# Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG



## The Bread Guy

Thanks to the Revolutionary Communist Party of Canada for this...  :

*Soldiers, Stay at Valcartier!*
Eric Smith, Center for Media Alternatives-Quebec, 17 May 07
Article link - .pdf flyer

(Translated from Le Drapeau Rouge, No. 64, May 2007.)

Next summer, a Canadian Forces contingent from Valcartier (outside of Québec City) numbering some 2,000 soldiers will depart for Afghanistan. These soldiers will replace the current Canadian forces based in and around the Kandahar region. With this contingent, Canada will be the most important component within the NATO imperialist occupation force in Afghanistan.

After more than five years of military occupation, the Afghani people are subjected to the daily horrors of the deteriorating situation in their country: in the North, warlords enjoy passive compliance with the occupation forces, enforcing their own brutal authority on the population; in the South, where the resistance is concentrated, and where NATO forces arbitrarily detain men and women and accuse the population of passive compliance with the Taliban, and use this accusation as an excuse for increasing military control.

And there are more recent cases, such as the Afghani prisoners (mainly innocent civilians arbitrarily detained for little or no reason) who were knowingly given to the local Karzai authorities where they were beaten and tortured; the proven cases of corruption and war crimes committed by members of the Karzai government and his warlord partners; the support of the Canadian and US governments to this overtly corrupt system, and their support for the violent warlords; all of this shows that the continued occupation of Afghanistan by Canada and NATO brings only increased suffering to the Afghani people. It brings imperialist military domination, not liberation. This fact is irrefutable: the Afghani people did not ask the Canadian army to come and occupy their country!

And today, this Canadian occupation force upholds Karzai's national security forces who routinely use torture against civilians, in complete contempt of the most basic international laws. On April 23rd of this year, the Globe and Mail reported that detainees arrested by Canadian troops and given to Afghan authorities were subjected to torture. These detainees had been stopped by Canadian forces, suspected of being Taliban members or supporters. In the vast majority of these cases, the prisoners were eventually released because of lack of evidence of their involvement with the Taliban, but not before undergoing extremely violent treatment at the hands of the authorities, which involved electrocution, bludgeoning, and other physical cruelty.

These incidents are a clear indication of the lies of the Tory government and its Liberal predecessor: despite the contradic-tory claims given in the weeks that followed the reports, the facts have shown that the understanding reached between the Canadian government and Afghani security forces did not guarantee any humanitarian treatment for the transferred prisoners. These lies are a case of history repeating itself, as the Canadian state attempts to justify its inhuman actions during "war time." There is no difference between Harper's response of "when you question the Canadian government, you are defending the Taliban" and George Bush's mountain of lies and excuses that have served to justify the war in Iraq again and again. These are not the first or the last lies that we will hear. But we're sick of them!

No country has the right to impose itself or its political system on the people of another nation. No country has the legitimate right to force war on a population, and expose it to misery and destruction. Not by armed force, or by politics, or by economics. And yet these crimes occur on a daily basis, committed by imperialists in the past in Vietnam, Africa, Latin America; and committed by imperialists today in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. The vivid links between the economic interests of the United States and Canada, which was the true force behind the invasion of Afghanistan, are becoming increasingly clear.

In January 2003, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) launched its North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, in the form of an increasingly acute military and economic partnership with the United States. In April 2004, the CCCE continued it's crusade, announcing: "The way that we and other countries respond to the relentless threat of terrorism and rogue states has vital implications for global economic growth just as it does for Canada's future both as a trade-dependent economy and an immigrant-based society. In short, for Canada and for the world as a whole, economic security and physical security have become inseparable." (Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America, April 2004) Today, the "terrorists," such as Canada's armed forces, and "rogue states," such as the USA, destroy physical and economic security throughout the world, and their primary target is now Iraq and Afghanistan.

Enough of this occupation! Our support mustn't go to the Canadian government, or to its parliament, or to the armed forces! They have all collaborated to forcefully occupy one of the poorest countries in the world, for no other reason than to protect its economic and political interests in partnership with its American big brother. Our support, our solidarity, must go to the Afghani people, and to those that resist the occupation! No country can be liberated under foreign occupation. On the contrary! The presence of NATO forces has only increased the popularity of the Taliban, making them heroes in the eyes of part of the population. Only the Afghani people can liberate their country from oppression, be it from external or internal sources.

For us here in Canada, we have the duty to stand up and oppose this occupational war undertaken by our government and by the entire Canadian bourgeoisie whose interests the government defends. We have a duty to demand the immediate extraction of Canadian troops on Afghani soil. And this summer, we will have to say loud and clear that the soldiers of Valcartier, who are preparing to leave for this dirty war next Summer, must remain here!

Canada, out of Afghanistan!
Canadian soldiers, stay in your barracks!

--

Demonstration next June 22 in Québec City against the departure of troops from Valcartier to Afghanistan!
(for more details, see http://coalition-valcartier-2007.resist.ca)

First published in Arsenal-Express, No. 6, May 18, 2007.
Arsenal-Express is an electronic newsletter that presents the viewpoints from the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of Canada.
For a free subscription, look at http://www.pcr-rcp.ca.
Author:
Arsenal-Express
Short description of suggested url:
Revolutionary Communist Party website
Suggested link:
http://www.pcr-rcp.ca


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oh boy... where to even begin with this "manifesto"  :


----------



## CF_Enthusiast

I'm just going to keep my mouth shut so I don't get banned.


----------



## geo

Oh well, this should make things interesting...... NOT!

Guess the local constabulary will have their hands full dealing with these bozos


----------



## peaches

Revolutionist Communist Party????   Notice how they never comment on the *Soviet* occupation of Afghanistan!!!!!! : :


----------



## The Bread Guy

What I'm finding interesting is that "peace groups" outside Quebec, even when they know in advance who's going, didn't mobilize to try to keep troops home.  

Any bets on how long it will take for the QC commies to start using messaging about and/or comparisons to WW2 conscription as the Vandoo departure date gets closer?

Sigh...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

a small fringe who have absolutely no more following than a handful of fringe leftists...not even worth the trouble of answering this one


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I'd love to drop these guys off with a translator to share their wisdom with the Taliban.

"So first, we'd like to celebrate this meeting by rolling a communal joint, because marijuana means love....and then we can talk about how we think gay marriage would go just great with that shabby chic look you fellas have going on there."


Matthew.   :


----------



## CrazyCanuck

I shouldn't read these topics... it's bad for my blood pressure


----------



## wildman0101

mstlb whatever,,,
                        regards your last.....
                        f*** that s***
                                              regards ...
                                                          scoty b
                        edit for content:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Great article Eric keep up the great work!    :blotto:


----------



## Welshy

This stems from the ever more prevalent thought of "I don't let things like facts and statistics get in the way of my opinion."

I can't understand why increasing numbers of people are so quick to abandon others like the Afghanis and then claim that it is for the best.


----------



## Pain

A manifesto indeed.  It seems that these folks have forgotten how they got the freedom to issue such a slanderous proclamation.  :-[ 
That same freedom is what the CF is ensuring in Afghanistan.
The "translator" position is a great suggestion...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Can I get this guys address somehow?

If and when I go to Afghanistan I'd ike to send him some post cards. Maybe a picture of me giving a kid a coke so he can write an article on canadian soldiers erroding afghan culture AND teeth.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Well, if you're comfortable sending mail to the Revolutionary Communist Party from in theatre  , here's the co-ordinates:

Postal address:
C.P. 1004, Succ. "C"
Montreal (QC) H2L 4V2

Email:
info@pcr-rcp.ca 

Let us know if you get a response!  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar

Thanks.

I'm actually going to mail them some post cards and cimic-type photos. 

I think sending them a bottle of afghanistan dust while with good intentions (Hey we call it poo dust!) might be taken the wrong way, so I probably won't.

Isn't there some kinda irony in a communist party talking about pulling out of Afghanistan because we're hurting people there?


----------



## jester

Maybe we should arrange a visit between them and the VANDOO's. Should be an interesting.


----------



## vangemeren

jester said:
			
		

> Maybe we should arrange a visit between them and the VANDOO's. Should be an interesting.



Sure, we'll both go together, North Bay to Quebec City is only ... (unless your're from Timmins, then I'll be the guy at the North Bay By-pass)  :blotto:

Nah.. that wouldn't be a good idea. It would be like shoveling horse sh**. You end up stinky at the end of the ordeal.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

We're dedicating way more cyber space to these guys, the commies that is, than they deserve.


----------



## The Bread Guy

:

Shared with the usual disclaimer.....

*Dear Soldier letters appeal to Quebec troops to refuse Afghan mission  * 
Canadian Press, 11 Jun 07
Article link

MONTREAL (CP) - Antiwar protesters are appealing directly to Quebec soldiers to refuse deployment to Afghanistan later this year. 

About 3,000 letters will start arriving today at addresses in Valcartier, Que., home to the Royal 22nd Regiment, or the Van Doos. 

The letter tells soldiers that if they go to Afghanistan they will be complicit in war crimes and torture. 

Signed by four Quebec-based anti-war groups, it tells the soldiers they will become "cannon fodder" in the war-torn region. 

The letter urges soldiers not to participate and offers support for those who refuse the mission. 

More than 2,000 soldiers from Valcartier are to be sent to Kandahar beginning in August.


----------



## midget-boyd91

*_cough cough_ draft the S.O.Bs _cough cough_*


----------



## Mike Baker

:  This is their job, an they want to do it, and I am sure that they are proud of what they do


----------



## Kiwi99

If these are going to home addresses, how did they get that info?  Someone on the inside maybe.


----------



## Aerobicrunner

There is a poll with the article on the Canoe network.  Link is here:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/06/11/4251990.html


----------



## vonGarvin

Even though that poll is actually asking Joe Q Public to give a legal ruling without any legal training....


Anyway, were I a member of a unit that received such a letter, I would personally view it as an offensive action, Information Operations, Psyops, whatever, and would respond in kind.


----------



## Dirt Digger

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> The letter urges soldiers not to participate and offers support  for those who refuse the mission.



What support can these fools provide, beyond a bag of granola and a bus ticket to Salt Spring Island?   ;D

I'm sure that a few thousand copies of a form letter will keep the boilers stoked in the central heating plant.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> If these are going to home addresses, how did they get that info?  Someone on the inside maybe.



I just read this on here.  How did they get those addresses? (It does sound like it was sent to home addresses)  I don't think they're doing a blanket mailing, I think they know exactly where they're sending to.  (If I misread it,  let me know)  Not to make more of a deal about it than I should, but, am I alone in feeling uncomfortable with a group of people who have collected a list of the home addresses of soldiers (and families) that are being sent off to war?  If I were a terrorist,  I know exactly how valuable that list could be to me.  If there is such a list it is inexcusable.

This action compromises several rather big laws,  but the heart of the act was to violate this law.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49
Inciting to mutiny

53. Every one who 
(a) attempts, for a traitorous or mutinous purpose, to seduce a member of the Canadian Forces from his duty and allegiance to Her Majesty, or
(b) attempts to incite or to induce a member of the Canadian Forces to commit a traitorous or mutinous act,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years

I have allot to say on this.... allot I want to write ... but I think the smart thing would be to step away from the keyboard, cool down and figure out why I'm as angry as I am. (I'm thinking it is the violating the safety of the soldiers)  I wonder what would happen if the police were called and formal complaints were filed.  I curious if there is grounds for a civil suit.... (I'm thinking no but still)


----------



## Hawk

My first thought in reading this was a poem my Mom had from World War II "40,000 Zomies" about Quebec decention to the draft. I have the copy, but I won't quote it here. Its only a little relevant, but just as disgusting.

The Van Doos have a long and proud history. I can't see these (I've typed in several things, ranging from rude to crude - supply your own) meeting with any degree of success. 

I've been out of the Military loop for quite awhile - how would these people be dealt with in the modern Army? 

While I was typing this there was another post by Zell_Dietrich. We treat these people as nuts and dismiss them. Now they have a name and address list. If they can get it, as you say ZD, anyon else can get it too. Its about time someone put a stop to it - like having them tried under this Inciting to mutiny law. No more Mr Niceguy, I say!


Hawk


----------



## medaid

That is indeed kind of worrying that these people can get the addresses of deploying soldiers and families. It will be interesting to see how the government will respond to this one.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Yes yes yes, I had a little fit of sideways anger.  (bad run in with a NDPer recently that I guess I didn't fully work though it.)  I want to dismiss this latest action as juvenile, however it does show they're capable of a level of action I didn't think they had before.  I know the kind of effort goes into making a list like that, (I helped out on a few elections/riding associations membership drives)  I am honestly floored that they got that information.  I want want an investigation as to how they got it, and I want people charged for collecting that list. I believe it is illegal to gather information of this nature - as it does constitute a threat to the security of every family on that list.

