# York U:  Flower Power, Pray for Peace!



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2005)

http://www.excal.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=891&Itemid=2

"Canadian Military recruiting officers were confronted for the second time in two weeks by angry students, protesting their presence as a threat to student space.  Last Thursday, recruiting officers for the military were greeted with chants of: "Army out of Afghanistan, Army out of York," during the career fair held at York Lanes Mall.  The Fair was put together by York's Career Centre to offer employment opportunities that would appeal to students....."

Highlights:

*"We thought that it was important to go there and reclaim student space and ensure that the university understands that the students are the university." * 
Ahmed Habib, vice-president equity for the York Federation of Students

*"Simply put, [the demonstration happened] because of the Canadian Military's participation in illegal campaigns of aggression and our opposition of the use of York's campus as a space to strengthen those campaigns."*
Dan Freeman-Maloy, a member of the GrassRoots Anti-Imperialist Network (GRAIN)

Ah, the leaders of tomorrow.....


----------



## Slim (5 Oct 2005)

Sigh...do those people have any clue what they're talking about?

What a pack of misenformed, misbehaving yahoos.

I wonder what the Aphgan people have to say about the CF in A'stan?

I'll bet more than a dollar that it does not coenside with what the "leaders of tomorrow" at York (and other places) have to say.

Having them in my country is embarrassing.

On the other hand I'm somehow glad I never went to York...


----------



## bLUE fOX (5 Oct 2005)

I hate hippies, allways twisting things around. The CF is a job like anything. It's not just about fighting, what about the cooks and mechanics and doctors  and such? I'm sure there are lots out there with a legitimate interest in learning a trade or getting experience that might not otherwise be available to them outside the CF. Why don't they concern themselves with that? As far as I know the war in Afghanistan is "legal" and I don't know enough about what is happening in Haiti to comment, But i guess at the end of it all, why can't they just let the recruiters do there job. that's all they're there for is to do a job. Like the kid said, If they are interested in [joining the army] there are other means available and ways they can go about getting into the army," It works both ways. If you are so disinterested, then don't bother them.
Sorry about rambling, but I hate goddamn hippies!


----------



## NavalGent (5 Oct 2005)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Ah, the leaders of tomorrow.....



Haha...honestly though...its York.


----------



## redleafjumper (5 Oct 2005)

I suspect that such a protest is more than merely politically motivated.  Perhaps there are a few students there who have bigger issues with the war on terrorism.  Agent provocateurs are nothing new.


----------



## camochick (5 Oct 2005)

Blarghhh, these people will be ringing in my groceries in a few years. There will always be protests against the military but nothing will change and the hippies will grow up and work in their offices and buy suv's and tell stories about the big protest of 95.  >


----------



## HDE (6 Oct 2005)

Greetings all!

   The real irony, IMHO, is that the little band of fascists presume to decide what the vast majority of York students should be exposed to.  I've worked on a university campus for some years now and the so-called "student leaders" are some of the most undemocratic, intolerant goofs you'd ever find.  The real problem is that most students are far too busy getting on with business to spend their time doing campus politics.  The good news is that most of them don't pay any attention to their "leaders".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Oct 2005)

They seem a rather insecure bunch. I think Freud called it "Penis Envy"


----------



## Wolfe (6 Oct 2005)

I hate those fucking hippies they make me angry, smoking pot and judging the people that protect there country....

 :mg:      :tsktsk:

Wolf  

Sorry if i posted this for nothing but i had to empty my heart....


----------



## The_Falcon (6 Oct 2005)

What a bunch of tripe, dumb@$$ mofos 



> Currently, the YFS are in the process of compiling a list of employers that may or may not be in the best interest of the student body and plan to consult the university's administration.



Wow, gee and I though Universities were supposed to be the bastions of free speech, oh wait only if it agrees with the pissant vocal minority who don't have anything better to do.



> Protesting the presence of military recruitment officers on campus is not a practice that only belongs to York University. Members of the student union at Guelph University are drawing up a policy to prevent the military and similar groups from finding their way on their campus.



Similar groups?  These guys are right out of it.  I am just wondering what its going to be like when groups like this start to get a little more aggresive in "protesting" people who have been invited onto the campus.

I remember like a year or so ago when a bunch of York knobs start an unauthorized protest in the commons area and then got really pissed when the cops were called in.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Oct 2005)

Heh, university students are the same everywhere. We only tolerate them here because our youngsters are too slow and dopey to actually cause any harm. In other countries,  "Student protest" == T-54/55 driver's course.


----------



## willy (6 Oct 2005)

I'm not directly involved in recruiting myself, but I'm the day-to-day supervisor for my unit's recruiting NCO.  Tomorrow morning I'm going to ask him to produce a contingency plan/SOP for dealing with such an incident for approval by the CO.  Career fairs at universities in my city could easily turn out the same way.

Quite a lot of senior personnel read these boards, and I advise them all to urge their unit recruiters to do the same.  In the age of the "strategic corporal", I think the potential for unpleasantness at an event such as this has to be taken seriously.


----------



## DJ (6 Oct 2005)

The CF are coming to the career fair at UBC today.  I pity the soldiers who at the booth.  It's definitely a hard crowd, especially lately in the student newspapers, (editorials by people such as first year fine arts students).  Is it not time for the CF to try to advertise their image?  There seems to be a lot of military slandering on campus but the CF takes the moral highroad and doesn't respond.  Shouldn't the CF start responding more?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Oct 2005)

> I hate hippies, allways twisting things around. The CF is a job like anything. It's not just about fighting, what about the cooks and mechanics and doctors   and such?


Ummm the CF is more then just a job, it becomes a lifestyle choice. If you begin to see it as a job then maybe its time for you to find a new occupation and yes it is about fighting, to think otherwise you are only kidding yourself.



> I'm sure there are lots out there with a legitimate interest in learning a trade or getting experience that might not otherwise be available to them outside the CF. Why don't they concern themselves with that? As far as I know the war in Afghanistan is "legal" and I don't know enough about what is happening in Haiti to comment, But i guess at the end of it all, why can't they just let the recruiters do there job.


What it boils down to the only Freedom of Speech the Peace Lovers respect is their own not ones with contrary views. They really hate being reminded it took 2 World Wars and the Cold War for their right of Freedom of Speech to be maintained.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2005)

Calvin said:
			
		

> .......   Is it not time for the CF to try to advertise their image?   There seems to be a lot of military slandering on campus but the CF takes the moral highroad and doesn't respond.   Shouldn't the CF start responding more?



I have an old cartoon of a Pig dressed up in torn Combats, sitting in a puddle.   The captions reads:   " Arguing with an Infantryman is like wrestling with a Pig.   You both get dirty; but the Pig loves it."

Substitute "University Protester" or any other such malcontent for "Infantryman" and you will see some of the logic behind the lack of CF response to these folk.   Arguing with them is only going to degrade your own position.   They will do anything to make you look the fool, even twisting and falsifying news of any meeting or confrontation.   It is best to remain silent and let them make fools of themselves unhindered.


----------



## Redeye (6 Oct 2005)

Ever heard the maxim "Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience"?


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Oct 2005)

> Currently, the YFS are in the process of compiling a list of employers that may or may not be in the best interest of the student body and plan to consult the university's administration.



I caught on to that as well...Bloody hypocrites.

I wonder how York university would feel if High schools began compiling a list of Universities that "may or may not be in the best interest of the student body" and not include York


----------



## COBRA-6 (6 Oct 2005)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ever heard the maxim "Never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level, then beat you with experience"?



Excellent advice, I remember clowns like this at Laurentian... there's no point in debating them, they've long ago abandoned reality, reason and common sense, and replaced it with their 0.01% view of the world as gospel... 

They were also outraged that the Sudbury Regional Police were allowed to wear their sidearms at the career fair... what oxygen thieves  :


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Oct 2005)

Here's a suggestion:

If anyone here is associated with future recruiting drives at York U, why not give http://www.protestwarrior.com some notice ahead of time?  They have Canadian branches and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to help


----------



## Mr_Bund (6 Oct 2005)

I had an odd experience at York during the first Gulf war. I was in a pub on campus drinking, when the bombing started. With the exception of one individual, about 40 people started cheering. Sounds like the place has gone downhill.


----------



## Zarathustra (6 Oct 2005)

HDE said:
			
		

> The real irony, IMHO, is that the little band of fascists presume to decide what the vast majority of York students should be exposed to.   I've worked on a university campus for some years now and the so-called "student leaders" are some of the most undemocratic, intolerant goofs you'd ever find.   The real problem is that most students are far too busy getting on with business to spend their time doing campus politics.   The good news is that most of them don't pay any attention to their "leaders".



I used to hang around with some students like that while I was at the university and I strongly agree with you. In their mind, they are holy and therefore they cannot sin. If you disagree with them, you are missinformed/brainwashed by the system. But they can't be Saints if there are no Demons, so they need make some if needed. The worst things are, the happier they are, because it makes them even holier. They are so negative about everything, it really sucks your energy. I keep them far from me now.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Oct 2005)

While there are always holy rollers of various stripes on campus, who cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances, we cannot ignore the possibillity that there exist rational-minded student groups with legitimate concerns about overly-agressive (and often thinly justified) American foreign policy, and Canada's participation in same.

Where perhaps WE are failing is getting the message out about WHY we went into Afganistan, WHAT it is we intend to accomplish there, HOW we are going about doing it, and WHEN we expect the mission will be complete and we will be withdrawing.

Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.

Wiether or not this particular group qualifies a "reasonably rational"... I dunno. But I do think we and the government at large could be a better job of telling the general public the whys and wherefores of the mission in Afganistan.

DG


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Oct 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.



 :

I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.


----------



## mo-litia (6 Oct 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.



That makes two of us.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2005)

> Canada has a very good record about avoiding moral quagmires and only getting involved in "just" operations. I think Afganistan (as opposed to Vietnam and Iraq 2) falls squarely into the "just" category, and that any reasonably rational person would see that as self-evident once the particulars are explained to them.



Three...?!


----------



## NavalGent (6 Oct 2005)

I'll jump in here. 
There was one main difference that I saw. For Afghanistan, the day after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. In that case, there was a clear reason, a clear enemy, widespread agreement on the justification (16 of the 19 NATO countries supported it, and 14 sent troops there).  See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm for details.

With Iraq, it seemed that one day, with no real provocation that any of us saw. There was nothing clear, and nothing tangible that the world could see as a strong case for war, it was more of just a "trust me, we have unspecified evidence" sort of case. The evidence suggesting WMDs was clearly not good enough to base a war on, as there were none there! My personal feeling is that war should be avoided, unless there is a REALLY REALLY REALLY good reason. I feel that the reasons for the war in Iraq aren't good enough. 

On the other hand, I recognize that some good has come out of that war, such as the fact that Iraq is now a democracy, but on the whole, I think the whole situation was poorly thought out. 

And for the sake of transparency, yes, I am at University.


----------



## career_radio-checker (6 Oct 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> :
> 
> I would absolutely LOVE to hear your explanation as to what factors make the Afghan campaign "just" as opposed to the Iraq campaign.



1. Bush and Blair grossly exaggerated their claims of WMDs, which in the end, have prooven to be non existent.

2. Once the claim to WMDs had been falsified, the coalition's principle mandate to occupy Iraq changed overnight to 'protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam and promoting democracy.' (or something like that)

3. The powers that be who controlled the invasion of Iraq entered the war too quickly -- never receiving the "blessing" of the UN. Many scholars on both ends of the political spectrum will tell you that a "blessing" from the UN is necessary to any war to be deemed legitimate and thus "legal". However, the invasion of Afghanistan was debated and approved by the security council on numerous occasions

4. While both Afghanistan and Iraq are experiencing an insurgency, the velocity and magnitude of attacks in Iraq: "where Iraqi civilians will pelt American soldiers with rocks after they arrive at a suicide bomber scene to help those very Iraqis who were the intended target of the suicide bomber." (taken from the movie Gunner Palace) -- indicates that Coalition forces are not welcome.

I'm not a hippie and I like serving with American troops. You just asked how the 'stan' war is more just than the Iraq war.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2005)

NavalGent said:
			
		

> And for the sake of transparency, yes, I am at University.



That doesn't automatically make you evil...But I guess that 's the difference between students and the service...Ironically of the two the CF tends to think a bit more about what its doing.

As for the rest of your statement...War should never be taken lightly but should be well thought out and all options considered.

What I don't think that the US thought out was the response from the AQ and the Taliban...I sometimes get the feeling that the US expected them to fold when Saddam was brought in.

the truth (the way I see it) is that we have several generations of de-programming of an entire population to achieve.


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Oct 2005)

In the sense of natural law, The  removal of Saddam's regime was definetly a just cause.


----------



## NavalGent (6 Oct 2005)

Devil's Advocate Speaking:

How was Saddam's regime worse than the other dictatorships around the world?


----------



## Britney Spears (6 Oct 2005)

> How was Saddam's regime worse than the other dictatorships around the world?



How is that relevent to whether his removal was "just" or not?


----------



## Donut (6 Oct 2005)

Career_Radio_Checker,

I'll leave most of your unsubstantiated (or domestic political issue)   claims alone, but wrt your number 3,   how many UNSC resolutions are required to authorize force?   It was a case of "just one more, just one more" from the UN for months leading up to the operation.

How many is enough?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/unscmdoc.htm

provides a list of several dozen UN resolutions Iraq was in violation of.   One more would have made a difference?

Realize that the UN is nothing more then the longest running continuous diplomatic conference;   in the absence of a will to use force and real commitment and engagement by member nations, the UN is quiet often LESS then the sum of it's parts, and has lost much of the credibility it once had.

Canadians are somehow, with our multilateralist view of the world, wedded to the idea of an overarching body with a mandate and authority to intervene in state internal affairs.   What a crock o' shite.   The single most important actor on the world stage is, and will probably continue to be, the Westphalian model of a State.   States cannot abrogate their responsibilities on the world stage, and cannot expect their unwillingness to act to deter other state actors from actions they deem necessary.

The UN was clearly unwilling or unable to take the steps necessary to achieve the end-state they had set out in multiple (Dozens!) of UNSC Resolutions, despite the fact that those resolutions clearly included the threat and real possiblity of the use of force to compell compliance. 

To address your number 4 point, both Iraq and Afghanistan have (moderately) effective, internationally recognized (which makes them legitimate) governments which speak for their populations.   They are free to pass legislation calling for the withdrawal of NATO and Coalition forces, neither of which have done so.

You are, like the morons at York, entitled to your opinion, but when you lay it out here for the world to see, expect them to get picked apart, especially when they're misinformed.


DF


----------



## vangemeren (6 Oct 2005)

Could we change the direction of this thread, I think we've had enough of threads already about the  moral/legal/safety reasons/justification for both Iraq and A'stan

I'm interested to know how preventing recruiters onto campuses would affect recruiting because a large portion of the reserves are students.

Coincidently, the recruiters came to Nipissing U (and Canadore College too I guess) today and I didn't see any hecklers, just interested people. I've seen them at the school 3 times already this year.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Oct 2005)

I'll address NavalGent first:



			
				NavalGent said:
			
		

> I'll jump in here.
> There was one main difference that I saw. For Afghanistan, the day after 9/11, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an attack against one is an attack against all. In that case, there was a clear reason, a clear enemy, widespread agreement on the justification (16 of the 19 NATO countries supported it, and 14 sent troops there).   See http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/14627.htm for details.



Bad logic there - realisticaly there's plenty of evidence that indicated Al Qaeda having ties with both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the "clear reason, clear enemy" argument applies to both countries.  Either getting rid of the Al Qaeda is a reason to attack both countries, or it's not a reason to attack either.

As to the "wide-spread agreement" bit, 48 countires initialy supported the invasion of Iraq.  So, we can scrap that argument too - if having enough other countries support you is all it takes to have a "just" war, then the war in Iraq was also just.


NEXT, Radio Checker:



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> 1. Bush and Blair grossly exaggerated their claims of WMDs, which in the end, have prooven to be non existent.



This has nothing to do with Iraq being or not being a "just war".  All you're doing is voicing your opinion about something Bush and Blair said.  It's irrelevant to my question.



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> 2. Once the claim to WMDs had been falsified, the coalition's principle mandate to occupy Iraq changed overnight to 'protecting the people of Iraq from Saddam and promoting democracy.' (or something like that)



I'm pretty sure that wasn't an actual sentence...

At least, not in the ENGLISH language.



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> 3. The powers that be who controlled the invasion of Iraq entered the war too quickly -- never receiving the "blessing" of the UN. Many scholars on both ends of the political spectrum will tell you that a "blessing" from the UN is necessary to any war to be deemed legitimate and thus "legal". However, the invasion of Afghanistan was debated and approved by the security council on numerous occasions



This was already addressed by ParaMed.

To his post I'll add that UN blessing is irrelevant to my question as well.  There is a difference between the word "just" and the word "legal".  UN may or may not get to dictate legality (depending on whom you ask), but they deffinitely don't get to dictate morality.



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> 4. While both Afghanistan and Iraq are experiencing an insurgency, the velocity and magnitude of attacks in Iraq: "where Iraqi civilians will pelt American soldiers with rocks after they arrive at a suicide bomber scene to help those very Iraqis who were the intended target of the suicide bomber." (taken from the movie Gunner Palace) -- indicates that Coalition forces are not welcome.



That's a load of horse-shit.  Iraq is a country heavily devided along religious and political lines.  If you knew anything about the history of the place, you'd understand that roughly 20% of the country has a good reason to be pissed at the Yanks, however, the other 80% are quite grateful for the opportunity they've been given.


The reason I think it's important to compare the two wars is because, in a sense, these "idiot" protestors at York U are the only ones being consistant.  Realisticaly, if you look at the justification for the two wars, either both are wrong, or both are right.  You cannot logicaly conclude that the Afghanistan campaign is somehow moraly superior to the Iraq campaign.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2005)

Gents (and ladies)

This is a good topic and I would like the thread to stay within it please.

Lets get back to discussing the York U situation.

Thanks

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Oct 2005)

The bottom line at York U is that by presuming to dictate what may or should be seen and heard and spoken of in the interests of the students and institution of a public university, the activists are contradicting their own ideals.  To resort to censorship and bans is to admit defeat in the arena of competing ideas.


----------



## 48Highlander (6 Oct 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The bottom line at York U is that by presuming to dictate what may or should be seen and heard and spoken of in the interests of the students and institution of a public university, the activists are contradicting their own ideals.   To resort to censorship and bans is to admit defeat in the arena of competing ideas.



This is nothing new - it's an ongoing problem that's only recently garnered any opposition.  www.campus-watch.org used to have a good movie on the subject, but I've been unable to find it since they redid their website.  Still some good articles on there though.


----------



## Slim (6 Oct 2005)

Having been to, and worked under cover at, a number of activist demonstrations I can say that the reocurring theme (as far as I can tell) is the desire to act out and flaunt the law.

The one that comes to mind is a"rally" (if you could call it that) of roughly 10,000 people (so said the press but there were quite a few protesters present) that took place in downtown Toronto about three years ago. 

It was organized by OCAP and started with a pancake breakfast at City Hall and then speeches...To be followed by a "march" through downtown with the aim of closing the business district for the few hours that it took for the march to wind down.

I and my partner at the time were right in the midst of the speeches and the march and I can say that with very few exceptions;
-The speeches made no sense what so ever.
-The speakers themselves didn't have a clue what they were talking about.
-Of all the people present 40 charges were laid against 24 people, 19 of wheom were from out of town.
-Most of those present just wanted to go for a walk (I think)

Very little damage was done during the march (some spraypainting and whatnot) but the one event that sticks in my mind was some little s**thead from out of town (he was later charged for breaking something else) tipped over a newspaper box. A number of others came right up behind him and set the thing back on its feet again despite being threatened by this little twerp who had kicked it over to begin with.

