaps it's funny to you, but it simply indicates your ignorance of the concept.



Much like your ignorance on what the CF does and is all about?



> The police and military are similar in that they're tools of oppression of the state.


Yes we all remember how those 4 poor  dead RCMP officers were oppressing that idiot..... :


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 May 2006)

"Working with grassroots, Afghanistani-led initiatives. They know better than us how their country should work, we need to step back and follow the lead. This is beyond our capacity, I feel, however, as we have a long history of "white man's burden".

   That was tried before, they were called the Taliban, it didn't work.

"I recognise the delicious irony, but I feel obligated to protest nonetheless. The military's missions are carried out in my name as a Canadian (as reluctantly as I accept that label), so I must publically state my disagreement with our policies.


   If you reluctantly accept "Canadian" as a label, why not go and willing be called something else, somewhere else?

"Let's not forget, though, that Canadian military history is not always a shining example of perfection.


    Maybe not , but our batting average is a lot better than the civilian populations.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 May 2006)

I see in the future that this thread will only succeed in making peoples blood pressures go up, too bad it was an interesting read, so unless given a good enough reason I will lock it at 2000 AST.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 May 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> This relates to my statement that my position against our current mission in Afghanistan is part of a broad analysis of problems across the world. I favour a form of government that is responsive to the populace in a more direct way rather than the abstract connexions we have today. It doesn't seem like this is the appropriate place to go into much detail about it, however.



Actually, you were espousing a form of government that was responsive to you personally.

Specifically, you stated:



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't believe the parliamentary system is responsive to the needs and desires of the populace. *Pat Martin, my NDP MP, is dreadfully far from caring about most things that are important to me.*



Or did you really mean that you believe that there is a possible system of government by which an MP can be "responsive" to the needs of each and every Canadian in their riding, and without offending anyone by meeting needs of another?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 May 2006)

Locked until tomorrow


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (3 May 2006)

The Charging Bison thread piqued the interest of alot of members in that a few "protestors" began a civil debate over their opinions. This is almost unheard of in my military history and unfortunately it degraded into childish insults.

The Army.ca site has clearly attracted alot of attention in recent months by military supporters and anti military supporters but it is rare that a thread isn't locked within the first few posts because it becomes an immature blathering of garbage.

I too am infuriated by those who base their "facts" on Michael Moore movies and "if its on the news, it must be true". I will admit I have chosen the CF as my career and am biased, but atleast my bias is based on facts.

I would like to see more civilized debates on this matter but seeing as the anti-military side is obviously greatly outnumbered on this site I would suggest a new approach. Attacks and insults as we saw at the end of the charging bison thread did not accomplish anything and I think we could all make a better debate out of this if we stuck to facts. I propose that in the course of a new debate, members and guests used only reputable undeniable facts and sources to back up their views.

If you want to use Afghanistan as a debate, do some research. Are we there for oil? Source information on approved oil export plans and provide links. Are we making a difference? Get links to interviews with afghani's themselves and not from a reporter who spent a week there. 

To me the solution is simple, I will not post a statement unless I can back it up with indesputible evidence regardless if it goes against my personal beliefs.Maybee through this method, all parties can become better educated.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 May 2006)

..and opened again......folks.


----------



## Peacenik (3 May 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please, do not insult my intelligence.


Sorry, trying to be funny, obviously I missed the mark.  I wouldn't engage in a discussion
with you if I somehow thought you were unintelligent.  



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> You post was clear enough for your purposes when you first submitted it.
> In effect, the message you left was that if you were making the decisions, then soldiers wouldn't be deployed, they would be kept in
> Canada and only employed "in case of emergency".
> I asked you to define emergency and describe what level of preparedness would satisfy you.
> ...



My intention was not to suggest that Canada withdraw into some sort of cocoon, it was more that wishful thinking 
wasn't going to make problems go away.  Obviously my post wasn't clear enough because that is not the impression
I conveyed.  I didn't define the emergency because it was a metaphor to underscore the unrealistic expectation.  It was notional and not literal...  I am not vacilating, since I never meant it literally.  I'm sorry sir but, my "touchy-feely" wish stands.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2006)

> Quote from: Kirkhill on Yesterday at 00:16:55
> Is an HIV treatment that cures only 95% of the population to be rejected because 4% aren't cured and 1% die horrible, agonizing deaths as a result of the treatment?
> If there's a superior one, yes. And what I want is for us to work toward something better.



I have no problem with working towards a better cure.  In the meantime people are dying all over the place.  Would you continue to let them die until a perfect solution is found or would you use the imperfect tools available to save 95% of them.

I prefer to do something than nothing.  I think those being saved would feel the same.  Even the 5% that weren't would at least be given hope.

If you are looking for perfection, for risk free solutions, I think you need to be talking to Trinity and In Hoc Signo on this site.  That is more their field and I don't think they are likely to find you any answers in this world.

Cheers.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

So, now that the ex is under way, has anyone heard if it is going well or being disrupted?


----------



## doncab (3 May 2006)

Hi, good to see the thread back in action.  quick post before i leave for work!

By now there's almost way too much here to try and respond to point for point.  more generally, i think the statement that the critics are not presenting solutions is incorrect.  translation: you present solutions (follow international law, geneva conventions, use UN security council under article 51, etc.) but i just don't like them.  Also, i think i've been pretty good with presenting facts in my first post, none of which were questioned or refuted yet.  The notion that we believe what we hear on the news is also false, i think the far left are some of the most vociferous opponents of the media especially state run (canada) or corporate (US).  

I usually use (as i said in post 1) government documents, de-classified records, human rights reports, forums like this, and just read it with a critical perspective and pay attention to the most elementary moral truism.  If I apply a set of standards to someone else, i should apply equal if not more stringent ones to myself.  until then, i have no right to comment.  

Then there's the Micheal Moore comment.  Why is it that when we try and present a coherent argument, the response is usually attacks on our character or an attempt to discredit the source of the opinion, instead of attacking the fact itself?   besides, does anyone really take that guy seriously?  he's an entertainer and a TV personality.

"but atleast my bias is based on facts.": still biased.  what we're saying is that there are some very important facts that are not being payed attention to.  

I think if we want to debate the finer points of war in Afghanistan, we should move on to a new thread, anyone with me?

off to work!


----------



## zipperhead_cop (3 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> The notion that we believe what we hear on the news is also false, i think the far left are some of the most vociferous opponents of the media especially state run (canada).



The CBC and the Toronto Star will be devastated to hear that.  Their dedication to tearing down all things conservative has been for naught.  Alas, the ungrateful socialist.


----------



## probum non poenitet (3 May 2006)

In my opinion protestors are committing a sort of idealistic martyrdom. It’s not about finding a practical solution, it’s about being right.
Look I’m right! Carrot juice is murder!

It’s not that they actually believe they are going to get their way.
For example:


> Coercion is a powerful tool that is used against us in our everyday lives (advertising, newspapers etc.) and I think if there was less coercion we wouldn't have allot of the problems that lead people into committing violent acts (poverty, lack of hope).
> Also, right now the tools aren't in the hands of a functioning democratic society they're in the hands of a select few who are also the benefactors of said coercion and influence and to me that's the vital component. I'm all for Neighborhood Watch. This brings up the critical issue which is who are the police really there to protect, the citizens or the system?


If in all seriousness the government said, “You anarchists are right. In a cost-cutting measure, we are disbanding the police and replacing it with Neighbourhood Watch” the protestors would crap themselves.
OK, game on! Disband the cops! Now you are finally free!
Sure, three meth-heads are in your alley smashing stuff and breaking into sheds. But just go out there in your hemp sandals and have a “dialogue?”
Please … just do us a favour and bring a video camera so we can all have a laugh.

Oh, right, if we got The Sinister White Men in Suits TM out of power, all human sin would evaporate. There would be no more greed, addiction, extortion, abuse, violence … it would all vanish.
Do you really think violence started when someone invented the advertising jingle?

Of course you don’t, but it’s much simpler to separate society into the ‘clever and educated who know better’, the ‘unwitting dupes of the system’ and ‘Dick Cheney.’

In my mind, it’s a fearful reaction to a complex world. Rather than grind it out and come up with practical solutions, you build a wall of sanctimonious idealism around you.
‘I’m too clever to be a victim.’

It’s fantasy. Idealism is all well and good, but it becomes dangerous when you actually try to hamper public policy to conform with impossible goals.
At their root, all fanatics are idealists.

Here is some idealism, for example


> I'm protesting because I'm against the military manifestation of Canada's foreign policy. This thread highlights how contentious the issues are; to me, the big missions on which members of Canadian military institutions are currently deployed are at best ineffective, and at worst highly damaging.
> 
> I definitely support a presence in nations attempting to build stability and sustainable infrastructure. That may be one aspect of what we're doing, but I think the negatives greatly outweigh the positives in our case. Western nations have a history of "help" that is domineering and unproductive.
> 
> I don't want soldiers to die, but nor do I want anyone else to. I'm not a pacifist and I believe a defensive body is necessary. If we executed truly humanitarian and defensive missions, I would favour training! And the argument that this is preëmptive defense is completely wrong to me.


You are” not a pacifist and believe a defensive body is necessary.” Good. It’s called NATO.
Afghanistan isn’t preemptive, it’s reactive.
So when some knobs … say … murder thousands of innocent people without warning you hunt them down and kill them.
All of them. Without mercy. Unless they surrender unconditionally and mean it.

Am I angry? You bet I am.

I am so sick of ‘murderers and scumbags’ (and if you call the perpetrators of September 11 anything else, we do have a problem) being protected by the hand-wringing and navel gazing of people who are so afraid to admit that evil exists.

Do you know why so many people died in Yugo from ’92 to ’95?
Because the UN was hampered by political tenderfooting. They didn’t want to offend anyone at little places like Srebrenica. Don’t take my word for it, ask almost anyone who was there. Slaughter was happening, the whole world knew it, but we wanted to be “defensive and humanitarian” and thousands died that didn’t have to.

Why was there no Western intervention in Rwanda in ’94?
It’s because our politicians were scared of political fallout from left-wing protestors. They’d just got their fingers burned in Somalia, and couldn’t face another drop in the opinion polls.
Different tragedy, same outcome.

Do you know what stopped the massacres in both countries?
Applied military force. 

You do not live in a vacuum.
Protestors do have an effect.
Keep it up, you may just get us out of Afghanistan. Take a bow when it happens.

The army will no doubt make a mistake and you will be there to jump all over it and ignore all the good work that has gone on.
Politicians will sniff an opportunity and embrace your cause.

If you get your way, the army will come home in ‘disgrace,’ Afghanistan will fall back into chaos, and Al-Qaeda will laugh and start planning the next big one.

Oh, and they don’t mess around with water cannons and pepper spray, like the ‘fascists’ you are used to.
Oh, wait, just go and explain to them that you are ‘too clever to be duped by the system.’
They will totally see your point, man.
And then they’ll blow your ass up.

But deep, deep down you know that already. Deep down, I suspect, you feel as long as you keep blaming those who you know won’t strike back (our professional and disciplined police and army) you feel a sense of control, accomplishment, and courage.

Enjoy it. It’s called freedom.
Don’t worry, we’ll pick up the tab.


----------



## Korus (3 May 2006)

> Of course you don’t, but it’s much simpler to separate society into the ‘clever and educated who know better’, the ‘unwitting dupes of the system’ and ‘Dick Cheney.’



Did you know that over the course of your life time, fully 50% of the people you meet will be below average intelligence?

Just something to think about.......


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Did you know that over the course of your life time, fully 50% of the people you meet will be below average intelligence?


I know. I just look at the number of people who vote Liberal and NDP!

ba-dum-bum! 

Thank you folks, I'm here all week! Remember to tip your waitress.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 May 2006)

+1 to PNP's post.  Well said.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (3 May 2006)

Today the protestors blocked the street and did there little song and dance and cried of the "evils of the military" as a whole the only 

thing they managed to do was annoy the citizens of Winnipeg by blocking the street and giving the soldiers a good laugh. I will keep you 

all posted of any further developments. Cheers!


----------



## Thompson_JM (3 May 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> In my opinion protestors are committing a sort of idealistic martyrdom. It’s not about finding a practical solution, it’s about being right.
> Look I’m right! Carrot juice is murder...
> ...Enjoy it. It’s called freedom.
> Don’t worry, we’ll pick up the tab.



PNP.... Awsome Post!
Agree 100%


----------



## CanadianGuy (3 May 2006)

Obviously there is a great divide between kgerrards beliefs on international affairs and the military and the viewpoints of the forum members including myself. Kgerrard accuses the Canadian government (and other countries) and our military of doing things incorrectly in places such as Afghanistan, forum members accuse kgerrard of living in a Utopian fantasy world. Who's right, is there any information that can validate either sides viewpoints. In the health care field I work in civvy land there is a strong emphasis on "evidence based" practice and "best practice" approaches to implementing health care. "Evidence based" means you have strong, near absolute, research based information that says something works. "Best practice" means you do something as from all the information you have it appears to be the best way of doing something but maybe there is not absolute proof through research it is. I was sitting here reading this thread and I think if you apply these two standards to the issues debated then it may help answer what may actually be the best way of approaching serious world problems like Afghanistan. First off I think you can throw out the idea of trying to say you have an "evidence based" way of conducting international affairs or military operations as I think these things are more art then science. "Best practice" standard would be best applied in this debate. 
*Quote from kgerrard*


> I'm protesting because I'm against the military manifestation of Canada's foreign policy. This thread highlights how contentious the issues are; to me, the big missions on which members of Canadian military institutions are currently deployed are at best ineffective, and at worst highly damaging.
> 
> I definitely support a presence in nations attempting to build stability and sustainable infrastructure. That may be one aspect of what we're doing, but I think the negatives greatly outweigh the positives in our case. Western nations have a history of "help" that is domineering and unproductive.



Like some forum members have asked allready do you have any degree of "proof" that what you are asserting would work or that the current approach in Afghanistan will not work. It is fine to state your opinion but is there any real tangible evidence to indicate that what you say is the "best practice". I can think of some obvious examples where the international community/UN did not act assertively with military force that resulted in ongoing conflict, genocide, further human suffering, etc.. Rwanda, Srebenicia/Bosnia, Somalia. Your "approach" in these conflicts obviously would have only further enabled aggressor forces/factions to murder and oppress more and I think this would be a "factual statement". The most obvious example of taking strong action against an aggressor nation and it being successfull would be WWII as parkie stated and can personally attest too. BTW Germany, Japan and Italy did pretty good since 1945, so much for the theory of western nations having a history of domineering and unproductive help (add South Korea to that list!).

The bottom line kgerrard is that yours and your cohorts philosophy on how to conduct international affairs and employ the military effectively in the worlds troubled regions is completely and utterly lacking any evidence to suggest it would work and I don't think you can cite too many examples of where the approach you support has worked (go ahead and try and see how many people reorientate you to the facts). It is idealistic fantasy that you think can work and have convinced yourselves it will. Your lack of knowledge and concrete thinking blind you from seeing the facts.  When diplomacy fails appeasement does not work, didn't work in 1938 for that Neville guy and it won't work now with those Taliban guys and there is allot more evidence to back up this statement then you can to back up yours but go ahead and try.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2006)

> "Working with grassroots, Afghanistani-led initiatives. They know better than us how their country should work, we need to step back and follow the lead. This is beyond our capacity, I feel, however, as we have a long history of "white man's burden".



As was mentioned, the Taliban felt they knew better than we do how to run things, which included destroying thousand year old statutes of Buddha, arranging for mass executions of people who violated various religious proscriptions and preventing women from working and children (particularly girls) from being educated. Indeed, if their remnants can do so, they will arrange to execute teachers for the "crime" of educating children in reading, writing and arithmetic (basic primary education). They were a particularly nasty example of the almost universal urge to execute their "will to power", and only stop their activities by the application of countervailing power (armed forces) .

In the west, we have had several hundred years of devising and refining political and social organizations which channel these urges into safer outlets; for example you don't hunt down and kill people who may have "wronged" you, the State exercises the powers of law enforcement and punishment through the police and the judiciary on your behalf. People cannot arbitrarily kill you for having a difference of opinion about religion, politics or any other subject. I don't understand what sort of political system you are advocating kgerrard, but the evidence would seem to indicate western "liberal" democracies certainly do a better job protecting citizens rights and property than their competitors, and certainly some of these competitors would dearly love to wipe out our societies and systems of government, so as to enjoy the unbridled exercise of power without worrying that the local population is aspiring to *our* social and governmental systems.

I also find it funny in an ironic kind of way that the protesters are free to make demands of our government (ill thought out though they may be), while in places like Taliban era Afghanistan, Ba'athist Iraq, current Iran, China or North Korea they would be arrested and most likely shot out of hand, or tortured and sentenced to long periods of hard labour in "re education" camps. Which system would they preffer to live under? Since very few seem to emigrate to places like Iran, North Korea or China, I think the answer is self evident......


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

kgerrard seems to be labouring under the impression that we are in there dictating to those poor opressed Afghans (don't say Afghani, people. That's their monetary unit. I had that explained to me in some depth by an annoyed/amused Police chief in Kabul.) how they will run their affairs. That seems to be a major beef with him.