Now, imagine how you'd feel as a soldier in Afghanistan,  you are talking to a local chief and his 'aid' looks at you and unflinchingly gives the address of where your children are sleeping.  How well would that go down for you at that moment?  I live downtown Toronto, two blocks away from what is now called Little Kabul (great food btw) - it is foolish to think they can't get someone over here to swing by an address, take a photo and email it over to their friend in Afghanistan.  They're poor,  not stupid.

I'm looking really hard for the laws that prohibit the gathering of intelligence on Canadian forces that would be usefull to enemy forces... for I can't find it.  All of our laws seem to hing on requiring "intent" to do harm. (I'm sure people much more skilled/learned than myself could do much better than what I found)

so nice, they mention it twice
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_61
Punishment of seditious offences
62. (1) Every one who wilfully 
(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,
(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or
(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.


----------



## observor 69

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> Even though that poll is actually asking Joe Q Public to give a legal ruling without any legal training....
> 
> 
> Anyway, were I a member of a unit that received such a letter, I would personally view it as an offensive action, Information Operations, Psyops, whatever, and would respond in kind.



+1  Nuff said  >


----------



## medaid

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> so nice, they mention it twice
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_61
> Punishment of seditious offences
> 62. (1) Every one who wilfully
> (a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,
> (b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or
> (c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,
> is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.



There we go, that pretty much sums it up. Time to see some of them get charged...


----------



## Bane

+1 to Zell and MedTech


----------



## scas

I say.. Lets get the names of those four groups, and their membership names, and raid thier offices and homes.. Put them in a state of fear. Whats stopping them from them from giving it to the terrorists.. Actually.. Are any of these groups the ones that went to egypt on that peace tour thing a few weeks/months ago??


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

I'm sorry to keep going and finding laws, rules and other things to throw a stink up about this - but their actions are JUST SO out of line with acceptable behaviour I just keep slamming against how ignorant their actions are.  We have laws.  I respect that this group has strongly held opinions,  I understand their points (not to be confused with agreeing with them), however there are acceptable ways to get one's point across.  Their actions are not acceptable.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/n-5/text.html
Security
Offences related to security

75. Every person who 

(a) improperly holds communication with or gives intelligence to the enemy,

(b) without authority discloses in any manner whatever any information relating to the numbers, position, materiel, movements, preparations for movements, operations or preparations for operations of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,

(c) without authority discloses in any manner whatever any information relating to a cryptographic system, aid, process, procedure, publication or document of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,

(d) makes known the parole, watchword, password, countersign or identification signal to any person not entitled to receive it,

(e) gives a parole, watchword, password, countersign or identification signal different from that which he received,

(f) without authority alters or interferes with any identification or other signal,

(g) improperly occasions false alarms,

(h) when acting as sentry or lookout, leaves his post before he is regularly relieved or sleeps or is drunk,

(i) forces a safeguard or forces or strikes a sentinel, or

(j) does or omits to do anything with intent to prejudice the security of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person acted traitorously, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 75; 1998, c. 35, s. 26.


----------



## battleaxe

Has any one individual in these groups stood up to take a leadership role in this action and offer up his/her home address- so that those who receive letters can respond? Or so that they may be informed (wouldn't hurt for some of the posters here to write them a letter) about the security issues/legal ramifications/danger to soldiers that they may be (seemingly are) oblivious to?

If anybody notices more on this story in the media- about how the public could reach the groups and perhaps return a bit of their correspondence- please follow up and post the info. I wouldn't expect or want home addresses (two wrongs don't make a right and all that)- but organization addresses should be in the public domain already.  If they are OK with sending out unsolicited and unwanted correspondence, they should be able to bite receiving some.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I certainly hope the letters were written on a soft but absorbent paper, so they can be used by the soldiers for a function appropriate to the contents.


----------



## XMP

According to  news reports these creeps targeted a small area of Valcartier with a mass mailing. Evidently they didn't have individual members names and addresses. Which doesn't mitigate the probable crime of encitement to mutiny. 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/06/11/qc-protestorsvandoos.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can imagine some old lady wondering why she is getting a letter telling her NOT to fight in Afghanistan..... ;D


----------



## FascistLibertarian

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/06/11/qc-protestorsvandoos.html



> The letter includes a hotline number and website
> 
> The coalition includes groups Québec pour la paix, Block the Empire Montreal and Rassemblement Outaouais contre la guerre.


----------



## battleaxe

Thanks for the follow-up...it takes the "Where did they get the personal info?" out of the equation. Still maddening, though.


----------



## Reccesoldier

battleaxe said:
			
		

> wouldn't hurt for some of the posters here to write them a letter) about the security issues/legal ramifications/danger to soldiers that they may be (seemingly are) oblivious to?



Do you honestly believe that they would care?  You forget that these people said words to the effect that if you do go to Afghanistan you are complicit in torture and illegal acts.  Sounds to me like they are the type that would celebrate the deaths of soldiers, not care about loose lips and all that..


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like they are the type that would celebrate the deaths of soldiers, not care about loose lips and all that..



I respectfully disagree.  I think they've done an incredibly dumb and insulting thing - which is clearly illegal.  However I think they did it out of a genuine belief in their cause. I think they find the idea of human death so abhorrent they just want it all to stop.  I've bunted heads with more than my fair share of NDPers,  I refuse to accept the notion that they get a little glee in their hearts upon hearing of a Canadian killed. I can understand where you are coming from. However, I think it is out of their concern for their fellow Canadians that they are fighting so hard to end our involvement in the war.

I think this story might have legs if enough people raise a stink about it.  Forget writing to the group,  write to the CBC!  If we show enough intrest in it,  they'll play it up - and frankly the anti-afghanistan movement just made a mess on the carpet, lets rub their noses in it.

I just went to the cbc website and wrote them this comment. (go to the story and click on comment):

I find their actions not only insulting, but illegal. 
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_61

Punishment of seditious offences
62. (1) Every one who wilfully 
(a) interferes with, impairs or influences the loyalty or discipline of a member of a force,
(b) publishes, edits, issues, circulates or distributes a writing that advises, counsels or urges insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force, or
(c) advises, counsels, urges or in any manner causes insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty by a member of a force,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

When are formal charges going to be laid?


----------



## Munxcub

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49
> Inciting to mutiny
> 
> 53. Every one who
> (a) attempts, for a traitorous or mutinous purpose, to seduce a member of the Canadian Forces from his duty and allegiance to Her Majesty, or
> (b) attempts to incite or to induce a member of the Canadian Forces to commit a traitorous or mutinous act,
> is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years



I like the sentence length on this one better there Zell... Or does it not apply to Civvies?


----------



## a_majoor

I believe something similar was done during the last referendum by PQ or BQ members (openly suggesting the R22er members should switch and become the army of Quebec or something like that) which if anything was even closer to the definitions of Mutiny and Sedation, but nothing was done then, and I can see little or nothing being done now.

Part of the reasoning behind this "may" be to keep the issue small and prevent these organizations from claiming more support due to the "government crackdown", and part of it may be to keep these clowns visible to the police and intelligence communities by giving them no reason to go underrground. There are probably other reasons which we may not be aware of.

Still, one poster did make a suggestion which I think might be interesting with a bit of modification. A mailing could be sent to these organizations pointing out that their address is publicly available and therefore can be found by terrorist groups like the AQ and Taliban.........


----------



## FascistLibertarian

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=da34601d-e96a-4755-a34d-b697517a0f37&k=0



> Anti-war letter angers troops
> By Graeme Hamilton, National Post
> Published: Monday, June 11, 2007
> MONTREAL • As families on Canadian Forces Base Valcartier prepare for the departure beginning next month of 2,300 soldiers to Afghanistan, anti-war groups have sent letters to soldiers' homes comparing Canada's military activities to war crimes and urging them to refuse deployment.
> 
> The letters from a coalition of Quebec groups prompted angry reactions when they began arriving in mailboxes yesterday on the base outside Quebec City, home to the Royal 22nd Regiment, or Vandoos.
> 
> "I read the headlines and threw it in the trash," said Master Corporal Pierre Calve, a father of three set to deploy to Afghanistan in August. "I believe in this mission. I have family here in Canada. This is a way to protect them, like our grandfathers did in the First and Second World Wars. It's not to go and kill people but to protect the peace."
> 
> 
> Email to a friend
> 
> Printer friendly
> Font: ****The mailing, addressed simply to the occupant of homes on and around the army base, was paid for by anti-war groups based in Quebec City, Montreal and Gatineau. "Canada's role in Afghanistan is a trap. It means on-the-ground Canadian soldiers become cannon fodder' for the illogical and unjust policies of generals and politicians," the letter reads.
> 
> Participating in the mission equals "complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities - like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death - that are tantamount to war crimes," it says.
> 
> Joseph Bergeron, spokesman for a group called Guerre a la Guerre (War Against War), said he is not concerned the harsh message might upset family members of personnel bound for Afghanistan.
> "Our letter is not what will traumatize people, but when they are over there and they see how many civilians die and [that] there are going to be many Canadians killed or injured, that is when the trauma will occur," Mr. Bergeron said.
> 
> He said he recognizes there could be legal repercussions to the group's appeal to soldiers. The Criminal Code says that anyone who "attempts to incite or to induce a member of the Canadian Forces to commit a traitorous or mutinous act" is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by a prison term of up to 14 years.
> 
> "We know that soldiers do not have the right to desert their company, and we could be accused of encouraging them to do that," Mr. Bergeron said. "Except, we believe we have a legitimate right to offer our opinion and information to soldiers. We don't think that is a crime. If they want to use repression against us, we will continue resisting because we oppose the government's policies."
> 
> The mailing cites the example of Francisco Juarez, a Canadian Forces reservist who was fined $500 and discharged over his opposition to the Afghanistan mission. It also says U.S. soldiers "daily" resist orders to serve in Iraq.
> 
> The coalition is also offering to provide legal counsel to soldiers who take up its offer.
> Major Daryl Morrell, a Forces spokesman, said Canadian soldiers can opt out of serving in Afghanistan if they have compelling family or personal circumstances.
> 
> "We've got a whole lot of people who are chomping at the bit to go," he said. "If someone asks not to go, it's not hard to fill his position."
> 
> Anne Marie Velasco, whose husband is stationed at Valcartier and whose brother-in-law is shipping out to Afghanistan this summer, was troubled to see the letter appear at her home yesterday.
> "It's not their business to tell us what to do," she said. "I don't like having a letter like that come into my house."
> 
> She added that it was irresponsible of the peace groups to send a mass mailing that could easily be opened by the children of service people headed for Afghanistan.
> 
> *News of the letter drew a furious response on an Internet forum at army.ca. Under the heading, "Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG," one member suggested another use for the mailing. "I certainly hope the letters were written on a soft but absorbent paper, so they can be used by the soldiers for a function appropriate to the contents," a contributor named Colin P. wrote.*
> The groups behind the letter are also planning a protest on June 22 to coincide with a support-our-troops parade in Quebec City. In a statement yesterday, the office of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor encouraged Quebecers to pay tribute to soldiers by attending the parade.
> 
> "Our men and women in uniform - and their families - are called on to make great sacrifices for Canada and they do so with honour and pride," the statement read.


----------



## The Bread Guy

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Still, one poster did make a suggestion which I think might be interesting with a bit of modification. A mailing could be sent to these organizations pointing out that their address is publicly available and therefore can be found by terrorist groups like the AQ and Taliban.........



Heck, if someone had the resources, arrange a little support the troops "flyer drop" for postal codes known to have, say, anarchist book stores and/or head shops.  What's good for the goose....  



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> Part of the reasoning behind this "may" be to keep the issue small and prevent these organizations from claiming more support due to the "government crackdown", and part of it may be to keep these clowns visible to the police and intelligence communities by giving them no reason to go underground.



+10


----------



## vonGarvin

Munxcub said:
			
		

> I like the sentence length on this one better there Zell... Or does it not apply to Civvies?


It applies to all Canadian Citizens.  It's from the Criminal Code of Canada


----------



## RatCatcher

I just got mine in the mail, when I get home I will scan it and post it so you guys can get real laugh out of it. I'm tempted to send it to the local RCMP detachement and mention that I do not like receiving mail that encourages going AWOL....

Cheers


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I am wondering if their research was done correctly and mine was sent to my 'real' address in my other province


----------



## MidnightSun

I found a url to their site, I think. I used Google French->English translator, so please excuse the length of the url and the poor translation:

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coalitionsquebec.org&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en

http://www.coalitionsquebec.org

The coalition is called Guerre a la Guerre, their spokesman in the news reports is Joseph Bergeron.

"The coalition includes groups Québec pour la paix, Block the Empire Montreal and Rassemblement Outaouais contre la guerre."


Suffice to say, it looks like it's a very small group of radicals with very little impact.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

RatCatcher said:
			
		

> I just got mine in the mail, when I get home I will scan it and post it so you guys can get real laugh out of it. I'm tempted to send it to the local RCMP detachement and mention that I do not like receiving mail that encourages going AWOL....



If you do,  be sure to attach a copy of the criminal code sections that it breaks.