There are allottt less of them thean they make themselves out to be...And for that I'm glad.

Slim


----------



## linus (6 Oct 2005)

education is a poor substitute for intelligence.  MAybe they should see what it is really like


----------



## Cpl.Banks (6 Oct 2005)

Its funny that this should come up actually, on tuesday night I was invited by a friends of a  friend   to go join in on a debate about the CF role in Afghanistan at a university I shall not name. Little did I know this was a meeting of marxists, socialists and all around commies that were going to bash the CF and Gen. Hillier after his recent aprearence at this very same university. This in no way is reflective of X university this is an independent organisation which I will not name. I show up there and there are about a dozen people, the head speaker shows up twenty minutes late and has a sheet all laid out with anti Western jargon. Saying all sortes of crazy things such as :"Canadian soldiers are running around Afghanistan with machineguns killing hundred of people." and "The Canadians are building an empire for the united-States, we (Canada) is just an extension of the US armed forces" and other such non-sence. I obliviously was not feeling very comfortable at this time seeing as I had my combat wrist watch(drab olive of course ;D) and had an army sticker on my binder in which I was jotting down all this garbage.

So question period comes around and obliviously I correct this would-be Commisar about all the half truths and just complete garbage. Usually after having said a comment people clap...one person clapped once, then realised that he was alone. He some how managed to turn what I said about the reconstruction of this country by soldiers and goverment agencies as well as several charities into a negative statement...  . The best part of my evening was that another guy pops up and tries to calm theses guys by saying and I quote "Comrades, all of our points of vue blablabla" I almost burst out laughing, I was surprised they didn't have a picture of "Comrade" Stalin, so I went down to another room and watched the end of Gunner's Palace...laughing all the way there... Flower power my ***...hippies...

UBIQUE!!!


----------



## armyvern (7 Oct 2005)

Cpl.Banks(Cdt.) said:
			
		

> Gen. Hillier after his recent aprearence at this very same university.



Ah yes!! I drove by same un-named University in my taxi this morning as I went to airport after attending NDHQ Op Clothing conference...felt the overwhelming urge to roll down my window and spit on it's sign, but alas the "lady" in me prevailed.  :'(


----------



## Pencil Tech (7 Oct 2005)

That unnamed university has in the recent past had the distinction of being rated Canada's worst university in MacLean's magazine's survey.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Oct 2005)

I believe That unnamed university holds a Record in that Category.


----------



## career_radio-checker (7 Oct 2005)

Good ol' 'Last chance U'.


----------



## old fart (7 Oct 2005)

This kind of crap sickens me.

I really doubt that the York Federation of Students (YFS) president Omari Mason or Ahmed Habib the vice-president equity for the YFS  or Dan Freeman-Maloy or any members of his renowned and forward thinking (yes I'm having a laugh) GrassRoots Anti-Imperialist Network (GRAIN) really reflect the student population at large.  

Once again a few uninformed louts are aloud time after time to cross the line and spew hate filled and harmfull rubbish, seemingly with impunity.

At this time this old ditty comes to mind:

"It's the Soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press.

 It's the Soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It's the Soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to demonstrate.

It's the Soldier, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trail.

And it's the Soldier who salutes the flag, who serves the flag, whose coffin is draped in the flag,

that allows the protester to burn the flag"


As far as I'm concerned the likes of omari, ahmed or dan and the rest of his comrades who seemingly hate everything we stand for don't like it well they can exist stage left and move to say the likes of Iran etc, known bastions of free speech and human rights.

Oh yeah....AIRBORNE-Chimo-Ubique


----------



## Slim (7 Oct 2005)

> As far as I'm concerned the likes of omari, ahmed or dan and the rest of his comrades who seemingly hate everything we stand for don't like it well they can exist stage left and move to say the likes of Iran etc, known bastions of free speech and human rights.



It would be interesting to see who, if anyone, are behind them...?!


----------



## Zarathustra (7 Oct 2005)

From the GRAIN web site.

"2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds."

All forms of discrimination. Interesting.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Oct 2005)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> From the GRAIN web site.
> 
> "2. We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious fundamentalism of all creeds."
> 
> All forms of discrimination. Interesting.


yes, but you have to remember that when *they* discriminate, it's not really discrimination.  :


----------



## mo-litia (7 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yes, but you have to remember that when *they* discriminate, it's not really discrimination.   :



Isn't that the truth...


----------



## swanita (7 Oct 2005)

What i don't understand is why "protest" against something like having military recruiters come to a CAREER fair.....how about you just walk by that booth & carry on with the rest of the fair? Does anyone really care what these people have to say? Let them carry on in their own "teeny" universe/world & let us carry on with ours. Some people just like to hear the clang of their own voices to make THEM feel better.

Our time is better spent on other topics & not wasted trying to "figure" these crazy f*&$kers out!!


----------



## paracowboy (7 Oct 2005)

swanita said:
			
		

> Our time is better spent on other topics & not wasted trying to "figure" these crazy f*&$kers out!!


there's the beauty of being a barely literate, uneducated, hill-billy, red neck from backwoods Alberta. I don't have to figger anythin' out, 'bout anybody. Spit Skoal in the eye, punch in throat, go find coffee.


----------



## GO!!! (7 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> there's the beauty of being a barely literate, uneducated, hill-billy, red neck from backwoods Alberta. I don't have to figger anythin' out, 'bout anybody. Spit Skoal in the eye, punch in throat, go find coffee.



In giant pickup truck, with gun rack and pegasus sticker, and ruck on passenger seat.


----------



## The_Falcon (7 Oct 2005)

swanita said:
			
		

> What i don't understand is why "protest" against something like having military recruiters come to a CAREER fair.....how about you just walk by that booth & carry on with the rest of the fair? Does anyone really care what these people have to say? Let them carry on in their own "teeny" universe/world & let us carry on with ours. Some people just like to hear the clang of their own voices to make THEM feel better.
> 
> Our time is better spent on other topics & not wasted trying to "figure" these crazy f*&$kers out!!



Because they are bored, and like to see there names in the student paper.  Problem is they DON"T WANT to just walk by the CF booth, and by them causing a scene it bring attention to their "causes", and word spreads to other Universities, that the CF will just go away if you make a stink.  And the CF is stuck in between a rock and hard place cause, obviously if the recruiters at these career fairs started get mouthy back it makes us look bad and plays right into them.  If the CF pushes hard to be included in these when the organizers say no, these dinks pick up on that and play it up to there advantage (Army pigs try to bully their way onto campus, to "educate" the students about the way these fasists....).


----------



## nationalised (8 Oct 2005)

When the military recruiters are at a university, are they wearing combats or their dress uniform?


----------



## TCBF (8 Oct 2005)

"there's the beauty of being a barely literate, uneducated, hill-billy, red neck from backwoods Alberta. I don't have to figger anythin' out, 'bout anybody. Spit Skoal in the eye, punch in throat, go find coffee."

"In giant pickup truck, with gun rack and pegasus sticker, and ruck on passenger seat."

- Not a lot of "Easy Rider Rifle Racks" to be seen around these parts.  'Course, they ain't much use when most of your firepower is BURIED.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## The_Falcon (8 Oct 2005)

nationalised said:
			
		

> When the military recruiters are at a university, are they wearing combats or their dress uniform?



Depends on who the recruiters are working for.  I went to the National Job Fair at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, it was 32CBG running the booth and we all wore combats.  I was told (I am not sure of the accuracy of this info, but my experience at job fairs seems to indicate this is the case) that DEU is only worn by CFRC recruiters, or boths run by a CFRC.  Any other time it is combats.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Oct 2005)

nationalised said:
			
		

> When the military recruiters are at a university, are they wearing combats or their dress uniform?



I've seen both.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> "Not a lot of "Easy Rider Rifle Racks" to be seen around these parts.   'Course, they ain't much use when most of your firepower is BURIED.
> 
> ;D
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (8 Oct 2005)

"But what use is buried firepower when the black helicopters come??"

-Ya gotta read more Mao.

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Spr.Earl (8 Oct 2005)

Hmm after reading most of the post's what came to my mind were the words of Edward R. Murrow back in the Joe McCarthy era.
"Don't' mistake dissent with disloyalty"


----------



## kcdist (8 Oct 2005)

Great topic....

First a question: What the heck does NBSP mean? I've seen it in a few places and can't figure it out.

Now that that's off my chest.....I must state that I have a major issue with the fact that the 'education' of these clowns is subsidized by up to 80% of the actual cost by my (and your) tax dollars. It is with incredulous disbelief when I hear (every year at about this time) student 'leaders', just like the ones leading this protest, snivel and whine about the cost of education, and the hardships they endure trying to make ends meet. If they only had to pay the true cost, and not have my tax dollar fund their useless (for the real world) arts degree that will eventually lead to a teaching job where they can produce more of their same ilk.

That said, the protest quite suprises me. I believe the reputation of the CF among Canadians, and the approval ratings, are at historically high levels. Having been out for almost a decade, I hear nothing but praise for the CF and its members (not so much for the equipment). I remember well the early 80's and the infamous 100,000 person 'peace' marches in Vancouver. That was a time when the CF was being attacked from all sides. 

Although this story grates at my nerves, the views presented represent a fraction of 1% of the populace...at least out here in Alberta. Now, to have only been there to engage them in intelligent debate.....


----------



## Old Ranger (8 Oct 2005)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "Army out of York,"



Don't you see, it was a History Class. 
We understand their confusion from the level of Education they receive at" Last Chance U."


----------



## Erborn (8 Oct 2005)

One of the best Bumper Stickers I have ever read

IF YOU CAN READ THIS  THANK A VET


----------



## paracowboy (8 Oct 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Hmm after reading most of the post's what came to my mind were the words of Edward R. Murrow back in the Joe McCarthy era.
> "Don't' mistake dissent with disloyalty"


 keep in mind that the Russians have gone on record as saying McCarthy was right, all along.


----------



## Gunner (8 Oct 2005)

BobbyC said:
			
		

> One of the best Bumper Stickers I have ever read
> 
> IF YOU CAN READ THIS   THANK A VET



I think the correct version of the bumper sticker is:

IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THANK A TEACHER

IF ITS IN ENGLISH, THANK A VET


----------



## Air4ce (9 Oct 2005)

Thank God for our military and for the sacrifices they make each day. 
"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press." 

"It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech."

"It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us freedom to demonstrate." 

"It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag.

by
Kevin M Offord
Captain

I say if the students at York want to protest Canada's military presence in Afghanistan I say more power to them.   It means that my grandfathers, father and, to a very small part, I have done our jobs.


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Oct 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Carleton is 'last chance u', not York.
> 
> Moo U all the way.



Should I call it "Limp wristed U"?


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Oct 2005)

Air4ce said:
			
		

> I say if the students at York want to protest Canada's military presence in Afghanistan I say more power to them.



If York U students want to protest Canada's military presence in Afghanistan, let them go to the bloody country and do it there, or do it in a more appropriate forum.

Protesting the presence of an equal-opportunity employer that offers large personal benefits and (hmm) educational reimbursements, and preventing those interested in said employment is small-minded. IMHO


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2005)

Recent evidence that York and Cartoon U are not alone....

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1005/810.campuses.and.canadas.gentle.military.php

Highlights:

"There is no shortage of evidence contradicting Canada's lawful use of force and nearly pristine image of the blue berets; Canada's military history is no more than the history of one state's appeasement of the dominant Empire, whether British or American.'

"Canada needs to keep some of its troops at home to suppress Indigenous resistance and protect golf courses, as it did with the 1990 dispute between the Mohawk people of the Kanesatake reserve and the town of Oka, Quebec."

"If military recruitment campaigns are normalized and accepted on campuses across Canada, the Canadian Forces are indeed in line with the values of society: not peace, rights or dignity â â€ not freedom to self-determine or freedom from death â â€ but the uncritical militarization of state-serving citizens, beginning with youth. "

Go at 'er, folks ...   ;D


----------



## Air4ce (9 Oct 2005)

Small minded?   Maybe.   More like ignorant, but how can they be anything else but ignorant.   What hardships have they faced in their young lives?   What's the most dangerous thing they have to do, cross the street in Toronto?   There is nobody waiting around the corner to blow them up.   They don't have to worry about walking in the grass for fear of stepping on a landmine.   The only snipers they see are in their video games.   There is no hunger, all they have to do is open a fridge door.   If they decide they do not want to go to school on any given day all they have to do is turn off they alarm and pull the covers up on their nice comfie, warm beds.   I bet they only time they leave the country is to go to well catered tourist locations.   Ignorance is truly bliss.   My only wish is that my kids grow up with the same level of ignorance.   Unfortunately it is an ignorance that has been paid for with the blood of our forefathers.   It is therefore my responsibility to educate my kids on the sacrifices made by their grandparents and great grandparents generations.   If they still choose to protest Canada's role in the world they have my full support.   As long they do so in a manner that honours the memories of the men in women in uniform past, present and future.   In the mean time I'll walk past protests like the one at York University chuckle, shake my head and wish the "children" well in their future in this big bad world.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2005)

To the Manitoban:

Your article by Kendra Ballingall, titled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military is an interesting piece.  It really illustrates the pitfalls and failings of the current Education Systems in Canada.  It saddens me that we have to graduate people out of our Public and High Schools without them achieving the proper education that they need in today's world.  This article has so many half truths and falsehoods mixed in with the right amount of fact to confuse many into thinking that Canada is truly a wonderful place, free from an form of harm.

Socialism, Communism and various other great political concepts are interesting theories to study.  Unfortunately, they fail to take into account the Human Factor.  It is for these reasons that they fail, when put into practise.  Someone always wants to be the boss.
  
Kendra is no different in her arguments.  She has taken up a few skewed ideas based on false impressions and half truths and feels it upon herself to convert the world to her views.  

Some segments of her piece are very confusing to me.  Her statement that US "Recruiters ride hummers into classrooms, blast 50 Cent at lunch hour..." confirms to me that she really doesn't have the knowledge or research to back what she says.  Can anyone explain what it means to blast 50 Cents at lunch hour means?  She even refers to the Canadian Forces "as the largest employer in Canada", when we all know that the Toronto Metro Police Force is much larger.  I am sure that she is also a Business Major and can rationally dismiss the Defence Budget.  Perhaps she would like to go to Afghanistan and see how Canada's Troops are conducting their "stabilization and reconstruction" endeavours.  The Department of National Defence does permit Journalists the opportunity to visit Canadian Troops on these missions.   Oh, by the way Ms Ballingall, those Troops are known as Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen; not Peacekeepers.  

I notice that this article takes offence to Canada partaking in UN operations, contradicting the use throughout of the term Peacekeeper.  The rewriting of history to twist the facts about a Golf Course in Quebec, further points out the flaws with our Education System.  If these misconceptions of our history are allowed to prevail, we will truly not have a Canadian Identity.  If that is the subliminal plot behind this article, we are all fools if we allow it to happen.

The inclusion of this paragraph, I felt was a fantastic recruiting ad in itself, one that would make more students, worried of their future job prospects and means of paying off their Student Loans and Debt give the Canadian Forces a serious look:

"As an employer, the Canadian Forces has a lot to offer: competitive wages, medical and dental care, pension, and parental leave are listed on their website, and members of the primary reserve can have up to $8,000 of their postsecondary tuition fees reimbursed."

In the end, after all these musings about political opinions in predominately anti-military Political Science classes, one must stop to wonder, eventually, how one is going to put food on their table, how to bring up their children, how to protect their way of life and their home (House, town, Province, Country, etc.)?  How will you pay your mortgage?  How will you pay the Taxman? 

To Ms Ballingall, a bouquet of roses.  May she smell them in the morning with her coffee.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Oct 2005)

BRAVO, Mr. Wallace, Bravo!


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2005)

Air4ce said:
			
		

> My only wish is that my kids grow up with the same level of ignorance.   Unfortunately it is an ignorance that has been paid for with the blood of our forefathers.   It is therefore my responsibility to educate my kids on the sacrifices made by their grandparents and great grandparents generations.   If they still choose to protest Canada's role in the world they have my full support.   As long they do so in a manner that honours the memories of the men in women in uniform past, present and future.   In the mean time I'll walk past protests like the one at York University chuckle, shake my head and wish the "children" well in their future in this big bad world.



Interesting.   I applaud your dedication to teach your children the sacrifices of those who came before and died so that they may be free, but it sort of contradicts your statement of them growing up in the same level of ignorance.

If we allow our sacrifices, and those of many before us, who paid in blood, to be forgotten or ridiculed by the ignorant; we will be bound to make the same mistakes again and perhaps in the process loose all our hard won freedoms.   Ignorance IS NOT Bliss.   It means we have failed and lost; our freedoms soon to follow.


----------



## Guardian (9 Oct 2005)

Given the state of English instruction at most universities, I highly doubt that 99% of the students we're complaining about could articulate their point of view half as well as George just did.

(Never mind.... half of the aforementioned 99% don't even know _why_ they believe what they do, and so it wouldn't matter how well they said it anyway...)

Bravo, George. That was beautiful.


----------



## Zarathustra (9 Oct 2005)

They want "Canada out of Afghanistan" ?! They want the Talibans back ? Can someone point out one good thing about the Talibans ?? How about Canadian female students not allowed in "student space" for a week a year, in memory of the good old Taliban regime. 

I'll write them a line too.


----------



## Old Ranger (9 Oct 2005)

We can always rely on George to bring the Big Guns down to bear.

Bravo!


----------



## Air4ce (9 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting.   I applaud your dedication to teach your children the sacrifices of those who came before and died so that they may be free, but it sort of contradicts your statement of them growing up in the same level of ignorance.
> 
> If we allow our sacrifices, and those of many before us, who paid in blood, to be forgotten or ridiculed by the ignorant; we will be bound to make the same mistakes again and perhaps in the process loose all our hard won freedoms.   Ignorance IS NOT Bliss.   It means we have failed and lost; our freedoms soon to follow.



You have to give me some artistic licence here George.  I want my kids to grow up not knowing first hand the hardships faced by the people of Afghanistan and other troubled areas of the world.  That is the "level of ignorance" I wish for them.

"Ignorance is bliss" was meant as sarcasm as it pertains to the protesters at York.  A more realistic statement would be "Ignorance Kills".  This is played out daily throughout the world.  Here's hoping the education the protesters get at York pays off in the long run.


----------



## larry Strong (9 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> To the Manitoban:
> 
> 
> 
> Some segments of her piece are very confusing to me.   Her statement that US "Recruiters ride hummers into classrooms, blast 50 Cent at lunch hour..." confirms to me that she really doesn't have the knowledge or research to back what she says.  * Can anyone explain what it means to blast 50 ** Cents at lunch hour means?*   She even refers to the Canadian Forces "as the largest employer in Canada", when we all know that the Toronto Metro Police Force is much larger.   I am sure that she is also a Business Major and can rationally dismiss the Defence Budget.   Perhaps she would like to go to Afghanistan and see how Canada's Troops are conducting their "stabilization and reconstruction" endeavours.   The Department of National Defence does permit Journalists the opportunity to visit Canadian Troops on these missions.     Oh, by the way Ms Ballingall, those Troops are known as Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen; not Peacekeepers.



I think that means big speakers with the rap guy "Fitty cents" doing his thing


----------



## Zarathustra (9 Oct 2005)

I sent them this.

"Hello ! I'm writing to you regarding your article on military recruitment at Canadian universities. I'm a 29 years old Canadian. I have a philosophy degree, a computer sciences degree and a minor in social sciences. I'm currently leaving a high paying job to join the Canadian Forces. 