Can someone in CIMIC explain to him just HOW we do our thang?

You know, how we ASK the locals what sort of government system they want? How we can best help them reach the end-state THEY desire? What, exactly, we do in our meetings with Police, Military, Government, Religious leaders, and tribal elders? Maybe some other people can give him first-hand examples of the assistance we provide to the various NGOs (and then get lambasted in the media by them for doing so)?

Maybe some troops can let him know what we do when we set up impromptu Aid stations with our medics? Or tell him about the farming equipment we provide, so they can grow crops? Maybe some troops can tell him about the locals running to them for assitance in Jurisprudence matters?

Actually, you know what? I think I'll just dig up some of my letters home and post them.  

kgerrard, you read the following posts. They're going to be letters I wrote home from my tour. You read them and tell me I'm some sort of jack-booted thug, who's intent on enforcing some sort of diabolical plot created by the evil powers that run the world, my friend.


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

IMAGES: 

a little boy asking "does your Rules Of Engagement allow you to use lethal force? That's good, 'cause the Taliban is comin'." Then running away. 

turning into an alley so tight I can touch both sides at once, and watching the rats scatter through my Night Vision Goggles. 

walking point on a night patrol and having my slack man sweep ahead of me with his rifle-mounted flashlight and being face-to-face with a pack of feral dogs. 

a horse, harnessed to a cart, so starved, it's labouring to breathe. 

a man beaming with pride at some silly little trick his child has accomplished, surrounded by mind-numbing poverty. 

a wall being constructed out of hand-picked rocks by a family, without tools, looking down the top, and seeing it as level as a pool table. all done by eye. 

a brand new mercedes sedan roaring past a cart being pulled by two ancient men, constructed of hand-hewn planks and car tires. 

the hatred in a man's eyes because your skin is too pale, your religion is not the same as his, and you're on HIS soil. 

the unconscious grace displayed by black-eyed, black-haired, black-veiled women as they go about their daily chores, balancing loads heavier than I am. 

a 14-ton armoured vehicle caught in a traffic jam. stopped by a herd of starving cattle. all being herded by a boy younger than most of my tattoos. 

the quiet dignity and mischievous humour in an old man's eyes as he welcomes you to his country and thanks you for caring enough to come. 

a wall that has stood since the time of Alexander the Great...with a satellite dish on top. 

sunrise over the mountains, with a dusty haze turning the normal oranges and yellows into a thousand different shades. 

the eerily beautiful flashes of light beyond the mountains from American bombs falling for hours on some poor bastard that really wishes he was somewhere else. 

a child. dirty, hungry, skinny, and smiling. 

the tear in a paratrooper’s eye as he looks upon these 
things. 

may Allah smile upon you all 
Khoda hafez


Man, I love night operations! Tonight was especially fun. Driving down the streets of Kabul, almost no illumination, in a two-jeep convoy, weapons bristling out of everywhere, with the cool night breeze blowing the sweat away from under your helmet. Damn, I love this shit!

Walking point down dark, deserted streets, with an M203 over/under combo, 300 rounds of 5.56 ammo, 6 High Explosive 40mm grenades, 10 inches of scalpel-sharp high carbon steel, total infrared night vision superiority, and a bad attitude. (Hey, all I've ever asked out of life was an unfair advantage. Well, that and a hot blonde chick. Whattaya know! I got that too! Life is good.) It's especially good when you're the baddest dog on the block, with the biggest teeth. heh, heh, heh. "Yea, though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death, I shall fear no evil...for I am the meanest sumbitch in the Valley. Thy automatic rifle and thy grenade launcher, they comfort me." 

I get a little weary of hearing people back home say that Canada has no business in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere else. I grow weary of hearing that soldiers are war-mongering baby-killers. (Yes, I've actually been called a baby-killer. Me. A baby-killer.) 

Soldiers hate war. Any soldier who has seen war or the effects of war, hates it. He hates what it does to a proud people. He hates what it does to the cities and fields. I have seen what war does. But, I serve my country's interests in foreign lands that those same effects never happen in my country. If we do not stop evil away from our borders, we will have to deal with it within our borders. And I do not want to see Canadian citizens living under these conditions. 

If you were living surrounded in poverty and squalor, at the non-existent mercy of selfish and greedy men, with no hope of succour, wouldn't you want someone, anyone, to come help you? 

These people need us. Ever since ISAF came to Afghanistan, crime has taken a dramatic drop in the streets of Kabul. Ever since the Americans freed the nation from the Taliban, the people have flourished. They smile now. They love Canadian soldiers especially, because we stop and talk with them. We listen to their problems. We try to find ways to help them and lighten their burden. Canadians are natural-born peace-keepers. It's in our breeding. We talk to people. We're curious about their customs, and respectful of their ways. And when shit turns bad, we kick ass like nobody's business. Canadians are fierce fighters. Always have been. It's what happens when you finally get a calm, tolerant person really pissed. 

I like these people. They are a reflection of their country. You look at the mountains and desert and think this is the most inhospitable, bleak place on earth. Then you find an oasis, and it's a paradise. The city is a maze of high walls, with narrow windows, and barred doors. Then when you enter the people's compounds you find exquisitely-tended gardens and orchards. When you enter their brown, mud-walled house you find an explosion of colour. Rugs, carpets, tapestries, cushions, and pillows. All hand-made, and a riot of colour and texture. 

The people are the same. They appear grim and unapproachable, but they will take you to their heart in an instant. Humour is in everything they do. (I suppose when your life is this desolate, 
you HAVE to laugh that much more.) They are poets by nature. Lovers of music and art. Friendly to anyone who shows them the same. 

Hospitality is one of their three pillars of social convention. (Along with Revenge and Sanctuary.) When a man who has no food offers you his last meal, how can you think he is anything but generous? 

They are warriors. Their strength in the face of deprivation shames me as a North American. I see what these people have, and more importantly, what they do NOT have and I feel embarrassed to be Canadian. Look at how we deal with strife. A snowstorm in Toronto and the Army is called out to shovel the sidewalks so that the beautiful people won't get their shoes damp. 

Take care everyone, 
May Allah smile upon you


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

well, ya'll 
I gotta tell ya, I am some kinda sick and tired of fixing or repairing jeeps. The Iltis is junk. It seems to be the major part of most of my days. It' not that it's complicated, they're just jeeps after all. But it's never-ending. And monotonous. Every day something new goes wrong with one of our jeeps. And I can't just have it taken to the mechanics, because they're so back-logged I'd never get the damn thing back. Then my Platoon would be down a vehicle, and we only have 3. By rights, we're supposed to have 9. There are no parts in theatre, so everything is held together by gun tape and 550 cord. Good thing I'm hillbilly/white trash and am used to this sort of thing. 

I've been into town a few more times now, and have made arrangements with a buddy to go along on his patrols as well. I'm here for a purpose. I stir the pot because that's how you get results. I dig for Int because that's what patrolling is for. The CO needs Intelligence. So, as a Recce patrolman, I'm gonna get it for him. My buddy, Chevy, is also a paratrooper and a Recce Patrolman. We kinda have the same ideas, except I'm sneakier, and he's more aggressive. But, we get results, and we work well together. Good cop/bad cop sorta deal. He can be a scary little bastard, make no mistake. I come across a friendly, lazy ol' hound. 'Til they piss me off. Then I bite, and it's actually more un-nerving for them. Especially since I'm twice the size of the average Afghani. Hell, in all my kit, I'm almost 300lbs, and I stand over 6'2" in my boots.

The storms here are awesome. Yesterday, I stood outside and watched a curtain of sand blow over the camp. It came over the wall like a wave, and you couldn't see 20 feet. The wind was blowing tents over, and the poor little locals and Nepalese workers couldn't stand upright. I couldn't stop grinning. Then the thunder rolled like the world's biggest kettle drum. It echoed off the mountains, and reverberated through your body. And then came the lightning. It seemed to flicker from cloud to cloud before striking earth, like a laser-light show at a rock concert. And then came a downpour that only lasted minutes, but drove into you with the force of hailstones. All at the same time. Dust storm, thunder, lightning, and rain. Visibility was nil, and I stood outside giggling and howling into the fury of nature, totally awestruck. 

Even the storms are cooler than in Canada. 

I love this place.

two nights ago was a very bad night. It began in farce and ended in tragedy.

The first people we met were a family clustered around a woman on the ground. We stopped to investigate. "She's ill", they said. "She's stoned" Chevy said. She had taken a handful of Valium. At least it looked like Valium to us. But the family wouldn't let us (kafirs) touch her. So we stopped a passing vehicle and got them to drive the family to the local hospital. Or what passes for a hospital here.

The rest of the night got sillier and sillier. So, we headed into my AO. It's the wild, wild, west. I got every kind of scumbag in Afghanistan preying on the people in my AO. They are mainly Hazara. They're the poorest, they're the least armed, they're the religious minority. Easy targets. I'm doing my best to change that, and the crime rate is dropping dramatically there, but... 

Then, we heard a woman scream. The kind of scream that chills you instantly. You can hear, you can FEEL the pain and terror in it. We began down the alley it seemed to come from, but the local police officer refused to go. So we radioed for permission to go on our own (which is against our mandate). We were refused. 

Something terrible happened to someone in MY AO, on MY watch, while I was THERE, and I failed to prevent it. I don't know if the cop refused to go because of cowardice or complicity/corruption. Both are equally plausible explanations. What I do know, is that I failed the people who were counting on me to protect them. 
I failed. 
I will be hearing that scream for a long, long time.

So, how's your day going?


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

article by a young trooper of mine: good kid 

An orange glow lingered in the darkening sky above the hills on the western shore. A southwesterly rustled through the trees like an eerie song and was beginning to force white caps on the waves. The fog that spent the day on the horizon, was creeping its way into the bay, bringing with it a chill that cut through Shaun's olive drab jacket. He knew that if he didn't fire soon he would have a long empty handed trudge home to a supper his mother had left for him in the oven. From where he lay, he didn't have a clear shot. But there they were, not two gunshots away three black ducks cleaning themselves in a tidal pool at the base of the jagged cliff. He edged his way forward, cradling his twelve gauge in his arms like a baby. " Get up here " he whispered. Skipper stepped cautiously toward him and lay down. Brown bog stained the white patch on his chest like camouflage. Shaun looked back down over the crag and realized that he couldn't get any closer. He knew it was a long shot and it was now or never. He slowly raised the gun to his shoulder, taking a bead on the birds below. Skipper edged his way toward him in anticipation of what was coming next. He closed his left eye, took the safety off and slowly depressed the trigger.

"Hey Ryan," It was Cory, his fire team partner. "Get up man, we're on shift."

It took him a second to come too, as anyone that knew him could attest. Shaun was never the easiest creature to stir from slumber. He realized with disappointment that he'd never know if he walked home with those ducks. With that came the reality that he was nowhere near the waves that crashed the rocks on his island. He was trapped between barren mountains in landlocked Afghanistan. He crawled out of his warm sleeping bag and thought to himself,

"What in the name of God am I doing here?" 

Minutes later he was standing guard over hundreds of sleeping bodies from an ancient palace overlooking Camp Julien. He peered through thermal binoculars at a shepherd sleeping in a field surrounded by his flock. Then he scanned the city beyond the camp. For a city of almost three million, Kabul was ghostly quiet at night. The crisp breeze and silence reminded him of walking the roads of his tiny fishing community on an autumn night. 

"There are probably more soldiers patrolling the streets than there are locals walking around", he thought to himself as he spied two jeeps leave the front gate of the camp.

Hours later Shaun found himself in one of those jeeps. The sweltering heat of the Afghan day had long melted the cool desert night away. The locals outnumbered them now, thousands to eight, and swallowed them in a swarm of bicycles, cars, trucks, horses and donkeys. They may be outnumbered, but by people who are on their side. That didn't crack their solid alertness. They turned down a narrow dirt side street and left the busy market area. The jeeps stopped and Shaun stepped out, narrowly missing a pungent stream of human waste. Almost as soon as his feet hit the ground he was surrounded by tiny, dirty faced children, laughing and yelling the only english they knew, "how are you, how are you!" A little girl approached him, handed him her kite and in almost perfect english said,

"Thank you for coming to Afghanistan." It was probably her only toy. It dawned on him why he was there.

He was there for the people. The man that didn't have to fight for freedom anymore. The woman that could show her face from beneath a burqha if she so desired. He was there mostly for the children. The little boys that could play in the streets and not have to grow up to fight. The little girls that could go to school for the first time in years. He knew that in the big picture he was there to support the Afghan Interim Government. On a smaller scale, by him setting foot on that piece of ground, he would deter any militant from harming those men, women, and children around him. He surely knew that if Newfoundlanders were the ones fearing for their lives in a province of lawlessness, that they would want foreign soldiers to walk their roads and bash through their thick forests and deep bogs to find pockets of terrorists. 

As they approach the front gate of Camp Julien, Shaun lets his alertness down for a moment. He curses the fog skirting the mountains off in the distance.

"Oh yeah," he mutters to himself, "Sandstorm."

He is not in Newfoundland anymore though it will be a welcome relief when he can stand on her shore again and watch the fog envelope the hills across the bay. He is eager to traipse through those forested hills and feel the pristine salt air in his lungs. He can't wait to smell the smoke from the chimney roving home in the twilight, with three ducks on his back and Skipper at his feet. He'll never take his freedom for granted again, that's for sure.


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

letter to a young schoolgirl from me 

22 Oct 03

Hello Grace, 
Before I truly begin, I must apologize for typing this letter. It’s kinda impersonal, I know. However, if you were to actually see my handwriting, you would understand, believe me. My wife is the only person I know who can actually decipher the hieroglyphics I call writing. (Chicken-scratches are a more accurate term.) 
I am a soldier in 6 Platoon, November Company, 3RCR. It’s an infantry battalion. I’m currently posted to Camp Julien, Kabul, Afghanistan, in the ?heart of the mysterious Orient?. 
Although I come from a small immediate family, with just my little sister and I, I have many, many cousins, nieces, nephews, and about a bazillion dogs. We get together every chance we get and spend as much time together as we can, so I can relate to a chaotic family life. Besides, I’ve been in the army for somewhere around 8 or 9 years, and we excel at chaos. 
In your letter, you asked what it’s like to be so far from home. Well, I spend most of my life away from home, but you never really get used to it. It doesn’t much matter whether you’re in south-West Asia or just in the woods around CFB Petawawa, you’re still ‘away‘, if you know what I mean. You’re still out of contact with your loved ones and away from the creature comforts we all take for granted. (I tend to spend the first 2 days back just staring at the TV. Oohh, pretty colours, moving lights.) 
As for your questions about what it’s like to be in a place where people don’t want you, and to live under the threat of attack. Tough questions. Well, first, you called them “dumb questions“. There are no “dumb questions“. The only way we learn is by asking, right? I mean, if you don’t know the answer, then the question isn’t dumb, is it? (There are, however, dumb answers. I get a lot of them myself, and have even given a few.) 
Second, the vast majority of Afghani people do, in fact, want us here. I know this, because they tell us so at every available opportunity. It only stands to reason, really. These poor people have been at war for more years than you’ve been alive. 25 years, actually. Man, I was just a kid of eight, when the Soviets sponsored a coup in 1978, then invaded in 1979. There’s been a constant state of warfare ever since. With all the horrors and terror that usually accompany Man’s most tragic activity: War. On top of warfare (with the attendant rapine, pillage, disease, and poverty) the entire nation has been suffering from a six-year drought. Wouldn’t anyone welcome someone who was willing to put a stop to the warlords and bandits marauding the countryside? Anyone who was bringing safety and security to the nation? I know I would. The Afghanis know that Canada is here to help and they are grateful. Heart-wrenchingly so. 
Third, hmmm?. living under constant threat of attack. That’s a difficult question to answer, really. Well, you fall back on your training, your instincts, and that ridiculous belief we all have that “it won’t happen to me“. In all honesty, I can’t say that I think about it much. A sense of fatalism helps, I suppose. If your number’s up, then it’s up. There’s a cheesy Army saying I’ve always found amusing (in a dark sort of way). “It’s not the bullet with your name on it, it’s the one marked ‘to whom it may concern‘.” I lost a very good friend and a role model a little while ago. But that’s the risk we volunteer to take, I guess. I dunno. Someone has to do it, and if we don’t, who will? I’d rather face the risks myself than have someone else do it. Besides, I’d much rather stop the fighting and terrorism over here, than have to face it in Canada. 
How do we deal with the loneliness and fear? Is that what you were getting at? We form bonds of friendship that are even closer than family ties. We in the Infantry, especially, use humour. (Mind you, it’s a dark, cynical, sarcastic form of humour, for the most part.) I’ve found that laughter is usually your best defence against the darker emotions. There’s always something funny in even the worst circumstances. And when you are surrounded by Man’s inhumanity to Man, you either laugh at it, or spend your time crying. And that accomplishes nothing. 
What’s it like in Afghanistan? Totally unique. In some ways, it’s like living in an Indiana Jones movie. Like stepping back in time. You can touch a wall that’s stood since the time of Alexander the Great. With a satellite dish on top of it. Bizarre. I love it here, personally. I’m glad to be on a real mission. I find the people here to be a reflection of their country. It’s a nation of tall, bleak mountains. Imposing, aloof, appearing untouchable. But with beautiful valleys hidden away. Their homes are the same. Stone walls, barred doors, narrow firing-port windows. But the interior is a riot of colour. Tapestries, curtains, carpets, pillows, orchards, and gardens. The Afghan people are the same. Grim and serious at first glance, but underneath they are warm, humorous, and generous to a fault. 
What would I change the most? It’s the children and the animals that tear at your heartstrings the most. They live a life that is horrifying by North American standards. But, they still laugh and play. What else can they do? And, with the help of the International Community, things will get better. Circumstances here improve every day. And Canadian soldiers are a big part of that. I?m proud of my boys. I’m proud to say, “I’m a Canadian soldier“ again, and it feels good. We are a positive force here. We’re doing a good thing. 
If your teacher (what was his name, Mr. G.?) would like, I can e-mail him some pics of the city, the countryside, the people, and the troops. 
So, to you, Grace M., I say “Thank you“. Thank you for your letter. Thank you for taking the time to write to a stranger. Thank you for your good wishes. I hope you have a long life, full of laughter, love, and joy. Treasure your family (even when they’re really annoying). Be happy


----------



## paracowboy (3 May 2006)

Holidays in Kabul 
well, it's 0-dark-stupid. I'd just finished radio watch, was almost asleep, when some dumbass downtown set off a bomb or launched a rocket. Right. Wide awake again. 
hmmmm, sounds like fast air flying over the city. 
"Peace on Earth." Hopefully, someday.