Yes please do show us.   You know,  since this crime did happen to you,  you can go and make a formal complaint.  I don't know how harassed you feel, or how adversely this will affect you and your income potential, moral, soundness of your sleep.   This is totally your call,  but I've sued people for less.  I love civil law. (I'm going to go look for my law books - I remember something about the requirements for the intentional tort where someone does something that causes you distress, and I think there is a special thing if done through the mail.)  The joy of civil law is in some cases you don't have to prove that a law was broken, but just that someone did something they shouldn't have and you were adversely affected - or that they were being a jerk.

Please forgive me,  I did a search for the actual law,  however I haven't found it yet.  I did find this,  which I hesitate to link because it is wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_mental_distress   

It looks so similar to exactly what I remember from my class.  (Keep in mind I'm not a lawer, I'm just tossing out ideas)


----------



## bjr

*Thoughts re: Criminal Code Charges:*

1. Never gonna happen. The Quebec Attorney General and Chief Crown Prosecutor would never proceed with charges under s. 52 (or similar sections) in a million years. Can you imagine the political fallout? It would give these nutjobs precisely the profile and attention they're seeking. In fact, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume this group read the Criminal Code and designed this mailout with the precise purpose of baiting the police into charging them. If they're charged criminally there will be an enormous media hoopla surrounding the trial, and these poor defenceless peaceniks will stand on the steps of the courthouse every afternoon and complain about how Canada's fascist government is interfering with their legitimate right to dissent.

2. I suspect that a court would either declare s. 52 of the CC in violation of s. 2(b) of the Charter, or grant a "constitutional exemption" from the law to this particular group for this particular mailout. Criminalizing this act just doesn't pass the 21st-century "smell test" - sure, it's offensive, but I think most judges would have a hard time believing that this relatively benign "counseling" should result in a criminal conviction when we live in a society that places such a high value on freedom of expression. If this legal restriction on counseling desertion isn't a minimal impairment of the right to free expression, which doesn't appear to be the case, it would be pretty easy for a court to declare it unconstitutional. (Cue the rants about Canada's Awful Liberal Judges -- but for the record, I'm not sure how I personally would decide such a case. There are all kinds of disgusting actions that I think should be constitutionally protected.) ...and about now is where I regret opening this can of worms.

3. Perhaps the best course of action would be for Canada Post to refuse to do targeted mailouts such as these for the group anymore, given that they are prima facie illegal. I'm fairly certain Canada Post is protected from liability for anything it delivers, but that doesn't mean it can't choose not to deliver an illegal mailout. I have no legal authority for this belief, but surely to goodness CP has a policy on denying its services to, for example, hate propagandists, on the basis such propaganda is illegal.


----------



## MidnightSun

I doubt that the RCMP would charge them with inciting mutiny or sedition, but I do agree... if there are any French servicemen here who receive the letter and believe it breaks the law, please do send it in to the RCMP with the attached laws. In the very least, perhaps the RCMP will "talk" with the organization to let them know of the illegality and to stop further mailings to other brothers and sisters who serve.

The laws exist for a reason and shouldn't be taken lightly, regardless of how anyone feels about the current mission.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Well, from what the guys here are telling me (and if it's the same letter they are talking about) then the letter is mailed to "Occupant"  so I think it could only be considered Spam at most?  

Don't hang me, I am playing devil's advocate.

Bjr,midnightsun.  I am not a mod, but it'd be nice to have some profile information on you as it will give us some insight on who we are talking to.. thanks.


----------



## Trooper Hale

You keep tossing out ideas Zell and the boys will start tossing around civil suits like its going out of fashion! ;D
"I cant sleep anymore. I keep dreaming the postman is delivering more and more of them. I cant even go outside any more for fear of seeing the post box. My military career is ruined".
I mean seriously, how far off the truth can that be?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I see dead people.....


----------



## amastermason

Congratulation to the proud Canadians who try to incite the members of the CF to desert the military.  If these individuals get their way, the CF would be disbanded for a group of sandal wearing pers who would rather ask the enemy to stop shooting, bombing, and terrorizing, and then they would win.  I wonder who's side these "Activists" are really on.  They expect the police to do their job, but not the members of the CF.  They have the freedom to voice their opinions, on the backs of the proud members of the CF, regardless of trade or qualification, who are there to ensure that others may live in peace.  I really pity these groups who write these letters, and protest, they deserve our collective pity.  Poor misguided souls, with no direction in life.


----------



## medaid

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I see dead people.....




 You don't see them now do you?


----------



## pipstah

I did receive that letter too and I think they targeted the PMQs area. The letter is for the: À l'occupant ou à l'occupante wich mean to the occupant if my english is correct. The thing is, I received that letter within my mail so does that mean that Canada Post is doing spam now ? I had to take couple of deep breaths after reading that letter. Even if I'm not going to be deployed any time soon, I just think it's a dishonnor to men and women who'll get deployed soon and make sacrifices. My girlfriend read the letter and she was more in bad mood than I was. It's really nice to know that your lovely half  fully support les boyz   By the way, I tried to call their phone number...got no answer...


----------



## M Feetham

This type of thing makes me very angry and very sad at the same time. To think that these people would actually believe that a lousy piece of paper would make these guys give up everything they have worked for. Someone said it earlier, the R22R have a very proud history of service to Canada and the CF and a lot of good friends of mine are with that regiment, and I know for a fact that at least one of  them would take that letter and gladly stuff down the senders throat. If the are unable to support us in what we do for Country then at the very least they can try not to do anything that distracts us when we are getting ready to deploy, be it Air, Land or Sea. I hope they smoke some bad weed and have a bad trip.
Marc


----------



## Bzzliteyr

So they didn't specifically target a deploying member?  That's a relief.

What we need to do (as a society) is remind people that it is not us that choose to deploy, but our government that chooses to send us.

If people have issues, then they should fight harder to vote for (who they think are) the correct people that will follow their wants and needs.  If we are deploying and staying deployed it's because the CANADIAN PEOPLE want us to be there and have said so by electing the individuals that they did in the last and prior elections.  Don't like it, get out and vote and change it.


----------



## Old Sweat

These folks are being very asutue, in their own silly, little way. They know that they cannot make the government change its mind, so they are hoping to find a 'war resister' they can make into a hero, especially if he/she is 'martyred' by the system. While they would love to be charged for inciting mutiny or whatever for all the free, sympathetic publicity they would get, I suspect they figure the probability of that is low. 

If I was a professional protester, I would see this as a win/win situation. Today a mass-mailing, tomorrow every journalists' speed dial.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Well here's the thing.  One is a complete liberty to stand up and voice dissent against the governments decisions/action and what have you.  One is even completely free to say that the CF is a group of human rights abusing barbarians that must be opposed.  That is actually well within protected speech.  There are some things that are not protected, these things which indanger the common good and public safety.  There is a very specific reason this is mentioned in the criminal code of Canada. (twice infact, for varying degrees of severity)

Every army requires discipline in order to function. If commands are simply not followed, an army comes to a thundering stop.  This is similar to what would happen to your body if the nervous system simply shut down.  By trying to entice soldiers to disobey lawfull authority,  you are infact trying to render impotent the democratically elected government.  If you have a problem with the governments policies,  write your MP, don't harass those who's duty it is to follow orders.

If we allowed every political movement to dictator to be to speak directly to the armed forces and freely allow them to 'seduce' the troops,  we could end up like most other countries that are enthralled with civil war.  This is a VERY old law, and although the conditions that would require it to be paramount don't exist (I doubt we'll have dissention from this letter) it should still be enforced.  The law is the law. (and yes respect the idea that the best tactic would be to ignore them,  joke about them, basically render them meaningless. However, I see serious political advantage for raising this - it will expose them for the tendentious group they are while showing some of the grief CF members put up with.)

Additionally, soldiers have a right to not be harassed because people disapprove of the government's policies.  Walking down the street getting called a baby killer after getting spit on, or receiving a letter about how you, and people know care deeply about, support human rights abuses - and that you should disobey your chain of command, it is simply harassment that soldiers should not have to go through.

 :warstory:

edited for a typo


----------



## Haggis

WE MADE THE NATIONAL POST!!

A snippet from today's National Post, Page A1 (Sorry don't have a link.  Found the text on the ADM (PA) intranet site.) in an article entitled *"Anti-war letter angers soldiers; GROUPS URGE DESERTION; Direct mail calls Afghan activities 'war crimes'"* shared with the usual disclaimer.



> News of the letter drew a furious response on an *Internet forum at army.ca*. Under the heading, "Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG," one member suggested another use for the mailing. "I certainly hope the letters were written on a soft but absorbent paper, so they can be used by the soldiers for a function appropriate to the contents," a contributor named Colin P. wrote.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

I posted about that 6 hours ago. 
I get spam from companies, stores, political parties (NDP the other day I dunno why they waste their money, or why they know who I am). Everyone gets spam in their mailbox. But this is different. Still a lot of people in Quebec would rather see our boys in Haiti than A-Stan. They are misguided, not evil, but that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous.


----------



## medaid

Hey Colin P, you're once again famous  ;D


----------



## Haggis

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> I posted about that 6 hours ago.



So you did.... but ... oh, well.  Never mind.

(Edited to remove egg from my yap.)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SWANG!!!!!  ;D


----------



## TheWildOne

I would like to add my little comment here on that topic. Why bother with that letter since we know it was not sent directly to the CF members but in a mass mailing. There is no security breach there in my opinion. Thoses who are going AWOL because a letter like this should not be in the Canadian Forces. 

If groups like theses have free speech as they do, it must mean that we are doing our job correctly. We protect the freedom (including freedom of speech). Since there was no security breach, why don't we just discard that junk mail and continue to be proud of what we are doing. I won't sue or go after canadiantire because they send me a flyer i don't want. 

Maybe we could send Greenpeace after them because they used paper (and at the same time killed some trees) to send crap like that.   

That was just my opinion


----------



## bomb

It might just appear to be some harmless pinkos writing whiny letters, but remember, forty years ago these same types of people in the same part of the country were executing people and plotting bombings.  I say throw the book at 'em, and hard.


----------



## Edward Campbell

bomb said:
			
		

> It might just appear to be some harmless pinkos writing whiny letters, but remember, forty years ago these same types of people in the same part of the country were executing people and plotting bombings.  I say throw the book at 'em, and hard.



Which, as Old Sweat pointed out earlier today, would be playing into their hands.

They have already gotten _waaaaay_ too much free publicity from this stunt.


----------



## RatCatcher

For some reason (and I think the problem is 12 inches from the monitor) I can't insert the scanned document but here is the contact information including the final paragraph, for anyone who feels like send them junk like this:

"FOR MORE INFORMATION
Below are some more resources to consult if you are considering resisting deployment to Afghanistan; we have included information about war resisters in the USA and other information of interest. Don't hesitate to get in touch, in confidence, at the following contact points:

Valcartier 2007
Mailing address: CP55051, 138 Saint-Vallier Ouest, Québec (Qué) G1K 1J0
Telephone: (418) 208-7059
Web: www.valcartier2007.ca
E-Mail: info@valcartier2007.ca"

They quote and mention often in the rest of the letter the reservist who raised the stink and mentioned that this is an example of how to resist... not sure...

Anyway, it's gonna be in the mail to the local RCMP Det tomorrow morning.

Cheers


----------



## GAP

Send it to Canada Post also


----------



## smitty66

I had a quick look through the website, and was quite interested/disgusted in the blatant distortion of facts, that these folks are putting forth as "the real story". I guess it's a good thing for them, that this country, unlike others, grants them the freedom to express dissenting opinions. In other places they'd probably be filling a drainage ditch somewhere! I think that they are the unwitting pawns of people who have a vested interest in a failure in Afghanistan.


----------



## geo

Heh... they are still quoting the former Reg navy / reserve arty OCdt Juarez!... Cheez!
His story was debunked months ago!


----------



## medaid

I've never even hear of this Juarez character, and honestly, as an OCdt, where the heck did he expected to be deployed to?


----------



## PMedMoe

Judging from most of their info/links/quotes maybe they should target the Americans......... :


----------



## larry Strong

MedTech said:
			
		

> I've never even hear of this Juarez character, and honestly, as an OCdt, where the heck did he expected to be deployed to?



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50044.0.html


----------



## geo

MedTech said:
			
		

> I've never even hear of this Juarez character, and honestly, as an OCdt, where the heck did he expected to be deployed to?



"MR" Juarez was a sailor who released from the Reg navy, joined the reserves and had the CF pay for part of his education.  As an OCdt in a BC arty unit said ex-sailor went to CTC Gagetown for his phase trainint.... where he washed out.  After being served with an RTU and subject to an admin review - unsuitable for further service, Mr Juarez suddenly started to claim he had been scheduled to go to Afghanistan but that he had "seen the light" and decided that his conscience required him to denounce the war in Afghanistan and bail from the CF.

To that, I say, keep moving and don't let the door hit ya in the a$$ on the way out!