I think that promoting the ban of military recruiters from campus is a bad idea. First, the Canadian forces obey the orders coming from the Canadian government. If feel you should protest against the Liberal Party if you disagree with the current operation in Afghanistan. It's as if you refused recruiters from the public service because you disagree with a law. It's targeting the wrong person. Second, the military is a very high responsability occupation. It's important that the members of the Canadian Forces be some of the best Canadians. Making recruitment harder is just likely to lead us to a military of leftovers, which is clearly not what Canadians wants. Third, the previous regime in Afghanistan wasn't very democratic and pleasant. As a journal that is "a forum for critical debate and an agent of social change that refuses to publish editorial and ad content deemed discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful", I'm having a hard time seeing why you defend the Talibans. 

I feel that by deciding what's good for students and what is not, the ban of military recruiters is a bit totalitarian. Isn't the purpose of education to allow people to make their own choices ? I hope that the Manitoban will reconsider its position on this subject. 



Sincerely yours,

François Boudreau"


----------



## armyvern (9 Oct 2005)

Well I sent one in too:

Dear Editor,

I feel the need to respond to a few points (they certainly do not qualify as facts)in the article by Kendra Ballingall, titled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military."

Firstly, I feel perhaps she should step out of the classroom and gain some experience, or better yet, step into a class on Military History. For there she would learn that the Canadian Forces are a very far cry from being "the largest employer in Canada." 

As for Canada's "stabilization and reconstruction" endeavours in Afghanistan, where 2,500 Canadian troops, six ships and six aircraft have been deployed" close, but not actually factual. Perhaps also a geography class or two? Afghanistan is a landlocked country. The figures she quotes are based on total numbers since 2001 when the Government first deployed personnel to South West Asia region as part of the War Against Terrorism. 

"The difference between U.S. and Canadian militarization of schools lies in the myth that Canada is a peacekeeping nation. Unlike the U.S. defence forces, the Canadian Forces depends on its self-image and international reputation as a global peacekeeper, a "gentle military." Wrong again, the Canadian Forces do not call themselves a bunch of "Peacekeepers," they call themselves soldiers, sailors, and airmen. Only the general population of Canada likes to use this term vice "soldier." Perhaps it allows them to maintain the illusion that there is nothing wrong with the world and that there are no 'bad' people in it.

Apparently "the Manitoban - as a forum for critical debate and an agent of social change that refuses to publish editorial and ad content deemed discriminatory, racist, sexist, homophobic or hateful" only advocates discriminatory (and somewhat hateful) practices when it comes to recruiting on campus? 

I would argue that "if military recruitment campaigns are normalized and accepted on campuses across Canada, the Canadian Forces are indeed in line with the values of society" as your peace has already come with a price, and your rights, dignity and your freedom to self-determination would not be affected should you choose to simply walk by the Recruiters on your Campus, not paying them a second glance. However, only by it being there do those, whose views differ from yours, and whom choose to join the Military, get to exercise their right of self determination. After all you do not condone discrimination, by your own words.

Perhaps in that Military History class, you will also come across the quote "Every country has an Army, either it's own or someone else's." Sadly proven in this world many times over.

And yes, I'm in the Military. I joined shortly after leaving University. I highly recommend the Geneva Conventions as an educational read for yourself. Once you have read them, kindly retract your statement of that "there is no shortage of evidence contradicting Canada's lawful use of force" 

"Canada's military history is no more than the history of one state's appeasement of the dominant Empire, whether British or American." Really? Canada's birth as a Nation from my point of view? Vimy Ridge, not a classroom.

Veronica Gibson


----------



## paracowboy (9 Oct 2005)

shining examples of why certain animals eat their young. I like University students.


Broiled.


----------



## Zarathustra (10 Oct 2005)

I got a reply.

"Hello Thank you very much for writing in: we always appreciate feedback. 

I should let you know that the opinions expressed by Kendra Balingall in the editorial entitled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military" were those of the author alone, and not those of the Manitoban (also, Kendra's opinions aren't even necessarily shared by other members of the Manitoban's editorial board).

 I will forward your response on to our comment editor, who coordinates letters to the editor. Currently, we have one person writing a comment piece in response to Ms. Balingall's editorial, and we have received at least one other letter. 

Thanks again for getting involved and for writing in. Debates like this one are important, and it's good to know that readers care enough to write in.

Sincerely,
-Regan Sarmatiuk
Editor-in-Chief
The Manitoban
tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca"


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2005)

"I should let you know that the opinions expressed by Kendra Balingall in the editorial entitled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military" were those of the author alone, and not those of the Manitoban (also, Kendra's opinions aren't even necessarily shared by other members of the Manitoban's editorial board)."

If this really IS the case, we eagerly await an editorial denouncing the ideas expressed in the article in question.   

But wait!   The article in question was posted IN the "Editorials" (at least when I checked it out today).... 

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/

So, which is it, editorial board?   Or did this one just happen to slip by.... ;D   

Well done all who responded!


----------



## Recce41 (10 Oct 2005)

I say, take them to a Military Cemetary in Europe and ask, if they would fight for they freedom. I remember my oldest daught in Uof W. She had dumb dumbs, saying I was a baby killer, murder. She asked why. They said because we were Iraq. Being the hot head, she told them, that Canada was not in Iraq. And her Dad, is there to protect them. And oneday they will growup, or will have the Enemy at the Gate ( I more straight words, just  like her Dad).  She even straightened out some profs. But to go back, Look at who is the Student Union reps. Foreign NON CANADIANS, that have their own agendas.


----------



## Slim (10 Oct 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> . But to go back, Look at who is the Student Union reps. Foreign NON CANADIANS, that have their own agendas.



...Nail on th head!


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (11 Oct 2005)

Its interesting that these "students" are coming up with their own statistics and opinions of CF members based on no research whatsoever. To even suggest that the CF is an unworthy occupation worthy of being included in their on campus fair is absolutely ridiculouse. Lets look at the CF. We don't recruit drug users, those with a criminal background and have never forced anyone by draft or other means to put their lives on the line in the defence of this country or its people.

 What if someone were to compile a list of these "centers of learning", that would cover every graduate that is a habitual drug user, went on to spend time in a federal institution, subscribes to terrorist ideals. 

 The type of people that protest CF recruiting stands are obviously very misinformed, are looking for a cause because they are too weak to sign up and fight for a cause, and sadly are attending these schools to advance their knowledge but are only showing just how stupid they really are. 

 How many people on this forum alone would welcome a face to face televised debate on any of their points? I doubt you could find one of these granola heads with the cohonas to even reply to the request.

 We in the CF may do what we do so that people can have the right to protest but we dont serve so that people can be stupid.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2005)

Well, it's O dark hundred and I have just checked my e-mail to find the following response to my Letter to the Editor:

"Hello Veronica,

Thanks for your well argued letter. We are on a
publishing break, so it will run in the October 20th
issue. Anyway, a few things.

First when you state that the armed forces is not the
country's biggest employer, could you let me know who
is the biggest employer, so that I may include it in
your letter.

Second, out letters to the editor policy stipulates
that all letters be no more than 400 words, and the
Manitoban reserves the right to edit for lenght and
clarity.

Anyway, I removed your paragraph on the number of
personnel in Afghanistan, simply for length
restrictions. Anyway, I felt that because you were
taking issue with her use of facts here and not with
her argument in this particular point, I felt that was
the best part to remove. I will however pass on your
letter in full to Kendra. Thanks again,]

Cheers,


-----
Carson Jerema
Comment Editor, the Manitoban
cjerema@yahoo.ca
474-6770"


Hmm, for being an Editor of an on-line paper you'd think at least they could use spell check in their 3rd paragraph of this response wouldn't you?  >

 I am currently searching the internet to find out who exactly is Canada's largest employer. I know of a couple larger, like the aforementionned TO Police Force, but am not sure which is actually the largest.


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2005)

My response to the question regarding Canada's largest employer:

Good morning,

Canada's largest single employer is the Federal Public Service Sector. This includes employees of Canada Post, Customs Canada, Revenue Canada, and employees of the Department of National Defense among many others.

Canada's Armed Forces personnel are employed by the Canadian Forces vice the Department of National Defense, a common mis-conception. 

The 3 largest employers in Canada?
1) Canadian Forestry Industry;
2) Federal Public Service; and
3) The Department of National Defense (part of the Public Service)

The Canadian Forces do not even fall into the top 3. The Hudson Bay Company currently employs 70, 000 personnel beating our Regular Force by 8500 personnel.

I thank you for your response to my letter.

Veronica Gibson


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2005)

It is great that they have responded to your emails.  I doubt that mine made it through.  I keep getting Error Messages saying that "no email was sent".  We'll see with time.  Cyberspace, not only between their ears, but a reality.   ;D


----------



## armyvern (11 Oct 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is great that they have responded to your emails.   I doubt that mine made it through.   I keep getting Error Messages saying that "no email was sent".   We'll see with time.   Cyberspace, not only between their ears, but a reality.     ;D



Mine kept doing the same thing George. Perhaps it's some kind of know-it-all-military-spam-blocker at work here??

The easy way around it? Send a Regular e-mail to the address below vice using their forum:

tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca

That's where I sent mine to.

Vern


----------



## Bloggins (12 Oct 2005)

The important thing to remember with regards to mouthy kids is just that. They are young and feel that they are being outspoken. They think that it is being rebellious in a relavant manner. These children have either never been overseas in such an environment or left one at a very young age. Very shortly after grad day if they make it they will join the ranks of the white collar work force and every time a region with economic impact becomes unstable they will demand military participation. As well I attended a remembrance day ceremony at York last year and not all of the students are this immature and naive. They are young and will tell the story a bunch of times and sleep secure in there parents house feeling that they made an impact and then borrow daddy's gas guzzling SUV to drive back to school to be superficial all over again tommarrow.

Cheers.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2005)

Do they have free food and drinks at these things? Protests and stuff.

I'd go and eat everything I could find and drink all their milk, coke and whiskey and then they would be all 
"wow man, far out, where'd you learn to drink like that!"
and i'd be all
"In a little organization I like to call the army, baby!"
And they would want to join.

Mission accomplished


----------



## armyvern (15 Oct 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> "wow man, far out, where'd you learn to drink like that!"
> and i'd be all
> "In a little organization I like to call the army, baby!"
> And they would want to join.



I dunno about that, but maybe. I partook in many a 'Century Club' party while at Mount Allison  ;D


----------



## Jason38 (16 Oct 2005)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> ...and have never forced anyone by draft or other means to put their lives on the line in the defence of this country or its people.



Not correct Shelldrake. Conscripts were sent to the Aleutians during WW2, and could well have been in combat if the Japanese had not withdrawn. And technically, if one wants to go back as far as 1812, the Militia Act virtually conscripted all males of military age.


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2005)

Why ndo the hippies never protest what the Taliban and the A.Q. do to people?


----------



## old fart (16 Oct 2005)

Because they are obviously sympathetic to murdering scum like that viewed through their supposedly educated eyes, I use the educated term loosely.

The majority of these people have never visited a country recovering from an oppressed existence, if they had their views would be different I'm sure.

Saddam goes on trial this week, a murdering despot who seized power for some 30 years.     This man was responsible for the deaths of thousands (any one seen video of executions by explosive means, that is strapping explosives to terrified "opponents") heck he basically invented the suicide bomber but those victims had no choice.

I could go on but in the closeted world of these left wing students it is probably Saddam who has been wronged.

It's a pity the chance for peace has been hijacked in Iraq (by foreign fighters and the Iranians).   The _*ordinary*_ people of Iraq deserve a future free from violence and oppression, hopefully one day they will get it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> ...
> My thoughts (and questin) is where is this all coming from...is it so far fetched that there couldn't be members of the other sdide behind all this retoric?





			
				Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Hmm after reading most of the post's what came to my mind were the words of Edward R. Murrow back in the Joe McCarthy era.
> "Don't' mistake dissent with disloyalty"



Without wishing to resurrect Joseph McCarthy we might wish to note that in the '40s and '50s, especially, the Moscow _party line_ was propagated throughout the West - especially in Britain and America, by _"dupes and fellow travellers"_ rather than mainstream, active Communist Party members.  The latter were, of course, active but, being largely discredited and marginalized - even by the silk stocking socialists, their voice was weak and distorted.

The _party line_ was passed 'down' through a fairly small handful of respectable and respected intellectuals who were, generally, regarded as _sceptics_ - which has been, traditionally, and still is a highly respectable intellectual position.

I suspect that this fairly simple, effective form of propaganda, which has been used (in its current, modern form), over and over, since the 18th century is being used again.  I suspect that many of the Arab extremist/fundamentalist Islamic leaders are smart men - ready, willing and able to exploit our own legal, respectable, profitable propaganda machines (Hill and Knowlton, etc, - _only as an example_) to 'make' _opinion_ and, insidiously, to pass 'messages' through the intellectual elites in the West - who are often eager to find ways and means to disagree with the _establishment's_ positions.

The task of both the monolithic Soviet Union and the highly diffused Arab extremist/fundamentalist Islamic _movements_ is made easier by a long standing distaste, throughout the capitalist West, for capitalism itself.  If, just for the sake of argument, we begin with Dickens then we can see that the rise of modern industrial capitalism was accompanied by a well founded, articulate anti-capitalist _movement_ which spoke, forcefully, to some of our best human instincts.  Modern industrial capitalism will always be a 'red meat' system and there are, always, gentle, thoughtful _herbivores_ amongst us who will be (or will be used by) active opponents of the liberal, democratic, secular, free-enterprise/capitalist West.

_(I argue that Pierre Trudeau was one of that group - one who worked, actively, against his country and the West.)_

I thing the _herbivores_ are out in full force, again (maybe still).  They are not, for the most part, working for the Arab extremists and fundamentalist Islamics; they are, habitually, sceptical about the aims and methods of the liberal, democratic, secular, free-enterprise/capitalist West and they use their public positions to challenge those aims and methods.

We need to be careful: one of the main things we are defending from the extremists and fundamentalists is the absolute right to loud, public intellectual dissent.  If we stifle the _"dupes and fellow travellers"_ then we will have become no better than bin Laden _et cie_.

Propaganda is a powerful and effective weapon - propagating 'dissent' is fairly easy in the West; in fact being able to propagate dissent is one of the reasons we are the West; allowing free people to do it is one of the reasons we have to win.


----------



## Slim (16 Oct 2005)

> Propaganda is a powerful and effective weapon â â€œ propagating 'dissent' is fairly easy in the West; in fact being able to propagate dissent is one of the reasons we are the West; allowing free people to do it is one of the reasons we have to win



Still doesn't make it any easier...!


----------



## DG-41 (16 Oct 2005)

> Because they are obviously sympathetic to murdering scum like that viewed through their supposedly educated eyes



That's way too simplistic and jingoistic. You're falling into the same trap of an anti-war protestor claiming that we're all just tools of the imperialist Americans and baby-killers to boot.

There is no black and white in the world. Everything is shades of grey. And the problems you see depend a lot on the direction you took as you approched the problem. It is entirely possible for two completely reasonable people to approach a situation from two different angles and come to entirely reasonable, but completely opposite, conclusions.

Take Iraq. Saddam Hussain was/is a bona fide asshole, who did horrible things to the people inside his own country - this is undisputed fact. I don't think you'll find a single reasonable person that would stand up and claim that Saddam was a good person.

So OK, I can come into this problem for the direction that "removing a government that abused its own citizens (really, a sub-population of its own citizens) to that degree is a Good act" and thus declare that the American invasion of Iraq was a Good thing. That's an entirely reasonable conclusion to arrive at, and more than a few people on this board have expressed it.

But you can also come into the problem from this angle: "Different cultures have different standards for what constitutes "abuse of its own citizens" and no country should be allowed to be able to invade any other and force it to adopt a different culture's standards against their will" or in other words "keep out of my bedroom, and I'll keep out of yours" or perhaps "what you do inside your own borders is none of my business". That too is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at.

Now with those two positions on the opposite ends of the scale, we can start looking at shades of grey:

One could generally support the idea that sovereign nations have control over what goes on inside their borders and what they do to their citizens, until some threshold is reached, upon which other nations would be called in to stop the abuses that have surpassed the threshold. Given that defining that threshold is both difficult and subject to culteral interpretation (define "pornography" for an example), one might inist that there be a world body formed where such cases could be discussed, voted on, and in the case of sufficient agreement on a particular case, an international, sanctioned military intervention could be staged to solve the problem - and that any military action that happened without this sanction would be considered illegal.

One could also have the opinion that "all fighting - except explicit self defence when invaded - is de facto wrong, that all problems can be solved without resort to military action, and thus any non-self-defence military operation is by its very existance immoral. (OK, this is less a shade of grey than an orthagonal extreme, but it is still a valid point of view. Not one that *I* share, personally, but I can see the point of view of someone who might hold it)

I could go on and on... the point being, there are lots of completely reasonable and valid ways to look at these situations that can wind up arriving at completely different conclusions than your own.

Here's how I see Afganistan and Iraq:

1) Sept 11 2001, an organization carried out attacks on the USA, a long-time ally of Canada

2) The people who carried out these attacks hit one military (and thus valid) target, and one civillian (and thus invalid) target, plus failed to hit a third target that is unspecified.

3) The attackers chose a method that was effctively the same as an airstrike, except that they strapped innocent civillians to their ordinance. That is barbaric, immoral, and wrong, and "cultural differences" be damned. No civillized society straps innocents to weapons.

4) By virtue of the attack itself, plus by virtue of both the fact that a civiliian target was (purposefully) hit and by virtue of point #3, the US was legally and morally entitled to retaliate.

5) By virtue of our being allied with the US, plus by virtue of point #3, it was right and good for Canada to assist the US in this retaliation.

6) The attackers themselves were not sanctioned by any state, nor were they the agents of any state. They were, however, at the least allowed to operate within the bounderies of a state, and perhaps were even supported by the ruling body of the state. That made that state a legitimate military target as wel.

7) That state ruling body also happened to be a regime that imposed some brutal conditions on its citizens, particularly women. "Cultural differences" starts to rear its head here... but given that point #6 opened the door, I wouldn't shed any tears at this regime being deposed.

8) This part of the world has been ravaged in the last 20 years, some of it in no small part due to being caught up as a pawn in the cold war struggles of years previous. That means we in the West bear some responsibility for Afganistan being the way it is. We didn't create the Taliban or Al-Quaida, but we did help create the conditions that let them take power. As such, we in the West owe a debt to the Afgan people.

9) The Marshall Plan after WW2 has demonstrated the wisdom of rebuilding your enemies' homelands after a war; that the best way to ultimately defeat an enemy is to make him your friend. So there is a strategic advantage to rebuilding Afganistan and attempting to make it into the garden spot of the middle east.

10) So from this, I conclude that the invasion of Afganistan, and the subsequent efforts to rebuild the nation and put it back on its feet is right, just, and good. It is right for Canada to be participating, and I at least intend to put my money where my mouth is by putting in a tour there myself once I am able to.

Is that a reasonable conclusion? I think it is.

Now Iraq:

1) No evidence has surfaced to show that Iraq had any part whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks, so there is no moral or legal justification for attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11, any more that there would be for invading (say) Sweden.

2) Given that Iraq had been contained (by UN decree) for over 10 years, it posed no threat to anyone outside its own borders.

3) Although it had both stockpiled and used them in the past, there was no evidence that Iraq posessed any weapons of mass destruction, and UN inspectors were on the ground enforcing this.

4) The actual employment of (in particular) chemical weapons without access to mass delivery systems is far more problematic than the lethality of the agents themselves would suggest. It takes tanker truck quantities of agent to carry out successful strikes, not milk carton quantities (the failed sarin attack in the Tokyo subway makes for a very instructive case study)

5) Iraq was a mostly secular country run by a secular dictator whose worldview was exactly the opposite of the worldview of the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. This both made co-operation between the two groups unlikely at best, and given that this secular dictator was unlikely to reliquish power anytime soon, his presence denied the resources of his country to people alligned with those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

6) Iraq has large oil reserves.