I wish everyone a truly happy holiday season. Especially those boys and girls deployed out there on the sharp end. Be safe, be careful. Those of you at home, please enjoy the silly season to the fullest. It's the best 'thank you' we can receive. To know that you folks are safe and happy, and can enjoy this time of year with loved ones is what makes this job worthwhile.

All the best of the season to everyone out there, regardless of faith.

Joyeaux Noel 
Feliz Navidad 
Merry Christmas. 



there you be, kgerrard. Heart-felt letters home, most of them written fresh after finishing my patrol report. I dunno, dude. As I read them over, I don't see much in the way of hate-mongering or Gestapo tactics. As best I can recall, I don't think I ever saw anything of the sort.

Maybe age is making me addle-pated.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 May 2006)

Amen

Thanks paracowboy


----------



## Kirkhill (3 May 2006)

With muskrat89 paracowboy.

Thanks.


----------



## career_radio-checker (3 May 2006)

If you type in 'exercise charging bison' in google, and then look into the 'news' icon you'll notice there are many interesting articles representing both sides of this thread. I am hoping someone has a subscription to the _Winnipeg Press_ and is able to post them here.


----------



## Haggis (3 May 2006)

Well done, Paracowboy.

*kgerrard:*  Have you ever met a soldier?  Not at a barricade, when his game face is on, but at a BBQ or over a beer or at Timmys.  If you haven't, you really should.  We have seen, first hand, the best and the worst of humanity (as illustrated by Paracowboy) and we are, mostly, willing to share our experiences with those who will take the time to listen.

Believe it or not, many of us like talking to those with opposing viewpoints.  In one way it prepares us for doing just that on tours, 'cause the overwhelming number of contacts we have with the locals involve talking, not shooting.

That being said, I may not agree with you and your comrades. In fact, I certainly do not.  But I will defend to my death your right, no, your FREEDOM to disagree with me without fear. 

You're welcome.


----------



## RangerRay (4 May 2006)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Amen
> 
> Thanks paracowboy



+2


----------



## Fusaki (4 May 2006)

Its hard to fully appreciate Paracowboy's post without actually being there. Unless otherwise noted these pics were taken by either myself, or my buddies - all Privates and Corporals in 1RCR between Feb and Aug 2005. 

kgerrard: The first and primary role of the Infantry is to close with and defeat the enemy, any time and any place. But as professional soldiers we often tone it down as required by the operation, and you can tell by these pics that we're NOT the thugs you've made us out to be. 

_Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense_






On patrol. (Photo taken by combat camera)




A convoy through the city.




One of our docs shows how her digital camera works.




This is a school where we handed out pencils, paper, and other supplies during a CIMIC task.




Outside the school on the same CIMIC tasking.




On patrol again.




Working with the Afghan National Army.




Working with the Kabul City Police.




Having a bit of fun on patrol.




The Sappers took us out for a demonstration on blowing unexploded ordinance (UXOs). Its all part of our effort to clean up the countryside.




A nicer part of town.

Pro Patria


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 May 2006)

Another great bunch of photo's that won't make the media.  Looks like you guys were doing our country proud over there.


----------



## doncab (4 May 2006)

probum: please define "practical solution."  and note that none of "our" solutions have been tried, and none of "yours" seem to work.

But just go out there in your hemp sandals and have a “dialogue?”

for the last time, i'm not a hippie!  Also doesn't seem like you've read much about 
anarchism.  

 "am so sick of ‘murderers and scumbags’ (and if you call the perpetrators of September 11 anything else, we do have a problem)" i agree.  i just don't make exceptions if they happen to be western leaders.  

"The bottom line kgerrard is that yours and your cohorts philosophy on how to conduct international affairs and employ the military effectively in the worlds troubled regions is completely and utterly lacking any evidence to suggest it would work"

mainly because we never try.  I think Neville Chamberlain's agreement didnt work because germany was a technological/military powerhouse, which the taliban is not.  our argument isn't appeasment, it's that the west should stop participating and engaging in terror, start respecting the world court, follow international law and the geneva conventions. sounds reasonable to me.

Which system would they preffer to live under? Since very few seem to emigrate to places like Iran, North Korea or China, I think the answer is self evident......
i don't recall anyone saying we'd like to revert to religious theocracy instead.  the "love it or leave it" jibe is pretty thin.  we're just trying to find ways to improve what we have.  if you have a flat tire, do you just trash the car?

"I see what these people have, and more importantly, what they do NOT have and I feel embarrassed to be Canadian." 

i couldn't agree more, but i think the history of afghanistan is rife with foreign intervention.  you sum it up with: "Man, I was just a kid of eight, when the Soviets sponsored a coup in 1978, then invaded in 1979. There’s been a constant state of warfare ever since." 

this is also consequently when the U.S. created the mujahadeen, "to draw the russians into an afghan trap" as zbegniew brzinski, NSA to president carter put it.  if we're really serious about this, maybe we should be sure and prosecute washington along with the taliban, since they share responsibility.

points aside (and still haven't had much debate on any facts i put forth) we're not saying iran or north korea is a better model to live by (which someone actually suggested we had said) nor are we "supporting" the insane ideals of any of these governments.  Nor do we have any ill blood towards any individual soldiers.  the war on terror is just a really good example.  how can the one state (US) condemned by the UNSC for "unlawful use of force", i.e. state-sponsored terrorism(vetoed), who still harbours terrorists (carilles, constant, etc) was the first to use nukes, doesn't respect the world court, defys the non-proliferation treaty openly, openly commits war crimes, on and on...be the country in charge of stopping terror?  i care about our solidiers like i care about anyone else, and when the government i pay my taxes to sends you to die for that cause, i have to question that.  
And judging by the governments neglect in caring for vetrans, i think you should question it too.


----------



## CanadianGuy (4 May 2006)

doncab quote:


> probum: please define "practical solution."  and note that none of "our" solutions have been tried, and none of "yours" seem to work.





> mainly because we never try.  I think Neville Chamberlain's agreement didn't work because germany was a technological/military powerhouse, which the taliban is not.  our argument isn't appeasement, it's that the west should stop participating and engaging in terror, start respecting the world court, follow international law and the Geneva conventions. sounds reasonable to me.


"Other" ways of conducting international affairs have been done and as I stated in my first post they failed. Let me again focus on pointing out some of the recent, most notable failures of the world (western nations) in trying to stop war, conflict, genocide, famine,etc.. Since the 1956 Suez crisis which worked for reasons mainly due not to the fact UN troops were put on the ground most UN military interventions to stop conflict since have been dismal failures. These were mainly the Chapter 6 Security council missions which had very limited military action allowed, were meant to enforce "peace treaties" , assist with humanitarian aid-they were they "UN Peacekeeping" mission. I'm going to assume kgerrard and you doncab would mostly likely approve of this type of approach and in the news many protesting against our action in Afghanistan want us to go back to the "Peacekeeping" tradition (actually myth). These past missions I think are closest to doing what you suggest as being "our' way of doing things and were efforts to try and resolve conflict without large scale military intervention. Unfortunately as I stated most of these missions failed, again Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and the Congo come to mind and these turned into great humanitarian disasters. Essentially you cannot stop aggressor states/factions/groups through dialogue or even by standing in front of them with a blue helmet on while only being able to say stop and there is plenty of evidence to support this. Most successes in stopping aggressor nations/factions/groups was through direct military action that was applied until the aggressor surrendered or was destroyed. Fairly recent actions by NATO in Kosovo show this worked better then the UN mission in the same region. Korea is another good example and I believe our work in Afghanistan will eventually prove to be the right "approach". The troops on the ground like Wonderbread can comment on this more then myself. I will again ask kgerrard and you doncab to detail some international actions in the world where your suggested way of doing things has worked to stop war, aggressors, genocide, etc.. we await your responces.


----------



## Journeyman (4 May 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *We have seen, first hand, the best and the worst of humanity (as illustrated by Paracowboy) *



:rofl:  
Well, maybe paracowboy's not _quite_ the best/worst of humanity, but he's young - - he still has time to improve/corrupt. ;D


I now return you to your regularly-scheduled "debate"  :brickwall:


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> mainly because we never try.  I think Neville Chamberlain's agreement didnt work because germany was a technological/military powerhouse, which the taliban is not.  our argument isn't appeasment, it's that the west should stop participating and engaging in terror, start respecting the world court, follow international law and the geneva conventions. sounds reasonable to me


the Taliban, in fact anyone, can easily strike at anyone else without being a powerhouse. As has been proven by them flynig airplanes into buildings, blowing up nightclubs, using rowboats to blow holes in big freakin' warships, and chopping the heads off anyone they dislike. Your argument holds no water, I'm afraid. Chamberlain's policy didn't work because he was trying to appease a bully. That never works, as you should damn well know from elementary school. The Taliban, Al Queerdo, et al, are bullies. As are the Theocrats in Iran, the Communists in Norht Korea, the regime in Khartoum, and others of their ilk. The only way to make a bully stop, is by punching him in the face.

And, where, exactly, have we (the Western powers) violated the Geneva Conventions? Broken international law? Ignored  the world court? And this is simply insulting: 





> stop participating and engaging in terror


 You dolt. Prove this or shut up. Show me.



> Which system would they preffer to live under? Since very few seem to emigrate to places like Iran, North Korea or China, I think the answer is self evident......
> i don't recall anyone saying we'd like to revert to religious theocracy instead.  the "love it or leave it" jibe is pretty thin.  we're just trying to find ways to improve what we have.  if you have a flat tire, do you just trash the car?


nope. But when my tire is running fine, I don't appreciate some twit telling me I need a new one, either. Especially when I'm giving him a free ride.



> this is also consequently when the U.S. created the mujahadeen, "to draw the russians into an afghan trap" as zbegniew brzinski, NSA to president carter put it.  if we're really serious about this, maybe we should be sure and prosecute washington along with the taliban, since they share responsibility.


ah, no. The mujehedeen were simply farmers and former soldiers who rebelled against kafirs invading their homeland. The US provided funds through the ISI for them to purchase arms, medical supplies, etc. But the US did not "create" the Muj. Their own religious beliefs did that. 



> points aside (and still haven't had much debate on any facts i put forth) we're not saying iran or north korea is a better model to live by (which someone actually suggested we had said) nor are we "supporting" the insane ideals of any of these governments.  Nor do we have any ill blood towards any individual soldiers.  the war on terror is just a really good example.  how can the one state (US) condemned by the UNSC for "unlawful use of force", i.e. state-sponsored terrorism(vetoed), who still harbours terrorists (carilles, constant, etc) was the first to use nukes, doesn't respect the world court, defys the non-proliferation treaty openly, openly commits war crimes, on and on...be the country in charge of stopping terror?


  and there it is. The truth. An anti-American. Another sad victim of Jan Brady syndrome.



> i care about our solidiers like i care about anyone else, and when the government i pay my taxes to sends you to die for that cause, i have to question that.
> And judging by the governments neglect in caring for vetrans, i think you should question it too.


  once again, this just shows that you really don't "get" us.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> "am so sick of ‘murderers and scumbags’ (and if you call the perpetrators of September 11 anything else, we do have a problem)" i agree.  i just don't make exceptions if they happen to be western leaders.



Okay, so now EVERY leader in the western world is under suspicion.  Who is more contemptable?  The leader that takes initiative and goes to solve a problem, or the one who watches as thousands die in torture and religious oppression's, wringing their hands and hoping that throwing good wishes and money will make the problem go away.  You forget, the planning for 9/11 was going on well before the execution of that plan.  Wasn't a whole lot of interference before that.  I remember the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, the Marine barracks and on and on.  The US didn't start this thing, and most certainly they haven't gotten much help from too many nations, save for Britain and a couple others that showed up.  



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> mainly because we never try.  I think Neville Chamberlain's agreement didnt work because germany was a technological/military powerhouse, which the taliban is not.  our argument isn't appeasment, it's that the west should stop participating and engaging in terror, start respecting the world court, follow international law and the geneva conventions. sounds reasonable to me.



Yah, sounds reasonable to me too.  So please provide an example where the world court has effectively stopped a military action against Islamic extremists.  Maybe you could use Rwanda....no, that was a massacre and everyone watched.  Oh, wait, remember the world court's big success in Zaire?  That was a ...oh, yeah.  That was a massacre to.  How many examples of hand sitting do you need until you realize that the UN is a useless bureaucratic cluster hump that can't do anything if a country chooses to ignore it?
[can anyone else believe that someone would openly support Chamberlain?  hoo.]



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> i don't recall anyone saying we'd like to revert to religious theocracy instead.  the "love it or leave it" jibe is pretty thin.  we're just trying to find ways to improve what we have.  if you have a flat tire, do you just trash the car?



No, most people would change it.  But for your example, lets pretend that you have to call the UN in order to get permission to change it.  So now you have to bring your case to a panel of 150 odd individuals to ask if you should change the tire.  Then, two of the people on the panel, who have their own tire shops, say "don't change the tire, we will form a committee and find a way to fix it".  Then, the one who sold the tires to you launches into a fit because the tires he sells "don't go flat, this is a blatant attempt at imperialism and I will sell no tires to anyone in the world until this injustice is spoken to".  Now, everyone who is more concerned with getting their tires cheap is looking pensive, so they decide that your problem is not as important as keeping the tire merchant happy.  So half a year later, the frame work for a team of inspectors is put together to come and look at the tire to see if it is in fact flat.  However, two years later, when the team does show up, they look at the tire and say "yup, that looks pretty flat".   They create a report, that goes to a committee who studies the results, but comes to the conclusion that "it looks a bit thin, but it's workable and we should monitor it's progress to see if further problems arise.  I'm betting that the next time you get a flat, you won't be too inclined to pick up the phone.  However, by not doing so, you will be labeled a war criminal and terrorist in your own right (tyrerist?) and will forever after be criticized for not calling when you had a straight forward problem.  
Yup.  Some good and effective stuff.



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> this is also consequently when the U.S. created the mujahadeen, "to draw the russians into an afghan trap" as zbegniew brzinski, NSA to president carter put it.  if we're really serious about this, maybe we should be sure and prosecute washington along with the taliban, since they share responsibility.



Ugh.  Get over the mujaheddin.  The former USSR was trying to turn the whole world communist (which I imagine you would love) and they had to be stopped.  The only people there was to work with at the time were the local fighters.  Yes, they were trained and supplied by the US.  Did it bite them in the ass?  Obviously.  But now, since the problem has been created, it has to be solved.  You continue to argue policy, but have conveniently ignored the main thing here--the PEOPLE.  



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> points aside (and still haven't had much debate on any facts i put forth) we're not saying iran or north korea is a better model to live by (which someone actually suggested we had said) nor are we "supporting" the insane ideals of any of these governments.  Nor do we have any ill blood towards any individual soldiers.  the war on terror is just a really good example.  how can the one state (US) condemned by the UNSC for "unlawful use of force", i.e. state-sponsored terrorism(vetoed), who still harbours terrorists (carilles, constant, etc) was the first to use nukes, doesn't respect the world court, defys the non-proliferation treaty openly, openly commits war crimes, on and on...be the country in charge of stopping terror?  i care about our solidiers like i care about anyone else, and when the government i pay my taxes to sends you to die for that cause, i have to question that.



Is this the "facts" that you need us to confront?  The one I see that is true is "was first to use nukes".  Even the Emperor of Japan himself acknowledged that until they got bombed, the Japanese would have fought until the last man, drawing the Pacific war on for years.  At the time, it was the best idea with the best equipment available.  The fact that it was as horrible as it was it why it has not been used since.  
You have heard from every soldier here that they are willing to put their lives on the line for the people of Afghanistan.  Spare us your disingenuous concern.  



			
				doncab said:
			
		

> And judging by the governments neglect in caring for vetrans, i think you should question it too.