----------



## cameron

How low can you bloody well stoop?  Now everyone here knows how I feel about the decision to invade Iraq, but if I were to write a letter to deploying troops at a time when they would be experiencing conflicting emotions: excitement, apprehension, anxiety, sadness at being separated from family, it would be a letter wishing them Godspeed and offering morale support NOTE ENCOURAGING THEM TO DESERT AND GET COURT MARTIALLED! 

I too am also concerned about how these people got access to the personal mailing addresses of serving CF members, a terrorist could easily use such a list for mailing letter bombs and other attacks through the mail.  Remember those anthrax letters that were circulating in the US after 9/11.  This needs to be investigated, peace protesters have a right to oppose war in a democratic society, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO SEND HARASSING MAIL TO CF MEMBERS OR THEIR FAMILIES.


----------



## George Wallace

???

Are we talking Iraq or Afghanistan here?


----------



## cameron

We're talking Afghanistan but i'm drawing an analogy by saying that while I oppose the Iraq war I would consider such actions to be totally out of the question.


----------



## Reccesoldier

I just saw CTV's coverage of this.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  They took the time to talk to one of the empty headed useful idiots of the anti-war movement but didn't (obviously) interview anyone in the military.

The tone of the entire piece was that :

a.  Troops would defect and were already ready to defect because of this pamphlet
b.  It really is an illegal war
c.  Soldiers are soldiers because they couldn't find anything better to do with their lives and were bribed by the promise of job training and education
d.  Mr Juarez was a reservist who was being forced to go to Afghanistan

Unbelievably lop sided, non-factual, BS piece of guerrilla journalism


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Wow,  leave it to another Jimmy to be a voice of calm and reason. I respect that I'm completely ignoring the subtle aspects of the situation - I should adjust my perception to fit with the best course of action; but I don't want to do that. :warstory:

I read through their website when this first flared up,  they not only talking about the Reserve Ocdt who rtu'd himself from a course,  they're still talking about the Afghan pipeline  :-\

Yes by raising a fuss - I hope I'm not the only one to write the CBC - we are giving a group of ... special people a chance to say some fairly obtuse things.  What it also lets happen is that we get to show the rest of Canada what the anti-afghanistan crowd looks like, how clear headed their thinking is and how they treat other with whom they disagree.

I'll admit that I was freaked out when I read three separate articles about how soldiers about to deploy are going to open these letters.  What I missed in the article was that they were just carpet bombing entire areas where they *guess* allot of soldiers live.  What happened to minimising collateral damage ;-)  (bad joke sorry)

I just spent the day skimming http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/CCQ/CCQ_A.html
I knew their civil law was different ... but wow.  I must have missed entire sections,  I couldn't find anything usefull.

Well,  I'll admit it,  this is what I look like when I got a good snit on.  Yes I know it is "a bunch of hippies looking for easy publicity" but still, they want to rock out on this one, I say bring it.  :-D  They will embarrass themselves very badly.

Now I got to finish packing, I'm flying to Gagetown on the 17th to spend the summer getting yelled at by Sgts until I pee blood  ;D I'm sooo excited. If for some reason I am found to be not up to standard and I'm RTU'd,  I hope I have the dignity and humility to admit where my short comings are. That way if I survive the career review board, I will be better off to try again.  (Yes that was a slam against Ocdts who come up with creative stories as to why they rtu'd.)


----------



## Tyler

I'm kind of upset that I missed my chance to clear the air back in October when Juarez's coments first came to light.

During the summer of 2006, I worked as a supplementary staff member in Jaurez's platoon for the CAP course running out the infantry school in Gagetown (course storeman).  I remember driving him around once or twice, I spent a good deal of time speaking with the candidates in his platoon, as it was my job to drive them around whenever they needed to get to the MIR, among other things.  I also spent alot of time speaking with the staff.  Needless to say I heard alot of things from the instructors side, as well as the candidates.

Here's what I know about Juarez:

* He was universally detested by the course candidates.  He showed little to no motivation on PT or in the field, and was known among his platoon as a blade.  Even the weaker and more timid candidates couldn't stand the guy.  It was almost amusing to hear a nerdy little Signals OCdt tell me what a bag of crap he was.

*The course staff shared the same opinion.  They were tired of his poor attitude and insubordinate behaviour.  He had asked to be sent off course a number of times, but the staff didn't want to give up on him.  When that didn't work he went up the chain in the Infantry School to ask to be sent home.  When that didn't work he started to refuse orders. In fact I think I remember driving him to one of his little chats with the 2IC of the school before he got the boot.

* One morning in late June or early July while on PT on the obstacle course, Juarez refused to complete an obstacle.  The MBdr ordered him to go again, and he still refused.  As far as I know, the course staff and the Infantry School staff were sick of putting up with him, so he was charged with insubordination, fined $500, and booted off the course.

So there you have it.... I hope the lurker from the National Post on this site reads this and decides to dig a little further.


----------



## kenneyb210

Don't have TV    no newspaper even.  In edmonton...this news has gotten some legs under it. IIRC it went from less than 10 to over 350 hits on googoo.  Looking for the news as a blog search. Small dead animals has it.  Letters will be written to MP.  Doesn't matter what is legal, illegal whatever. What counts is the news spin is NOT OVER.  June 22 in Quebec ...a peace march....between then and now maybe an MP can ask a question...even if they don't as long as there is something newsworthy, this will not die.  Remember their letter is publizing the event....they WANT news... the Flight of Eagles in the US... Michell Malkin...Kate at Small Dead Animals  is our Canadian  version of the firecracker.  I am not a radical...someone wants to fight I don"t get involved...I am too old now given my lack of experience.  BUT...if someone is going to mess with CF and I can fight back with letters, signatures, postings, fisking, E-mails,    well ...Time to Knock Some Dick in the Dirt.  


Imagine some POS trying this with US marines.  

john w


----------



## medaid

geo said:
			
		

> "MR" Juarez was a sailor who released from the Reg navy, joined the reserves and had the CF pay for part of his education.  As an OCdt in a BC arty unit said ex-sailor went to CTC Gagetown for his phase trainint.... where he washed out.  After being served with an RTU and subject to an admin review - unsuitable for further service, Mr Juarez suddenly started to claim he had been scheduled to go to Afghanistan but that he had "seen the light" and decided that his conscience required him to denounce the war in Afghanistan and bail from the CF.
> 
> To that, I say, keep moving and don't let the door hit ya in the a$$ on the way out!



Just read the story on the link... heh... well I wish he was out faster... stupid b^stard...


----------



## kenneyb210

Tuesday midnight in Alberta. Over 1600 hits on GooGoo looking for Anti-war letter under news....

I will not let my outrage wear off...I am writing my MP... I have the four websites/address somewhere...

A big obstacle... the language I am forced to express myself in is...yah you guessed it. I forget who had a net version french to english  but even I could tell it was lacking..   I am sure there are many ways to  fisk an outfit called... Coalition Guerre a la Guerre...any suggestions ?


----------



## kenneyb210

PIMF above. Google has about 48 hits for the Canadian Letter deal,  When I saw Hotair.com, the allahpundit himself had our story  I got carried away. I picked a bad day to quit smoking. Any help with translating phrases like  "knock your dick in the dirt" etc might swtill come in handy. 

goodnight 

john w


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Why do I feel like I am listening to William Shatner talk when I am reading your posts Kenney?

Sure wish people would fill out their profiles..


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Why do I feel like I am listening to William Shatner talk when I am reading your posts Kenney?



 :rofl:


----------



## pbi

These folks seem to have the typical lefty view of professional soldiers: in their minds we are composed of either homicidal war criminals who can hardly wait to drink blood and stamp on babies, or mentally deficient refugees from abandoned mill towns with no prospects. We don't read (or can't read...) so of course we have no understanding of the mission, or the bigger issues, or the history of the country, unlike these chosen few who see through all the wicked conspiracies of the Israel-US-military-industrial complex. And, as everybody (well, everybody smart and well-educated and belonging to the Coalition...) knows, all Canadian soldiers mindlessly and unquestioningly swallow everything their superiors say with no questions asked. :rofl:

Oh-and we believe everything the Govt says, which saves us from having to form our own opinions. :  Which we wouldn't do anyway, since we are all too busy sitting on the front porch drinking beer and throwing the empties on the lawn, right next to the upside down pickup truck.

All it will take for a mass mutiny is for these enlightened folk to stuff a few envelopes with THE TRUTH, mail them off to soldier's welfare hovels homes, then just sit around in the local vegan cafe and wait for the boys and girls to see the light. Heh.

Whatever.

Cheers


----------



## Haggis

Wow, PBI, you seem to need another coffee this morning.   ;D

That being said, I agree with you.  I ran over two tricycles and a fridge baling my lawn yesterday.

The problem is that you will never change the opinions of these groups.  They are smarter than us, more eloquent and have a clearer perception of world events.  God only knows how we'd ever survive as a society without their reasoned guidance and influence.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Reccesoldier

Haggis said:
			
		

> God only knows how we'd ever survive as a society without their reasoned guidance and influence.
> 
> :deadhorse:



Didn't the Russians try that between 1917 and 1991?


----------



## pbi

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Didn't the Russians try that between 1917 and 1991?



Yes. I believe they shot a number of them. 

Dreadful. 

Ammunition being so expensive, I mean...

Cheers


----------



## Flip

> Oh-and we believe everything the Govt says, which saves us from having to form our own opinions.   Which we wouldn't do anyway, since we are all too busy sitting on the front porch drinking beer and throwing the empties on the lawn, right next to the upside down pickup truck.



What I wanna know is..........

How'd the pickup ,ya know, get upside down?

Here in Alberta the pickup is hardly ever upside down  ;D


----------



## Teflon

I may have missed it being posted already but has anyone posted a copy of one of these letters yet?


----------



## kenneyb210

I have only seen a french to english translation. The net translations are cr@@py for Quebecois. A bilingual homegrown interpretation would be nice. 


In Alberta we would say "ya got no seed in your drill" . 

John W


----------



## RatCatcher

I actually received both an english and french letter from them. They actually quote General Leslie in both, of course they didn't take into context the rest of the speech.


----------



## kenneyb210

Teflon said:
			
		

> I may have missed it being posted already but has anyone posted a copy of one of these letters yet?



Here you go...

http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/#more-319

John  W


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/#more-319
"We are writing this letter to offer you a dissenting point-of-view about your deployment that we hope will prompt you to reconsider your participation"

There we go,  call the police. I'm sure they can pay a fine, say 1 dollar.   (for each letter they sent)

As for the rest of the letter,  I can understand why a clear thinking logical person could believe what is written there.  I disagree with it though and I'm clear headed and logical.  The difference is that my opinion is not largely coloured by the issues surrounding Iraq.


----------



## Roy Harding

Actually, having now read the letter (in _decent _translation), I can see that they make some good points (the fact that I disagree with those points notwithstanding).

I would also venture to say that they are preaching to the wrong audience.  The soldiers of R22eR, like all Canadian soldiers, have already considered these points - and rejected them.

Let them continue to waste their time and energy (and money) in targeting an unresponsive audience - I'm sure that the "Van Deux" in receipt of this letter have already chucked it into the waste bin - where it belongs.


Roy


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Yeah, upon mentioning this discussion to my workmates.. "oh, is that what that was??" was heard...


----------



## RatCatcher

Lets just hope that some of the younger impressionable youg kids, who tend to beleive everything on the internet... letters written by strangers...etc... don't decide to ruin their career by not showing up for their flights.


----------



## RatCatcher

By the way buzz, that was you behind me on the "Bison Bus" in Wainwright... right, sitting beside the unknowing songstress.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Oh I know.. I even made a reference to "ratcatcher"... not sure if you caught it...


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Several people on this forum have asked to see the letters that were sent to the soldiers at Valcartier.

The letters, in English and French, are available at: http://www.valcartier2007.ca ...

The mailout to the soldiers included:

- "An Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier": http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm
- "Soldiers in their own words": http://www.valcartier2007.ca/soldiers.htm
- A Message from Hadi Qaderi: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/qaderi_eng.htm
- For more information: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/info_eng.htm

As well, since the mailout, a media section has been added and is frequently updated: 
http://www.valcartier2007.ca/media_eng.htm

Your constructive comments and feedback are always welcome.


----------



## medaid

Interesting... straight from the source.


----------



## George Wallace

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Your constructive comments and feedback are always welcome.



Perhaps we would believe you if you put links to Ruxted Editorials, and some other Blogs, letters, and editorials that offer other views.  Perhaps some of the latest from the Senlis Group on CIDA?  We know you won't, but if you were truly sincere, perhaps you will.......Yes!  That would prove that you are unbiased.  Please do provide some opposing views for your readership.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

More info at http://www.valcartier2007.ca

As well, check out "Soldiers in their own words": http://www.valcartier2007.ca/soldiers.htm


-- AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SOLDIERS OF VALCARTIER --

For several months you’ve been preparing for your mission to Afghanistan, and you will be leaving shortly for Kandahar. During your training, you’ve been told again and again that your mission is to stabilize Afghanistan, to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, to liberate women, and to establish democracy. We are writing this letter to offer you a dissenting point-of-view about your deployment that we hope will prompt you to reconsider your participation.

The Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Still, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor -- who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war – recently stated that your presence in Afghanistan is “retribution” for 9-11. [Edmonton Journal, January 21, 2007]

The Canadian government defends its involvement in Afghanistan in the name of women’s liberation. However, the Afghani government that you are defending is comprised of warlords who are just as brutal in their treatment of women as the former Taliban regime. In the words of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):

“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai and its international guardians, are playing shamelessly with the intolerable suffering of Afghan women and misuse it as their propaganda tool for deceiving the people of the world. They have placed some women into official posts in the government who are favored by the warlords and then proclaim it as symbol of "women's liberation" in the country.” [RAWA Statement on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2007, www.rawa.org]

Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes; here are some examples:

- this past April, US airstrikes killed at least 57 civilians in Herat Province, more than half of who were women and children [International Herald Tribune, May 12 2007];
- earlier, in Nangarhar Province, another 19 civilians, including an infant, were killed indiscriminately by US troops, who forced journalists to erase their videotapes of the incident [CBC News, March 4, 2007].

Canadian troops too have been involved in civilian deaths:

- in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol [CBC News, March 15, 2006];
- in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed [National Post, August 23, 2006]; 
- in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed [CTV News, December 13, 2006];
- in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar [Canadian Press, February 17, 2007, CBC News, February 17, 2007 and CTV News, February 19, 2007].

The Afghan mission is based on lies. Canada’s military role in Afghanistan – which began in 2002 – is directly linked to George Bush’s “War on Terror”. 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means 2500 more US soldiers in Iraq, despite widespread opposition to that war. The “War on Terror” has been a failure, and has meant less safety and security in the world, particularly for the civilian populations of the Middle East. According to your commander in Afghanistan, Major-General Andrew Leslie: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you." [CBC News, August 8, 2005]

The “Taliban” was declared defeated back in 2002 by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, but more than five years later, they’re inexplicably back and stronger than ever. It’s clear that as long as there are foreign forces in Afghanistan, there will be thousands of average Afghans motivated to actively resist those forces. In North America, the mass media brands all opposition to foreign occupation as "Taliban", that dangerously serves to marginalize all Afghani resistance.

Canada’s role in Afghanistan is a trap. It means on-the-ground Canadian soldiers become “cannon-fodder” for the illogical and unjust policies of generals and politicians.

As armed forces soldiers, you know better than anyone the potential consequences of resisting orders to participate in this mission. But you can refuse to participate in this war. Already, one Canadian reservist has refused to serve in Afghanistan. Daily, US soldiers resist orders to serve in the Middle East, and many have come to Canada to seek refuge.

We write this letter in the spirit of dialogue and debate. We write also to offer our concrete support, in confidence, if you do decide to consider resisting deployment to Afghanistan. Our contact information is below; don’t hesitate to get in touch.

-- Coalition Guerre à la Guerre (Quebec City)
-- Coalition Québec pour la paix (Quebec City)
-- Block the Empire (Montreal)
-- Rassemblement Outaouais contre la guerre

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER

leave, and don't come back.

"Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad. "


----------



## George Wallace

Well I have received my answer.

As this person has posted this 'letter', perhaps we can oblige by dissecting it and pointing out its' errors.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well I have received my answer.
> 
> As this person has posted this 'letter', perhaps we can oblige by dissecting it and pointing out its' errors.



Perfectly proposed, Mr. Mod.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER

Ok, perhaps I was hasty , I'll open it up then, 

Your little poster boy is a failure, not only did he wash out of the regular force, he washed out of the reserves. 
far from being the noble hero you make him out to be, 
He failed his phase training and instead of owning up to it he went to the media and cried 
"omgz lolz they was going to send me, an untrained wash-out officer cadet to Afghanistan"
He was reservist, and as a reservist he had the choice to decline the opportunity to deploy without anyone else so much as batting an eye.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER

for those not in the know 

"Canadian Army reservist Francisco Juarez on why he refused to be deployed to Afghanistan. Juarez decided to leave the armed forces in 2006, because he disagreed with Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Although he was repeatedly threatened with jailtime and other punishment, he was eventually fined $500 and “dishonorably” discharged.

[Source: CTV News, September 9, 2006]"


----------



## George Wallace

Future Unknown said:
			
		

> for those not in the know
> 
> "Canadian Army reservist Francisco Juarez on why he refused to be deployed to Afghanistan. Juarez decided to leave the armed forces in 2006, because he disagreed with Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. Although he was repeatedly threatened with jailtime and other punishment, he was eventually fined $500 and “dishonorably” discharged.
> 
> [Source: CTV News, September 9, 2006]"



Do we have to go into this coward's miserable failure as an Officer Cadet and his whining excuses in his attempts to cover up his weaknesses?  We have a whole topic on this snivelling attempt to make a name for himself.


----------



## CADPAT SOLDIER

I'd like to see what they have to say about him.


----------



## George Wallace

WARNING to Valcartier 2007

SPAM is not permitted on this site.  If you insist on spamming this site you and your posts will be BANNED and all traces of you deleted.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Sorry. We didn't think posting the "Open Letter" to this thread once would be considered spam.

We hope we're not banned, as it seems several people on the forum would like to engage in a constructive debate and dialogue about the points raised in our letter. We certainly hope basic discussion on this topic won't be banned, and that we can contribute to the discussion.

Again, looking forward to your constructive criticisms and comments.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## George Wallace

Posting your letter once is fine.  A second time in the French section can be tolerated.  More of the same will not be tolerated.

Now moving on.......You (plural (?) ) have had some counter points brought to your attention.  Are you (individually or as a group (?) ) going to respond?  It is not a discussion if you can't defend your points.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Hi there George! (btw, is "George Wallace" your real name, or an online name? either way, just wondering ...)

No problems, we won't be spamming, and we will definitely defend our arguments, in both English and en français.

"We" are members of Block the Empire in Montreal, and Guerre à la Guerre in Quebec City, two anti-war groups in Quebec. We're not hippies! (We agree with one of the tags of a previous poster: "Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad. " We're not much into pot, and definitely shower daily.)

About Franciso Juarez:

If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally. We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason. Perhaps one reason he refused orders in training was because he no longer believed in what he was being groomed for (ie. to be a junior officer, eventually to serve in Afghanistan).

If you want to hear from Franciso Juarez himself, check out these videos that are available online:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroLoPn-d4M

Importantly, we offer more substantive arguments in our letter about Canada's role in Afghanistan, which haven't really been addressed on this forum. The arguments don't hinge on Francisco being a good or bad person (although, we definitely respect his decision to refuse to serve in Afghanistan).

To give one example:

General Andrew Leslie gave a speech in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Let's break down the general's logic:

1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.

Sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan, but also for on-the ground Canadian soldiers No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. Canada's role in Afghanistan, under a NATO mandate, can't be divorced from the broader US-led role in the Middle East. For example, having 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means that there can be 2500 more American soldiers in Iraq; they're linked. 

Again, we are more than open to debating the substantive points in our letter. Don't hesistate to pass on your critiques and comments.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Michael OLeary

Personally, I don't believe this "cause" deserves the attention it is trying to milk from the members of this forum.   They will not be convinced, and every attempt to rebut anything they post only offers another chance for them to spout their nonsense.

Take away what they want most by ignoring them.


----------



## George Wallace

As a university student(s) you must have studied some history, other than Quebec history.  Have you wondered what would have happened in the First World War, the Second World War, or Korea, if we had allowed your logic to make the choices that we ultimately made?  Do you think that we could have defeated the Nazis or the Japanese in a year and then left these nations to themselves?  It has taken over sixty years for Germany to finally come to being a Democratic and peaceful State.  There are still NATO soldiers in Germany today.  The same can be said about Japan.  What about Korea?  

There is no quick fix.  This is not as simple as the 'drive-thru' at Mcdonald's.  Peace has to be won. Reconstruction and re-education must take place once the nation has 'security' and protection of life.  When the Government, and infrastructure have been rebuilt and the people can defend themselves to live in peace, then the job is done.  

If you want us to leave now, you are acting as a tool for the Taliban.  You are then a "Fifth Columnist" and an enemy of the State.  Don't think the Taliban are not monitoring the internet?  It is one of their favourite tools.  Manipulating University Students from say U L is an artform for them.


----------



## civmick

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> About Franciso Juarez:
> 
> If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. *We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally.* We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces *who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan*, and *was expelled from the army for that reason*.



Valcartier - perhaps if you're going to depend on the word of a single person to back the campaign you are doing, it would be better to have encountered Mr Juarez directly and assured yourself independently that his bona fides were credible, not least that the second highlighted portion in fact preceded the third.  

I don't believe you will ever face a Criminal Code prosecution - frankly given that you have probably strengthened rather than weakened the Vandoo esprit de corps there are better things for the prosecutors to do - but if you do find yourself in front of a court on a Section 53, 61 or 62 charge I would hope that you will learn a lesson about trusting the source of your information.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Thanks for your comment civmick --

Our letter campaign certainly does not "depend on the word of a single person". We quote six soldiers -- one Canadian and five Americans -- as examples of different individuals who have resisted deployment in one way or another. In other words, we provide examples of war resisters, including folks who refused to serve in Afghanistan, in the context of urging soldiers not to deploy. All quotes are from public sources. Juarez's quotes are from comments he's made to mainstream sources in Canada.

But, our substantive argument is contained in our open letter: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm

There is a focus on this forum on Juarez, which is fine, but what about our other arguments? What do folks think about General Leslie's "logic" on Canada's role in Afghanistan as described in a previous post? Or our other arguments, like our contention that Canada's role in Afghanistan is instrinsically linked to the discredited US-led "War on Terror"; our involvement in that war does not make us safer, and certainly does not make Afghans safer; it's a war based on false and self-serving pretexts.

What about the arguments of Afghans like RAWA or Hadi Qaderi (who we quote on our website) who argue that foreign troops are essentially helping prop up a puppet -- Karzai -- and a corrupt government that isn't much better than the Taliban, including warlords who are just as brutual as the Taliban. [And, as Ahmad Rashid points out in his book about the Taliban, the Taliban itself is blowback from previous US-led foreign policy objectives. Why trust current foreign policy objectives? I mean, are any of us so naive as to believe that US-led involvment in Afghanistan is altruistic?]

There are other arguments too, but just check out our open letter for those, as well as our media section.

Anyways, look forward to other replies and comments. Our point is to open up dialogue and debate on these issues, with the people who are directly involved (ie. soldiers who will deploy to Afghanistan). And to open up the possibility of not serving, if soldiers disagree with the mission (and the motives of someone like O'Connor, who himself became rich working for military companies after his time as a General).

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## McG

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Actually, having now read the letter (in _decent _translation), I can see that they make some good points


No they do not.  It is full of logical falsies & inaccuracies.  

This one is called poisoning the well: "who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war"

We all know the the Taliban protected Osama & his crew.  Sure "the Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec" but we are not at war with the Afghan people.  We are helping to rebuild the nation because we did go to war with its former Taliban leaders.  I'll chalk this up to inaccuracy.

The issue about Iraq is a redherring.  Iraq has not been our war; Afghanistan was.  We now have a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan to ensure the reconstruction happens.  If we leave, there will be a power vacuum & civil war.  We will then start hearing hypocrites, who had called for us to leave, then suddenly demand we go back to "Peacekeep" and do exactly what we are involved in now.

This one is post hoc: Taliban defeated by Western forces - Western Forces stay to keep security - Taliban fighting a little harder recently - therefore presence of western forces will always caust "thousands of average Afghans" to be  "motivated to actively resist those forces"

They do seem to have some facts in there, but these don't support any conclusions.  You know what, I don't even think there is even one single logically constructed & supported argument in the whole letter.  I'm not giving it any more time.


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Our point is to open up dialogue and debate on these issues, with the people who are directly involved. And to open up the possibility of not serving, if soldiers disagree with the mission.


Debate the mission all you want but, if you encourage anyone here to violate the National Defence Act, you will be banned from this site.


----------



## Armymedic

Valcartier 2007,
What you fail to realize is that serving members of the Canadian forces are professionals. Do you believe you would have any luck writing a letter to a professional hockey player telling them not to play, or a RCMP officer telling them not to investigate a crime in thier jurastiction?

This is what we do, this is what the people of Canada pay us to do. If you have a problem with what the soldiers of YOUR Canadian Forces are doing, write your MP...

Atleast they will pretend to listen to you.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

The problem here boys and girls is that we ARE listening to them.  It's like the bully in the school yard syndrome, every reply is giving them the attention they "need" and whether is be positive or negative attention, it's attention to them.  Everyone needs to turn around and ignore this insignificant noisemaker and look the other way, "he'll" eventually get tired and leave.

We know we'll be going, they know we'll be going, the only way we won't be going is if the government changes it's mind.. NOT the soldiers.

If they believe in their cause so much, where were they during all the last deployments??  Is only important now that they can get some attention without having to leave the comfort of their own province?