7) There is personal history between Saddam and the American president, so an element of personal vendetta is present.

8) The US unilaterally invaded Iraq on false pretenses over the objections of the UN and most of the world, apparently because it could. This is more than a little disturbing, especially if one is a ciitizen of a country with a lot of oil, a solid financial footing, a penchant for asserting its own soverignty, and intent on following its own political path in the face of opposition from the US (legaizing gay marriage, moving towards the legaliation of pot, insisting that the US adhere to the court rulings on softwood lumber under NAFTA and threatening to restrict access to power, water, and oil if the US keeps cheating on the NAFTA terms)

9) By invading Iraq, the US has re-enforced the prevailing view in that part of the world of the US and the West in general as being imperialist bullies who trample on the rights of Arabs at will to get what they want, particularly oil, but also as a foe of their religion (shades of the Crusades - the fact that Bush is an evangelical Christian is NOT lost on them) This creates fertile ground for the creation of more organizations aligned with Al-Quaida, and overshadows the very good work being done in Afganistan.

10) So from this, I conclude that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, morally wrong, and produced results counter to the safety and security of the world as a whole - and I am happy and proud of my government in seeing the wisdom of staying out of it.

Which I also see as being an entirely reasonable position - one that is shared by a large number of my fellow citizens.

Now, one failing I see is that we (the governmental and CF "we") haven't done a very good job of getting the message on Afganistan out, especially as Iraq gets all the press. It would be very  easy for someone to assume that Afganistan was just like Iraq, and to draw the conclusion that our involvement in Afganistan was just American puppetry. WE all know that isn't the case, but THEY do not. This needs to be addressed.

I don't for a second think that student protests are the result of AQ fifth columnists. They ain't that organized or influential.

One final point - we, as memebers of the CF and as citizens of Canada, are allowed (and indeed EXPECTED) to speak our minds on political issues that affect the country. It is the duty of all citizens in a democracy to participate in government and to let our elected officials know how we feel. As such, I COMPLETELY and EMPHATICALLY agree with the statement that "opposition is not disloyalty". "Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition", right?

Where we DO need to be careful is that we do not confuse our duty as citizens with our duties as soldiers. None of use should be trying to put forward our personal opinions as the official policy of the CF, nor should we be seeking to stifle political discussion (especially where there is potential for that to me misinterpreted as CF policy) When the uniform goes on, we all become politically neuter. Politics is put aside, and we carry out the mission we are given

DG


----------



## Zarathustra (16 Oct 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Why ndo the hippies never protest what the Taliban and the A.Q. do to people?



I have been asking myself this question for quite a while now. The left wing students oppose violence, racism, homophobia, sexism, and yet they support Castro, Hamas and the Talibans. Even if you support their causes, these people are violent and sexist so there should be some conflict in your mind. It's very hard to understand, the student seems to sincerely oppose violence and support the Palestinian suicide bombers. So here is my latest theory. 

Those (radical) left wing students come mostly from the social sciences. Philosophy, history, sociology, etc. Not many law, engineering or business students among them. Social sciences students have a low social status. Not that many people will be impressed by your philosophy degree. (Trust me, I have one.) They will not get high paying corporate job after the university. They will not have money, they won't be celebrities, they won't be regarded as tough. They can't even see themself as smart because smart students are supposed to study real science like physics and engineering. 

Basically, those student have a self esteem problem. I think they fix it with moral superiority. They take pleasures in exposing the moral flaws of people with high social status, in other to raise their own status above them. They will shot at politicians, business person, big corporations, beautiful person, etc. Especially the most successful of them, like Walmart, McDonald, The United States, sexy thin women, etc. SUVs pollute, Walmart use people in poor countries, the United States kill innocent people, the fashion industry fools young girl into unhealthy diets. While you would think that left wing student don't have SUVs because they are poor, in their mind they don't have SUVs because SUVs pollute. You have to admit that from a self esteem perspective their way of seeing it is much better. But while self esteem is nice social status is better and that's why the left wing students try to convince everyone of joining their side. They must convince you that they are right so that you see them as superior. Like you often see "larger" women saying that too thin is unhealthy while you don't see pretty thin women saying that their looks gives them power. They have the power, it's real and they don't want to share. The fat women are going for moral superiority and they need a lot of social support for it to really work. 

So back to the Talibans. Well Talibans have low social status. Nobody in Canada likes them. You can't raise your social status by fighting them, or even supporting them. In Canada they are irrelevant. What is relevant in our society is money, celebrity, good look, etc. The left wing student, though they preach love, are really motivated by hatred. They despise what is higher then them and fight to replace it. Everyone wants a high social status, or at least some respect and regards. And this is their way of getting it. I think some religious persons follow the same logic. 

I remember before Canada signed Kyoto how the left wing were ranting against the government. Then one day Chretien signs it. I log on to my favorite anarchist web site expecting to see dances of joy and satisfaction. There was nothing. Not a word. No one even mentioned it. I was stunned. Then later I understood. For a while they had moral superiority over the government. They were better than the leaders of the country, which is pretty good. When Canada signed Kyoto they lost that superiority and went back to a low social status. So they were not dancing. 

That's my current theory. I think human beings are animals and we can figure out their behavior more by looking at how they feel than looking at how they think. But if you want to "cure" left wing students and bring them to your side then post your own theory because I have no idea how to do that. Maybe buying them a SUV...

And if you wonder why I'm not left wing in spite of my philosophy degree is because I also have a computer science degree, a high income and a decent social status.


----------



## old fart (16 Oct 2005)

Zarathustra, I'll keep this short and simplistic.  Nice post....

Old fart out....


----------



## camochick (16 Oct 2005)

As much as I hate hippies, i have to say that your theory about humans is all wrong. You are making way too many broad generalizations. None of my left leaning friends support hamas or the "talibans", none of them have esteem issues (actually these people are younger than me and probably have a better idea of who they are than I do),and   they could care less whether they have your high income and your silly social status. You say that the left (oh and fat women) have self esteem issues that make them think they are better than others yet you made sure to tell us that you make lots of money and have a good social status. Sounds to me like you may have some issues. On my scale of BS your theory is right down there with email chain letters telling me I will die if I don't send it out.


----------



## TCBF (16 Oct 2005)

"None of my left leaning friends support hamas or the "talibans", none of them have esteem issues (actually these people are younger than me and probably have a better idea of who they are ..."

- This only proves you have some standards in the selection of friends.

"On my scale of BS your theory is right down there with email chain letters telling me I will die if I don't send it out."

- I agree with Z.  I don't think his theory is B.S.  Where have all the 60s radicals gone?  They were bought off.  They are now lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and businessmen with power.  They LIKE the system now, because it's THEIRS.  They have status.  Read Maslow.

Tom


----------



## camochick (16 Oct 2005)

I don't think they were bought off. Smart hippies know that in order to change the system you have to be part of it. 
I find it funny that as soon as some lefty calls you all a bunch of baby killers, you freak out and say that you are being sterotyped, but saying that all "hippies" have self esteem issues seems to be ok. I know this is a right leaning site but it's funny cause it pretty much mirrors the lefty side. Maybe you're not so different after all.  >


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Oct 2005)

DG-41, this goes out to you:



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> Now Iraq:
> 
> 1) No evidence has surfaced to show that Iraq had any part whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks, so there is no moral or legal justification for attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11, any more that there would be for invading (say) Sweden.



That's an illogical conclusion.   Sorta like saying "there's no evidence that this murderer has ever robbed anyone, therefore there's no moral or legal justification for arresting him".   Wether or not you're correct about Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 attacks, you cannot logicaly reach the conclusion you did from that fact alone.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 2) Given that Iraq had been contained (by UN decree) for over 10 years, it posed no threat to anyone outside its own borders.



This is arguable at best.   Iraq still had a capable (by middle east standards) military force, and could very well have been a threat to other nations.   As well, you're ruling out the possibility of chemical, nuclear, or biological attack, something we had reason to worry about, especially once they started developing missiles capable of reaching distances which exceeded the limit imposed by the UN.   Since their capability to wage war or unconventional attacks cannot be proven to have been eliminated, and since your statement is largely irrelevant anyway (after all, the Taliban had a much weaker military), I'd say this point can be safely ignored as well.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 3) Although it had both stockpiled and used them in the past, there was no evidence that Iraq posessed any weapons of mass destruction, and UN inspectors were on the ground enforcing this.



 ???

Maybe you stopped reading newspapers before the UN inspectors got kicked out?

The "no evidence" argument might be compelling if the heads of several major countries had not come out in support of the evidence, as well as if the war effort had not been supported by some 30 nations.   The fact remains that there WAS evidence of Iraq possesing chemical and biological weapons, and evidence that they were pursuing research into obtaining nuclear weapons.   If that evidence turned out to be wrong, well, hindsight is 20-20.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 4) The actual employment of (in particular) chemical weapons without access to mass delivery systems is far more problematic than the lethality of the agents themselves would suggest. It takes tanker truck quantities of agent to carry out successful strikes, not milk carton quantities (the failed sarin attack in the Tokyo subway makes for a very instructive case study)



Sadam deffinitely possesed effective delivery systems for chemical weapons, and in 2003 had developed missiles capable of delivering conventional or chemical and nuclear payloads at distances exceeding the limit specified by the UN.   So no, he wouldn't have to resort to catapulting milk cartons at Israel.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 5) Iraq was a mostly secular country run by a secular dictator whose worldview was exactly the opposite of the worldview of the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. This both made co-operation between the two groups unlikely at best, and given that this secular dictator was unlikely to reliquish power anytime soon, his presence denied the resources of his country to people alligned with those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.



How's that phrase go?   The enemy of my enemy is my friend?   If Sadam were desperate enough to strike back at the US, do you think he would hesitate for one second to do it by supporting a group that happened to have different ideals than ones that he holds?   Realisticaly, Sadams regime, and his interests, had a hell of a lot more in common with al qaeda than they did with the US.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 6) Iraq has large oil reserves.



And Afghanistan is a nice place to put a pipeline.   And Kosovo has natural gas or mineral deposits, or whatever it was that the peacenicks claimed when the US attacked Serbia over it.   Big whoop.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 7) There is personal history between Saddam and the American president, so an element of personal vendetta is present.



You could use the same reasoning to respond to your point #5.   Since there IS a lot of bad blood between Sadam and the US in general, he'd be more likely to support an attack on the US organized by the Al Qaeda.      Now, if you're telling me you think George Bush is more likely to pursue a personal vendetta than is Sadam, well....

I'm just going to assume that you're NOT making that statement so that I don't have to tell you what I really think....



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 8) The US unilaterally invaded Iraq on false pretenses over the objections of the UN and most of the world, apparently because it could. This is more than a little disturbing, especially if one is a ciitizen of a country with a lot of oil, a solid financial footing, a penchant for asserting its own soverignty, and intent on following its own political path in the face of opposition from the US (legaizing gay marriage, moving towards the legaliation of pot, insisting that the US adhere to the court rulings on softwood lumber under NAFTA and threatening to restrict access to power, water, and oil if the US keeps cheating on the NAFTA terms)



First, "most of the world" is arguable.   There's some 6 billion bodies on this rock, and I'm pretty sure most of them don't give a crap one way or the other.   If you mean most nations, well, actually as far as I can tell, most countries were nutral, as shown here:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bf/Country_positions_Iraq_war.png

Whereas the countries supporting the invasion and those opposed seem to be split pretty much equaly.   So I'd say that pretty much torpedoes that line of argument.

Also, keep in mind that many of the nations which opposed the US invasion of Iraq did so out of self interest (no dictator wants to be next on the list after all) whereas very few of those supporting the war had anything to gain from it.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 9) By invading Iraq, the US has re-enforced the prevailing view in that part of the world of the US and the West in general as being imperialist bullies who trample on the rights of Arabs at will to get what they want, particularly oil, but also as a foe of their religion (shades of the Crusades - the fact that Bush is an evangelical Christian is NOT lost on them) This creates fertile ground for the creation of more organizations aligned with Al-Quaida, and overshadows the very good work being done in Afganistan.



It re-inforced that view amongst those who beleived it anyway.   Darn.   So now, those who hated America....still hate them.   But for a new "reason".   The attack on Afghanistan did the same thing - those who already hated the US paraded it as their newest "evidence" that the US is an evil imperialistic empire.   Or maybe you missed the part in Michael Moores movie where he talks about Bush's evil plan for a pipeline through Afghanistan, and about all the money that the Bush administration is making through their "connections" to arms manufacturing companies.

Meanwhile there are now at least 5 million (a conservative estimate) Shia Muslims, as well as a few million Kurds, who have become newfound supporters of the US.

Seems like a good trade.



			
				DG-41 said:
			
		

> 10) So from this, I conclude that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, morally wrong, and produced results counter to the safety and security of the world as a whole - and I am happy and proud of my government in seeing the wisdom of staying out of it.



Well, since that was your conclusion, I'll wait untill the end of my post to state my own conclusion.


So, to recap:

1)   Sadam may or may not have been connected to Al Qaeda, but neither can be proven conclusively.   Similarily, the Taliban may or may not have supported Al Qaeda, but neither can be proven conclusively.   The best we can prove is that they allowed Al Qaeda cells to operate free from harrasement, and it's not much of a strech to beleive Sadam would have done the same.

2)   There was conclusive evidence that Iraq did at one point posses chemical and biological weapons, and still had them the last time UN inspectors were allowed to check.   There's compelling evidence that Sadam was interested in aquiring nuclear weapons, if he had not done so already.   AND there was conclusive evidence that Iraq had developed long-range missiles idealy suited for employment as delivery systems for chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

3)   Contrary to popular opinion, the ratio of countries opposed to the war in Iraq to those supporting it was roughly equal.


Furthermore, the following points which I didn't cover in the rest of my response also seem relevant:


4)   The 1991 war in Iraq ended in a CONDITIONAL CEASEFIRE.   I know you're familiar with that term so I won't elaborate much, I'll only say that Sadam violated the conditions of that ceasefire, and THAT is an unarguable fact.

5)   While sanctions may have been effective at limiting the ammount of damage Sadam could do to other nations, they also massively increased the level of misery amongst the people of Iraq.   A HUMANE nation would never allow itself to maintain such sanctions indeffinitely.   The fact that the UN supported continued sanctions tells me all I need to know about that organization.   The fact that they instead felt justified in opposing the continuation of the 1991 war, even though it was obvious that the terms of the ceasefire had been shattered, only serves to hammer in the last nail on the coffin in which I've burried my respect for that "distinguished body".

6)   In the same vein, Sadam clearly had no qualms about oppressing his own people, and using abduction, murder, rape, and torture in order to prop up his regime.   While you've expressed the opinion that it's reasonable to beleive that "different cultures have different standards", I'd have to argue that no society in the world classifies murder, rape, and torture as a good thing, and that even if such a society existed we would be almost duty-bound to wipe it off the face of the earth.

So, in conclusion, you've given me absolutely no evidence to support the idea that there was anything illegal or immoral about the Iraq campaign.   Instead, you actually brought to my attention similarities between the attack on Iraq and the attack on Afghanistan which I had not noticed untill I read your post.   Therefore, I still maintain that there's no way you can justify the Afghan campaign while at the same time claiming that the Iraq campaign is illigal or immoral.   Either they're both wrong, or they're both right.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2005)

"The Moral Justification of Iraq" is turning into the new Godwin's Law of the Internet.


----------



## Zarathustra (16 Oct 2005)

camochick said:
			
		

> None of my left leaning friends support hamas or the "talibans"



Well this thread started with students trying to ban military recruiters from university, and some of them saying Canada shouldn't be in Afghanistan. This seemed to me and other as if they supported the Talibans and lead to me posting my theory. Maybe your friends don't fall in that group. 

On the income and status issue, I'd say that "it is easy to despise what you cannot get." I realize that parts of my post are quite insulting. But unfortunately there's not that many pretty way to bring that subject. I typically avoid talking about it. But I think too many people give up in life. Instead of sticking to what they want and keep trying they lie to themselves and think they don't really want it. And then they stop trying and give up all chances of ever actually getting it. I think it's a sad thing.


----------



## 48Highlander (16 Oct 2005)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> Well this thread started with students trying to ban military recruiters from university, and some of them saying Canada shouldn't be in Afghanistan. This seemed to me and other as if they supported the Talibans and lead to me posting my theory. Maybe your friends don't fall in that group.
> 
> On the income and status issue, I'd say that "it is easy to despise what you cannot get." I realize that parts of my post are quite insulting. But unfortunately there's not that many pretty way to bring that subject. I typically avoid talking about it. But I think too many people give up in life. Instead of sticking to what they want and keep trying they lie to themselves and think they don't really want it. And then they stop trying and give up all chances of ever actually getting it. I think it's a sad thing.



Sorry but I'm going to have to agree with her.  I don't think envy or or hate have much to do with why these students do what they do.  I've asked many of them why they protest against the US while keeping silent about other nations who are clearly much worse than anything that the US is being accused of.  The response is invariably the same:

"Well, everyone KNOWS that those people are bad!"

To me, this sounds more like "I won't get any attention if I protest against the Taliban/Al Qaeda/North Korea/Sadam".  What they're saying is pretty simple; they want to create a scene.  They want attention and opposition and argument.  Above all, they want a cause to fight for and an enemy they can demonize and attack, without having to worry about such inconvinient things as reprisals, injury, or death.

I am of the beleif that conflict is a part of all natural systems, and that all living things actively seek out conflict.  At the same time, most living things, and humans especialy, seek attention.  All of us - wether we admit it or not - want to be noticed, appreciated, and respected.  The "University Student" subspecies of the human race simply manifests it's desire for conflict and attention as an attack against all forms of authority.  It gives them an enemy which is safe to attack and can at least superficialy be made out to seem like evil incarnate.  It gives them opposition and conflict in the form of arguments with those of us who support the system.  And it gives them attention - negative attention from those of us opposed to them, and positive attention in the form of acceptance and comraderie from those who oppose the system.

Protesting against, say, Sadam on the other hand, wouldn't achieve any of the above.  It generates no conflict because everyone already know he's a bad mofo.  Without conflict they get less attention - next to none from the average person, and probably even less from their peers.  So what's the point, right?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2005)

Such a tizzy over a few usless gluebags! Leave them be. You won't change them. By engaging them, right or wrong, win or lose, you play their game. There is two ways to deal with them. Treat them as if they don't exist, in public. Or a well aimed shot, shattering the probiscus, in private, will end the discussion either way. Any other time or effort is a complete waste of energy.


----------



## camochick (16 Oct 2005)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> Well this thread started with students trying to ban military recruiters from university, and some of them saying Canada shouldn't be in Afghanistan. This seemed to me and other as if they supported the Talibans and lead to me posting my theory. Maybe your friends don't fall in that group.
> 
> On the income and status issue, I'd say that "it is easy to despise what you cannot get." I realize that parts of my post are quite insulting. But unfortunately there's not that many pretty way to bring that subject. I typically avoid talking about it. But I think too many people give up in life. Instead of sticking to what they want and keep trying they lie to themselves and think they don't really want it. And then they stop trying and give up all chances of ever actually getting it. I think it's a sad thing.



Ok well now your theory is completely out there. Just because they want them out of Afghanistan doesn't mean that they support the taliban. People protested the Vietnam war and not all of them were communist. Perhaps some of them feel our troops are being put in unnecessary danger. 