HIJACK ALERT!!  Nice try.  Figure your rhetoric is loosing steam, so you throw that out hoping that all of the dumb killbots will jump on it and forget about what is actually being debated?  Start a new thread, and then get flamed there too.

Doncab, you and kgerrard appear to be motivated individuals who seek knowlege and first hand experience.  How does this sound:  we the members of Army.ca will fill a cargo container with food and medical supplies, and you two will go with it to somewhere in the Pashtun mountain range with it.  We'll drop you off, say "see ya" and you can embark on a glorious adventure of dialoge and bridge building.  Make sure you bring a video camera so you can rub it in when you get back.  
If.


----------



## Fusaki (4 May 2006)

> Which system would they preffer to live under? Since very few seem to emigrate to places like Iran, North Korea or China, I think the answer is self evident......
> i don't recall anyone saying we'd like to revert to religious theocracy instead.  the "love it or leave it" jibe is pretty thin.  we're just trying to find ways to improve what we have.  if you have a flat tire, do you just trash the car?
> 
> nope. But when my tire is running fine, I don't appreciate some twit telling me I need a new one, either. *Especially when I'm giving him a free ride.*



Classic!!! ;D


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 May 2006)

Call me crazy but I get the impression that American actions in the past have been categorized together with all things Canadian. I will not begin to guess what the American government wants or what their political agenda is (hidden or otherwise) but as a Canadian its not for me to say.

 I liken Afghanistan to a gang run neighborhood, in which the gang has reached out and threatened other neighborhoods. We all know there are attroccities going on in that "hood" and the "innocents" caught up in the violence are asking for help.

 Well if the police (the Canadian military) drop off some bags of groceries and a handfull of cash in the middle of the "hood", who do you think will reap the rewards. The gangs.

 So in that case, in order to ensure the "innocents" get their groceries and cash, the police(Canadian Military) would be sent into the "hood" to keep civility and to clean up the "gangs" so that when they leave, the gangs don't take over again.

 If the police go in with smiles and pamphlets(peacekeeping), how do you think the "gangs" will respond to not getting free groceries and cash?

 If the police go in with guns blazing(declaration of war), how would the rest of the city respond?How many innocents would die?

 If you apply this scenario to Afghanistan you will see that the Canadian governments approach to its military involvement makes sense. Admittedly it will be a long drawn out process in which unfortunately lives will be lost, but every Canadian soldiers life that is lost, is given happily by that soldier with the intent of making the world a better place for all.


----------



## gram88 (4 May 2006)

Hello,

I am a long time reader and first time poster. First off I'd like to say that this has been an extremely interesting thread. 

Im not a big fan of Noam Chomsky but this summer I did read Hegemony or Survival and I cant help but notice that a lot of these protesters arguments come practically verbatim from that book. 

Cheers


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Ugh.  Get over the mujaheddin.  The former USSR was trying to turn the whole world communist (which I imagine you would love) and they had to be stopped.  The only people there was to work with at the time were the local fighters.  Yes, they were trained and supplied by the US.


actually, no they were not trained by the US. The US was terrified of having American dead caught in Afghanistan, so they would not send soldiers, even SpecOps, in there. They worked entirely through proxies, mostly (almost entirely) the Pak ISI. 

The Muj didn't want training anyway. They didn't want soldiers. They tolerated the Arab Muj (with mild amusement, and some annoyance) because of the shared Faith, but absolutley did not want Kafirs assisting. (That being said, I have seen a photo of a British soldier training Muj in the emplyment of snipers, but it was supposedly taken in Pak.) This is corroborated by not only several books, but the stories told to me by Muj who were THERE. (Soldiers are the same everywhere - give 'em an audience and they will gladly tell their stories, even through an interpreter.)

The US problems in Afgh started because they blindly gave money to the ISI, trusting them to ensure that the fighters would be properly equipped.

They were wrong. The ISI had their own agenda. Firstly, they wanted to promote Islamic Fundamentalism, and therefore gave the overwhelming majority of thier funds to Gulbeddin's group of pretenders. Later, when they couldn't get Hekmatyar to actually fight the Soviets, they switched their funding to the Taliban. Secondly, the ISI wanted to ensure that Afgh would never become a threat to Pak, and wanted to extend their influence North. Which is also why they gave the US money to certain groups. And worked to whip the Northern tribes into a zealous frenzy.

Which has since turned around and bitten the entire world in the arse, but them most of all. They now have a 3 front war against Fundamentalists: in the North, in Balochistan, and in Kashmir. Ooops!

The Arab "mujehedeen' recieved their funding and "training" through private fund-raising, and from certain Arab governments - principally Saudi.


----------



## scoutfinch (4 May 2006)

THREADJACK ALERT *** THREADJACK ALERT *** THREADJACK ALERT

paracowboy:

Have you read Stepehn Coll's The Ghost Wars:  The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001.

I think you would enjoy it, if you haven't already.


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

I have two piles of books on the Middle East, Islam in general, Arab history, and terrorism. I've gotten through 17 already, with 20 more to go. That one is about # 3 on the "To Read Yet" pile.


----------



## scoutfinch (4 May 2006)

Sounds exceedingly familiar!!!

We should exchange bibliographies at some point.  Anything on your *already read* list that you recommend?


----------



## Franko (4 May 2006)

Well finally someone who has done some research on the region, beyond personal experience, spoke up.

PC....I'm glad to see that we read the same books. Quite a debacle when you really get into it, no?

I was going to get into the whole nuances of the area and the history of it starting back in the late 60's but got side tracked.

Excellent rebuttal.

Regards


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

scoutfinch said:
			
		

> We should exchange bibliographies at some point.  Anything on your *already read* list that you recommend?


we'll take it pms when I get off work, to avoid hi-jacking further.



			
				Franko said:
			
		

> PC....I'm glad to see that we read the same books. Quite a debacle when you really get into it, no?


terrifying, heart-breaking, mind-boggling, and enfuriating. Quite the emotional roller-coaster.



> I was going to get into the whole nuances of the area and the history of it starting back in the late 60's but got side tracked.


 earlier than that, mon comrade du arms. We could say it started in the '20s and '30s with the discovery of oil.

Or we could say it started with the Crusades, as so many of the Bad Guys and their sycophants like to state.

Or we could say it started well before that, with the conquering of various Coptic Christian and Jewish enclaves by Muslim invaders.

Or...

But I really don't care where/when/who started this mess. I just want to stop it before more children die needlessly for the greed of bullies. And if that means I have to shoot terrorists, tyrants, bandits, pirates, or misguided but well-intentioned men, so be it. I will squeeze my trigger until my shoulder collapses. I will hand out Aid until my arms fall off. I will bandage the sick until I have no clothes to tear up. And I will weep until I have no tears left.

You in, brother?


----------



## Franko (4 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> I just want to stop it before more children die needlessly for the greed of bullies. And if that means I have to shoot terrorists, tyrants, bandits, pirates, or misguided but well-intentioned men, so be it. I will squeeze my trigger until my shoulder collapses. I will hand out Aid until my arms fall off. I will bandage the sick until I have no clothes to tear up. And I will weep until I have no tears left.
> 
> You in, brother?



You had me at "hello"    

Already did a tour shy of 8 months....I'd go in a heart beat to make a difference, again.

The people that are protesting have no idea of why we do the things we do....and they never will, unfortunatly.

Regards


----------



## zipperhead_cop (4 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> actually, no they were not trained by the US. The US was terrified of having American dead caught in Afghanistan, so they would not send soldiers, even SpecOps, in there. They worked entirely through proxies, mostly (almost entirely) the Pak ISI.



Para, thanks for the re-orientation.  I will spout off more accurately from now on with that  ;D   

The book Ghost War which you referred to Scoutfinch?  Is it recent enough that it would be in book stores or would it best be tracked down on the net?  Maybe we should start an Oprah's-book-club type thread to recommend quality publications and why.


----------



## scoutfinch (4 May 2006)

PM inbound zipperhead_cop.


----------



## Haggis (4 May 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> The people that are protesting have no idea of why we do the things we do....and they never will, unfortunatly.



Hence my suggestion to *Kgerrard* that he should meet one of us "killbots" for a beer and a chat.  If they'd ASK us why we go instead of PROTESTING why we go, chances are we wouldn't seem so evil (nor would our mission).

Paracowboy:  I'm in.


----------



## Centurian1985 (4 May 2006)

Quote from me earlier:
I wont repeat the arguments of others on other subjects I am interested but will instead restrict myself to your comments about Haiti.  I keep seeing demonstrators saying 'get out of Haiti' and reading editorials against our involvement there.  This boggles my mind - Haiti had imploded long before Canada was involved.  Why do people in your faction believe we are their as part of some takeover of Haiti?Yes, 
Quote from kgerrard:
Haiti was an ongoing disaster. Does that justify us helping remove a democratically elected leader? Is democracy only worthy for us?

This what I thought had said earlier, but figured I would give you a chance to correct yourself. He was democratically elected but then refused to follow democratic process when the population demanded he step down as Prsidente. 

Now here is a history lesson for you that you can validate from open source newspapers, because I believe you are seriously misinformed.  

Haiti was going along in its normally disorderly self after Canada left the last time the place imploded.  
In Novemeber 2003, the local population started rioting in objection to Aristides refusal to work with ELECTED opposition party members (and by the way Arsitide was corrupt long before this, even human rights groups and other international watch dogs agree this was true).
By December Aristide was calling out the dogs (his 4,000 police forces) to attack protesters who were holding demonstrations.
By January, riots in many Haitian towns were forcing battles between police forces suporting Aristide and insurgents in support of new government (preferably themselves). The opposition party refused to work with these groups.  
By beginning of February, Haitian insurgent groups were coming from the Dominican Republic next door where thay had been living since the last insurgency that got Aristide elected and them exiled from the country. 
By end February, insurgents groups had captured control of several northern towns and police forces had withdrawn to Port-au-Prince.   A civil war to remove Aristide from the Presidential Palace was imminent, and opposition groups were forming agreements with the insurgents.  
Then the opposition groups REQUESTED that OAS nations send forces to help end the fighting. 

THEN the UN and OAS got involved, because opposition members had come to a working agreement with the insurgents but Aristide still refused to step down from power.  Aristide still refused to begin a working relationship with the opposition groups despite requests by other nation's representatives sent in to mediate a peaceful settlement. After that failed then Aristide was given an escort out of the country which to this day it is unproven as to whether he was willing or unwilling to leave (Arsitide claimed both, sanctuary and escort before leaving, then claiming he was forced to leave aftewards.).

Now these insurgents were in no way supported by foreign forces or the journalists covering the fighting would have reported seeing them.  Where is your evidence that this was going on other than the word of Aristide supporters tring to get a corrupt dictator back into power?

Oh and BTW, the sweatshops you refer to? Who do you think helped set these shops up? Thats right, Arisitides network of supporters!


----------



## doncab (4 May 2006)

paracowboy:  first, name-calling is a really good way to look like you don't know what you're talking about.  

And, where, exactly, have we (the Western powers) violated the Geneva Conventions?
too many to list, here are a few recent examples. 

falluja general hospital.  front page of the NYT "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed solidiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs."  quote from geneva: "fixed..and mobile medical units may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected by both parties" they further moved to "shut down what officers described as a propaganda weapon..." since they released "inflated" casualty figures.  also in the attack, male residents were forbidden from leaving the city.
 and what what about torture, "unlawful combatants" attacking "soft targets" like al-jazeera? also, white house council Alberto Gonzales advised bush recinding the conventions would "substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes act."

 Broken international law? how many times has the US even tried to get UNSC approval for an attack? give me an example. they've also defied the non-proliferation treaty, and actually rejected a UN resolution condemning terrorsism in 1987, their opposition? the resolution allowed people under "racist colonial regimes or foreign military occupation to contimue their resistance" and in 87' that meant South Africa and the ANC. Also vetoed a UNSC resolution "calling on all states to observe international law", was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force"(vetoed again).  the result?  they increased their attacks on nicaragua and encouraged the attacking of "soft targets".  also, look at US actions toward Cuba, there's plently of violations there too.     

Ignored  the world court? see above.

participating in terror: again with the name calling, but on to your point:
how bout the CIA organizing and training mujahadeen? the contras? East Timor?
Nicaragua? Haiti(emmanuel constant) Cuba(carilles).  Palestine? Honduras US/UK backed south african attacks during Reagan, Columbia? Turkey? do i need to go on?

some of the mujahadeen were farmers to being with, until they were funded and trained by the CIA, in fact allot of them, Bin laden included weren't even from afghanistan but other places like saudi arabia. like you say in your next post, they were funded by proxy-a favorite american tactic.  But they still funded them, even if pakistan acted as middle man.

then you describe me as "anti-american", without refuting any of the facts i put forth.  Also, the tern "anti-american" is a propaganda term.  You obviously disagree with the policies of the former afghan government, does that make you "anti-afghan?" of course not.  disagreeing with the government doesn't mean you're "anti" the people in that country, not to mention a large portion of americans feel the exact same way i do.  are they "anti-american" too?

zipperhead: 

correct, most western leaders would be under suspicion, like i said-they're not exempt from criticism just because they're western.  and actually, the US has been directly involved in the middle east since the end of WW2 in israel/palestine, saudi arabia, afghanistan, iraq(X2) etc. and these actions are what leads  people in these countries to rightly conclude we are contributing to their exploitation, not alleviating it.

I agree the UN is often ignored, but also vetoed by the west far too often.  again, see the US record of vetoes for a good indication why the UN doesn't work.

and are you denying the facts i brought up?  check the record it's all there. and yes, i would love to hear your perspectives on them.  to me they are pretty relevant.

as a side note, i think i think i've been pretty good about not using "rhetoric" while i've been called everything from a dolt, an unfgrateful socialist, hippie etc.  instead i presented evidence, mostly from US officials and government sources....of which the most crucial has not been refuted.  to me bringing up relevant facts isn't "rhetoric", it's being honest.  

and once again, i'm not now, nor have i ever said that the troops are bad people, or we wouldn't get along if we had a beer.  What i'm saying is that you are not running these missions or deciding where/when to deploy, instead it's the heads of state, who as the evidence i've presented here (and history) shows, don't have much concern for terrorism or the lives of innocent people, but are more concerned about power politics, and maintaining the status-quo.  Every leader, including hitler has proclaimed noble intentions, counter-terrorism etc.


----------



## CanuckTroop (4 May 2006)

IN MY OPINION Afghanistan makes sense because the people there are fecked if we and the YANKS leave. The Taliban were also directly involved in the 911 incident which included dead Canadians. So it wasn't just an attack on the US. Helping Afghanistan is in our national interests. That country just needs to come up with a new source of income other than poppies. Mabye some Canadian companies can take this opportunity to do some OIL/GAS/MINERAL exploration in Stan with cheap leases on land. If they found anything then Afghanistan won't have as many desperate people willing to join the Taliban- so everyone wins- yay. Iraq on the other hand, makes no sense at all, for obvious reasons....

1) not related to war on terror
2) LIES LIES LIES
3) LIES
4) Haliburton
5) LIES


----------



## Screw (4 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> IN MY OPINION Afghanistan makes sense because the people there are fecked if we and the YANKS leave. The Taliban were also directly involved in the 911 incident which included dead Canadians. So it wasn't just an attack on the US. Helping Afghanistan is in our national interests. That country just needs to come up with a new source of income other than poppies. Mabye some Canadian companies can take this opportunity to do some OIL/GAS/MINERAL exploration in Stan with cheap leases on land. If they found anything then Afghanistan won't have as many desperate people willing to join the Taliban- so everyone wins- yay. Iraq on the other hand, makes no sense at all, for obvious reasons....
> 
> 1) not related to war on terror
> 2) LIES LIES LIES
> ...



So your answer in afghanistan is for us to cheaply exploit afghan resources? nice work. Also your list is ridiculous- how is "haliburton" a reason for Iraq not making sense? 

Screw


----------



## CanuckTroop (4 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> So your answer in afghanistan is for us to cheaply exploit afghan resources? nice work. Also your list is ridiculous- how is "haliburton" a reason for Iraq not making sense?
> 
> Screw



Yep- that's my answer ...that's why I said it. Haliburton is one of the reasons that Iraq is BS, because one of the major hawks that wanted the war is Dick Cheney, who was also the former CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton then got a crapload of no-bid contracts and have since been ripping of US taxpayers. George Bush signed a waiver in January of the year reconstruction began which allowed "government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects" . Think about it. It's what's known as a CONFLICT OF INTEREST- look it up. 

 If that happened in Canada the Government would be out pronto.


----------



## Screw (4 May 2006)

CanuckTroop said:
			
		

> Yep- that's my answer ...that's why I said it. Haliburton is one of the reasons that Iraq is BS, because one of the major hawks that wanted the war is Dick Cheney, who was also the former CEO of Haliburton. Haliburton then got a crapload of no-bid contracts and have since been ripping of US taxpayers. George Bush signed a waiver in January of the year reconstruction began which allowed "government agencies to handpick companies for Iraqi reconstruction projects" . Think about it. It's what's known as a CONFLICT OF INTEREST- look it up.
> 
> If that happened in Canada the Government would be out pronto.