Unfortunately the only way to turn our backs on them is to "locker le thread" (tell me I am not bilingual, eh?).


----------



## FascistLibertarian

> 1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
> 2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
> 3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.



Here is my reply  I am sure others on this board could do a better job but this is what I think.
1) Nation building takes time; the average counter insurgency in the last century took something like 7-9 years. Canada should support Afghanistan for as long as we are needed. As someone from Quebec you are probably intrested in Haiti (and would probably like the Vandoos to go there). Well if you look at Canada's contribution to that country we have been in and out of that country more times than I can count. I am sure you would agree it would have been better if a limited and sustainable number of Canadians who wished to be there were in Haiti for the last 20 years. If we leave Afghanistan now where do you think this country will be in 20 years? Do you really think NATO pulling out would improve life for the average person there?

2) It would be great if we could skip security and go straight to rebuilding and giving out aid. The fact is that without security there can not be development. This does entail killing people at some times. There will be mistakes and innocent people will get killed. That is war and something that I am sure no one shipping out will take lightly. It is not the CF's objective to kill innocent people. 

3) You are clearly taking this out of context. This is more in line with the strategic cpl argument. What the general means is that the CF can not move forward in Afghanistan by military force alone. If the CF shoots at everyone the population will clearly turn against them. 

I would like to ask you two questions.
1) What Canadian wars and interventions would you have supported if any? (Boer, ww1, Siberia, ww2, korea, suez, 1st gulf, balkans, kosovo etc)
2) What do you think the prerequisite for using the Canadian military abroad should be?

I am well aware we will not change each others views but I do wish to see where you are coming from.


----------



## Edward Campbell

These guys are happy every time we 'reply.'

They are using us, as they 'used' the soldiers in Valcartier, to gain free publicity.

I agree with Bzzliteyr: if we cannot discipline ourselves enough to ignore these clowns, to not do their work for them, then lock 'er up so that we cannot do their bidding.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Valcartier, you’ve been sold a bill of goods, either that or you are one of those useful idiots that have been and are so useful to our enemies for so long.  It’s time you read something other than the defeatist “if it bleeds it leads” crap spewed by the popular media, I suggest this would be a good start.  http://www.nato.int/ISAF/Update/media_features.htm

Surely as university students your first prof explained that quotes out of context are useless as proof.  

Let’s see how Prof Reccesoldier scores your paper.



> We are writing this letter to offer you a dissenting point-of-view about your deployment that we hope will prompt you to reconsider your participation.


  I won’t delve into the legal ramifications of inciting mutiny but I’m sure other will.



> The Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11,


  While factually correct everyone knows that facts without context are worse than useless.  The Taliban not only aided and abetted Osama and his clag, they celebrated right along side of him when thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. You know Osama, the guy that said this…Minus 10 





> The 9/11 Attacks Were "An Unparalleled And Magnificent Feat Of Valor, Unmatched By Any In Humankind.  On the blessed Tuesday 11 September 2001 … they launched their attacks with their planes in an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind before them. … Yet with the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, there occurred an even bigger destruction: that of the great American Dream and legend of Democracy." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)





> 2001. Still, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor -- who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war – recently stated that your presence in Afghanistan is “retribution” for 9-11.


  Name me one war that was not a retribution for something…  For unforgivable naiveté (come on you’re university students! How about a little critical thinking!  Shame on you, lazy, lazy, lazy) you loose 5 points.



> The Canadian government defends its involvement in Afghanistan in the name of women’s liberation. However, the Afghani government that you are defending is comprised of warlords who are just as brutal in their treatment of women as the former Taliban regime. In the words of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):


 Finally a hint of truth, however it is vastly offset by the fact that although treatment of women in Afghanistan today does not meet Canadian standards it is far, far better than when this was the norm: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/Taliban.jpg or this http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/joe/farsha2.jpg  I’ll only take off another 5 points for sloppy research.



> Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes; here are some examples:


 So you are Lawyers now?  I won’t address the US action that you state at first but I will take you up on what you obviously see as ‘Canadian atrocities’. 



> - in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol [CBC News, March 15, 2006];


  This didn’t occur on  St Catherine’s street.  Misrepresentation and willful ignorance of your subject matter loose you 10 points. 





> The man, identified as Nasrat Ghali and believed to be in his mid-40s, was driving a three-wheeled motorized taxi known locally as a rickshaw. Canadian troops fired warning shots at him after he drove through an Afghan police checkpoint, coming within less than one metre from the Canadian vehicle, said Lt.-Col. Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force Afghanistan.


 http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/03/15/afghanistan_taxi060315.html



> - in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed [National Post, August 23, 2006];


  Your juvenile pedantic distortions of factual events loose you another 10%  





> The 10-year-old, whose name has not been released, was the passenger on a motorcycle that military officials say crossed a security perimeter that was set up around the bombing site.
> Officials said soldiers were fearful of another suicide attack and fired on the motorcycle after several warnings to stop.
> "ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) soldiers signalled the motorbike to stop and fired two warning shots," NATO said in a statement.


 http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2792d7a4-39d1-4901-943e-added0ff883c



> - in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed [CTV News, December 13, 2006];


 More of the same -10 





> A statement from NATO's International Security Assistance Force says the loss of life was regrettable and it was unclear why the motorcyclist refused to heed the warning.
> "It is not known why the motorcyclist failed to stop when clear signals were given, and a full and thorough investigation has commenced," says the statement from the ISAF.
> The Canadian military has said it believes the soldier who fired the shot followed all the reasonable rules of engagement,


 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061213/afghan_civilian_061213/



> - in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar [Canadian Press, February 17, 2007, CBC News, February 17, 2007 and CTV News, February 19, 2007].



The first one wasn’t Canadians. Minus 10 marks for sloppy and lazy research.





> Separately, unidentified alliance troops opened fire and killed a second man who ran in between vehicles of a parked convoy in the pre-dawn hours, near Kandahar Airfield.
> The early-morning incident did not involve Canadians and military officials declined to say what nationality they might be.


 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/02/17/3640893-cp.html
The second one was. And you loose another 10 points due to a willful distortion of actual events. 





> Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan killed an unarmed man Saturday as he walked toward their convoy chanting and wearing what appeared to be explosives around his torso, a military spokesman said.


 http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/17/afghan-shooting.html

The second half of your diatribe is less factually and reality based than is the first half.  You did not even bother to correct the simplest of errors, like dates (Canada’s commitment to the mission was signaled by PM Cretien on Oct 7 2001).  Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle. 

Really, you people put your name to this piece of tripe?  I’d be freaking embarrassed to have my name associated with such a piss-poor product. Are you failing out of university?  Please, if you are, do not consider freelance journalism as a career choice.  Oh my god!  You’re not in a journalism program now are you?  Your poor parents all that money washed down the drain.

How did you get accepted into university with writing skills like that anyway?  Were they having an off day or do they have a quota of tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasement minded, surrender monkey’s that they have to let in each year.

By the way you score on this piece of electronic butt wipe was 30% before I grew so disgusted with the quality of your argument and research.  If I had to mark the second half I believe that you would receive a negative percentile. But since that would be mean, I’ll bell curve this paper against what is passed off as news on the Afghan mission and you get a .5% final mark.

Have a nice day and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.


----------



## scoutfinch

This is my last word on the subject and the only reason I wish to raise it is because it is not based on opinion but on an error of fact in their argument which I feel should be corrected.

The fact that your organization states things like "We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason." simply demonstrates your organizations inability to deal with facts.  Whether you like it or not, he was not expelled from the army for his objections to the conflict in Afghanistan.  He CHOSE  to leave because of his objections and took steps to ensure he was removed from training.  He was NOT expelled because of his beliefs.  


(1)  Juarez was an Officer Cadet in the Reserve Force.

(2)  As a Reservist, he was under NO obligation to go to Afghanistan.  In fact, he would have had to agreed to go to Afghanistan on more than one occasion prior to deployment in order to get to theatre.

(3)  He was removed from training for failing to follow an order -- an order to run the obstacle course!  He took steps to ensure his removal from course because he had made a personal decision to cease training.  I say again:  HE CHOSE TO CEASE TRAINING BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. This does not mean he was expelled from the Forces for his political belief.  HE CHOSE TO LEAVE AND TOOK STEPS TO ENSURE HE WAS REMOVED FROM TRAINING BECAUSE HIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT BEING REMOVED FROM TRAINING WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.

Your organization's credibilty is lessened when you ignore facts and play with words that suit your political purpose.


----------



## RatCatcher

I, and I am sure others who received the letter and are targetted in it, are sick and tired of hearing about it. Although I respect their freedom to express their views an invasion of my private life, that of my wife and friends is what perturbs me. Protest our parade all you want, you will see proud proffesional members marching; thanking the public who support us and/or the mission. You will not not see people who don't feel that this mission is important to the stability of the Afghan region, nor to the security of Canada. What we in the military do is so you have the right to live the life you do, and I would gladly risk my life to defend yours. 

Let put this to rest as we have in Valcartier. 

I vote to _lock it up  _ and let this groups diatribes fade away like the inaccuracies held within it.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Thanks to everyone who has posted a critical response to our letter, and attempted to refute our arguments.

We know many of you think we're a bunch of lazy hippies, but we actually work! Mentioning that because we'll be able to respond to many of your comments later tonite, but not during the day, because we can't chat while busy at our jobs and other obligations.

Hopefully, we'll still be able to post this evening, because clearly some folks on this forum don't want us to continue posting. Rest assured, we appreciate many of your replies, and will respond later tonite.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

And they'll once again garner the attention they desire... don't give them the pleasure.

I think their argument was shot full of holes (hopefully without any collateral damage, hah!!) by Reccesoldier.  His well researched, well thought out reply should be handed off to the media so that they too can report what's right and what's wrong with this whole Valcartier2007 situation.

They believe so much in their cause that we'll have to wait until this evening for them to defend it, once they're done work.  Pretty hardcore.

Lock it baby, lock it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Thanks to everyone who has posted a critical response to our letter, and attempted to refute our arguments.
> 
> We know many of you think we're a bunch of lazy hippies, but we actually work! Mentioning that because we'll be able to respond to many of your comments later tonite, but not during the day, because we can't chat while busy at our jobs and other obligations.
> 
> Hopefully, we'll still be able to post this evening, because clearly some folks on this forum don't want us to continue posting. Rest assured, we appreciate many of your replies, and will respond later tonite.



You will have the opportunity. 

What you won't have is another chance to bring half-truths and/or try to coerce anyone into an illegal action. Therefore I suggest you do some HONEST thoughtful research before you try again. You are on a short leash due to your past actions, not your thoughts.

Lest I sic Professor Reccesoldier onto your work again.....


----------



## scoutfinch

I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.  I think the thread could be used as heavily moderated forum for demonstrating to them -- and everyone else who reads here as a source of information on the CF or the conflict in Afghanistan -- the falsehoods that exist and are being promulgated out of sheer ignorance.  This presents an opportunity to redress points that we all know are untrue, inaccurate or being manipulated.  

That being said, I think any points we make in opposition must be advanced on a factual and not emotive basis.  

Is it possible to have posts to the thread filtered through a moderator before they appear.  If so, perhaps posts could be reviewed (not for substantive content) to ensure that attitudes don't cause the matter to spiral out of control.

I also  recognize that our VOLUNTEER mods are already working very hard behind the scenes to keep this place the finely-tuned-machine that it is!  Another secondary duty might not be feasible.


----------



## armyvern

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.  I think the thread could be used as heavily moderated forum for demonstrating to them -- and everyone else who reads here as a source of information on the CF or the conflict in Afghanistan -- the falsehoods that exist and are being promulgated out of sheer ignorance.  This presents an opportunity to redress points that we all know are untrue, inaccurate or being manipulated.
> 
> That being said, I think any points we make in opposition must be advanced on a factual and not emotive basis.
> 
> Is it possible to have posts to the thread filtered through a moderator before they appear.  If so, perhaps posts could be reviewed (not for substantive content) to ensure that attitudes don't cause the matter to spiral out of control.
> 
> I also  recognize that our VOLUNTEER mods are already working very hard behind the scenes to keep this place the finely-tuned-machine that it is!  Another secondary duty might not be feasible.



I tend to agree with everything you've said except the "filtering through the moderator before they appear."  Based on the subject matter at hand, even if post content was not what was reviewed, the "filtering" of the posts would most certainly be taken by some, in their arguements, as censorship.

Let's not afford them the opportunity to spin that to their liking; they seem to make a habit of it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I think I was clear in my warning to them what we expect.
I'm here until 0630 tomorrow morning, they cross the line during that time, they go away.

They stay within what I [we] expect from civilized adults, then they can speak their piece.

EDIT TO ADD: and we will act like civilizd adults also.


----------



## pbi

I'm also very much against banning Valcartier from posting here. If there is one place in the cyberspace where these people will meet with factual, logical arguments from professionals and people who have "been there, done that", it's right here. IMHO we complain so often and so loudly that neither the Govt nor the CF will engage these disinformers in the public forum: well-here's our chance to do it. I for one welcome the  debate.