As for the whole people giving up on life, I'm sure people from all sides of the board do that. I don't think that because someone is left leaning it means they have given up on life. I'm quite positive there are alot of successful people from the left side of things. I think you are the one who needs to feel validated, by posting this garbage. Not everybody wants money and status to feel better about themselves, in fact people who need money and status to feel special probably have issues.


----------



## bbereziuk (17 Oct 2005)

An interesting aspect about how those particular students reacted, is that it is actually quite likely that they HELPED the recruiters.  A lot of professionals in the advertising industry would suggest that 'any coverage is good coverage'... and in many cases controversy can really boost interest from bystanders.  Think about how many York students were disgusted by the reaction of the 'grass roots anti-imperialist' group (or whatever it was..).  A protest such as that one is actually the perfect opportunity for our recruiters to rise above the occasion and make themselves look really classy by sticking it out with smiles on their faces, or by returning to the school to recruit at specific academic departments where the protestors may not have access.  The recruiters should have taken the opportunity to leave a statement with the student newspaper, inviting any students detered by the protests to visit their office...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2005)

The old time worn and dreary cliche comes to mind.

Bring them all to Afghanistan, and let them live there for a month, in the mud hut, living on a dollar a week. Then ask them what we're doing there. 

All semantics, book learning and righteous indignation will flee from the scholarary poser when he/ she has to "walk the walk".


----------



## Infanteer (17 Oct 2005)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> And if you wonder why I'm not left wing in spite of my philosophy degree is because I also have a computer science degree, a high income and a decent social status.



So in other words, your kids are (will be) left-wing.


----------



## Zarathustra (17 Oct 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> At the same time, most living things, and humans especialy, seek attention.   All of us - wether we admit it or not - want to be noticed, appreciated, and respected.   The "University Student" subspecies of the human race simply manifests it's desire for conflict and attention as an attack against all forms of authority.



That's similar to what I'm saying, no ? Attention, status, pretty close. 




			
				camochick said:
			
		

> I think you are the one who needs to feel validated, by posting this garbage. Not everybody wants money and status to feel better about themselves, in fact people who need money and status to feel special probably have issues.



Theories need to be publicly debated, especially when they are wrong. And yes getting respect for your opinion is an interesting form of social status. But my first post wasn't very clear. I'm not arguing that social sciences students have more social status problem than the rest of society. I'm saying that they get their status through moral superiority instead of money or celebrity because money and celebrity are not open to them. (Though being a student leader is some sort of celerity after all.) I'm not saying their are insane, and yes driving SUV is on the verge of sanity if you want my opinion.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I agree with Z.   I don't think his theory is B.S.   Where have all the 60s radicals gone?   They were bought off.   They are now lawyers, judges, bureaucrats and businessmen with power.   They LIKE the system now, because it's THEIRS.   They have status.   Read Maslow.



A few are even retired from the CF. 

Peace out.


----------



## armyvern (17 Oct 2005)

Some of the 60's Peaceniks are now on our side:

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Williamson_Linda/2005/10/15/pf-1264077.html


----------



## visitor (17 Oct 2005)

People who call each other   names, ridicule them and feel superior are all the same, if you ask me, whether they are "left" or " right".   That is the seed of hate that begets war and genocide.         Young people often have black and white views whether they are hippie or soldier. The brain is not fully developed nor able to see shades of grey until age 26 or so. Passion in youth is a good thing. It helps one to get through the decades of crap in everyday   life and stay motivated through the years.   Hopefully the gung-ho young soldier will learn to temper his aggression and the gung-ho young hippie   will learn   to understand the need for   force at times.   

There is a lot of work to be done in this world and many ways to do it.   Peace out to you too, baby.


----------



## aluc (18 Oct 2005)

I've been away from Club York over the past two weeks because of various holidays. Now that my Monday night class has resumed, I had the pleasure of walking around a campus plastered with anti-Canadian propaganda courtesy of your friend and mine Ahmed Habib,( vice-president equity for the York Federation of Students). Call me crazy....but I exercised my rights by tearing down as many posters as I could! Although I  realise that the majority of the student body really doesn't concern themselves with such left-wing stupidity, I just couldn't handle walking by every door/wall/window and looking at the propaganda this ingrate has strewn all over campus. ( oh yeah ...I almost forgot...he's having another love in today on campus. When does this sorry a** have time to study?)


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2005)

The latest edition of the Manitoban On-Line. Some of the Army.ca responses to Kendra Ballingall's Editorial titled "Campuses and Canada's Gentle Military" have been published in the Letters to the Editor Section of today's edition. 

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1019/914.letters.to.the.editor.php


----------



## Old Ranger (21 Oct 2005)

Well done!


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (21 Oct 2005)

York loves the military  when we rent space there , students come there from all over to study, from other countries who are in the military. I was there for 2 weeks in the summer of 1990 while being quartered there for a course. They  loved us spending money in the bars and other places on campus. 
I went back a few months later while on a callout to see about getting more education and  during my interview the lady asked me what  would happen if the army sent me to war( gulf war 1 ) would i go or would i stay and continue my studies. I told her the army was my job, career and I had signed the dotted line long before I thought about an education at York. I would go and do what my country asked of me. The lady interviewing suggested I not bother taking classes there because education was more important then being in the service of my  country. words to that affect. I left shortly afterwards and went back to work at the base and realized York was not for me. 

Take my  money,  and then tell me how to earn that  money .

York needs to put a sign up ." Warning Soldiers to stay off the Grass"


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2005)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> York needs to put a sign up ." Warning Soldiers to stay off the Grass"



How about this one? "Warning Students - Quit Smokin' the Grass"


----------



## GO!!! (22 Oct 2005)

aluc said:
			
		

> I've been away from Club York over the past two weeks because of various holidays. Now that my Monday night class has resumed, I had the pleasure of walking around a campus plastered with anti-Canadian propaganda courtesy of your friend and mine Ahmed Habib,( vice-president equity for the York Federation of Students). Call me crazy....but I exercised my rights by tearing down as many posters as I could! Although I   realise that the majority of the student body really doesn't concern themselves with such left-wing stupidity, I just couldn't handle walking by every door/wall/window and looking at the propaganda this ingrate has strewn all over campus. ( oh yeah ...I almost forgot...he's having another love in today on campus. When does this sorry a** have time to study?)



I wonder where Mr. Habib's sympathies really lie? Although I recognise the danger of pigeonholing individuals based on their names or ancestry, this type of behaviour would be considered to be subversive and indicative of fifth columnists in a nation truly at war. 

If Mr. Habib and his family are recent immigrants to Canada, perhaps they should be returned to their nation of origin, if they find the current Canadian regime to be so repulsive.


----------



## Slim (22 Oct 2005)

> I wonder where Mr. Habib's sympathies really lie? Although I recognise the danger of pigeonholing individuals based on their names or ancestry, this type of behaviour would be considered to be subversive and indicative of fifth columnists in a nation truly at war.



Its probably no accident that he's the figurehead of the unrest WRT the CF up at the university...Its very difficult for anyone to speak out against them without having the race card thrown down!


----------



## HDE (22 Oct 2005)

If the student government at York is like most other campuses there's quite a high probability the vast majority of students they claim to be representing didn't bother voting in their elections.   I sometimes wonder if the bitterness shown by some/most "student leaders" is a function of knowing they don't actually matter much in the grand scheme of university affairs.
It must be h*ll leading people who aren't following      ;D


----------



## camochick (22 Oct 2005)

I think it's crap that they come here and bitch about our army. In fredericton they protested armed forces day being in the city because it scared the refugees. I figure we were kind enough to let them come to our fine country they should have a little respect for the people who defend it. I am by no means a racist. I think it's great that canada is so multi cultural and it's good to learn about others but I take issue with the fact that there seems to be a lack of respect.

.


----------



## visitor (23 Oct 2005)

I am wondering how   soldiers   reconcile going overseas and possible   defending people who don't respect Judaism or Christianity, CF forces, or even Canada, etc. There seems to be great hostility for those sorts of opinions/demonstrations in Canada and I can't help but wonder: Do you see that when you go on a mission, how do you feel about it and how do you motivate yourself to defend the people whose opinions you   seem hostile to at home and even to risk your life for them. Please help me to understand this.


----------



## garb811 (23 Oct 2005)

There is nothing to reconcile.  

First, this has nothing to do with religion so whether or not someone respects "our" religion, not that there is even such a thing in Canada anymore, is immaterial.

We fully understand that the rhetoric being spewed by folks like these does not reflect the opinions and thoughts of the vast majority of persons who the mouthpieces purport to speak for.  Also, as soldiers in a liberal democracy we understand and accept it is our duty to defend the rights of these idiots, and that includes their right to pursue and vocalize positions which we personally and professionally find distasteful.  I would guess the issue most here have is they find it hypocritical (and for me it's quite amusing) that the mouthpieces seem to feel that in order to further whatever the "bleeding heart liberal cause du jour" is that they are holding near and dear to their heart at that moment, they feel it is necessary to limit other's rights and freedoms.


----------



## chanman (24 Oct 2005)

HDE said:
			
		

> If the student government at York is like most other campuses there's quite a high probability the vast majority of students they claim to be representing didn't bother voting in their elections.  I sometimes wonder if the bitterness shown by some/most "student leaders" is a function of knowing they don't actually matter much in the grand scheme of university affairs.
> It must be h*ll leading people who aren't following    ;D



I can vouch for that - this is the fourth year I've been at SFU (Simon Fraser), and the SFSS (Simon Fraser Student Society) has been constantly unable to meet their quorum at their annual general meeting.  This is a quorum of around 500 students out of a student base of roughly 20,000

furthermore, last year's student elections had an unprecedented turnout - because one of the issues on the ballot was a referendum item on a popular transit pass project.

Back to the original topic, I don't think the recruiters have had a problem, they were here along with CSIS and Customs like all the previous years.


----------



## visitor (24 Oct 2005)

MP00161   Thank you for your response.   I agree with you that it should be an issue that is   "religion free"   but I was confused when other posters brought it into the conversation   and I wondered whether that was a popular opinion or not.    And I am in 100% agreement with   you that   it is ironic the protesters want to muzzle those who disagree with them. To my mind, ideally,   the University is a   place for questioning, for debate, for testing long held beliefs against scrutiny.    I am dismayed that the Univ protesters do not realize that all views should be welcome for debate (but not in the form of screaming, name calling, etc.).      Now, my   stereotype of the military was the opposite of the Univ ideal: following orders, not questioning, etc. But here we have a situation where the students are muzzling and you, a member of CF is defending their right to free argument.      Go figure. Another stereotype bites the dust. 

Maybe the ideals of the Univ and the CF are paradoxically, not so far apart: the defence of and practice of   free speech.   And that everywhere there exists those who are   instead defensive of questioning or dissent.


----------



## meg (24 Oct 2005)

(Okay, guys, this is my first post on army.ca, so please be kind.)

This article really made me angry.  When I first read it in my own student newspaper (U of A), I sat in my room, by myself, and ranted for 15 minutes.  But really, is there anything that we could do?  I'm at university now, surrounded by idealists who manage to have little base in reality.  I want to try to tell them about the CF, but is there anything I can say?  I can quote Canada's victories and sacrifices, go on ad nauseum about how great our men were at Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, etc., Canadian soldiers are going above and beyond their actual duties to try to help people when they are deployed (re-building orphanages, digging wells, etc.), but it doesn't get through.  Protestors I've run up against are happy and willing to admit that their grandfathers are vets and deserve heaps and heaps of respect, but don't realise that soldiers/sailors/airmen today are the vets of tomorrow.  

It's frustrating for me.  I'm a hippie at heart, honestly.  But I try to get the facts.  Is there any way to go up against propoganda (and, ironically, the counter-culture's developmentally-challenged off-spring) and actually come out ahead?  Any thoughts?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Oct 2005)

meg said:
			
		

> (Okay, guys, this is my first post on army.ca, so please be kind.)
> 
> This article really made me angry.   When I first read it in my own student newspaper (U of A), I sat in my room, by myself, and ranted for 15 minutes.   But really, is there anything that we could do?   I'm at university now, surrounded by idealists who manage to have little base in reality.   I want to try to tell them about the CF, but is there anything I can say?   I can quote Canada's victories and sacrifices, go on ad nauseum about how great our men were at Vimy Ridge, Dieppe, etc., Canadian soldiers are going above and beyond their actual duties to try to help people when they are deployed (re-building orphanages, digging wells, etc.), but it doesn't get through.   Protestors I've run up against are happy and willing to admit that their grandfathers are vets and deserve heaps and heaps of respect, but don't realise that soldiers/sailors/airmen today are the vets of tomorrow.
> 
> It's frustrating for me.   I'm a hippie at heart, honestly.   But I try to get the facts.   Is there any way to go up against propoganda (and, ironically, the counter-culture's developmentally-challenged off-spring) and actually come out ahead?   Any thoughts?



Welcome to the board, first off.

Okay, so much for going easy. *L*

I couldn't think of a worse example of Canadian military "greatness" than Dieppe, frankly, no disrespect to the bravery of the men involved in JUBILEE.   Even among military historians there is little merit to what was "accomplished" there, the average citizen would have an even harder time seeing a reason for us to have gone there, at that time, in that fashion.   I know it is a knee-jerk thing to throw out well-used words and names, but it is time Canadians as a whole started to cleanse their minds of our military disasters and start to focus on the far more positive achievements - from Currie and Vimy, as you point out, to the Hitler Line, the Scheldt (where we opened the waterway to Antwerp after British 2nd Army dropped the ball), the Rhineland (where Canadian generals commanded more British troops than the British 8th Army had at El Alamein), and other more recent, perhaps even more peaceful, adventures around the world.

You may want to bring up more recent examples in future, and better ones.   The award of the Nobel Peace Prize for example is a good start; tends to close mouths in a hurry.   Why would an armed force get a _peace_ prize?   

Just suggestions; I certainly understand where you are coming from.  You illustrate very well an excellent point worth remembering - the Canadian Army can't be some dusty memory that gets trotted out on occasions like August 19th or July 1st; we all have a responsibility for keeping the discussion current and having the Army seem relevant to other Canadians - all Canadians.  Sadly, like many things, out of sight equals out of mind.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2005)

A rational person - including post-secondary students who are, one hopes, learning to be rational after the throes of adolescence and despite the temptations of majority age - should have no difficulty appreciating modern, voluntary, disciplined, ethical armed forces.

It is manifestly clear that societies and nations can go bad.  It isn't admiration for our culture and ideals that keeps nations run by thugs from crushing us under their boot heels and plundering the land.  Suppose Europe and North America disarmed.  What would you expect to follow?


----------



## career_radio-checker (25 Oct 2005)

http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/20051021/article.shtml?<!--5-->Opinion/2let1.html

Recruiters exploit Afghani and Canadians 
In response to recent letters to the editor which question the "Canada Out of Afghanistan!" "Recruiters Off Our Campus!" call of students at UBC and CAWOPI:

On July 14, 2005, Canadian Chief of Defense General Rick Hillier announced that 2,000 more troops would be on the ground in Afghanistan by February 2006. At the same press conference, he announced that the Canadian Forces, "...are not the public service of Canada...our job is to be able to kill people." Earlier in the year, the Canadian government announced that the Canadian military budget would be doubled, to $26.8 billion, and 8,000 more troops would be added to the Canadian Forces. 

Since the occupation began in 2001, conditions in Afghanistan have become deplorable. One in five Afghan children will not live to see the age of five. The average lifespan in Afghanistan has dropped by 4.5 years to 42 years of age. 80 per cent of the country lives below the poverty line. 

As Canada's presence in Afghanistan has increased, particularly in the Kandahar region, we see increasing oppression of Afghans. In reaction to this, attacks on Canadians in Afghanistan have increased. Within the last two weeks, three Canadian soldiers have been wounded, and the Canadian ambassador's residence in Kabul was attacked. 

Simultaneously, Canadians at home are increasingly under attack. The average post-secondary student graduates with $25,000 debt. The Canadian military, recognising the financial pressure students are under and looking to add 8,000 troops to its ranks, targets our campuses. The presence of recruiters on campus does not represent a free and fair choice of employment, but rather a capitalisation on the fact that we as students are under increasing financial pressure due to lack of funding for our education. Canadian military presence in Afghanistan does not benefit us as youth in Canada, and it certainly does not benefit the people of Afghanistan. Demanding "Canada out of Afghanistan" and "recruiters off our campus" is a demand for an end to the oppression of the people of Afghanistan and the exploitation of students in Canada.

-The AMS Coalition Against War on the People of Iraq and Internationally




"he announced that the Canadian Forces, "...are not the public service of Canada...our job is to be able to kill people." 

"the Canadian government announced that the Canadian military budget would be doubled, to $26.8 billion"

"The average post-secondary student graduates with $25,000 debt. The Canadian military, recognising the financial pressure students are under and looking to add 8,000 troops to its ranks, targets our campuses. The presence of recruiters on campus does not represent a free and fair choice of employment, but rather a capitalisation on the fact that we as students are under increasing financial pressure due to lack of funding for our education. Canadian military presence in Afghanistan does not benefit us as youth in Canada, and it certainly does not benefit the people of Afghanistan."

 :rofl: BWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHA"

Man this is fun. It seems information with these guys gets more contorted than a rumour spreading through a church group.

I've given up argueing with these guys  :argument:

from now on I'm going to just post them and have a chuckle every night.


----------



## Redbeaver (25 Oct 2005)

I'm a student at UBC and the vast retardness of many of the people around helps me keep my head down and study.  I like how people think a university education is their right, I'm incredibly lucky to be here and I'm not going to waste my chance by bothering with these wonderful student advocacy groups.


----------



## couchcommander (25 Oct 2005)

Hey Meg,

I am at U of A as well, have been posting here on and off for some time (usually really get going, then mid terms or finals will hit and it will stop for some time until I pick it up again). 

Re: going against the propaganda... if you're serious, write something too (or for, if you can) the gateway correcting the information. The nice thing about university is that it's a culture were you are more or less free to express your ideas (which means you are more than welcome to respectfully correct the fucking idiots). Of course this means the fucking idiots can also have their say, but that is their right, as it is yours. Usually the reasonable bystanders will side with the most reasonable argument (yours.... hopefully). Though this may not happen right away, you can always at least force them to consider the preconceived notions which are causing their fallacious beliefs.  

For myself, I just ensure that if I am involved in any situation where this type of thing is brought up (in class, conversation, parties, whatever), I strike quickly, forcefully, and at the heart of their illusions. Though it is only one or two people at a time (I am far too lazy to write something for the Gateway... hell I am too lazy to even hand in my papers on time   ) I feel it is the best I can do for now. 

Good Luck with Mid-Terms!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Oct 2005)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/20051021/article.shtml?<!--5-->Opinion/2let1.html
> 
> Recruiters exploit Afghani and Canadians
> 
> Since the occupation began in 2001, conditions in Afghanistan have become deplorable.




Anyone that has been there in the last five years can tell you this is an absoulute lie, with no basis in fact.



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> http://www.ubyssey.bc.ca/20051021/article.shtml?<!--5-->Opinion/2let1.html
> 
> One in five Afghan children will not live to see the age of five. The average lifespan in Afghanistan has dropped by 4.5 years to 42 years of age. 80 per cent of the country lives below the poverty line.




While the initial statement may be true about the children, their odds have increased since the coalition has moved into and helped Afgahnistan. Better than the one in three that would not survive before we got there.

As for the rest about the mean age of death, that's another load of politically spun bullshit that is neither provable, nor factual.

It's very easy for these political neophytes to toss out bullshit statistics, which have no study or basis, because it's almost equally hard for the pro side to prove the opposite. The only ones that are qualified to speak on the subject are the people that have been there and dealt with the situations and done studies as part of their work. So by that criteria, I say the coddled, spoon fed brats that have written most of the above crap, have neither witnessed nor experienced that of which they speak. I have, and they are liying sacks o' shyte.