LOL. Ill think about it. Or maybe I did 3 years ago when these arguments were first making there rounds. How would us cheaply exploiting the afghan resources be any different then that demon of a company you keep invoking "haliburton"?. Or maybe since Haliburton is the largest most well equipped company in its field you suggest a different organization? Maybe Dons oil well servicing would be a better alternative? 

Youre probably right- The united states went to war specifically to give Haliburton some much needed off season work. : America is losing a billion dollars a day to make sure Haliburton stays afloat. They also went for oil.....so that America would have access to cheap oil....thats working out real good too.

Ever hear the expression- its not what you say its how you say it?


----------



## paracowboy (4 May 2006)

doncab said:
			
		

> paracowboy:  first, name-calling is a really good way to look like you don't know what you're talking about.


trust me, I have not begun to call you names. I am an Infantry jr NCO. When I call you names, there will be absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind. There will be colourful anecdotes, references to your ancestry, derogatory comments on your height, weight, choice of sexual partner, and favourinte food. They will be far-ranging and multi-shaded. So untwist your panties.



> falluja general hospital.  front page of the NYT "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed solidiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs."  quote from geneva: "fixed..and mobile medical units may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected by both parties" they further moved to "shut down what officers described as a propaganda weapon..." since they released "inflated" casualty figures.  also in the attack, male residents were forbidden from leaving the city.


 firstly, the NYT? Why not the Weekly World News? However, hospitals, mosques, schools, in fact anywhere that is expressly forbidden by The Good Guys are now exactly where The Bad Guys operate from, conceal weapons, and launch attacks on/from. The Geneva Conventions only apply where both sides follow them. Trust me on this, we recieve intensive training on those conventions, and many other agreements created to make war a fair and fun time to be had by all, such as the Martens Clause, the Hague Conventions, and United Nations Conventions. Every soldier is taught what is legal and what isn't. In addition, every Canadian soldier is taught to understand that the more fair and just your treatment of enemies and noncombatants, the easier your job is. If you mistreat the enemy, they won't surrender and you have to fight longer and harder. If you mistreat the populace, they will rise up against you and ally themselves with your (and formerly their) enemies.

When you are unable to follow the letter of the Law of Armed Conflict, you WILL follow the spirit. You WILL meet the intent. In this case, by removing noncomabants, securing them away from potential fighting, preventing them from warning potential combatants, and ensuring they do not run into the line of fire. In the case of preventing the males from leaving the city, that was done to ensure they didn't simply move to a new locality and start violence there. They were kept penned up because the entire city was used as a staging area by the enemy, and once trapped in there, the US forces could destroy them easier, thus shortening the overall conflict. Thus making the violence end sooner, rather than dragging it out longer, and causing more collateral damage amongst the civilian populace. I notice you didn't mention that the women and children were encouraged and asisted in leaving, but that's okay, because the NYT doesn't like to mention things that cause Soldiers to appear in a positive light, so you may not have been aware.



> and what what about torture,


 Canadian, American, British, Australian and Eurpean forces do not use or condone torture. Despite what many think, what was happening in Abu Ghraib (while unprofessional in the extreme, and reprehensible) was most definitley NOT torture. It was a frat party. Everything done to the inmates was nothing compared to what we often put our own soldiers through. Torture is what Hussein and sons did to their own people, including their freakin' soccer team. 

Western soldiers do not use torture because 1) it is illegal; 2) it is immoral; 3) it is counter-productive. It produces exactly the opposite result of what is intended. A tortured person will not give you erliable info. He will tell you what HE thinks You want to hear, in order to stop the pain inflicted on him. Sleep deprivation, sensory overload and deprivation, and diet will produce much better results, and is not physically damaging, or psychologically traumatic. 

Are there the occasional criminal incidents? Of course. Like any other group of humans, soldiers have their percentage of loonies. Unlike other groups of humans, soldiers are tested, tried, and weeded out to limit the numbers as much as humanly possible. And when caught, they are punished, far more strictly than criminals are by civilan courts.



> "unlawful combatants" attacking "soft targets" like al-jazeera?


 Who? And When? I'm sorry but you'll have to refresh my memory on this one.



> also, white house council Alberto Gonzales advised bush recinding the conventions would "substantially reduce the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes act."


yeah, that's his job. To find loopholes. He's a lawyer. 



> Broken international law? how many times has the US even tried to get UNSC approval for an attack?


 the UNSC? You mean that group of nations with China, Russia, and France having veto power equal to the US and UK? The 3 nations most profitting (along with Germany) from the Oil-For-Fraud? France being dead-set on reclaiming her former status as a world power, and doing so by putting herself forward as the mouthpiece of Europe aimed at opposing the US at every turn? Or Russia, which is following it's interests first, regardless of consequences to the rest of the world, or it's own populace? Or China, still the enemy? And as to the rest of the Council, on any given year, it will be stocked with at least 5 nations that are run by tyrants or criminals.

Hmmm, I wonder why the US has lost faith in such a fundamentally flawed outfit? I wonder why I have?



> they've also defied the non-proliferation treaty,


 by allowing India, the world's largest democracy, and one of the most free-market economies to play. And a nation which has historically walked it's own path. As opposed to allowing Iran which is supporting terrorism, actively, on several continents, to gain nuclear weapons that they may carry out their threat of destroying an entire nation and race?



> and actually rejected a UN resolution condemning terrorsism in 1987, their opposition? the resolution allowed people under "racist colonial regimes or foreign military occupation to contimue their resistance" and in 87' that meant South Africa and the ANC.


 uhhh, you ARE aware that the ANC were a terrorist organization and murdered, tortured, raped and generally behaved in a very bad way for decades, right? You DO realize that the ANC were Soviet-sponsored, yes? You DO know that the ANC are single-handedly ersponsible for the closure of schools and hospitals in order to force blacks to remain ignorant, thus more susceptible to propaganda, and preventing them from recieveing medical care from whites, because it would weaken racial tensions? You ARE aware that Mandela was in prison because he was a terrorist, not because he was black, right? And amongthe first things he did on taking power was a purge of his political enemies, (although his wife already had a head-start on that. Good ol' "Give 'em a burning tire necklace Winne!) 



> Also vetoed a UNSC resolution "calling on all states to observe international law", was condemned by the World Court for "unlawful use of force"(vetoed again).  the result?  they increased their attacks on nicaragua and encouraged the attacking of "soft targets".


 UNSC? see above. Nicaruagua was an enemy state sponsoring terrorism throughout Central America, remember? Mass murders? Torture? International communism? Domino theory?



> also, look at US actions toward Cuba, there's plently of violations there too.


 oh, yeah, because Uncle Fidel and his regime are a model of law-abiding citizens. Sponsors of terrorism? Schools in Yemen, Libya, Lebanon teaching the proper method of placing a bomb on a school bus? El Principe? Sponsoring Communism throughout South and Central America? Angola? Cocaine running?   



> Ignored  the world court? see above.


unlike any other nation on Earth? Shall we stack up how many other nations have done as much good in the world, by ignoring the World Court, which is an offshoot of the United Nations which is an inherently flawed and incompetent organization? If it comes down to a committee, most which is composed of people who are criminals, or one man who will always do the right thing, I know who my friend is going to be.



> participating in terror: again with the name calling, but on to your point:


forget it, I haven't called you any sort of name yet. See the opening bit.



> how bout the CIA organizing and training mujahadeen?


 Once again, the CIA did not train the Muj. And I fail to see how men who are attempting to drive out an invading army, with the full support of the overwhelming populace, and who actively go out of their way to reduce casualties among noncombatants equate to terrorists. 



> the contras?


 And they were terrorists, how? They were ridiculous, incompetent, clownish, amateurish, perhaps. But I don't see how they equate to terrorists. 



> East Timor?


I'm sorry, but I don't know where you're going here.



> Nicaragua?


 see above



> Haiti(emmanuel constant) Cuba(carilles). Palestine? Honduras US/UK backed south african attacks during Reagan, Columbia? Turkey?do i need to go on?


 I'm afraid you do, because you're losing me in the fog here. Put some details in there, please. I can toss the names of countires around as well, but without specific dates, times, events, etc they'd be equally meaningless to you. 



> some of the mujahadeen were farmers to being with, until they were funded and trained by the CIA, in fact allot of them, Bin laden included weren't even from afghanistan but other places like saudi arabia. like you say in your next post, they were funded by proxy-a favorite american tactic.  But they still funded them, even if pakistan acted as middle man.


so, they stopped being legitimate freedom fighters the moment they accepted funds from America? Is that what you're saying? I don't know about you, but if I were fighting an invading army, I'll take money form anywhere, and it doesn't make my cause any less noble. and I don't know what you're trying to say here 





> in fact allot of them, Bin laden included weren't even from afghanistan but other places like saudi arabia





> then you describe me as "anti-american", without refuting any of the facts i put forth.


  because you quite obviously are suffering from Jan Brady Syndrome.



> Also, the tern "anti-american" is a propaganda term.


  oh, I was unaware of that. I was under the impression it was term used to describe people who are anti-America. The sort of people who just respond with a knee-jerk "America is bad" and go out of their way to blame everything from war to halitosis on the US in order to sooth their personal inferiority complex.



> You obviously disagree with the policies of the former afghan government, does that make you "anti-afghan?" of course not.  disagreeing with the government doesn't mean you're "anti" the people in that country, not to mention a large portion of americans feel the exact same way i do.  are they "anti-american" too?


no, they are Americans. People of other countries who make derogatory attack on the US are anti-Americans. As you seem fairly intent on doing, with the above stream of vitriol.



> as a side note, i think i think i've been pretty good about not using "rhetoric" while i've been called everything from a dolt, an unfgrateful socialist, hippie etc.  instead i presented evidence, mostly from US officials and government sources....of which the most crucial has not been refuted.  to me bringing up relevant facts isn't "rhetoric", it's being honest.


 presenting "facts" in a certain manner to elicit a certain result is rhetoric, or propaganda. Which you are dead-set on doing. You have an agenda, and you are presenting your "facts" to correspond to that agenda.

Rational people realize that the US has screwed up and done thngs of which they should (and often are) ashamed. Rational people also realize that the US has done more good for more people than any other country on this planet. 



> and once again, i'm not now, nor have i ever said that the troops are bad people, or we wouldn't get along if we had a beer.  What i'm saying is that you are not running these missions or deciding where/when to deploy, instead it's the heads of state, who as the evidence i've presented here (and history) shows, don't have much concern for terrorism or the lives of innocent people, but are more concerned about power politics, and maintaining the status-quo.  Every leader, including hitler has proclaimed noble intentions, counter-terrorism etc.


 No, you are saying that we, the troops, are too stupid to realize when we are receiving illegal orders, and are nothing more than pawns under the thumb of masters of Evil. Or that we are brain-dead kill-crazy zombies. Either way, you are implying that we would follow commands that are illegal, immoral, or fattening. Thanks for looking out for us poor, benighted morons.


----------



## CanuckTroop (4 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> LOL. Ill think about it. Or maybe I did 3 years ago when these arguments were first making there rounds. How would us cheaply exploiting the afghan resources be any different then that demon of a company you keep invoking "haliburton"?. Or maybe since Haliburton is the largest most well equipped company in its field you suggest a different organization? Maybe Dons oil well servicing would be a better alternative?
> 
> Youre probably right- The united states went to war specifically to give Haliburton some much needed off season work. : America is losing a billion dollars a day to make sure Haliburton stays afloat. They also went for oil.....so that America would have access to cheap oil....thats working out real good too.
> 
> Ever hear the expression- its not what you say its how you say it?



You really like to stick up for Halliburton. How many shares you got?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 May 2006)

CanuckTroop,

Without putting words into Paracowboy's mouth, I do not believe that he was "sticking" up for Haliburton.

The way I read it, he was refuting your somewhat ridiculous implication that the entire US government went to war in Iraq, at great cost in blood and treasure, simply to improve Haliburton's bottom line.  Occam's razor...

edit- I would also point out that his understanding of the law of armed conflict and the Geneva convention are borne of actual experience and more thorough than the understanding that you have displayed so far.  If I were you, I would be extremely careful about coming to site like this and making those arguments. It would be like me going into a hospital and arguing with doctors about surgery after watching ER or reading a textbook.  Some of Canada's best experts in the practical application of the law of war reside here. 

By all means, ask questions- but spare us the moral superiority and lectures.  We are all aware of the imperfect nature of the world around us.


----------



## CanuckTroop (4 May 2006)

> How would us cheaply exploiting the afghan resources be any different then that demon of a company you keep invoking "haliburton"?



It's not EXPLOITATION when you're helping the Country by giving them tools and expertise to DEVELOP their resources which they DO NOT HAVE. Please tell me how this would be exploitation, when the only viable crop there right now is opium poppies? Why don't you offer some solutions instead of getting your panties in a knot. 

My problem with Haliburton, if you'd read what I said, was the fact that the sitting VP was a former CEO and the fact that they had no-bid contracts. It's called a conflict of interest- once again- look it up. There are numerous companies that could have provided the services that you're speaking about. Oil and Gas services companies aren't rare. If you don't wanna hear about Haliburton, because it's old news, why'd you ask me about it? Apparently it's not old news to you.


----------



## CanuckTroop (4 May 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> CanuckTroop,
> 
> Without putting words into Paracowboy's mouth, I do not believe that he was "sticking" up for Haliburton.
> 
> The way I read it, he was refuting your somewhat ridiculous implication that the entire US government went to war in Iraq, at great cost in blood and treasure, simply to improve Haliburton's bottom line.  Occam's razor...



Try and follow. I was not talking to Paracowboy.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 May 2006)

> Try and follow. I was not talking to Paracowboy.



My mistake.  Delete paracowboy for the Haliburton part and insert Screw.

And keep a civil tongue in your head, please.  Your runaway emotionalism weakens your arguments.


----------



## Franko (4 May 2006)

doncab.....

Every instance in the last post you made were pretty much dealing with the US and it's operations, not Canadian operations.

You have no foot to stand on at all. You are protesting the wrong military and government.

I suggest that you and your comerades go to Washington DC and make your point to Dubbia and not to us.

Regards



Mod note: Lets keep it civil troops....leveler heads always prevail in a heated discussion.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2006)

Awesome posts and pictures from Afghanistan Paracowboy! We need a constant stream of words and pictures like this to put things into perspective and certainly to help the uninformed public to get a feel for what is happening and what we as Canadians are doing about it. Consider shopping this around to other outlets.

I haven't been to Afghanistan (yet), but I would certainly not say "no" if told to go. If not for myself, then for the people who live there and want a helping hand (just like the people I met in Bosnia and even Cyprus, so long ago), and for my own children, who should never have to live under the poverty spawned by oppression and terror.

Perhaps this is getting to the real difference between "us" and "them", we (service members) are practical people who see a problem and have the urge go in and correct it. If all we have is duct tape, then the solution will appear wrapped in duct tape. If our protesting friends (and despite everything, I do mean this since they at least had the courage to step up to the plate on Army.ca) would like us to try another solution, then they can join us, or at least ensure we have many more tools at our disposal. Just in case you think I am referring to the tools of war, the official approach to Security and Stabilization operations is Defence, Development and Diplomacy (AKA  the 3D approach) with us providing the first "D". Glyn Berry, a Canadian diplomat gave his life for the third "D", and contractors and NGOs work in theater under our protection to supply the development aspect. Give us tools to protect them and give them tools and money to do their jobs, and maybe we won't have to be in Afghanistan 20 or 30 years, just 10 or so.


----------



## Centurian1985 (5 May 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Every instance in the last post you made were pretty much dealing with the US and it's operations, not Canadian operations.
> 
> You have no foot to stand on at all. You are protesting the wrong military and government.
> 
> ...



Although I wouldnt use the same words, I was thinking along the same lines; why is he using the US as an example of our wrongdoing? Our eventual involvement in Afghanistan was completly different from the US. 

Note to 'anti-' arguers; if you are going to claim facts (i.e. Halliburton references) you should make sure they are actual facts.  Most of the comments are only theories and conjecture that has no actual proof to support it.  Basic principles of a logical argument require facts for the building of statements upon which the argument is built; without facts, the argument fails apart and you merely have opinion.    ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 May 2006)

I believe we have been treating our left leaning friends all wrong, and I have come to believe that we are squandering a valuable resource that we may not have considered previously.  
Perhaps an embed exchange type program whereby the protesters get assigned to a platoon and go on a roto.  It could be called Democratic Embeds Cooperating On Yielding Solutions.  The members, or DECOYS, could go ahead of a platoon, to get the true feel and "flavour" of the village, since everyone knows that soldiers are a real "buzz kill" and people will just not seem as natural once the Killbots arrive.  DECOYS will provide excellent feed back to the platoons they are with, in the form of reporting on the general demeanor of the populace, or at least the prevalent calibre of weapons likely to be found.  It is in this spirit of cooperation that I suggest we hold out a hand of friendship to our new partners.  
Welcome to the military, my hemp laden friends!   :warstory:


----------



## Centurian1985 (5 May 2006)

I think you are looking at this all wrong zipperhead;   as aggravating as these comments may be, they force you to question who what when where why and how.  If you can still stand up for your actions and build your own argument in defense of your actions, it reinforces your ethical and moral confidence.  Why tell a soldier why they have to do something if they can convince themselves that it is the right thing to do?  