Just look at how poorly they've started out: 

-they work from the assumption that Canadian soldiers apparently not only know nothing about their mission, nor about world politics, but are vulnerable to poorly thought out propaganda. They obviously work from the premise that they are morally superior to us and that if only we turn to the light we will be saved. A historically typical view of the professional military from their camp;

they use quotations that are either out of context or largely irrelevant because they come from other missions or from other militaries, but even in their best case only represent the opinions of a tiny fraction of the US military, most of whom carry out their duties effectively and bravely every day. If this were not so the US missions in Iraq and Afghanistan would have collapsed long ago. Interesting IIRC that the highest reenlistment rate in the US Army is in combat arms units engaged in operations;

-they have chosen, for reasons best known only to themselves (but which they might want to reconsider) a "poster boy" who can be politely described as having a "situationally flexible memory", and rudely described as a number of other things. His apparently shameless misrepresentation of facts does not seem to trouble the group. Perhaps they persist in trotting him out because they actually have nobody else?;

-they indulge in arguments that apart from being counterfactual are morally reprehensible. Abandoning the people of Afghanistan (to satisfy what/who, tell me again...?);

-they have either cunningly or stupidly quoted Gen Leslie out of context, and no doubt with no real understanding of the man himself, the Canadian Army, the philosophies behind successful counterinsurgency, or current understanding by us of how complex our mission is, and how facile and superficial a time limit is.

So, let's engage. If we don't who will?

Cheers


----------



## McG

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.





			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I'm also very much against banning Valcartier from posting here.
> ...
> So, let's engage. ...


I support both your positions.  This is healthy discussion so long as there are no enticements made toward violation of Canadian law.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I never suggested banning, I merely suggested that we not encourage them to propogate their falsehoods.  As the mods have said, that will not be taking place so I am just as interested as others now to see what they'll come up with this evening.

Game on!!!


----------



## Danjanou

As already noted valcartier and his colleagues have yet to cross the line re site guidelines and therefore can’t be banned.  We have a set system in place to here and as always it will be followed if needed to. Unlike some web sites we play by the rules. Our new friends like anyone else who posts here must have read the site  guidelines and are subject to them at all times. That will include any statment or intent to violate any of the laws of the land.

Valcartier do not misinterpret what may seem a “heavy mod” presence here as an attempt to stifle or censor you. Quite the ooposite in fact , we welcome an informed debate on this topic and hope you and your colleagues are up to. 

As with any other topical threads here attention is quickly drawn to it and sometimes emotion overrules logic on one or all sides. Our presence here is to ensure that the discussion stays on track. Besides the staff here are also first and foremost members and some or all of us may wish to join in too. Others will stay out of the debate to allow them to continue to impartially observe and moderate.


----------



## Wookilar

Agreed, the facts have to come from somewhere. As I do not expect that we will change any minds here, I will still be a part of the attempt. I'm just sick of so much crap being put out there.

Valcartier2007, 

I have read your letter and your supporting documents. I am a long time serving member with operational experience and I am currently a  university student (where I've learned all that critical thinking stuff and how to apply it).

One: your letter is full of holes. You are actually asking people to break the law, but you yourself are not willing to take risks accordingly. I noticed you asked Mr Wallace if that was his real name or not, but I see you are not using your "real" name, but an assumed one. Way to go to stand up for your convictions. It goes to show how much you are willing to risk for your beliefs.

Two: maybe that's why you seem to instinctively react and agree with the American service members quoted on your site. Unfortunately, they are not (with the exception of Mr O'Brien) standing up for what they believe in, they are afraid and are cowards. Strong words, yes, but the naked truth. The US forces have a long standing and well established Conscientious Objector process, if you hold strong enough convictions, you can be honourably discharged as such and there is no black mark on your record (as Mr O'Brien did). These "resisters" often end up charged (and discharged) because they simply broke the law and ran away from their (volunteered for) duties and did not even try and bother with Conscientious Objector status. As for Mr Brobeck (the Marine you then say is in the Army, which is it, very different, sloppy research), there are always people that come out of a war zone and have a different world view. To say he is a Resister due to those views, however, is false. He is not resisting, he came to the realization that he no longer agreed with his oath and did the honorable thing and got out instead of running away and apply for refugee status illegally.

Three: The use of Mr Juarez shows just how much research you have put into this. He is a liar and has been outed as such (repeatedly). His arguments and statements do not, and have never been, supported by the facts. There are thousands of Reservists in this country that have no desire to serve in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). There are thousands that do. Until this country is in a state of declared war (does WW I or II ring a bell?), those Reservists have a choice whether they serve overseas or not. That simple fact refutes every thing Juarez has ever said.

Four: your supporting documents from the main stream media and from other NGO's (such as RAWA) are, at best, taken out of context or, at worst, twisted beyond belief. Reccesoldier, MCG, FascistLibertarian and pbi (and others) have already covered that.

If you are willing to look at the actual facts, forget the diatribe, and do some independent research, you will get more respect here.

Oh, and please stop using the ridiculous argument that "2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means 2500 more US soldiers in Iraq." The Americans deal in numbers of tens of thousands, another 2500 freed up by our (or any one else's) actions is not even a consideration for their deployment plans. The Americans deal with a total force of 1.4 million (approximately), do you really think 2500 make a difference?

Wook
(not my real name, nor is it even close, but, like all good nick names, I was given it a long time ago and am quite attached to it)


----------



## RatCatcher

I think one thing that Valcartier needs to understand is that they are not preaching to mindless bison following the herd over the cliff. Indeed, unless things have changed in the past couple of years, the CF has the highest percentage of post secondary education in the non-officer ranks. I know that all of my friends are all well read and realize the risks when we agree to go. 

As for their statement of being complacent to war crimes, I do take that personnally, as should any member. We are trained to follow the rules of engagement, receive countless briefings from our JAG sections in regards to the "the laws of armed conflict", GC and such.  Most would report infractions to the chain of command if they occur. 

On top of that, would they also object to the fact that I kill bugs for a living....


----------



## Bigmac

Valcartier 2007 group had to leave and research more as they were bombarded with *factua*l information and references that they could not dispute so they obviously do not have the time to research properly?
        
        Be careful what you say to these people as I believe they are going to quote some of you. They may also try to use this forum as a source of information for their upcoming demonstration on 22 Jun in Quebec. I would almost guarantee that they will twist every word you say to make their cause seem justified.

        When Valcartier 2007 returns, debate them hard with clear facts and references but please keep emotions out of it. They are trying to get emotional responses. 

       Show them what military discipline is all about! :cdnsalute:


----------



## Flip

Personally, I would rather have a moderated debate here
than have them stuffing mailboxes on any base.

Engage them! they might learn something.
Hell, maybe we'll learn something. :


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Bigmac, that is a good point.  After the initial quote of an Army.ca member by the media, I am sure there is great scrutiny by all sides (read media, CF and others) on this hot topic.

Ratcatcher, a good point you bring up about us knowing the rules of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and others.  I wonder how many briefings the Taliban (and such groups) sit through before they go into battle?


----------



## scoutfinch

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Ratcatcher, a good point you bring up about us knowing the rules of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and others.  I wonder how many briefings the Taliban (and such groups) sit through before they go into battle?



That is a total red herring and unrelated to the debate.  

What we should address is the de facto argument that the Laws of Armed Conflict require a detaining power to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners before they turn them over to a third party.  That is the law.  Whatever the convoluted facts of the recent past, we are compliant with that law now and have taken steps to ensure that the treatment of detainees will be scrutinized according to a legal standard.  The fact that we took steps to ensure our compliance indicated the significance we placed on the situation.

That takes the wind out of their sails on that issue.  

Fight with facts.  Strawman arguments and red herrings only diminish the power of the facts in our favour.


----------



## membrain

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I never suggested banning, I merely suggested that we not encourage them to propogate their falsehoods.  As the mods have said, that will not be taking place so I am just as interested as others now to see what they'll come up with this evening.
> 
> Game on!!!




As newbie forum member I agree that it will be interesting to see what they come up with. However past experience tells me that these types never let lttle thing such as the truth get in the way of their twisted thought processes. So I won't waste my breath. I am however more than a little annoyed that thes people are depicting our troops as "war criminals".

By the way. Nice place ya got here. I found out abou the site from an article in the National Post about the tragic loss of Trooper Darryl Caswell


----------



## George Wallace

Flip said:
			
		

> Personally, I would rather have a moderated debate here
> than have them stuffing mailboxes on any base.
> 
> Engage them! they might learn something.
> Hell, maybe we'll learn something. :



That is our hopes and why I placed a warning about spamming the site a couple of pages earlier in this topic.

What I hoped and have yet to see, is our 'guest' to actually debate his/her/their points, not just give us their standard 'party line'.  Falsehoods and Propaganda put into leaflets and letters for mass mailings do not equal debate on an internet forum.  I am sure that the lack of discussion on one side or the other will then relegate this whole topic as worthless and not worthy of being kept for future perusal.

It now falls on Valcartier2007 to actually take up the gauntlet and DEBATE, not just rhyme off a 'checklist' of statements which we can easily disprove.  If Valcartier2007 can not validate statements, then they are worthless. 

We have already provided information and sources to discredit this Juarez character.  We have provided rebuttals to other points.  It is time for the Debate to begin in earnest, not just political posturing.


----------



## medaid

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> This is my last word on the subject and the only reason I wish to raise it is because it is not based on opinion but on an error of fact in their argument which I feel should be corrected.
> 
> The fact that your organization states things like "We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason." simply demonstrates your organizations inability to deal with facts.  Whether you like it or not, he was not expelled from the army for his objections to the conflict in Afghanistan.  He CHOSE  to leave because of his objections and took steps to ensure he was removed from training.  He was NOT expelled because of his beliefs.
> 
> 
> (1)  Juarez was an Officer Cadet in the Reserve Force.
> 
> (2)  As a Reservist, he was under NO obligation to go to Afghanistan.  In fact, he would have had to agreed to go to Afghanistan on more than one occasion prior to deployment in order to get to theatre.
> 
> (3)  He was removed from training for failing to follow an order -- an order to run the obstacle course!  He took steps to ensure his removal from course because he had made a personal decision to cease training.  I say again:  HE CHOSE TO CEASE TRAINING BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. This does not mean he was expelled from the Forces for his political belief.  HE CHOSE TO LEAVE AND TOOK STEPS TO ENSURE HE WAS REMOVED FROM TRAINING BECAUSE HIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT BEING REMOVED FROM TRAINING WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.
> 
> Your organization's credibilty is lessened when you ignore facts and play with words that suit your political purpose.



I had to say this Olga... he didn't deserve to wear a uniform. He didn't deserve to have even held the rank of OCdt, no matter how lowly that is. It's a shame to every men and women who are of that rank, who have came from that rank, and who had worked hard to even get to that rank (RMC, PRes, RESO, ROTP etc etc). I don't think we should EVER refer to this... bag of..(insert expletive) by a rank that he had desecrated. We should just refer to him by his first name... or an expletive..


----------



## Yrys

Congratulations Reccesoldier on your long post and the research that went into it.

It would make a good canevas for an article by	The Ruxted Group (hint, hint  )!


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I wonder when they finish work?


----------



## Remius

While I'm not for banning Valcartier, I'm not convinced any type of real debate with facts is going to accomplish anything other than tooting our own horns that we disproved everything they have to say.  This group, and they are a group have come here and spouted their rhetoric under the guise of wanting to discuss the issues.  They are being careful about how they are saying it and will try hard to stay within the rules of the forum but they have a clear agenda and nothing we say, prove or show to them is going to change their minds.  Their recent actions with the Vandoos shows exactly how far they are willing to go.  How many views has this thread generated now?  Not bad considering they haven't paid a cent to get this message accross.  Oh they'll listen to us.  But it won't be the message they take with them.  It will be whatever  they can use to further their own agenda.  They've already distorted the truth and taken things out of context and they will do so willingly again with what they can garner from this forum and the discussion they claim to be eager to engage us in.  And although most of the membership here is reasonable, all it will take is one poster to ruin everyone's good intentions and informing them of their shortcomings.  They won't be convinced, no matter what we tell them so why bother?  My suggestion is to let the thread die.  Or just ignore them.  It isn't worth the bandwith.


----------



## scoutfinch

MedTech:

You will note that at no time did I mention my personal opinion of this individual.  I was addressing facts and only facts.  (It must be the lawyer coming out in me!)

I respect your passionately held feelings on the matter.  I just remind you that as firmly as you believe in yours, they believe in theirs.  And the more we try to defend opinions, the greater the risk that the thread will spiral into an unprincipled battle of 'my opinion is better than your opinion'.

So, I proposed to Valcartier 2007 that we address the facts.

In fact, I challenge Valcartier 2007 to explain to me -- in light of the facts I have presented -- if they will continue to maintain that Juarez was expelled because of his beliefs.  I don't think the argument is sustainable on the facts.  Let's see what they have to say.