----------



## chanman (25 Oct 2005)

Redbeaver said:
			
		

> I'm a student at UBC and the vast retardness of many of the people around helps me keep my head down and study.  I like how people think a university education is their right, I'm incredibly lucky to be here and I'm not going to waste my chance by bothering with these wonderful student advocacy groups.



You'd have had to be good too, I would hope.  It's lower now, but a few year ago, the entrance requirements gave some of my grad class a sharp wake-up call.

Mentioning universities in this thread must be setting off search results, seems several several university students (me included) have made our first post here


----------



## career_radio-checker (26 Oct 2005)

from the manitoban online 

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/2005-2006/1026/1016.toban.talkback.php

Toban talkback
Military recruiting on campus
CARSON JEREMA, STAFF
The existence of military recruiters on campus has generated a lot of discussion among many Canadian universities. Late last month at York University, military recruiters who were present at a career fair were forced off campus. According to the Excalibur, York University's student newspaper, protesting students were chanting "Army out of Afghanistan, Army out of York." The students felt that the recruiters were unjustifiably impeding on student space.
At the University of British Columbia (UBC), the Coalition against War on the people of Iraq and Internationally organized a petition to ban military recruiters from UBC and other B.C. universities. Students at other schools such as The University of Guelph have also been debating the issue of recruitment on campus. Further, some university newspapers boycott military advertisement. 

Some opponents of recruitment on campus, such as members of the York Federation of Students, argue that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and Haiti is unjustified. The Coalition against the War on the people of Iraq and Internationally questions the ethics of offering students money to pay for tuition in exchange for military service. 

However, as reported by the Ubyssey, the U.B.C's student newspaper, few students will be sent to Afghanistan. 

While the debate surrounding the presence of the military at career fairs has not been explicit at the University of Manitoba, the Manitoban wanted to know what some of the student body had to say on the issue. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theo Jerrett-Enns, University 1 
 What are your thoughts on military recruitment on campus, or military recruitment directed at students? 

It's really up to the student whether or not they're going to pay attention to it. It's not that bad of an idea. It's totally up to the students whether they pay attention to it or not. They shouldn't really mind it being in a career fair. [The military] is definitely a plausible place to go. It's definitely a big part of Canada. There is definitely a huge amount of money and a huge amount of resources for it. It's not like it is a bad thing at all. 

So would you say that a career in the armed forces is a legitimate career choice? 

Yeah. Definitely. 

Do you find Canada's military to be respectable? 

Yeah, I think so, especially with the new direction that the Canadian military has gone into. We've started to go a lot more into peacekeeping and there has been less combative military work. The whole DART organization and the rescue efforts that our military does, rather than heading into combat situations. 

With that being said, do you feel that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, where the military is involved in combat situations, is justified? 

I think it is quite hard since we are in such a grey area, [Afghanistan's] transitioning from such a war-torn past to a peacekeeping [situation], it has been really hard. If we dropped out entirely, there would be a lot of talk about how Canada's not really doing anything. I think authorities don't know what to do really. They have these two [options] of whether to fight or to stop fighting, and there's people that are for both sides. It is hard to find a balance between the two. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fan Hong, English as a Second language program
 What are your thoughts on military recruitment on campus? 

In my country (Taiwan) we also have soldiers in campuses and high schools. So I think it is okay, I don't feel threatened. 

So, do you see the military as a legitimate career choice? 

Yeah. 

Do you think that Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is justified? 

I don't like it. 

Could you expand? 

I think we need a military just to defend our own country. When you send your soldiers to another country, although you have your own opinion, it is not good. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sean McGuinty, First-year law
 What are your thoughts on military recruitment on campus? 

I think it's all right. When I did my undergraduate degree I joined the reserves, and they paid my tuition and I was able to graduate without any debt or anything. So I think it was a good thing. I never really had to do anything dangerous. 

What do you think of the ads in the washrooms? 

I pretty much just ignore them. 

So do you see the military as a legitimate career choice? 

I wouldn't want to do it myself. It's a really difficult career, and it's a huge change in lifestyle of what other people would lead. You get sent all over the world. You don't really have much choice for your life, but I think it is a legitimate career. I've got a lot of friends who are still in the army. 

Do you find Canada's military to be respectable? 

Oh yeah. 

Do you think Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is justified? 

That's a difficult question. I think the way it's being done is pretty bad. I'm not sure if they're being helpful or if they are just aggravating the situation, having all these foreign soldiers there. But I can kind of understand the justification for it. So I don't have an opinion. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robin Tarrant, First-year engineering
 What are thoughts on military recruitment on campus? 

It kind of makes it seem like a job. It is kind of glorifying it and saying, "oh, we'll give you money if you come fight for us." 

Do you see the military as a legitimate career choice? 

I think it is more of a short-term option instead of a long term one, because lots of people . . . are going into the military to pay for their schooling. I think the [military] is trying to persuade people to join because of that reason. 

What are your thoughts on military ads? 

I haven't really seen any. 

Do you think Canada's military is respectable? 

I've never really had any complaints. The only person I've met from the military was in the American military. 

Do you think Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is justified? 

No, it isn't. 

Could you expand on why? 

I just don't see how the issue has affected us yet. I don't think we should be there. It isn't really affecting us now and we're just doing it to make the United States happy. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Rees, First-year law
 What are your thoughts on military recruitment on campus, when they come for career fair days, or [other times]? 

I think if everyone else is allowed then they should be allowed just the same as everybody else. 

What do you think of the ads on campus in the washrooms? 

Well, I think they're lame. But then I don't like the army, so if you thought that was cool then you could do it if you wanted. 

Would a career in the military be a legitimate choice? 

Yeah? 

Do you find Canada's military to be respectable? 

No, I don't like the military at all. I think it is a legitimate career . . . but it is not respectable enough for me to go into. But if someone thinks that it is good enough for themselves, then everybody's got to make their own choices. 

Why wouldn't you join the military? 

Because I'm not really down with killing people - that's one part of it. Another part of it is they don't really respect soldiers very much . . . . I don't think they respect people enough. And so I wouldn't want to be disrespected by them. They tell you where to live, and they do all these other things that I'm not down with, but if you're okay with that stuff then be my guest. 

Do you find Canada's involvement in Afghanistan to be justified? 

No, I'm against that, too. 

And why? 

I'm against killing civilians, and I think that's sort of what they're doing. Also, I feel that we went to Afghanistan so that we could say we're not going to Iraq. So by supporting people who are going to Iraq [by being in Afghanistan] you are in the same way [supporting] going to Iraq. 


Ahhhhhhhh finally...the voice of the masses


----------



## Zarathustra (26 Oct 2005)

Yeah, seems like the student leaders are out of sync with their followers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2005)

>The presence of recruiters on campus does not represent a free and fair choice of employment, but rather a capitalisation on the fact that we as students are under increasing financial pressure due to lack of funding for our education.

Damn, that's an amusing sentence.

1) If you're in post-secondary education with the hope of improving your job prospects, then why should I pay to help you make more money?

2) If you're in post-secondary education because you're a perpetual student who prefers being a tourist in life, why should I pay to help keep you there?

No matter which way it goes, there's no reason others should pay.  And, for those who intend to work, presumably recruiters - of all types, representing public and private interests - are to be appreciated for coming to campus and concentrating at job fairs rather than forcing the students to go out and find the prospective employers.

Simpletons.


----------



## Slim (26 Oct 2005)

'The leaders of tomorrow' seem to be just as ignorant as the ones we have now...


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2005)

Well, I wrote to the Ubyssey and received this reply back:   (I guess they are getting quite tired of this subject.)



> Hi George,
> 
> Thank you for your letter, unfortunately, I have decided to stop
> running any more letters regarding CAWOPI. I understand the irony of
> ...


----------



## Zarathustra (28 Oct 2005)

That's a pretty good letter George. You should forward it to CAWOPI. 
http://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/cawopi/index.htm


----------



## In the light of things (28 Oct 2005)

> I hate those ******* hippies they make me angry, smoking pot and judging the people that protect there country....



Don't make fun of the mentally retarded.


----------



## couchcommander (28 Oct 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Bunch of ignorant bloody socialists.



HEY!  :threat:

Nothing wrong with being socialist, just these particular people seem have a severe lack of brain cells.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2005)

Although the University is supposed to be a place of intellectual debate, I am curious as to how many letters, posters. speeches etc. that get aired on the University campus for "our" position. Not too many, I'll wager.

The "loony left" has all the channels of communication at the "U", and dissent can be silenced by the simple expedient of binning letters to the editor. All I can say is "[size=10pt]*Thank You Mike!*[/size]" 

At least there is one place to speak out.


----------



## Slim (28 Oct 2005)

Allot of recruiting for ALL KINDS OF ORGANIZATIONS happens on campuses these days. Itsa a tradition that goes back to when centres of learning all began!

A good wya for the other saide to MAKE SURE that the leaders of tomorrow are influenced there way only!

think about it...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2005)

Cortesy of Instapundit (Oct 25,2005), here is a fabulous reply to use next time you run into one of these wankers:

http://www.instapundit.com/



> GOOD NEWS FROM THE TROOPS: The Mudville Gazette has articles on both troop recruitment and troop retention. Greyhawk particularly likes this explanation given by a soldier for why* he reenlisted: ..."because as I look around at the state of this nation and see all of the weak little pampered candy-asses that are whining about this or protesting that, I'd be afraid to leave the fate of this nation entirely up to them."*



BZ troop!


----------



## GDawg (29 Oct 2005)

I believe that the folks at York are trying to spread this movement.
I had a meeting with an official at a College here in Calgary regarding recruiting, and she handed me a photocopy of the article and we discussed this for a few minutes.I pointed out that my name and contact info have appeared in a handful of newsprint and radio interviews at U of C, MRC, and SAIT in recent months and I have not had a single call or e-mail expressing a negative view, nor have I had anyone approach me regarding this while on any campus in uniform.
 Either I caught the hippies napping or this is a non-issue in Calgary.


----------



## Slim (29 Oct 2005)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Either I caught the hippies napping or this is a non-issue in Calgary.



Lets hope that the west can remain free of this disease.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Oct 2005)

I believe it has, I have visited the U of A library and labs on a few occasions while still in uniform, and have only been approached by civvies who were interested in joining, or wondered why my hat was purple. Good feelings all around at the home of the Bears!


----------



## couchcommander (29 Oct 2005)

At the U of A the 20th Century Warfare courses, and World War II are always filled to capacity with massive waiting lists. You get your usual group of hippies (AP!RG, etc.), but they usually just keep to having their vegetarian luncheons with david suzuki or whatever. 

And though the majority of the articles published in the student newspaper are indeed leftist, you do get your fair share of right wing views (both good and bad).


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2005)

My expriences here in the Promised Land correspond with GO!!!'s. Nuthin' but love.

And why *is* your hat purple?


----------



## GO!!! (29 Oct 2005)

The correct term for it is PHOP, the acronym for Purple Hat Of Power, and it denotes those of us who have conquered fear.  

It is also the official headdress for the Parachute Coys. 

I choose to subscribe to the first sentance.  

<for those of you who are still wondering - this was an attempt at humour>


----------



## Britney Spears (29 Oct 2005)

Purple? You mean BURGUNDY, right? That's what _The Maple Leaf_ calls it.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Oct 2005)

Actually, if you really want to split hairs, it is Maroon (insert cool maroon color here).

I would reccomend against believing anything printed in the Maple Leaf, unless you wrote it (they take submissions)

PS - you are the real Britney Spears - right? 

"What manner of men are these who wear the maroon beret?
They are firstly, all volunteers and are then toughened by hard physical training.  As a result they have that infectious optimism and that offensive eagerness which comes from physical well being.  They have jumped from the air and by doing so have conquered fear.

Their duty lies in the van of battle; they are proud of their honour and have never failed in any task.  They have the highest standards in all things whether it be skills in battle or smartness in execution of all peacetime duties.

They have shown themselves to be as tenacious and determined in defence as they are courageous in attack.  They are in fact, men apart.

Every Man an Emperor."

Field Marshall the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.  

If Monty said it, it must be true!


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Oct 2005)

"Claret" is a much nicer sounding name.  However, Monty rulez, yo.


----------



## Britney Spears (29 Oct 2005)

> Actually, if you really want to split hairs, it is Maroon (insert cool maroon color here).



Really? You mean like how it's labelled as such in the dropdown menu? 


Well, folks, I'll be here all week, but I don't know if GO!!! will be here with me to explain all my jokes for you.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Really? You mean like how it's labelled as such in the dropdown menu?
> 
> 
> Well, folks, I'll be here all week, but I don't know if GO!!! will be here with me to explain all my jokes for you.


aahh, give 'im a break, he's on cool meds. Prob'ly sitting up in bunk, typing furiously on a keyboard, wearing Scooby Doo pajamas, and a purple beret.


----------



## Danjanou (29 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> aahh, give 'im a break, he's on cool meds. Prob'ly sitting up in bunk, typing furiously on a keyboard, wearing Scooby Doo pajamas, and a purple beret.



Now listen Prada boy. From now on your posts should have a warning label. I just spewed ice cream all over my keyboard at the image of Go in scobby do jammies and a maroon beret.

we now return you to your regular scheduled thread.


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> aahh, give 'im a break, he's on cool meds. Prob'ly sitting up in bunk, typing furiously on a keyboard, wearing Scooby Doo pajamas, and a purple beret.


Don't all you guys who wear the PHOP vigoursly devour little orange airborne smarties? (and I also hear that you are all impartial to scooby-doo jammies!!)


----------



## paracowboy (30 Oct 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Don't all you guys who wear the PHOP vigoursly devour little orange airborne smarties?


yup. Also little white ones, little green ones, and sometimes little ones shaped like houses.  :



> (and I also hear that you are all impartial to scooby-doo jammies!!)


I actually used to wear Scooby Doo jammie bottoms for PT, with my Royal blue T-shirt. Also, a Loony Tunes fleece top. Sarn't-Major loved it.


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> and sometimes little ones shaped like houses.   :


These I have had  


			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> I actually used to wear Scooby Doo jammie bottoms for PT, with my Royal blue T-shirt. Also, a Loony Tunes fleece top. Sarn't-Major loved it.


I'll stick to my field certified flannel COWS !!  ;D


----------



## GO!!! (30 Oct 2005)

Lest I destroy your (mis) conceptions, 

I wake up in the morning, crack of dawn, and after putting on my orthropedic appliances, grab my dog by the cadpat collar and put her out for relief, before relieving my (ahem) great pillar of manhood at the facilities. I then touch up my own tattoos with india ink and a machete, prior to shaving with said weapon. 

Now it's time for brekkie. I prefer beans and wieners, but sausage and hash browns will do. Plus I get the gum for stickum on my booby traps that I keep around the house in case the man shows up. Now it's time for medication. Nothing like a shot glass filled with percocet, followed by a shot from my friend Jim, following which, we both yell HOOAH! After sorting a few people out on army.ca (cough, cough) in my half cut state, I remember to let the dog in, and we both have a few beers while watching Apocalypse now or a Stanley Kubrick flick. 

After the morning buzz has worn off, I crack open a lunch ration, and sit in the living room cleaning my properly registered and liscensed collectors items with a few more beers. I sign on to army.ca again and prune all of the hate mail from reservists out of my mailbox - if only I remembered writing the stuff in the morning.... and try to explain to someone why they should'nt run 25 miles like they could when they were 16 if they hav'ent exercised in two decades. Springroll tells them to go on a doughnut and timmies diet because it worked for her. I flame her and log off and watch Thin Red Line and season two of the Trailer Park Boys.

At this point I take the evening battery of pills and watch the Simpsons for 2 hours straight, while Domestic 9er tells me that "i'm lucky - it could have been worse" and I respond "you're right, I could have gotten married sooner". So I'm sleeping on the hide-a-bed, with the dog in the CADPAT collar laptop on lap, thinking that going back to work wont be so bad at all. 

I wear an airborne t-shirt and my marine corps shorts. Maroon beret is not required because we have very comfortable para coy hats.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Oct 2005)

hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Slim (30 Oct 2005)

BBBBWWWWWWWwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,haaaaaaaaaaaahaaaa...ha

(Cough,gasp,cough, deep breath..Slowly, slowly...ahh there...)

Go...I laughed so F*****G hard reading that post I darn near vomited chicken-Ceaser salad (trying to loose weight the healthy way) all over the expensive flashing stuff at work just now. :blotto:

I most sincerely apologize for the edit but wanted to do it nicely before some other mod (with no sense of haha - Monkhouse maybe ;D got to it)

My god what a hilarious post...

Cheers Bro

Mend fast...Sound like you're at more risk at home than doing a 30,000 foot swan dive... 

Slim


----------



## armyvern (30 Oct 2005)

Well, ya see then GO!! these are not quite mis-conceptions....
I is married to one of those who prefers the aforementioned 30 000 ft swan dive. It is the slight roll when hitting his target that usually sends him to orthopedic heaven for a rest. Either that or he is just plain numpty (and I am constantly debating which it is because after 6400 you'd think he'd have er down by now..). I am beyond the point of telling him that his IQ is beginning to resemble his MOC...but never the less he just calls 911 to help (that would be me- a Sup Tech) because if he ever called me 9erD, he'd be on the roll-away permanently. Our dog also comes eqiuiped with highly stealth like cadpat collar and leash and considers himself to be the ultimate 60 lb lap-dog... I think he learns this sucking-up up behaviour from 'the man' of the house.
   I do make him beans and weiners on his 'off-days' or his 'ouch-days' because he freakin whines worse than a girl if I don't 'baby' him while he mopes sadly around the domestic residence in his "Sponge Bob" accoutrements and maroon t-shirt and what a god-awful sight to see that is. Usually after a couple of hours, I have to leave to go to work because the whining about well if you really looked after me...I'd feel sooooo much better. Yeah right. I'll go to the Sgts Mess...see him about midnight when the taxi rolls me in the back door. And he'll still be lying there whining about his ails (while he drinks his ales) with the freaking little bits of tissue affixed to all the wounds on his face from the fight with the razor (or, perhaps he too has a machete stashed in the master bath??) and it just makes me want to turn around and go back to the mess. 
But usually the dawg, as it is his and his alone, will pounce upon me, causing me to collapse under it's weight while 9er yells "yes get her Shadow...she is so mean to daddy she should come kiss daddy and sponge bob better." No. I don't think so because Sponge Bob is situated on his boxers remember and the very last thing I want to do is cause more injury to one of Canada's finest. This would only lead to his prolonged whining and my need to tend to him more often.... I have learned myself to love going to work during his times of need. You see Para wears the cartoons, so does mine, and you spend two hours watching them...so the myth is not dispelled...only further substantiated because there is always cartoons involved somehow, because you are all little boys at heart. 
And the great pillar of manhood myth is unsubstantiated by jump-wives everywhere!!! Legends unto your own minds boys...
But please... keep trying to convince us!! It makes for an interesting area of conversation at work for us gals     ;D


----------



## paracowboy (30 Oct 2005)

The circle is now complete, when last we met you were but the learner, now you have become the master.

Glad I got to read it before the edit.


----------



## Slim (30 Oct 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> Glad I got to read it before the edit.



Again I apologize for the edit...But, sadely, some things must be... :'(


----------



## TCBF (31 Oct 2005)

That's what I get for getting roped into that friggin BTE.  I missed the pre-edit.

Balls.

Tom


----------



## Infanteer (31 Oct 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Lest I destroy your (mis) conceptions



Eff me; -THAT- was funny.