Basic psychology!   ;D    

Also, these guys would be great for sending to Snr NCOs and officers as part of a CSIS 'loyalt test'.


----------



## paracowboy (5 May 2006)

anyway, it was an amusing sidebar. I never for an instant thought that our sheep would understand their sheep dogs' perspective. If they did, they would be standing a post beside us, instead of bleating against us. But, it may have planted a seed. 

I doubt it, but it may have. 

As it stands, it has, once again, denigrated into the usual "America is Evil, Industrial/Military/Illuminati/Spanish Inquisition Plot theorist, apologist/appeaser/fellow traveller" sort of nonsense that rears it's silly head periodically.

Bottom line remains unchanged, the status quo continues unabated, and we will continue to defend our sheep from the wolves regardless of how much they dislike us for doing so.

Woof.


----------



## TMM (5 May 2006)

[





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> and we will continue to defend our sheep from the wolves regardless of how much they dislike us for doing so.



paracowboy, please keep defending the sheep; I need wool to keep knitting for the squaddies!




			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> I believe we have been treating our left leaning friends all wrong, and I have come to believe that we are squandering a valuable resource that we may not have considered previously...Welcome to the military, my hemp laden friends!   :warstory:



Hey! I'm a leftie and the only hemp I have is a traditional Ukrainian embroidered shirt!

I have to speak in my own defence here. I'm a leftie but I don't smoke up, wear Birkenstocks(okay so they're Eddie Bauer sandals ) attend crappy poetry readings, or protest for the "fun" of it. Do I agree with a lot of the posts in various threads here? Nope, but that doesn't mean that I'm automatically against the military. Just because I hate the war doesn't mean I can't love the warrior.


----------



## a_majoor (5 May 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> Just because I hate the war doesn't mean I can't love the warrior.



Don't let my wife find out


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 May 2006)

+1 Paracowboy.  

Okay....lefty insert "protester".  

And, yeah.  I was just being facetious, Centurian.  Good thing I didn't elaborate on Operation: HippieShield


----------



## paracowboy (5 May 2006)

TMM said:
			
		

> paracowboy, please keep defending the sheep


my privilige



> I have to speak in my own defence here. I'm a leftie but I don't smoke up, wear Birkenstocks(okay so they're Eddie Bauer sandals  attend crappy poetry readings, or protest for the "fun" of it. Do I agree with a lot of the posts in various threads here? Nope, but that doesn't mean that I'm automatically against the military. Just because I hate the war doesn't mean I can't love the warrior.


and I have yet to hear you spout off half-baked theories, equate us to the Waffen SS, or bash a staunch ally. Therein lieth the difference. 

We enjoy hearing from those with different view points. It's the reason we do this sort of silliness: to ensure that every man and woman in this nation can always have the freedom to do so. But, absurd conspiracy theories, insulting Canadian soldiers, or attacking an ally will always draw fire from me, and several others on this site.

And TMM, thank you for your support. It means far more than you can ever understand.


----------



## doncab (5 May 2006)

well we could go on with this forever, but it looks like we just see the world through a different set of eyes.  
either way, it was fun.

on to other things.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 May 2006)

Thanks for coming out, and you might want to thank some of the folks for the education that you now will actively try to ignore.  It is harder to unlearn something...

Here's 
one to grow on


----------



## Fiji (5 May 2006)

After spending quite a bit of time reading everyone’s threads, there are a number of things that I would like to express to our friend  Kgerrard. 

As a student at the University of Toronto, in the heart of the city, I find myself encountering people that share very similar views as yourself. My riding, Trinity and Spadina went NDP under Olivia Chow, and there is a strong socialist attitude entrenched in the area. Here are the 3 most influential schools of thought that make Left leaning people have such appalling views of the armed forces.

1)	MILITARY = AMERICAN

Virtually every country in the world has a version of a national armed force. To be a state you must “be a geographically bound entity, that sets rules and regulations, and has a monopoly of force of its citizens.” To ensure the sovereignty of your country, you must be able to enforce and regulate the laws and guidelines that you set for you state (like Canada is trying to allow the Afghanistan government to bring peace and stability to the country, so they can set up a government, and carry on as sovereign state).

Many socialists often to refer to the success of Scandinavian countries, with their progressive socialist values. Let me point out that all males in Sweden after graduation are subjective to mandatory military service for 8 months. Sweden also designs, manufactures and services their own SABB fighter jets, completely state sponsored. Service is also required in Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland and the majority of European countries. Sweden spends more on their military of a percentage of GDP per capita than Canada. True socialism believes in a strong military, not the NDP.

2)	SOLDIERS = ALPHA MALE  WAR MONGLERS

This perception is most likely due to many Hollywood movies that glorify war, and undermine the purpose of professional armed forces. The Canadian Forces makes people jump through many hoops, including screens, interviews and a general aptitude test to make you fit to even be a part time reservist like myself. The vast majority of the Canadian forces members have a high school education, with 30% holding a university education (correct that if I’m wrong). The CF is composed of intelligent people, that are like-minded in the fact that we want to help make a positive difference in society. The CF is composed of a large amount of women, and represents all ethnic and religious groups in Canada. All members are subject to TIPS training on sexual and religious harassment, and racism.

3)	MILITARY  CREATES WAR 

Doing a minor in conflict studies, I have been forced to read dozens of academic journals about recent and past conflicts. I have done extensive research on Rwanda, and now Sudan. I have listened to every guest lecturer that has spoken at UofT on conflict resolution, and the Responsibility to Protect. Through my “superior intellectual capability”, I have come to the conclusion that if people want to kill other groups with sticks, they will do so. The primary weapon to murder over 800,000 people was a $0.10 machete, not a professional army. When societies fail, this is when we must have a highly capable and effective armed forces. We as Canadians and Western nations have a responsibility to protect those that are less capable. It would have cost 200 million dollars to send armed troops to Rwanda and end the killing. It has now over 3 billion in aid to the country. 

$200 million = 800,000 peoples lives saved?

In Canada where there is flooding, forest fires, or even the unlikely place of riots, the Forces will be there. Did anyone protest CF members forest fighting in BC? People who wear uniforms are subject to higher accountability. More importantly people like Kgerrard love to see a person in uniform go down, and wants to prohibit their success. Protest all you want, it is your right. But keep in mind what exactly it is your opposing, because Stephen Harper, or Paul Martin before him is not George Bush. Do NOT confuse this issue for your anger towards the US invasion of Iraq, or their foreign policy. 
Enjoy your peace games, and your protests will only enhance the training of the exercise.


----------



## Screw (5 May 2006)

Fiji said:
			
		

> After spending quite a bit of time reading everyone’s threads, there are a number of things that I would like to express to our friend  Kgerrard.
> 
> As a student at the University of Toronto, in the heart of the city, I find myself encountering people that share very similar views as yourself. My riding, Trinity and Spadina went NDP under Olivia Chow, and there is a strong socialist attitude entrenched in the area. Here are the 3 most influential schools of thought that make Left leaning people have such appalling views of the armed forces.
> 
> ...



Thats a pretty good damn post Fiji.

Screw


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (5 May 2006)

Wow, all these posts is better than reading a political studies text book, we have such a broad range of emotion and intellect in these forums, thanks again for opening everyones eyes to different FACTS, not just mindless banter made up in your head or heard on the FOX 10 o'clock news, very refreshing. Cheers!!!


----------



## Thompson_JM (5 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> Thats a pretty good damn post Fiji.
> 
> Screw



+ 1

Fiji, Thank you for wording that so eloquently.... I fear that it may fall on deaf ears though...


----------



## CanuckTroop (5 May 2006)

Fiji said:
			
		

> After spending quite a bit of time reading everyone’s threads, there are a number of things that I would like to express to our friend  Kgerrard.
> 
> As a student at the University of Toronto, in the heart of the city, I find myself encountering people that share very similar views as yourself. My riding, Trinity and Spadina went NDP under Olivia Chow, and there is a strong socialist attitude entrenched in the area. Here are the 3 most influential schools of thought that make Left leaning people have such appalling views of the armed forces.
> 
> ...



There's just one problem with this post . It's a massive generalization. 

Fiji has just painted a picture of the "left" Strawman that so many far-right individuals use to disparage all who are seen as having opposing views.  In my experience that term itself should be avoided as it is used to brand a group of people with wildy differing viewpoints. For instance, I agree that Canada should be in Afghanistan, and I agree with the rationale for going there in the first place. I also believe in a strong military, and think that military spending should be a much larger component of our budget. In the non- military sphere, I believe in small government and low taxes. Nevertheless, because I disagree with some of the current Canadian Government's non-military initiatives, I'm branded as a birkentock wearing hippie by members of this board. I am a former CAF infantry soldier and no one who knows me would EVER mistake me for a hippie (trust me I have bumper stickers) yet this is what happens. The "right' like to paint everyone who disagrees with them on ANY issue as being part of some grand left agenda (michael moore loving blah blah blah).  I don't think Military =  American- I don't think Soldiers = War Mongers and I certainly don't think that the existence of the military is the reason for war itself. I DO, however, believe in the essential goodness of human beings- something which Fiji seems to be saying is non-existent. For Fiji, a world without military is a world without order and, thus, chaos. If you really believe that humans are essentially evil, then what are you fighting for Fiji? I see humans as being decendants of tribes, which worked together for the "common good". Mabye that's the  difference between the left and the right then. The "left" believes man is basically good, while the "right" believes man must be told to be good.

For me if we're not inherantly "good" then there's nothing to fight for.


----------



## Screw (5 May 2006)

There are good-ish people. But there are VERY bad guys- Holocaust, Former Yugo, Rawanda, Muhjeeden, Taliban, and we have bad apples our selves. But I certainly dont believe people are essentially anything- original sin I suppose. Human nature is selfish. We wont sit down and negotiate with rawandan rebels. We couldnt negotiate with the Taliban(911 Comission report explains negotiations), maybe it has something to do with weaker populations being willing to give up a little bit of freedom at a time to the stronger. I.e. Dictatorships, as a way to avoid a confrontation. Its easy to say "okay "if they only oppress the Kurds and you are a Sunni....."its better then civil war....right?" ts 530 in the morning.Maybe Im just rambling?

As for the left believing people are good- thats absurd. The left is the root of social programs- the very definition of TELLING people how to act. They legislate charity. Ill admit the "right"(not that I agree with labeling, I think most things are bigger than me against you.) legislate morality.


----------



## pbi (5 May 2006)

Wow-this thread has been a shining page in the annals of this fine site!

 Kudos to all: to the "Other Side" for coming out and fighting their case on "the wrong side of town"; and to Our Side for waging what was (with a few exceptions) a cleanly fought (if somewhat unfair...) fight. Unfair as in two guys with sticks facing a coy's worth of chain guns... (No--that's US with the chain guns)

Needless to say, as an alumnus of Afghanistan, and a participant in the beginning stages of the planning of Ex CHARGING BISON when I was still in 38 CBG, my opinions can probably be guessed pretty accurately.

I think that this exchange provided us with examples of two important things:

-our role in educating our fellow Canadians (even those who are opposed to us); and

-that our own beliefs are stronger once they are tested against opposing views.

One thing I found interesting was the recurring theme in the posts of both kg and doncab (and often in the thoughts of others of similar persuasion) that we soldiers function at some kind of subnormal level of comprehension and understanding: that we must be unaware, or uneducated, or pehaps misguided, in order to willingly follow our profession. We go off obediently and unquestioningly to do the evil bidding of the dark forces that control the world, and it is up to people such as themselves to liberate us poor minions by opening our eyes to the "truth". Hopefully by their exposure here, they will realize that other people, just as intelligent and well informed as they think themselves to be, can look at the world and see it very differently.

Another thing that is worth noting is that both of our visitors admit, at the end of the day, that there is a need for armed forces. This agreement, if it is the result of logical thought, implies an acceptance of the use of lethal force to obtain a political result. (If they don't accept that, maybe they should take another look at what they posted). They use some poorly defined concepts typical of their team's view: rubbish like "defensive" forces, or using the military purely for "nice" humanitarian missions, but at least we share some common ground. It comes down to how we choose to use the instrument. Hopefully they have broadened their understanding of the use of armed forces.

Cheers


----------



## TMM (5 May 2006)

Screw said:
			
		

> As for the left believing people are good- that's absurd.



I'm going to remain civil because I'm unarmed 

I believe people are good; that's not because I lean left. Mr. TMM believes people are good and he's a Tory. 

Despite my belief that people are good, I'm not living life with blinders on or viewing it through a bong induced haze. I've done work for Amnesty International and seen the incomprehensible acts some humans(and I use the term very loosely) perpetrate on others.  I have met people who have lived through the horrors inflicted upon them in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Argentina, as well as my own parents who survived Stalin, Hitler, Communism and fled a hail of bullets after Hussein's botched assassination attempt.

I know the world is SNAFU, but I also know that the majority of people I meet each day are decent human beings. Granted in your line of work you no doubt encounter the SOBs far more than the average civi so I can see where that mind set comes from.

Whether you like it or not I do believe that the majority of people are good and that they strive to do good day to day, not in huge displays but in the little every day things. Let's face it, if I'd given up on good I wouldn't be wearing red today.


----------



## Centurian1985 (5 May 2006)

Fiji,

Thanks for the analysis, its a damn fine summary!


----------



## paracowboy (5 May 2006)

CT,
many of my views are seen as "Right Wing", but I disagree with you (again). I, personally, feel that there are more 'good' people than 'bad'. The sad part is, that most of the 'good' people are either unable, or unwilling to actively fight for 'Good', and becoome victims by default.

To be a 'bad' person, you are inherently willing to inflict violence to promote your interests above those of your fellow man. In times of extreme duress, even 'good' people will do so, and regret it later (or not).

That is where we come in. We are 'good' people, who are willing to fight those 'bad' people, on behalf of the 'good' who are unable/unwilling to do so.

I see the species divided up very much like the Hindu concept of God (loosely defined hereafter, devout Hindus don't take offense, I understand it is far more complex. I'm simplifying, because I'm simple.):

We have Shiva, Krishna, and Brahma. The Destroyer, the Preserver, and the Creator. Three different beings, but all the same being. So it is with humanity. We have those who destroy, we have those who preserve, and we have those who create. I contrend that various bandits, criminals, tyrants, etc epitomize Shiva. Police Officers (Bless 'em, every one), Soldiers, and our ilk, are preservers. Doctors, teachers, artists, philosophers, farmers, and the like, are creators.

It is the duty of the Preservers (sheep dogs) to protect the Creators (sheep) from the Destroyers (wolves), in order that one day, Good will triumph, and we will no longer be required.


----------



## TMM (5 May 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> It is the duty of the Preservers (sheep dogs) to protect the Creators (sheep) from the Destroyers (wolves), in order that one day, Good will triumph, and we will no longer be required.



paracowboy, you're starting to sound like me LOL.

This is one sheep who'll treat you to a big bowl full of brand name dog chow, or at least a beer.

I too would love and dream of a world without war, famine, tyrants and despots but I live in this world not utopia. I haven't the balls, skills, or the mindset to be a "Preserver" or a "Destroyer" so whether I like it or not I have to be grateful that others take on that task so that I can sit back in my cozy cocoon and create.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2006)

I would just add to paracowboy's post that it is my belief that the vast majority of people, no matter how evil or bizarre their actions, act out of a desire to be doing good or at least doing the right thing.

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Genghis or Louis XIV, even Saddam, all believed they were acting in the best interests of at least their families and most believed they were acting in the best interests of their people.

Even parents that kill their children often believe they are doing it to protect their children from the evils of this world.  The mental processes are often bizarre but they indicate an underlying desire to be doing good.

PS.  That doesn't mean that just because they have good intentions they shouldn't be held accountable for their despicable and dangerous actions.


----------



## bilton090 (5 May 2006)

kgerrard said:
			
		

> ArmyRick, I decline to respond to your questions due to your rudeness to me via private message. Note that I'm responding to posts (mostly) in order, but I clearly can't cover everything.
> That revolt was supported indirectly and directly by foreign forces which adds uncertainty as to its legitimacy.
> Ones that are beneficial to them as rich nations with heavy corporate ties?
> You have a rosy portrait of the RCMP in mind that blinds you to its faults. While I recognise that the majority of officers likely have good intentions, I suspect they have an analysis limited by the government's lack of complete honesty.


  You should put your tail beten your legs and run, the more you open your mouth the more bull comes out     


     Now that I have colled down Most of the statements bye some people which is thire right,
  just got the blood to boil, We are the people that would stop our cars, to help you children, Wife, Monther & Family. Not becuse we have to, but becuse we What too ! .

        I was in Haiti 04 , to give a 5 year old , a pop tart , that has neare sean one ( we have 20+) to see that face ,   The mud slieds (2 times) the people living in the cars for 4 days, no water, food ect. on a highway. We cleared the main highway in less than 6hrs. 1km. 1m deep mud hole, and the air suport, to the mud slide which 2 000+ people died.

    You sit there fat, on the gavy train, what this COUNTRY can do for you !! What have you done for this country, This country is the way you live, the best country in the world ( but you don"t like the U.N)  If we put you in a Village to talk you would last 24hrs, but I hared it before Gulf War War 1 , All about OIL , but it's not about OIL it's about people!!!!! Can we not live together !!!!!!   

          Can all the people in the world go to schoole, have safe drinking water, be safe on the streets, You have that !!!!~!   , Instead fo trowing rocks, strate a fund that you control & go to the Govm. with 1-2mill see what you start, It's better that ******** on your Family


----------



## Fiji (5 May 2006)

Fiji has just painted a picture of the "left" Strawman that so many far-right individuals use to disparage all who are seen as having opposing views.  In my experience that term itself should be avoided as it is used to brand a group of people with wildy differing viewpoints. For instance, I agree that Canada should be in Afghanistan, and I agree with the rationale for going there in the first place. I also believe in a strong military, and think that military spending should be a much larger component of our budget. In the non- military sphere, I believe in small government and low taxes. Nevertheless, because I disagree with some of the current Canadian Government's non-military initiatives, I'm branded as a birkentock wearing hippie by members of this board. I am a former CAF infantry soldier and no one who knows me would EVER mistake me for a hippie (trust me I have bumper stickers) yet this is what happens. The "right' like to paint everyone who disagrees with them on ANY issue as being part of some grand left agenda (michael moore loving blah blah blah).  I don't think Military =  American- I don't think Soldiers = War Mongers and I certainly don't think that the existence of the military is the reason for war itself. I DO, however, believe in the essential goodness of human beings- something which Fiji seems to be saying is non-existent. For Fiji, a world without military is a world without order and, thus, chaos. If you really believe that humans are essentially evil, then what are you fighting for Fiji? I see humans as being decendants of tribes, which worked together for the "common good". Mabye that's the  difference between the left and the right then. The "left" believes man is basically good, while the "right" believes man must be told to be good.

For me if we're not inherantly "good" then there's nothing to fight for



My Response to Canuck Troop

I think you truly misunderstood the purpose of my statement. 

Yes my statement was a generalization. You are completely right. I was trying to enlighten many of the readers on this site of why mainly socialist minded people have such resentment for the armed forces. My peers, professors and roommates fit into this category. The generalizations work both ways as well. Several soldiers that have trained with me joined for reasons that I did not describe in my description above. Assumptions area enivitable part of conforming ideas, and thoughts that make us who we are.

  This is not a left vs right argument, for there is no one that is fits only into one category. When I walk to class everyday, I pass many homeless people, and it hurts me to see people living in such dire poverty on our streets, regardless of how they got there. So in that respect, I disagree with many conservative policies. So there is no such thing as being completely conservative or very liberal. Although given that, you can make some very basic generalizations about the view points of people. You being in the Infantry and supporting mainly socialist values is a rare breed with belonging in the category with the Sasquach. So my comment does not apply to yourself. Although it does apply to my friends here at University, and the majority of the academics view points that is supported in my course material. The vague generalization was not for you,  Kergaard or anyone else supporting similar viewpoints. Rather for all the troops and supporters that live in areas where this school of thought is not predominant, or even prevalent at all. I am making an effort to explain through my own personal experiences why people hate the Canadian Armed forces, for reasons that are not apparent.

 My message was also misconstrued with believing in good an evil. There is good in all of us. As someone like myself that believes solely in Science to explain our existence, there is this thing called conscience that is unexplainable. There is a moral right and wrong that we are born with. Unfortunately though, they way societies are developed, that morality is often lost in translation. To also say that I believe a world without military is a world without order exemplifies my point of people making assumptions further (especially a comment like that). For Canada to have a military, is not to “achieve or order in Canada” or to solely defend our sovereignty, but rather for the greater benefit of the international community.

 This comment was for all the troops overseas or on base. I hope my simple explanation helps you better understand why you hear such negativity in the media.  

But what do I know, I’m only some 19 cockey student reservist from Toronto that believes all people are evil right? Come on, where Canadians, and Canadians look for the best in people. You seem to have forgotten that.

Cheers


----------



## George Wallace (5 May 2006)

Just playing a little catchup after being away for a few days and was becoming amused with kgerrard's misconstrued answers to some of the posts.  To me they have no substance.  She doesn't really have a decent answer to any posts, only a twisted naive answer to most of the questions.  For example, I posted the following:





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> To make that one a little clearer; can we ask you if you think that people in any profession should not train to do their jobs proficiently and safely? Would you want to be treated by a Paramedic whose only training was to put on his/her uniform, and have no medical training at all?  Would you want your local Fire Department to come and rescue you in a multi-story building, after only training to put out grass fires?  Would you feel safe in the proximity of a Police officer who had never trained on the use of his/her firearm?  Would you feel safe under the knife of a surgeon who had left Medical School in the 1940's and had never bothered to upgrade his surgical skills?
> 
> To maintain a Professional Military, they have to train.  They have to train for any eventuality.  That way should the need arise, they will be able to deal with it effectively and with as little loss of life as possible.



To this she answered with this silliness:



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training rapists to be most effective.
> 
> I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.



What kind of answer is that?  What does training rapists have to do with this?  What kind of logic is that?  Yeah!  I know it is flawed logic, and desperate at that.  What is really disturbing is her presumption that the Canadian Military, as professionals, are unethical as stated in her words "but it presupposes that their professions  are ethical".  She backs this up with her belief that the military, which we can take her to mean the CF, in its' current form is ineffective and undesirable.  Why do we waste our time on Education, when these people really can't put together a logical thought with substance?

kgerrard

In this crowd you need to have 'concrete' answers, not just twisted playing with words.  It is, however, amusing to have a glimpse at how narrow and illinformed your views are.  I hope as I read further, I will come across more of your witticisms.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2006)

I am always a bit perturbed by the "killbot" mentality that some of the protesters and other opponents of the military love to paint us with. 

Many of our opponents or potential opponents, such as the Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam and so on make a point of using IED and homicide bombers to deliver explosives into areas where civilians can be found in concentrated groups. They think nothing of detonating devices filled with ball bearings, nails or scrap metal (sometimes laced with poison as well) in city buses, restaurants, schools, employment line ups, crowds of children gathering to receive candy or small gifts from coalition soldiers, market places, commercial office buildings, holiday resorts etc. (you can google all kinds of examples, sorted by organization who did it, time/date/place, number of casualties etc.) Indeed the enemy are actively seeking out these targets in order to maximize the number of casualties, the vast majority who are random innocent civilians. You have to work hard to get more "killbot" than that. (A set of Warsaw Pact war plans were uncovered in the early 1990s in former East Germany which indicated the USSR and Warsaw Pact were going to *initiate* the hot phase of the Third World War with mass nuclear and chemical weapons strikes in Europe. This would have been _the_ ultimate terrorist act by many orders of magnitude. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154719/posts and http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051225/news_lz1e25nuclear.html)

Contrast this to the professional Western or Coalition soldier who by law, training and convention is rarely able to fire his or her weapon unless they have an identified target to fire at. The speed at which actions take place, the confused nature of combat and human error means that sometimes soldiers are shooting at the wrong things, but this can hardly be equated with the deliberate, random, mass murder which our opponents use as their *primary* means of engagement. 

That the protestors make accusations which are so openly and obviously wrong and easily disproven (yet continue to do so) suggests there is a different motivation behind these protests and other related activites. Protesting is being done for the sake of protesting, a ritual to create a feeling of purpose and togetherness for the protesters, with only a passing reference to external reality. I thought this article was a good take on the subject, follow the link and see for yourself: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I

_edit to add reference and link_


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> That the protestors make accusations which are so openly and obviously wrong and easily disproven (yet continue to do so) suggests there is a different motivation behind these protests and other related activites.


what amuses/depresses me is the fact that so many of these misguided fools are carrying on "The Revolution" that began in the '60s, where it was deliberately fueled by (primarily Soviet) communist infiltration of the Universities and media.

I still recall the video footage from about a decade ago of two old former KGB agents, laughin' their arses off while being interviewed, at the success (I don't recall which news program it was. W5 or something). They honestly thought that there was no way it could succeed, when it began in the '40s and '50s. When it did, they were shocked that: 

A. anybody would fall for it, especially highly educated Professors;
B. the governments of the West would allow it to continue;
C. it lasted for decades.

They especially found it hilarious that McCarthy was right, and has since become demonized. They looked like a pair of fun old rascals. I wish I could meet them and hear some stories.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2006)

paracowboy:

Any chance you could remember anymore details about that TV programme?  Arguably Russia's propaganda machine was its most effective weapon - and one of its masters is now the President of Russia.


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> paracowboy:
> 
> Any chance you could remember anymore details about that TV programme?  Arguably Russia's propaganda machine was its most effective weapon - and one of its masters is now the President of Russia.


I've been trying, but it was 10 years ago, or more. I'll poke around the websites of the various news programs I used to watch then, and I'll ask Dad. I remember him laughing at the two old rogues.


----------



## ArmyRick (6 May 2006)

You know whats scarry? Is that some people have talent in placing a single thought or idea in the weak minded people with no resolve or desperate people looking for something to beleive in. These two ruskies sound like they were masters of manipulation...


----------



## paracowboy (6 May 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> You know whats scarry? Is that some people have talent in placing a single thought or idea in the weak minded people with no resolve or desperate people looking for something to beleive in. These two ruskies sound like they were masters of manipulation...


well, we have to remember that the Soviets were laying their groundwork for infiltration right from the time of Lenin and Trotsky. They recognized right from the start that they needed to work from inside to destabilize their enemies. To that end, they subverted some, blackmailed others, seduced others, and located Useful Idiots in every nation in the West, principally 'disaffected' youth who wanted to appear rebellious (*coughTrudeaucough*). 

For an example of how efficient the Soviets were at this sort of thing, look into the West's attempts to create revolution/rebellion in Albania. The Soviets infiltrated it to such an extent that THEY were quickly the ones "running" the revolution, and accepted the West's funds before finally screwing up a bit, and the US and UK caught on. Or look into the Soviet's "Romeo" program. Or into how they infiltrated Hollywood and the printed media.

Sheer brilliance. Decades of patient work, and it paid off enormous dividends. I don't know if they ever read Sun Tzu, but they took his ideas to their ultimate. If the Communist system weren't so completely inherently flawed, and if it weren't for some US administrations, they would probably have won.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 May 2006)

And then look at our own brilliant infiltration of Hollywood... the Americans have no idea how far we have penetrated into their bureaucracy, some of our best people are now key supporters in BOTH key US political parties.  (Evil laugh, Mua-ha-ha-ha).


----------



## Bobbyoreo (10 May 2006)

I was at this exersice and talked to these protesters. Most of these people came with no info...they only came knowing war is wrong. They talked alot about things that made no sence at all. I had a guy tell me about how NGO's were the way to go another talked about us being in Philipines. 
I've worked with NGO's in Bosnia...and the Canadian ones were the worst and the other groups didnt do to much unless NATO helped them out and as for the Philipines...I have no idea what he is talking about as I've looked all over the net for 2 days and never found anything.

I listen to these people "educated people" talk about things they thought were so true...but when confronted they had nothing....they sat back and studurd. We had our INT guy at the gate and he made them all look like tools. 

Most of these people came and talked and left only a few caused problems...and very few...and those few got to see a cell for a day anyways.


----------



## McG (10 May 2006)

I’m a little late in getting to this one.  Sorry, it has been busy the last while.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't blanket-object to every mission. The missions with which we've been involved lately, however, don't seem as morally clear as where we are now. The recent history of Haiti, for instance.





			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> In my understanding, Canada has a recent history replete with morally bankrupt interventions in other countries, as well as at home.


 By “replete with morally bankrupt interventions” I assume you are referring to Afghanistan & Hati.  Are those the sum of your objections?  That’s hardly fitting with your phrase suggestive of rampant dubious deployments of the military.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> ... to me, the big missions on which members of Canadian military institutions are currently deployed are at best ineffective, and at worst highly damaging.


How are they damaging (to whom and in what ways?)?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I'm protesting because I'm against the military manifestation of Canada's foreign policy.


Why?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I definitely support a presence in nations attempting to build stability and sustainable infrastructure. That may be one aspect of what we're doing, but I think the negatives greatly outweigh the positives in our case. Western nations have a history of "help" that is domineering and unproductive.


You speak in generalities.  What is Canada doing that is unproductive?  What are the “negatives”?  As I see it, we are in Afghanistan doing exactly what you declare to support.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I oppose the exercises because they are training for yet more killing under the guise of the "war on terror", when all it'll buy is is more resentment from those whom we (the West) have been trampling upon for the past century.


Who are we trampling and how?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I agree that less privileged nations deserve our aid, especially when we helped destroy them. However, I feel our military interventions are generally _part_ of the disease.


Why to you think this?  What do we do that contributes to the “disease”?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical.


Is soldiering unethical? Why?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> The police and military are similar in that they're tools of oppression of the state.


Do you really believe that you can trivialize the functions of these organizations to just that?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.


Why is the military not desirable in its current form?  What does it need to do to become effective and how do you measure this?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> If we executed truly humanitarian and defensive missions, I would favour training!


Every social and moral positive, which Canadians pride themselves about for being “peacekeepers,” is being achieved by our deployment in Afghanistan.  We are helping the locals.  We are building capacity in all levels of government for the Afghan nation to look after its own affairs.  We are working to establish a secure environment for the citizens (ie: no more war & violence) where they can feel safe and free to go about their lives.  Most importantly, we are putting the Afghan leaders at the helm.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I agree that they need our help, as do many across the world. I don't believe the military is an effective support. Some of the acts in which soldiers engage are surely beneficial, but I think we need to radically rethink our tactics. There's no public debate about this: it's "Either we're in or we're out", not "How should we be conducting ourselves on humanitarian missions?"


If the military is not an effective tool, then what should we employ?  When other government departments remained noticeably absent from the country (out of fear), then who else will hear the needs of the citizens?  When the departments responsible for aid and reconstruction will not travel on the ground (or will only do so if in the most heavily of armoured vehicles available), then who will go in to the villages and meet with the locals?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> If I had faith that the assistance necessary were the lone goal, I would be completely behind the deployment and recognise the necessity of training.


What do you believe our goals to be?  Which are the ones (or the one) that you do not agree with?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Perhaps to you, but you seem to see the argument as Military vs. No military. I believe we need a debate on what sort of military we have. I would favour one more interested in working alongside citizens of countries that need help instead of the paternalistic techniques we currently employ.


We do work along side the citizens of the country.  We push & encourage those citizens to take the lead wherever possible.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Were the media interested in a more in-depth analysis instead of soundbites, it would be clear that I (and some others) support humanitarian missions when our presence is requested.


The current Afghani government has expressed that it wants our presence.  If not the Afghani government, then from whom do you feel this request should come?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> If we are to provide aid to deserving nations, we should work with people at a grassroots level to help them build institutions that are responsive to them and not corporate interests.


Do you believe that corporate interests are guiding Canadian actions in Afghanistan?  We regularly sit down with the community leaders in the towns and villages to discuss their needs (It was one of these village engagements where Capt Greene caught himself an axe in the head).  We work to improve the lines of communication between the levels of Afghani government and encourage district leaders to become involved in solving the problems raised in the villages, and we follow-up those concerns to see that they are being addressed.  In this sense, we are looking after the issues at the grassroots level while building the capacity of the Afghan nation to eventually look after itself.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> And who gets the rebuilding contracts?


You may be happy to hear of the Afghani first policy.  It was (believe it or not) initiated by the US military.  It says that where ever Afghanis can be hired to do a job, they will be hired.  



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Working with grassroots, Afghanistani-led initiatives. They know better than us how their country should work, we need to step back and follow the lead. This is beyond our capacity, …


Good news.  This is within our capacity and it is exactly what we have been doing.



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> I don't pretend that loss of life is avoidable. I do feel, however, that our methods need significant overhaul.


What methods should we use?



			
				kgerrard said:
			
		

> Let's not forget, though, that Canadian military history is not always a shining example of perfection.


Nor is the history of any organization (nor any individual for that matter).


----------



## sexymex (10 May 2006)

anyone else see that sexy ecole st boniface student the night they were showing the movies? I don't think she was protesting, but there should be more of that outside our gates!


----------



## Wookilar (10 May 2006)

: Riiiight.

Anyways, it seems our peace loving friends have flown the coop. Any action anywhere from them? 

And no practical solutions left in their wake. That is disappointing really. They could have discussed things such as: electoral reform to increase representation and accountability; UN reform; the various ideas floating around about a standing UN force; World Bank reform for the administration and payback of loans to developing countries; audits of various NGO's whose activities are sometimes suspect; etc. etc.

There are many areas that they could have touched on, but were stuck so narrow mindedly on their mesage of the Big Bad West tromping on the 3rd World, that it all got lost. Unfortunate.


----------



## JasonH (11 May 2006)

> Why the protest?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.esquimaltnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=10&cat=48&id=645037&more=


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

> The protesters also decried the United States as a bastion of imperialistic war-makers.
> That, at least, bears a nugget of validity.


  Crap.