 :rofl:


----------



## 3rd Herd (5 Nov 2005)

Thanks for helping me decide where to do my MA. Has anyone thought about starting a survey/poll about conditions in institutes of higher learning vis via current military/x-military. To add to the ones already posted here-UVic was pretty good with my student peers. A couple of the academic experts had to much book time and not enough field time. I remember with one class after two weeks of academic drivel I showed up early one day with a couple of photo albums, which I left by the entrance into the classroom-point match. It was also nice to be able to cite one's self as a source in the bib of a couple of papers. Comment I most heard was "What do you mean you have your paper done already" to which I usually replied "You know I am an x-grunt" and a head would nod, " well one of the first things you learn in the military is to do it right the first time, on time and yes Virgina there are 24 hrs that can be used in a day." Ended up being the President of one of the Student Unions and for the most part was treated with alot of admiration and respect. And yes all three courses offered either about the military or war had/have wait lists a mile long. Heck I must have made such a good impression in that I was invited back to several faculties as a expert guest lecturer, there goes my reputation. 

PS There are alot of Geman WW2 vets who will swear the that the funny colored berret is RED


----------



## HDE (10 Nov 2005)

Here at U of Guelph one of the "Student Union" executive tried to slip a new policy on who could/couldn't recruit on campus past the students he claims to represent.  Bad idea!  Now he's whining that he believes in democracy, they could have approached him with their concerns, etc, etc.  It was pointed out, several times, that the time to consult is before policies are formulated, not after.  It was cool watching the so-called student leader have the folks give him a public thrashing in the student media  The plan now is to have some sort of goofy referendum, but only after the student government provides "education" on the issue and explains what the correct vote is. The real irony is that this whole thing means p*ss all in terms of what the University will or won't do.


----------



## TCBF (10 Nov 2005)

Good training for all of the future bureaucrats of our nation.

Tom


----------



## career_radio-checker (11 Nov 2005)

HDE said:
			
		

> The real irony is that this whole thing means p*ss all in terms of what the University will or won't do.



 :rofl: HA HA HA Oh Gawd.... (pause to clean computer screen of coffee spit)  

That's what is so funny about this entire thread. These student groups think they have all the power but after all the effort, it is still the Administration that has the final say in everything because: a) they are in their right mind b) handle the money c) are highly educated with that oh so good learning tool 'experience'.


----------



## garb811 (11 Nov 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I don't support the CSA or any of their activities anymore (I quit Safewalk because its an arm of the CSA) because of their anti-military, anti-everything and socialist stance. All things I hate.



You were doing something worthwhile for the community as a whole yet you quit, apparently to make a hollow political statement against the CSA.  So following this train of thought, if you don't support the policies of the government and find that you even hate some of the initiatives such as gun control, national daycare programme, Kyoto etc, you're going to quit the militia because it is an arm of the federal government?


----------



## The_Falcon (11 Nov 2005)

HDE said:
			
		

> Here at U of Guelph one of the "Student Union" executive tried to slip a new policy on who could/couldn't recruit on campus past the students he claims to represent.   Bad idea!   Now he's whining that he believes in democracy, they could have approached him with their concerns, etc, etc.   It was pointed out, several times, that the time to consult is before policies are formulated, not after.   It was cool watching the so-called student leader have the folks give him a public thrashing in the student media   The plan now is to have some sort of goofy referendum, but only after the student government provides "education" on the issue and explains what the correct vote is. The real irony is that this whole thing means p*ss all in terms of what the University will or won't do.



Looks like he took a page from Toronto City Councillor Howard Moscoe's book on ethics and political goverance.


----------



## pbi (11 Nov 2005)

Career radio checker: what a sad picture of inarticulate, ill-informed people that post displays. Where do these people get their information from?

Cheers


----------



## career_radio-checker (12 Nov 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Where do these people get their information from?
> 
> Cheers



A good question and one that I owe Slim for --- ohh close to a month now (sorry slim). Of course there are thousands of peace websites out there but I think strictly Canadian based groups that protest the Canadian Forces, have a relation to this thread.

Here are a few of the more established groups across Canada:
http://www.mawovancouver.org/ 
http://www.homesnotbombs.ca/ 
http://www.nowar-paix.ca/ 
http://www.yayacanada.com/ 
http://www.ottawagrans.net/ 
http://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/cawopi/ 
http://stopwar.ca/
Plus, there are loads of troublemaking anarchist groups but since most don't even attempt to bring an argument forward like some of these other groups do, they are not worth my time.

As many people have been posting articles from university newspapers; here's a great link:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/relsites/collnews.html

These ones are for Slim. They have to do with JTF2
http://members.shaw.ca/dpugliese1/canadas_secret_commandos/cscindex.htm
http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/08032002/n1.shtml


----------



## career_radio-checker (13 Nov 2005)

Oh deer, they're at it again.
from:
http://www.gazette.uwo.ca/article.cfm?section=FrontPage&articleID=466&month=11&day=10&year=2005

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD... but Canadian Armed Forces soldiers from London's Wolseley Barracks rolled into the UCC for a display honouring the "Year of the Soldier" as part of this week's Remembrance Day ceremonies. 


York, Guelph drive off army
Guelph policy to ban Canadian Armed Forces from on-campus recruiting
By: Ian Denomme 

With Remembrance Day on Friday, this is generally a time to honour Canadian war veterans, and take pride in the Canadian military. But two Ontario universities appear to be doing the opposite.

Last week at York University, a group of students confronted the Canadian Armed Forces (there to recruit students for jobs), driving them off campus. Meanwhile, the University of Guelph's student council, the Central Student Association, is drafting a policy that would ban military recruiters from campus, as well as oppose any research done on campus that would benefit military organizations.

"We don't think a university campus is the right venue for the military to be recruiting," said CSA communications commissioner Hannah Draper. "We have a code of conduct around suppliers and which employers and recruiters we want on campus."

The CSA's "Policy Against the Militarization of Research" also says, 'The CSA opposes military research and research on behalf of military organizations at Canadian universities. Research that benefits military-related organizations involved in, or closely tied to, war crimes will be opposed by and campaigned around by the CSA.'

However, Draper said there has not been any objection to Remembrance Day ceremonies, and the CSA will be participating in events on Friday.

York Federation of Students president Omari Mason said the students were not happy with military policies, and students should have a right to debate or challenge anything on campus, as long as it's peaceful.

Here at Western, University Students' Council president Ryan Dunn said the USC has no such policy and does not intend to implement one any time soon.

"We know that students are grown up enough to decide what they want to do with their futures," he said. "Military recruitment just adds another life choice. It's the same as any other corporation."

The Canadian Armed Forces rely heavily on university recruiting because of a policy that new officers must be in a program leading to a degree.

"Because of increases in technology, and because the average soldier is more aware of current events than in the past, universities have become an important recruiting ground," said Canadian Armed Forces Captain Scott Smith.

The Canadian Armed Forces have a display in the University Community Centre atrium today, but are not there to recruit.

"It's mainly a commemoration of the year of the soldier, and their role in Canadian history," Capt. Smith said. "Western really understands that role in history. In University College there is a long list of [Western students] who served in World War I."

In light of what has taken place at York and Guelph and the contrasting views at Western, the question of the military's role is often asked.

"The main focus of Canada's Armed Forces is one: the security of Canada, and two: providing resources to assist the community of nations to improve stability around the world," Capt. Smith said


----------



## GO!!! (13 Nov 2005)

Well, I sure hope a moral and righteous corporation like KBR/Halliburton, Exxon or Colt gets the CF spot at the Career fair...   :

Hopefully that will appease the president of the Student Union "Omari"   

Fifth columnist subversion anyone?


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2005)

Piss in the waterfall anyways. Not going to make a difference but it still feels good


----------



## paracowboy (15 Nov 2005)

if you wiggle back and forth really fast, it makes cool patterns, too!


----------



## TCBF (15 Nov 2005)

Practice in the snow.

Tom


----------



## armyvern (15 Nov 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I tried it in the shower today, but all I did was pee all over myself.


Me too!!  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Nov 2005)

Any of you flower power guys want a coloured snowcone? My friend Tom helped me make it.....


----------



## SgtBobCen (16 Nov 2005)

It is unfortunate that these people are in a place of higher learning and cannot understand the concept that each has a right to exist and co-exist.  Even if the basic political beliefs are different.  I would not hesitate to guess that the leaders of these student groups are here in Canada on a student visa, and at the end of their studies they will "skip" as it were and become lost in a system, that we defend and they take advantage of.


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2005)

"Any of you flower power guys want a coloured snowcone? My friend Tom helped me make it....."

- Not Me! My hands were in my pockets the whole time! I was ten feet away!

"... on a student visa, and at the end of their studies they will "skip" as it were and become lost in a system, that we defend and they take advantage of."

- Which they then want to change to mirror the country they left in the first place.  God help us.

Tom


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2005)

One thing which should be pointed out is the fact that the University and the students are rtecipients of abundent amounts of Federal money. DND is simply another arm of the Federal government, so perhaps we should take a "One for all and all for one attitude": If they don't want one representative of the Federal Government on campus, then "ALL" federal representation (including the money) goes as well. 

Since these "Flower Children" get their educations subsidized to something like 60% from tax dollars, they can have their opinions if they are willing to pay for them in cold cash. I am willing to bet a very great deal you won't find many takers. They will talk the talk, but will they walk the walk?


----------



## GO!!! (16 Nov 2005)

Of course, we could absolve the feds of any funding for that university with very little problem at all!

Simply tell them that the money that supports their school is derived from the clear cutting of BC forests to build ski hills, and filthy, stinking petroleum revenue from Alberta. 

They would cut themselves off the federal money in a fit of moral outrage, and their traitorous insititution would raise tuition to cover it. It would then wither and die as they succumbed to market forces and went elsewhere!


----------



## Gunner (16 Nov 2005)

More York University comments:



> How I learned to stop worrying and love the YFS
> Written by Francois Villeneuve - Technology Editor
> Wednesday, 16 November 2005
> 
> ...



http://www.excal.on.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1130&Itemid=2

The CCPA Monitor he quotes is the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives...hardly an unbiased viewpoint.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=main&call=FBA87762


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Nov 2005)

> the Canadian Forces are mostly involved in UN-sponsored "Blue Helmet" do-good missions, right?



Apparently, higher education today does not involve watching the news...

After making one good point (the point about the military not deciding its missions), he goes on to shoot himself in the foot...

Then again, I tend not to pay much attention to the Starbucks junior revolutionary set.    :boring:


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

remember Gentle-beings: This, we defend.
 :


----------



## TCBF (16 Nov 2005)

"Then again, I tend not to pay much attention to the Starbucks junior revolutionary set." -TR

Yup.  I am fitting more and more into the electric wheelchair to Timmies to read the Edmonton Sun.

Tom


----------



## Slim (16 Nov 2005)

Throat-punch, throat-punch, throat-punch, throat-punch, throat-pu...

Evidently one doesn't really learn anything usefull at university after all...Seems like an awful lot of money to spend on being force-fed socialist crap from a bunch of 60 year old bearded hippies who pine for the old days.

...And then there's the student union...


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Nov 2005)

What an idiot - as someone pointed out he quite effectively shot himself in the proverbial foot. As it is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and such idiots are not, in my experience, the majority at university. My membership in the Canadian Forces has always evoked curiousity, more than anything else, from fellow students and I'm at Concordia, so I would imagine such sentiments are more common at less political universities. 

Let the stereotypical "screw the system" hippie idiots keep spewing their tripe. Just comfort yourselves in the knowledge that they, too, will die one day. 



> Evidently one doesn't really learn anything usefull at university after all...Seems like an awful lot of money to spend on being force-fed socialist crap from a bunch of 60 year old bearded hippies who pine for the old days.



I wouldn't take this as a measure of university's utility or primary function. We shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. There will always be idiots in all areas of society but that shouldn't be taken as the sole measure of the area's quality, utility, or composition.


----------



## Gunner (16 Nov 2005)

> In defence of anti-imperialist action
> Written by Saeed Osman - Contributor
> Wednesday, 16 November 2005
> 
> ...



Another one.  I missed it during the first go around.


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

oh, well. I will still continue to do everything in my power to train for, fight for, and die for, dumbasses like this to continue to spew their canine excrement any time they so choose.
And bask in the warm glow that my smugness gives me for doing it.  
I win. ;D


----------



## Slim (17 Nov 2005)

> I ask you to ignore the propaganda being opposed by others and join students in forcing the military off campus, for the sake of the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and all the other occupied countries in the world



No doubt the Taliban just love this guy...If they're not already bankrolling the POS.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (17 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> As it is, the squeaky wheel gets the oil and such idiots are not, in my experience, the majority at university. My membership in the Canadian Forces has always evoked curiousity, more than anything else, from fellow students



Myself as well, and I go to U of T.  :-[

It is, however, quite amusing to sit through political science tutorials and listen to people speechify about things they know little about. Case in point: the other day we were discussing how the world has changed after 9/11, and someone eloquently mentioned how the United States has increased security, but Canada hasn't had to, because we are peaceful and would never fight anyone. Took a while for me to stop giggling to myself.


----------



## COBRA-6 (17 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> oh, well. I will still continue to do everything in my power to train for, fight for, and die for, dumbasses like this to continue to spew their canine excrement any time they so choose.
> And bask in the warm glow that my smugness gives me for doing it.
> I win. ;D



That's the right idea!

"No point arguing with an idiot, they'll just drag you down to their level, and beat you through experience..."


----------



## TCBF (17 Nov 2005)

My email to the editor of the excal:

Mr Villeneuve wrote that "In 1992-93, participation in UN
missions accounted for 92.7 per cent of Canadian Military
spending."   He is incorrect.   In 1992, we still had 4CMBG
and 1 CAD in Europe.   We began downsizing them in 1992 (the
year I was posted back from Lahr, Germany) and eventually
pulled all 24,000 Canadians (military and civilian) from
Lahr and Baden.   That contribution alone accounted for one
sixth of our Defence budget.   At the time, out of close to
90,000 Regular Force members, only 500 or so in Cyprus,
another few hundred in the Golan, and a few other dozen
scattered around the globe were engaged in classic
peacekeeping duties.   The largest and longest of those
missions - Cyprus - was actually intended to keep two NATO
members (Greece and Turkey) from fighting.   This helped
secure the southern flank of NATO (Turkey had thousands of
troops along it's border with the USSR). 

 In fact, our history as a nation of peacekeepers is a myth
- a big, fat, shining lie.   Whether you measure military
effort in money spent, troops sent or lives lost ,
peacekeeping falls far down the scale of effort.   In
twenty-nine years of Regular Force service, I have spent a
mere six months wearing a Blue Beret, and that was in
Cyprus.   The headress I wore in Germany, Bosnia and
Afghanistan may not have been as colourful, but the missions
accomplished in those places bought Canada a place at the
table.   Soldiers bent under eighty pound rucksacks in the
mountains of Afghanistan mean our allies listen to us a
little, and are probably the only reason they still listen
to us at all. 

 Oh, and please:   no cries demanding respect for those
killed on our peacekeeping missions - I know your only
concern for them is as a statistic.   In any case, we also
lost over one hundred Sabre jet fighter pilots in only eight
of the years in Europe flying for NATO - you should
acknowledge their sacrifice as well, should you not? 

   Since you have been so easily fooled by all of the
propaganda pushing the myth of peacekeeping, you might want
to ask what else they have lied to you about.

(EDIT: removed name, addy, tel no.)


----------



## Peace (17 Nov 2005)

Yes, I have noticed that too.  I've also noticed that in general Older people have an "understanding" of what we are about and a general respect for the things we give up. 

The thing I believe may be the reason behind the students and us is Field of mental vision.  Blue collar folks like us tend to have in most cases a well generated array of information they have gathered over time. Whilst students on the other hand tend to be more educated but only in specific areas to their interest.  This means that they can be quite knowledgeable in some areas but because of this they have the "rose coloured glasses" effect.

In the end, people will have their views and seek to defend their version of reality. In my case particular I have done some research into the things that military opposition would use to back their statements and my position has not changed on Military funding, uses and future possibilities.

Earlier it was said in the analogy about insurance the fact that Canadians no nothing about living in fear of death, starvation, oppression and all of the other things that we fight against. This is completely correct. Notice how when we are getting bashed the argument that we are a foreign oppressing power ( same argument against the states) seems to be one of the hot topics.  Seems that we should let the country in question sort themselves out....  But how can they do that id anyone who speaks out is murdered? How can their be democracy and free religion in such a state?  There comes a time where a situation has deteriorated into disarray and no chance of return. THAT is when we come in. Canada does NOT go where its not needed. {The problems with being able to do that job because of political red tape is another conversation, so with those issues aside.}

If I was them I would want someone like Canada to come and help me. Simple as that.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Nov 2005)

Cpl Bloggins said:
			
		

> Myself as well, and I go to U of T.  :-[
> 
> It is, however, quite amusing to sit through political science tutorials and listen to people speechify about things they know little about. Case in point: the other day we were discussing how the world has changed after 9/11, and someone eloquently mentioned how the United States has increased security, but Canada hasn't had to, because we are peaceful and would never fight anyone. Took a while for me to stop giggling to myself.



I find it's usually the intellectually deficient and first-year students that try to proselytize in class. Normative arguments, especially those with little foundation, are usually little more than an embarassment to the one making them in class. 

The overwhelming majority of professors I've had have shot down attempts at normative preaching before they get beyond the first sentence. Normativity is fine for pub conversations, but it has little place in undergrad poli sci courses. The whole point is that we're supposed to be getting a grounding in the theories and methodology of the field, not getting tied down in "good/bad" debates which, though the most interesting, are usually the least productive or edifying.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

Peace said:
			
		

> Notice how when we are getting bashed the argument that we are a foreign oppressing power ( same argument against the states) seems to be one of the hot topics.   Seems that we should let the country in question sort themselves out....   But how can they do that id anyone who speaks out is murdered? How can their be democracy and free religion in such a state?   There comes a time where a situation has deteriorated into disarray and no chance of return. THAT is when we come in. Canada does NOT go where its not needed. {The problems with being able to do that job because of political red tape is another conversation, so with those issues aside.}



If you undertake a quick study of canadian military deployments, we go all kinds of places we are'nt "needed". There are despotic regimes around the world that commit far worse atrocities than have ever happened in the Sinai, the Golan hieghts, Cyprus, FRY, Somalia and the Balkans. You will notice that we are in no hurry to go "help" in places like North Korea or Africa anymore, despite horrific human rights abuses, mass starvation and the presence of nightmarish despots. There is no political benefit to doing so, so we don't.

We don't deploy on the basis of some level of infringement upon free speech or religious persecution. We deploy for poilitical reasons, to increase Canadian influence on the world stage. This is the basis of *internationalist theory*. Googling terms like *lynch pin*, *counterweight* and *helpful fixer * will provide you with insight into the motives for Canadian operational deployments in the last fifty years. The fact that we just happen to feel good about them is a _bonus_, but not the _basis_.


----------



## Peace (17 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This is the basis of *internationalist theory*. Googling terms like *lynch pin*, *counterweight* and *helpful fixer * will provide you with insight into the motives for Canadian operational deployments in the last fifty years.



Thanks, ill give em a look see.


----------



## xFusilier (17 Nov 2005)

I started a second degree last year at 29 (first one was BA-Political Science), and I came to realize that the one trend all 19 year old undergrads share is ignorance and egotism.  I believe the best thing you can take away from a University education is how much you don't know.  The secondary educational system, which I think works under the principle that any thought is good thought, leaves these people feeling like Jesus' special little ray of sunshine, and as a result they think that anything that was cribbed out of an old copy of Canadian Dimension or an NDP campaign pamphlet constitutes a thesis (not that the young Conservatoids are any better).  I had to point out a  Student Coalition Against War representative that if she really wanted to be taken seriously in regards to Canada's participation in Afghanistan she might want to learn the difference between an Afghan and an Afghani.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Nov 2005)

Francois Villeneuve - Technology Editor     

Saeed Osman - Contributor     

Reading these guys articles is simply amazing.