> ....Canadian forces have successfully continued a legacy of effective peacekeeping and are currently doing something the Americans can't: form genuine constructive relationships  with Afghani natives that demonstrate that some Westerners truly have Afghanistan's well-being in mind.


Crap



> Our military is chock full of resourceful, dedicated and time-proven peacekeepers, and our military, if sufficiently supported, presents a sane and rational alternative to the long-standing U.S. tradition of mucking about with sovereign nations or simply blowing the inhabitants of said sovereign nations to little bits for no particular reason.


And Crap again.

I haven't heard such sanctimonious moralizing since I quit the United Church of Canada at age 14.  (Oh wait actually I have.  Every time that Jack or Maude or Svend or Gwyn or David.........Oh never mind).


----------



## Korus (11 May 2006)

> ..Canadian forces have successfully continued a legacy of effective peacekeeping and are currently doing something the Americans can't: form genuine constructive relationships  with Afghani natives that demonstrate that some Westerners truly have Afghanistan's well-being in mind.



I wonder if the writer of that editorial is speaking from experience, or from on top of his/her pedestal which has never left Canada... Everyone says the US doesn't care about the Afghan's, so it must be true.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2006)

Relax gang- that editorial was from the Esquimalt News.  They are a journalistic institution the likes of...  The Wetaskiwin Times-Advertiser.

Their forte is pizza ads, not international news.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 May 2006)

Its still crap SKT  ;D

But thanks for the advisory.


----------



## pbi (13 May 2006)

Bravo Kirkhill: you beat me to the punch on the tired old anti-US lines that the writer trotted out. Most of these people have never spent five minutes beside the US forces on operations and have no idea what the US troops can or can't do, what the US forces understand or don't understand, and whether they learn anything from their operational experiences or not. These writers just carry on happily tarring all US forces with the BS brush, while shouting from the top of the good old Canadian moral superiority pedestal.

Cheers


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Jun 2006)

Well its been a month and thought I'd do some searching on the interweb and I actually found a protest video. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0YAPSIWcJQ&search=bison

I found it quit.....uh well not educational...  but I will definately not do drugs when ever I edit any of my videos (nomination for worst soundtrack)


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jun 2006)

Quite the video.

Alas, it seems I am nothing but a tool of US neo imperial world domination.

Why was this Ex done in a city anyway? We have numerous FIBUA and MOUT sites on both sides of the border?


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why was this Ex done in a city anyway? We have numerous FIBUA and MOUT sites on both sides of the border?



Yes but those Fibua sites aren't occupied by a civil population.  I'm with CMTC OPFOR in Wainwright and our job is to basically be a civil populous in seacans. aka 'can rats'  :-\ .


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2006)

Just watched the video - agree with the previously mentioned assessment of the sound track.

Did I see some US-dressed troops around 3:43 into the video?


----------



## GO!!! (10 Jun 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Yes but those Fibua sites aren't occupied by a civil population.  I'm with CMTC OPFOR in Wainwright and our job is to basically be a civil populous in seacans. aka 'can rats'  :-\ .



Well, I guess that depends on your definition of civil. 

I saw dirty hippies throwing garbage and screeching anti - Bush slogans.

Of course, this may have merit in itself, Crowd Confrontation ops, DOMOPS etc. What an interesting concept!

**IDEA**
For the next round of workup training, go somewhere really lefty, oh say, Victoria. 

Two weeks prior, have the PAFFOs get the word out that Canadian troops will be training in Neighbourhood X to assist in US NeoCon world domination Operations.  :

When we do get there, there will be a hostile crowd who will make an excellent OPFOR for CCO! We can then practice crowd management, detainment, use of less than lethal technology etc. 

When the ex is over, the MPs can also get some trg in to arrest and process them all for creating a public disturbance, vandalism etc.

Thoughts?


----------



## Shec (10 Jun 2006)

I too am late to this thread but was pleasantly surprised to see my old regt. , the FGH, figuring prominently amongst Wall Street Lackey of American Imperialism troops filmed.  And that's about the only good thing about this Michale Moore wannabe production.  

I'll bet the Garrys haven't had that much fun since the infamous Tolstoi MB. internal security ex. 30 some odd years ago when we sealed off the town and were pilloried in the press for just about everything short of machine-gunning the townsfolk as they left Church on Sunday morning.

I add that suggestion to GO !!!'s request for thoughts in future ex. planning. ;D


----------



## canadianblue (10 Jun 2006)

> Don't turn this into a police thing.  We just show up and keep the peace.
> The police and military are similar in that they're tools of oppression of the state.



Hahaha, yeah we sure are tools of oppression, what in the hell do we oppress. I personally am not planning on doing the CF as a career as I'm hoping to become a police officer but is this person serious. I was involved with Edmonton Police Service before joining the CF and did a ride along were we responded to a call about a dead body, suicide, assault, etc. I fail to see the oppression caused by them. The truth is that saying that the CF and police are the evil in todays society isn't intelligent, it just gives me a better idea of how people take all of their rights and freedoms for granted. If you protestors want to live in a utopia, go to the former USSR, Cuba, Grenada, China, and see how their visions of a utopia turned out. I'm proud to say that I'm a member of the CF helping to protect you if the situation ever occured, and remember that we will always be there if you are ever in danger.

So did you feel that those four mounties in Mayerthorpe were being used as tools of oppression.


----------



## Inspir (10 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> When the ex is over, the MPs can also get some trg in to arrest and process them all for creating a public disturbance, vandalism etc.
> 
> Thoughts?



If the exercise is taking place within city limits would it not be the municipal police service's job or would it be MP's? 

Not sure how that would work with cross juridicail authorities, or would that area where the exercise is taking place be considered a Controlled Military Access Zone (not sure if that is what it's called)

 :-\


----------



## pbi (11 Jun 2006)

Go: We started to write this exercise about two years ago. Two of the original aims were:

-to try to "modernize" Res trg so it reflected what the Army was looking at for the modern security environment: operations inside built-up areas, amongst a population, cooperating with civil authorities. This meant doing at least some (if not all) of the ex inside a city of some kind. Since Winipeg was central to the Bde area, offered lots of possible sites, and we had very good relations with the city and the WPS, Winnipeg was chosen. FIBUA sites that I am aware of in Canada are good for teaching specific cbt skills at at a very low level, but are not big enough to create the total environment we needed for the ex. They just don't have the "feel" of a city; and

-to respond to a very clear message from the troop level that they were sick and tired of going to Shilo or Dundurn and doing the same thing over and over again. Although we had already done two major exercises off DND land (in the Kenora, ON area), we wanted to try something completely different. There was no useful FIBUA site in our Bde AO, and transporting everyone to Wainwright was out of the question expense and logistics-wise.

milnews: You saw USARNG troops from 34ID: 38 CBG has a long standing relationship with the Div, especially the "Bearcats" Inf Bn in Minnesota. We had tried several times before to get them up for an ex in significant numbers, but with no luck (although we had been down there a few times, and the TBay units regularly used the MIARNG training site in NE Minnesota)

Cheers


----------



## RangerRay (15 Jun 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Well its been a month and thought I'd do some searching on the interweb and I actually found a protest video.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0YAPSIWcJQ&search=bison
> 
> I found it quit.....uh well not educational...  but I will definately not do drugs when ever I edit any of my videos (nomination for worst soundtrack)



Well, there's 7 minutes of my life I'll never get back!


----------



## Bobbyoreo (15 Jun 2006)

Well, there's 7 minutes of my life I'll never get back!

Holy...man your so right. They didnt even get my good side!!!


----------



## nd.07 (15 Jun 2006)

Some messed up video there. I wonder, do they smoke or inject it ?


----------



## R_Collins (15 Jun 2006)

I love how they use soundbytes for some promotional 'Moving to Winnepeg' video, as if these exercises go on everyday. Pure genius with the exageration, that's for sure.

I'm wondering, have these people ever heard of 'Don't shoot the messenger'? Seems they were quite disrespectful to the common soldier, giving them the finger and a hard time and whatnot. That's not effective protesting at all, that's just borderline harrassment.

lern 2 protst l0l.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (15 Jun 2006)

I was at the camp where you see the protesters giving the figures. It looks like a lot of people but I think maybe 20-25 people were talking but very missinformed...anyone that has served oversea..well you would have had a kick out of the comments they said!! They were all kids...oh and this one old lady yelling at us about the pesticides...I'm still trying to figure out how army and bug control works ..but hey maybe its a new unit opening up. LOL I don't know if the video really does what they are looking for. I think it was alot of good shots of Troop training..but if they were trying to make us look bad ...I don't think that worked!!


----------



## AcornsRus (15 Jun 2006)

Nothing gets me more pissed off then seeing the anarchists running around with their faces covered.  Grow some balls guys. Bunch of rich kids with too much time on their hands.</end rant>


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Jun 2006)

AcornsRus said:
			
		

> Nothing gets me more pissed off then seeing the anarchists running around with their faces covered.  Grow some balls guys. Bunch of rich kids with too much time on their hands.</end rant>



Stating the obvious - Most of these people have no idea what they are talking about... in their own way they are showing they are just as easily 'brainwashed' as the 'brainwashed' government forces they protest against.


----------



## xmarcx (22 Jun 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Stating the obvious - Most of these people have no idea what they are talking about... in their own way they are showing they are just as easily 'brainwashed' as the 'brainwashed' government forces they protest against.



I'm just wrapping up my honours degree at Carleton U in Ottawa - double major in human rights & international relations. It's the only human rights major in Canada, and as you can probably imagine the general political swing of the students is incredibly liberal, myself included - heck I've voted for the NDP twice, and I'll be honest, I love tofu. To finish my degree requirements I was lucky enough to get a final year seminar with the head of the entire program on the War on Terror. Over the course of the class, I admitted to my peers for the first time that I had applied to become an Infantry Officer. 

So now people who used to be my friends and classmates. who I used to help out and explain the difficult stuff to, like to come up and ask me how I can want to join the army after everything I've learned over 4 years. They ask me all sorts of ridiculous questions, in fact I've been asked on 7 separate occasions what I'll do when I'm "ordered to shoot a child." 

I cannot understand how rational, seemingly intelligent young Canadians honestly believe that members of their armed forces have any interest or intent, let alone the sanction of our government and senior leadership to do anything other than protect our domestic security and promote peace and stability abroad. I realize it can be a difficult logical jump for some people to make that sometimes to protect the greatest sum of humanity it is necessary to eliminate individual lives when those individuals want to commit offensive acts of violence or target civilians. 

Unfortunately I once sat through a presentation by General Hillier at my school that was hijacked by protesters asking incredibly insulting questions, and making demands such as that he resign for failing to "protect us from our greatest threat, America." At the end of the day, it is your right in a democracy to protest or demand accountability from your government. You do not have the right to demand that from dedicated servants of the government who give up much of their freedom and personal lives to protect our country.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> what I'll do when I'm "ordered to shoot a child."


tell 'em "we don't shoot children. It's a waste of bullets. We club 'em like baby seals." 

They ain't gonna "get" why we do what we do to protect them, anyway, and you get to watch their faces.


----------



## probum non poenitet (22 Jun 2006)

> They ask me all sorts of ridiculous questions, in fact I've been asked on 7 separate occasions what I'll do when I'm "ordered to shoot a child."



If I had a time machine and could go back to university I would spend way less time debating international politics and way more time chasing girls in their early 20s, no matter how stupid they were.

Rememeber, grasshopper, anger can be turned to fiery passion in about three shots of Bailey's.  >

How you answer the "shoot a child" question depends on who asks:

Option A:
Hot girl asks question: Act as if question is brilliant, plunging you into moral crisis. Buy shooters. Appear interested in topic. Appear emotionally intense. Soulful = ka-ching.
Casually change subject to Anne Rice novels within eight minutes, or mood will die. If she likes Anne Rice, your night just got interesting. Spring for bottle of red wine. Feel the chemistry. Checkmate.

Option B:
Anyone else: Walk away. Your youth is slipping away as you talk to this twat. In a few short years, chatting up 21 year old gymnasts will be looked upon as 'creepy' by much of society. Cruelly unfair, but true. Quick, young man, find that Bohemian sorority sister on a journey of self-discovery. Quickly, time is short! 
See Option A when you find her.

Option C:
Idiot from Option B five minutes ago is following you and is in danger of messing up Option A: One option left - Throat punch. As you flee police, bring newfound-soulmate with you if possible. Bonus marks if you remember the bottle of wine. 

* I am not a licensed therapist.


----------



## paracowboy (22 Jun 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> If I had a time machine and could go back to university I would spend way less time debating international politics and way more time chasing girls in their early 20s, no matter how stupid they were.
> 
> Rememeber, grasshopper, anger can be turned to fiery passion in about three shots of Bailey's.  >
> 
> ...


you, my dear Sir, are a genius! I am humbled at sharing this board with one of your vast intellect and acumen.


----------



## TCBF (22 Jun 2006)

"Option C:
Idiot from Option B five minutes ago is following you and is in danger of messing up Option A:"

- Does he have a sister?

 ;D


----------



## xmarcx (22 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you, my dear Sir, are a genius! I am humbled at sharing this board with one of your vast intellect and acumen.



Seconded. Where were you when I started university? That advice needs to be put on a laminated, wallet-sized card and issued to all ROTP Civie U students!


----------



## pbi (23 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you, my dear Sir, are a genius! I am humbled at sharing this board with one of your vast intellect and acumen.



I kneel alongside paracowboy and xmarcx.

Cheers


----------



## Centurian1985 (23 Jun 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> So now people who used to be my friends and classmates. who I used to help out and explain the difficult stuff to, like to come up and ask me how I can want to join the army after everything I've learned over 4 years. They ask me all sorts of ridiculous questions, in fact I've been asked on 7 separate occasions what I'll do when I'm "ordered to shoot a child."



This is exactly what am talking about.  When has a Canadian soldier ever been asked to shoot a child?  Why would a soldier ever consider carrying out such an order?  Who is stupid enough to think that a soldier would even consider such an act?  Who is stupid enough to think an officer would ever order such an act? More important, who 'brainwashed' them into believing this crap?? It certainly isnt from our history!   

Hmmm....   Is that *probum non poenitet* on a soapbox?  Scotch in one hand, 21 year old gymnist in the other?  And why are all those guys kneeling and kow-towing?   
Curiosity question - why Anne Rice?  Apparently all your followers either read Anne Rice or understand why she is popular, but I am unfortunately unware of the appeal...     ???


----------



## GO!!! (24 Jun 2006)

xmarcx said:
			
		

> So now people who used to be my friends and classmates. who I used to help out and explain the difficult stuff to, like to come up and ask me how I can want to join the army after everything I've learned over 4 years. They ask me all sorts of ridiculous questions, in fact I've been asked on 7 separate occasions what I'll do when I'm "ordered to shoot a child."



This goes to further my theory that education and intelligence are rarely proportionate. 

I think our institutions of higher learning are really dropping the ball in the area of actually developing a rational, as well as educated person. How does one get the idea in their head that young Canadians give (or follow) orders to kill children?

I don't think I'll ever reconcile how some of these students can get their heads around such contradictory and ill defined concepts as "human justice", but they cannot understand why we need "rough men ready to do violence".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> you, my dear Sir, are a genius! I am humbled at sharing this board with one of your vast intellect and acumen.



Add another, truely inspired thinking, worthy of an honourary degree.


----------



## Centurian1985 (27 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I don't think I'll ever reconcile how some of these students can get their heads around such contradictory and ill defined concepts as "human justice", but they cannot understand why we need "rough men ready to do violence".



Gives me a wicked idea for how to get ahold of 'men ready to do violence'... 

                                       _Future advert for the GLOBE and MAIL_

                                      CANADIAN FORCES

The CF  is a peacekeeping pioneer and market leader in contributing service members to overseas missions  in 
support of global pressures and burgeoning contries. 

                                     "Rough Men Ready to Do Violence"

Large westernized nation with small but mostly effective military force  seeks a few good men (or women) for 
overseas work to lead the development of human resource operations secured by the end of a muzzle.  If you 
thrive in a highly dynamic, fast-paced environment, then consider this opportunity.  The human resource challenges 
are numerous, but they come with an equal measure of excitement and opportunity.  Reporting to your commanding 
officer and RSM, this is a lower level  management role in which your business-focused people management skills 
can shine.  You will play a significant role in the development and execution of company strategies and tactics.  
Responsibilities include leading the development and implementation of policies, procedures, compensation and 
benefits, and attraction and retention strategies.  A government  organization, the CF  has a large employee base that 
requries a skilled leader to assist in achieving its corporate vision. 


_Had a little fun using this employment template from a G&M ad; amazingly, the parts in yellow are the only parts I needed to change!  
This started out as an ad for a company vice-president.... look how agressive they are getting out there!_   :threat:


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2006)

Didn't Infidel-6 reply to a very similar ad..........?


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Jun 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Hmmm....   Is that *probum non poenitet* on a soapbox?  Scotch in one hand, 21 year old gymnist in the other?



Sadly, no ... more like a computer mouse in one hand and a crappy cup of coffee in the other ... if I were a true genius, this theory would have occured to me years ago ... damned youth is wasted on the young.

Thanks for the compliments, though.


----------