Brings to mind the desire to issue the order to "Terminate with Extreme Prejudice".  I am so glad that my time defending this nation at home and abroad has allowed these guys the right to abuse the freedoms allowed them in Canada (as who is to say they are Canadians?) as they please.


----------



## meg (17 Nov 2005)

I blame a lot of ignorance among university students on the counter-culture.  We get to school, 17 or 18 years old in most cases, and for the first time we're away from mommy and daddy.  With no one to really set limits for our behaviour, we try to fit into a university culture that may be more percieved than reality.  Personally, before I got to university, the only experience I had of post-secondary education was from movies, where the characters are generally partying constantly or hippies.  

The hippie movement really was pretty limited to the university campuses, since the 'oppressed' people usually were too busy working or being lynched to actually fight for themselves.  Even though the counter-culture supposedly ended 30 years ago, there is still that glorified ideal out there, floating around campuses like a bad fart, that sucks you in pretty quickly and creates a certain subconscious need to protest the Establishment.

Of course, the Establishment has changed radically since the '60's.  Iraq and Afghanistan, although ironically parallel in some ways, are not Vietnam, but there is still a distrust of the military.  Here I think you see a lot of influence from American media, as well.  I don't want to bash the media...some great movies have come out.  But a lack of Canadian media influence (and general self-knowledge in our country in general) means that the average Canadian univeristy student thinks we run like the American military.  Just after 9/11, I had to explain to 2 guys in my residence that they don't have to worry about being drafted to fight in Afghanistan because...well...we have a pretty good army already, and don't really have the draft.  (Of course, one was too stupid to figure out he's from Australia, and couldn't be drafted in Canada, anyway.)  Another girl panicked when she realised that females are allowed in the CF now, and figured she'd be drafted, too.  (I didn't set her right; it was just much more fun to watch her hyperventilate.)   Without even realising it, they immediately jumped to Vietnam mentality.  And in the past few years, that mentality hasn't gone away.

It's not a general stupidity that has gotten hold, or even a lack of respect for soldiers in general (the Rememberance Day ceremony is always packed).  I think it's a lot more to do with not knowing anything about today's CF, and falling back on stereotypes instead of trying to find out what's really going on.  This can be extended to lots of protest groups (ie. a pamphlet that said we shoud stop eating eggs, because you kill a chick eveytime you crack one open), so don't feel alone out there.  

The protestors, in my opinion, are still friggin' idiots with their heads so far up their a$$es that they're practically inside-out.  But they're also scared little children trying to find their way without someone to hold their hand.  Just as the hippies of yesteryear became the Establishment of today, someday me peers will out-grow this phase and, hopefully, realize the great work our soldiers do.

Anyhoo, the DND is recruiting 'defense scientists', whatever the hell that is, on campus (UofA) next Monday.  I doubt there will be any huge protest, but should be interesting to see what happens here as opposed to other places.  I may go throw rocks at hippies, just for a stress releaver. >


----------



## paracowboy (17 Nov 2005)

meg said:
			
		

> I may go throw rocks at hippies, just for a stress releaver.


 *BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAA!*


----------



## TCBF (17 Nov 2005)

"I may go throw rocks at hippies, just for a stress releaver."

- My wife and I will read the Ed Sun and Journal a little better next week, to see if you are in it!

 ;D

Tom


----------



## Slim (17 Nov 2005)

> I may go throw rocks at hippies, just for a stress releaver.



Ahh...music to our ears.

Meg, let me be one of the fist to cordially welcome you to army.ca. I think you'll like it here.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## meg (17 Nov 2005)

shucks, guys.  I feel so loved.   :-*


----------



## enfield (17 Nov 2005)

"The CSA opposes military recruitment initiatives at the University of Guelph. This includes tabling in the UC, ads in washrooms, or any visible presence on campus by any military organization(s) that is/are known to have participated in, or supported in any way, activities that are clearly illegal."

Well, its reassuring to know that the Waffen SS and the Serbian Secret Police won't be recruiting at Guelph. Whew.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2005)

Enfield said:
			
		

> "The CSA opposes military recruitment initiatives at the University of Guelph. This includes tabling in the UC, ads in washrooms, or any visible presence on campus by any military organization(s) that is/are known to have participated in, or supported in any way, activities that are clearly illegal."
> 
> Well, its reassuring to know that the Waffen SS and the Serbian Secret Police won't be recruiting at Guelph. Whew.



Cleaning coffee from keyboard and screen....priceless!!!! ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Slim (18 Nov 2005)

I would love tosee the reaction of these precious little darlings if they did live in a country with a 'bad' military! 

They have absolutely no idea how good they have it here is this wishy-washy country of ours!


----------



## TCBF (18 Nov 2005)

"Well, its reassuring to know that the Waffen SS and the Serbian Secret Police won't be recruiting at Guelph."

- The Waffen SS are recruiting again?   Great, just great.  Here we go again....

- Oh well, at least my AFV and AC Recognition skills will be back in style!

 ;D

Tom


----------



## DG-41 (18 Nov 2005)

ROFL!  

That "clearly ilegal" clause is interesting... I don't think it probibits the CF from recruiting there at all, and it forces the burden of proof of illegal activity onto the protestors.

It might be instructive to put up some posters, and then see the protestors try and prove the CF meets the "clearly illegal' standard in order to have them removed.

DG


----------



## pbi (18 Nov 2005)

Well: I hope nobody thinks that there is anything new about this. It's in the nature of young university students in hte Western world (esp North America) to question things, especially authority and its agents like the police and the military. It's also in their nature to have very little real wisdom or life experience to back up their opnions. Most of them have no idea what we (or anybody else...) are doing in Afghanistan, what the situation is there, etc. And, of course, anti-Americanism is served for lunch in university dining halls. It is almost gospel, I think.

Once again, in the words of some of these student journalists I hear echoes of our own terribly ill-advised and poisonous effort to peddle ourselves for decades as happy little blue-helmeted do-gooders, even when we as an institution knew very well that that type of "peacekeeping" was rapidly being overtaken by events. We (the big "WE", I mean...) wanted acceptance and "life insurance" so deserately that we forgot who we are. Now, because we spread that propaganda for so long, we must reap what we have sown.

My advice is not to pout and say "Go F**K yourselves you commies" (as satisfying as that may be...) but to engage, challenge and interact with these people every chance we get. Are their arguments intrinsically more sound or right than ours? No? Well then, we mihgt not be welcome on the ground but we should write, e-mail or call as often as we can. Those of us actually in university take courage, as lonely as it sometimes must seem. They are not "right" just because there are more of them.

Cheers


----------



## Glorified Ape (18 Nov 2005)

I think this one's particularly entertaining: 

"...or that is not in the best interest of the civilian public..."

As determined by a bunch of angst-ridden pseudo-intellectual, self-important quifs. It's hilarious. 

I've found that it's not the student body that's the problem, it's the student politicians.


----------



## Jungle (18 Nov 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> Have yourselves a good laugh troops. These are the minutes from the meeting where my CSA voted in their silly new anti-military policy.
> 
> http://www.csaonline.ca/aug10-2005.doc


Note to CF C of C: If the university of Guelph is ever attacked, flooded, snowed-in, out of power etc... the students of the CSA volunteer to carry out any necessary action and take overall responsability of operations. At their own expense...  

Have fun kids !!!  :


----------



## HDE (18 Nov 2005)

Rest assured guys!

   Rumour has it the plan at Unigoo is to use the wannabe "student leaders" in the event of any sort of real disaster:

   -in the event of flooding as "human sandbags"
   -in the event of fire they're to be grasped by the feet and used to beat out the flames.
   -in the event of severe cold as a reliable source of hot air.

 Until then they'll be used as a reliable source of comic relief.



                  "The reason campus politics are so savage is that the stakes are so small".   >

                                                                                                   Anon


----------



## midgetcop (19 Nov 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Well: I hope nobody thinks that there is anything new about this. It's in the nature of young university students in hte Western world (esp North America) to question things, especially authority and its agents like the police and the military. It's also in their nature to have very little real wisdom or life experience to back up their opnions. Most of them have no idea what we (or anybody else...) are doing in Afghanistan, what the situation is there, etc. And, of course, anti-Americanism is served for lunch in university dining halls. It is almost gospel, I think.



That's what it is: ignorance, plain and simple. 

Uniform = bad. 

Give them a few years to grow up, see the real world, learn for *themselves* rather than from Adbusters magazine, and they'll realize that the world isn't as black and white as it now seems.


----------



## TCBF (19 Nov 2005)

Canada is the "Bubble-Boy" of the international Community.

Tom


----------



## pbi (20 Nov 2005)

I think universities have, at least since the 1930's, been a place for people to make all sorts of bold, idealistic statements such as "resolved that no member of this House will fight for King and Country" (or words to that effect) which is over 70 years old now. University gives peope a place to posture and talk about "responsibility" and 'duty" without really having much of either except what they choose to assume. Maybe there is nothing wrong with that: I don't know.

In the end, govt will make its decisions based not on what university students have to say, but on the political realities in Canada: how will it play in Quebec, what will traditional Liberal constituencies do in response, and how much risk can we take with the US without suffering economic punishment that will splash back on the Govt? High-flung sentiments of any kind have little to do with it, I think.

Cheers


----------



## Zarathustra (20 Nov 2005)

I'd just like to say, don't judge all the university students based on those student association leaders. I was in universities from 1996 to 2002 and the students then gave very little attention to their associations. The biggest association meeting I have seen had 500 students in it out of a total of 25 000. The minimal number of student required for a meeting to be valid was "the number of student present in the room". They didn't dare write down a number because they feared missing it too often. 

Most university students are there to study, party and get a degree. They are looking forward to their next coop term at IBM or their job in that big law firm. I stick to my theory that it's mostly social sciences students with not much job to look forward to who make the more noise about capitalism, the military and such. But they are a small fraction of the total.


----------



## Zartan (29 Nov 2005)

Lookee what I found on nos amigos at York. 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/image/cops/

(don't think this has been posted before). Ain't that dandy.


----------



## Slim (29 Nov 2005)

The person that grabbed the gun from the police officer is very, very lucky to be alive!

If someone takes a police firearm they (other officers) have a legal right to shoot the person doing it as he/she is ( in the eyesof the law) presenting an attempt to use deadly force.

Of course that's probably what the protesters wanted though...Make the cops out to be the baddies. The media would've been all over that.

Good for TRPS in showing the incredible restraint and not kicking the living shit out of the protesters as they desered to have done to them after behaing like that!


----------



## meg (29 Nov 2005)

Kudos to the officers involved.  (Not sure how many would haunt this site...)  Great professionalism in handling the situation demonstrated by all, not just the officer who's gun was nabbed.  Congrats, guys.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Nov 2005)

What a bunch of assholes.  Good on the cops.


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2005)

I think someone needs to drop a dime, and tell the Hell's Angels that these brain trust types are cutting in on their dope action.  Sure helped to clean out those little arsepick Northside Boys in Edmonton.... >


----------



## Redbeaver (29 Nov 2005)

Just remember that a large dose of reality (in the form of student loans) is waiting for these kids as soon as they get their precious political science degree.  And they really are kids, I wouldn't worry too much about anything they say.


----------



## Zartan (29 Nov 2005)

I too are unconcerned with what they are saying. It is their right after all. What I'm more concerned about is their actions. They were really asking for a new asshole. Furthermore, the author mentioned that many of the protesters were from Montreal and the U.S. While it doesn't surprise me that their "movement" is widespread, but rather that they were organizing a tour of sorts outside their respective campuses, and that they were allowed to do come to a different university and disrupt its activity like they did, with classes being cancelled, et all.


----------



## The_Falcon (30 Nov 2005)

I remember the cop thing.   A friend of mine was attending classes at York when that incident took place, there is also a video floating on the net (google cops york university riot or protest, and you should find it).   From what she said the cops were incredibly restrained considering it was an illegal protest in the first place.   She didn't even know what start the whole melee, all she saw was the cops attempting to break it up, and then all hell broke lose as they tried arresting the Darwin Candidate, and people started interferring.   This incident as well as the booting of the CF are why York is not a university I would ever consider attending.

Edit reading the captions on the photos in the link above, gives me more reason not to go to York 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/image/cops/2



> When I got inside from the front entrace, this is what it looked like. Some students randomly walking around. One guy parading a Palistinian flag and some benches in front of classroom entraces. I learnt by talking to the students standing around that most of the attendants were people who had a class in one of the blocked classrooms, and on the day of this protest their professors told them to attend the protest instead, and that they will be tested and graded on it. Of course, some students later petitioned against this since you cannot force someone to protest and base your grades on it.
> 
> These professors were becoming very unpopular according to the chatter. I must note that York is a commuter school for many students and spending up to two hours to get to class, only to find you must stand in a hallway for a few more can make some angry.


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Nov 2005)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> Most university students are there to study, party and get a degree. They are looking forward to their next coop term at IBM or their job in that big law firm. I stick to my theory that it's mostly social sciences students with not much job to look forward to who make the more noise about capitalism, the military and such. But they are a small fraction of the total.



Where the heII did you pull this from? Where do you think law schools draw many of their students from? Biology? Engineering? Mathematics? Undergrad degrees are a poor indication of future employment prospects. A head of the Bank of Canada had an English BA. You must not have covered logical fallacies, errant attributions of causation, and the dangers of unsubstantiated generalisations in your years at university or you'd have some inkling as to why casting aspersions on the entirety of social science students is asinine, to say the least. 



			
				Redbeaver said:
			
		

> Just remember that a large dose of reality (in the form of student loans) is waiting for these kids as soon as they get their precious political science degree.



Funny, where does it state the protestors' mean major as poli sci?


----------



## xFusilier (30 Nov 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Where the heII did you pull this from? Where do you think law schools draw many of their students from? Biology? Engineering? Mathematics? Undergrad degrees are a poor indication of future employment prospects. A head of the Bank of Canada had an English BA. You must not have covered logical fallacies, errant attributions of causation, and the dangers of unsubstantiated generalisations in your years at university or you'd have some inkling as to why casting aspersions on the entirety of social science students is asinine, to say the least.
> 
> Funny, where does it state the protestors' mean major as poli sci?



Gee you're not an Arts student are you?

Although I personally find with a Political Science degree more people are willing to pay me to work the fry machine than debate the Kantian dialectic between morality and reason. ;D

That being said most of the people who are politically active on campuses tend to be Arts students.  How I miss the leisurely 5 hours of classes a week and all the beer I could afford to drink....


----------



## Glorified Ape (30 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Gee you're not an Arts student are you?
> 
> Although I personally find with a Political Science degree more people are willing to pay me to work the fry machine than debate the Kantian dialectic between morality and reason. ;D



Well unless you're going into academia as a profession, you're not likely to find anyone willing to pay you for reflections on esoteric political philosophy. If you're trying to get into government (IE public policy, CSIS, etc), however, then political science is probably your best bet. Same goes for intelligence work in the CF. 

As much as people love to knock poli sci, it's the poli sci kids that go on to formulate the public policy that shapes the country and government. In the meantime, the poli sci critics sit on internet message boards and badmouth the field. Kinds of puts things in perspective.


----------



## pbi (30 Nov 2005)

xFusilier said:
			
		

> Gee you're not an Arts student are you?
> 
> Although I personally find with a Political Science degree more people are willing to pay me to work the fry machine than debate the Kantian dialectic between morality and reason. ;D



And here we have the head-rearing of the endless argument about whether a university education is there to improve your intellectual skills and broaden your understandng of things in general, or prepare you for a job.

I am sure there are lots of people with degrees sweeping the floor or driving cab. I am equally sure that there are not too many people in corner offices without degrees.

Cheers


----------



## midgetcop (2 Dec 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> And here we have the head-rearing of the endless argument about whether a university education is there to improve your intellectual skills and broaden your understandng of things in general, or prepare you for a job.



In my experience university seems to do the former, whereas college prepares you for the latter. 

Depends on the job of course. Some jobs absolutely require at least a degree.


----------



## The_Falcon (2 Dec 2005)

midgetcop said:
			
		

> In my experience university seems to do the former, whereas college prepares you for the latter.
> 
> Depends on the job of course. Some jobs absolutely require at least a degree.



You mean a Community College right, not a college as it is used by the Americans (meaning they call University, College even if the name of the school say University).


----------



## midgetcop (2 Dec 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> You mean a Community College right, not a college as it is used by the Americans (meaning they call University, College even if the name of the school say University).



Of course. 

My experience is the Canadian Experience (where's that trademark logo when you need it?)


----------



## DJ (2 Dec 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> As much as people love to knock poli sci, it's the poli sci kids that go on to formulate the public policy that shapes the country and government. In the meantime, the poli sci critics sit on internet message boards and badmouth the field. Kinds of puts things in perspective.


  


AWESOME.


----------



## redleafjumper (3 Dec 2005)

The college system in Canada is quite varied from province to province and even within provinces.  The college at which I teach is a comprehensive community college that offers a wide variety of programmes.  The Arts and Science programmes lead to an Associate Degree and university transfer after two years, while our business, trades and technology programmes offer a wide variety of professional training opportunities that quickly provide employable skills acknowledged by certificates and diplomas.   Programmes for upgrading, ESL, human kinetics and forestry are included at the main and regional campuses.  Check us out on the web at:  www.cnc.bc.ca

Some community colleges are much more specialized and only offer vocational training or concentrate on special niche markets.  The model varies a lot, so it worthwhile to consider the breadth of offerings, faculty, and tuition when choosing a college or university.  Faculty at my workplace are proud to point out that we have smaller classes and offer more attention to individual students as compared to universities.

The reason for this is that the primary responsibility of faculty at colleges is teaching, while at universities teaching is very much a secondary role to research.


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Dec 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> What? You mean your not there to party your face off, meet girls and get a degree? Boooring.
> 
> Know what they say though....
> The physics student asks: How can I make this work?
> ...



*GASP* That's an Arts program!!! You'll never get a job with that!!! Just think of all those losers with Arts degrees that got stuck running the country... oh wait. 

And yes - I did go to school for the booze, parties, etc, I just try to keep some perspective on the long-term reason for my being here. 



			
				Calvin said:
			
		

> AWESOME.



Thanks  8)


----------



## aluc (6 Dec 2005)

Due to the fact that I am a poli sci major/ history minor (unfortunately at Club York), I have come across a fair amount of students who have joined, or would like to join the CF as reservists - probably more than in other arts programs (based on my own experiences) - however, I'm still waiting, and waiting for the call myself :'( I would like to believe that programs such as history/ poli sci foster an awareness of the importance of a strong military with regards to nation building, and the  maintenance of a sovereign state. I'd like to assume that it is these students, who have studied the history of the world, will be able to make a difference in society because they have been educated on the past and all the mistakes that have been made along the way.

 I think everyone's problem here lies with arts students in fields such as  anthropology(just an example) or other social science programs where the majority of the university's tree huggers tend to congregate (no offence to those on this site) . I had to take a few of these social science courses in order to  complete my degree, and let me assure you, any opinion stated in class that was not pro - left was looked upon as being fascist, or backwards. Aside from the fact that I couldn't voice my opinion without being castrated in front of the class, I also found it disturbing that a lot of the TA's in these classes encourage their students to attend various protests, even for extra grades.

 For the most part, I believe that many poli sci/ history students have great respect for the military because they understand why it is necessary. By studying the past (politically or historically) they acknowledge the fact that the world isn't all sunshine and lollypops, (like some of these lefties will have you believe) and sometimes the use of force to defend or protect your interests with a fully capable military force is a necessity for increased development and survival of the sovereign nation.


----------