----------



## medaid

True  I just had to say it... and I apologize if my post would likely cause a downward spiral... not the intention.


----------



## Reccesoldier

MedTech said:
			
		

> and I apologize if my post would likely cause a downward spiral...



Yeah, 

I'm the one in charge of the downward spiral around here mister! 

And don't you forget it.  

Seriously though, although I wish Valcartier2007 would *honestly* debate facts I have the feeling that this is going to end up a lot like this

 :argument:


----------



## medaid

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> I'm the one in charge of the downward spiral around here mister!
> 
> And don't you forget it.



Yes Prof. Reccesoldier  ;D


----------



## Haggis

At Reply No. 117, *Valcartier2007* indicated that they would respond this evening.  Don't think we'll see any traffic before then.


----------



## membrain

I agree with Crantor. There is no way that you can have a true debate with people who have an agenda like theirs.


----------



## Yrys

membrain said:
			
		

> I agree with Crantor. There is no way that you can have a true debate with people who have an agenda like theirs.



Why ? I don't think it depends on the opinion of someone, but on the person itself... There is people willing to debate
everywhere, it's seem to me, even if it's a difficult think because people tend to look for facts that agree with their value, 
rather then a broader perspective...


----------



## Trogdor

Good on you to those troops and civies who have taken the time and effort to point out the fundamental flaws with these groups' way of thinking.

I won't even bother opening a dialogue with these people as I make it a personal policy to not discuss anything of any significance with people who ultimately are supporting a return to power for the Taliban.

As a soldier who is deploying to Afghanistan I can say this.  I have spent a lot of time thinking about the morality, the risks, the costs and the objectives of this mission.  After all this thinking I have come to one conclusion.  This mission is worth risking my life to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda from regaining control.  Osama Bin Laden's words denouncing Western soldiers for being in Afghanistan have not deterred me, the reality that I am going to be away from my loved ones for a long time has not deterred me and the threat of an armed enemy who has no respect for innocent life has not deterred me from serving.  Therefore a factually flawed argument made by people who have never really had to fight for their freedom is going to do very little to shake my resolve.


----------



## Arsenal

Well said Wolfe117.


----------



## Yrys

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> I won't even bother opening a dialogue with these people as I make it a personal policy to not discuss anything of any significance with people who ultimately are supporting a return to power for the Taliban.
> 
> I have spent a lot of time thinking about the morality, the risks, the costs and the objectives of this mission. This mission is worth risking my life to stop the Taliban and Al Qaeda from regaining control.



To be willing to risk your live and incure all the incomfort of doing a tour there denote a  REAL strong passion for the mission. I understand why you don't want 
to dialogue with them. But if everyone that are for the mission would do that, the media would be fill only with their opinions, and the public opinion would turn even more against it, which could mean that a minority government may choose to rethink its commitment. 

I admire people that are willing to debate, and are able to do so with facts and a continuing controls of their strongs passion and emotions.
It's not something that I'm always able to do...


----------



## foerestedwarrior

OK, I am still confused as to why there is reference to US actions in AFG, and soldiers claiming Conscientious Objector Status or Deserting. You might as well be quoting the German, or French army(just first two countries came to my head). This is CANADA, different military then the US.


----------



## Greymatters

This post has really flown off the handle since I last looked at it.  Congrats to the mods on keeping it on the rails.

On a side note, a simple search of Canada 411 reveals that the contact number for Valcartier2007 is unlisted, but it is posted here by CNW group newswire:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2007/12/c3587.html


----------



## DaveTee

No matter what these groups theorize or put forward as "proof", my question to them is this:
Assuming your right and Canadians do leave, what do you see taking it's place, realistically speaking. Do you think that if Canadians leave all will be a-ok again (was it ever?) in Afghanistan? Do you think the Taliban will say "hey we won, let's reach out to our former enemies and hug them!"

So please Valcartier 2007, tell me what you see as the future of the country after a NATO pullout and how in realistic sense that could possibly, in any way shape or form, be a benefit to the Afghans?


----------



## Greymatters

Looking at the alignment of the group, it has direct ties to anarchist, anti-war, and anti-globalization groups in eastern Canada.  What is of concern is that the group has aligned itself with and is being promoted by numerous groups whose goal is not to achieve anything but gain nationwide attention.  What are they protesting?  Anything that will get them noticed.  Nearly all the material produced is factually distorted to meet their own propoganda campaigns.  Below is a list of associated groups:

À Babord
ACCtion Against Atlantica 
Action créative/Acción creativa
A - I n f o s
Anarchist Black Cross Federation-Montreal
Anarkhia
Anti-Imperialist Consulta
L'Association étudiante du Cégep de Saint-Laurent (AÉCSL)
L'Association générale étudiante du Cégep du Vieux-Montréal (AGECVM)
L'Association facultaire des étudiants en sciences humaines de l'UQÀM (AFESH-UQÀM)
L'Association pour une solidarité syndicale étudiante (ASSÉ)
la Bibliothèque anarchiste DIRA
Block the Empire-Montreal aka Bloquez l'empire-Montréal
Center for Philippine Concerns (CPC)
Le Centre d'Asie du Sud (CERAS)
Collectif Piranha (Québec)
la coalition Guerre à la guerre aka The War on War! Coalition
La coalition Guerre à la Guerre: Val-Cartier 2007 (Québec)
Coalition Against the Deportation of Palestinian Refugees (CADPR)
Le Collectif opposé à la brutalité policière (COBP)
Le Comité des sans-emploi (Montréal-Centre)
Documentation Information Ressources Alternatives (DIRA)
Food Not Bombs
Le Frigo Vert
Le Front Rouge
Grassroots Action for Student Power-McGill (GRASPé)
Groupe d'action et de sensibilisation au pouvoir étudiant (GRASPÉ-McGill)
le Groupe de Recherche d'Intéret Public (GRIP-UQÀM)
Haiti Action Montreal
La Otra Campaña Montréal
Immigrant Workers Center (IWC)
International League of Peoples' Struggles (ILPS)-Montreal
International Solidarity Movement (ISM)-Montreal
Kabataang Montreal
Les Lucioles
Liberterre
Mauvaise Herbe
Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists (NEFAC)
No One Is Illegal-Montreal/Personne n'est illégal-Montréal
La Pointe Libertaire
La RueBrique
Libertad (Cégep du Vieux-Montréal)
Open Door Books/Livres aux prisonniers et prisonnières
Les Panthères Roses
Peoples' Global Action (c/o Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW)) 
Philippines-Canada Task Force on Human Rights (Quebec)
Phillipine Women's Center of Montreal
PINAY (Filipina Women of Quebec)
Pointe Libertaire
Projet Accompagnement Solidarité Colombie (PASC)
Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG-McGill)
Quebec Public Interest Research Group (QPIRG-Concordia)
Réseau anarchiste en milieu étudiant (RAMÉ)
Réseau Anti-Capitaliste de Montréal aka The Anti-Capitalist Network of Montreal 
Résistance haïtienne au Québec
The Resist Collective - Vancouver
La Rue Brique
Société Bolivarienne du Québec
Solidarité sans frontières/Solidarity Across Borders
South Asian Women's Community Center (SAWCC)
Students Taking Action in Chiapas (STAC)
L'Observatoire de l'Asie Centrale et du Moyen-Orient
Tadamon! Montréal
Unité des socialistes iraniens à Montréal
Unité théâtrale d'interventions loufoques (UTIL)


----------



## RatCatcher

I would also give a Brave Zulu to the mods. To me, being one of those targeted in this campaign, it is quite emotional. 
I have a couple questions for Valcartier 2007, I wrote an e-mail to you guys in regards to what you sent and never got an answer...will I ever??? 

And also, even though I know the answer, why this rotation? Why not Pet or Edm....?

Do any of you have any military experience, Canada or otherwise???

Have you ever done a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan?????

What is your opinion of the Village Medical Outreach program???

I look forward to the answers

Again, BZ to the staff!


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting to see this happening from KAF, where we see a constant stream of initiatives to rebuild the nation and the determined efforts of the Taliban to undo that work. Perhaps the preceptions of this group are warped because they are only shown the efforts of the Taliban through the MSM, and fail to do the small amount of work required to see the rest of what we do?

The Taliban do not place any weight on concepts like freedom (of speech, association); ownership of property or the Rule of Law. Their response to our work is increasingly turning against the beneficiaries of that work, the Afghan people themselves, since attacking old men, women and children is far easier than attempting to displace the ISAF and (increasingly) the local GoA forces. This is actually nothing new, when the Taliban were in power they acted in the same manner. Their propaganda videos, which we see from time to time, are sickening orgies of bloodshed directed at the people of Afghanistan, and often the soldiers who watch them ask for them to be stopped. These are veterans of Afghanistan and sometimes Iraq, so this isn't an audience of shrinking violets. Seeing such savagery only increases our determination that this must be stopped.

This is the reality. *Groups in Canada who claim to support human rights have the onus of proof placed on them to reconcile their actions that directly and indirectly support the existence of groups like the Taliban with their stated goals.* There is no conflict with us; we support human rights and our actions serve to further the cause. Most of us would never have joined or volunteered otherwise.


----------



## Haggis

I wonder if Valcartier2007 has seen this, shared with the usual disclaimer:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/06/15/4263716-cp.html



> *Small number of Que. soldiers active in Afghanistan*
> 
> By STEPHANIE LEVITZ
> 
> KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - They sing and tell jokes over their vehicle intercoms, but since they landed eight months ago there's been a lot of hard work and little play for the small company of Canadian soldiers from Quebec who are already in Afghanistan.
> 
> Though much is being made of the 2,000 soldiers from Valcartier, Que. arriving in August, a hardy band of 156 have been in Kandahar since December. And watching the attention bestowed on those about to arrive hasn't been easy for them.
> 
> "It's a bit of frustration from the French guys, to be honest," said Maj. Richard Collin, the commanding officer of C Company of the Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Van Doos.
> 
> "They know when the next (rotation) is going to arrive there's going to be coverage all over the news in Quebec, and they'll say: 'I was there for nine months - I did that'."
> 
> The coverage is already happening in Canada.
> 
> There was the anti-war letter campaign last week asking the upcoming rotation to refuse to serve in Afghanistan. Then came word that military officials are planning a major public relations blitz to shore up public support.
> 
> It won't matter, said Capt. Michel Tousignant, 32, who commands a platoon of Canadian soldiers protecting the Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Kandahar city.
> 
> "It doesn't matter if it's a big group or a little group, the media gets tired easily," he said.
> 
> "If there is nothing extraordinary, like deaths, wounds or combat, immediately they aren't interested."
> 
> That rankles for the troops of "Crazy Company," as it's known, as the majority of their efforts have centred around what Tousignant calls the "less sexy" side of Canada's work in Afghanistan.
> 
> *The 200-plus people at the PRT were hamstrung by a risky environment delaying development efforts before the Van Doos arrived to provide convoy protection and camp security.
> 
> Eight months later, the soldiers say they are extremely proud of what the security they've provided has accomplished.
> 
> Tousignant rattled off a list: a school in Sperwan Gar, canals, irrigation channels - all things that have helped win the support of Afghans and ensure stability. *
> But he admits it wasn't a job he was trained to do at first.
> 
> "At the start, we had focused our training on operations of war, but when we got here we quickly understood that our role with the reconstruction team wasn't about that," he said.
> 
> *"It was much more about rapport with the people, working hand in hand to make progress in the country," he said. *
> Canada's policy for Afghanistan is officially known as a 3D approach - defence, development and diplomacy - but the lion's share of training leaves the latter two hanging, Collin said in an interview with The Canadian Press.
> 
> Troops are learning on the fly.
> 
> Collin tells a tale about a checkpoint Canadians were helping a local village build to protect the community from insurgents.
> 
> Working off the Canadian military playbook, the troops scouted out the ideal location and presented it to the local police. They rejected the choice and pointed to another site.
> 
> A few days later, Collin said, the police explained why: decades earlier, they had beaten back the Russian from the site they wanted to build on now.
> 
> "It made perfect sense," Collin said.
> 
> The relaxed and jovial approach the Van Doos take to their work in Afghanistan is perhaps mirrored by the few French books amid row upon row of English tomes at the PRT. Tucked between Tom Clancy and Stephen King are three French romance novels.
> 
> "Francophones have an approach that helps us avoid dangerous situations because we have the sympathy of the population," said Cpl. Charles Levesque-Desilets, 21, a sharpshooter.
> 
> "You can be aggressive doing security or you can be engaging, say hello, just these little gestures make all the difference in the mission."
> 
> As his troops' nine-month tour begins to wrap up, Collin said he knows the people of Quebec aren't paying much attention to the mission in Afghanistan now, but that their focus will change in the coming months.
> 
> "I hope it is not going to happen that a Tremblay or a guy with a real French name is going to be killed," he said.
> 
> "But the chance of ...," he said, without finishing the sentence. "At that time we're going to have lots of interest in Quebec; guys are going to pay attention a bit more."
> 
> The politics of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan can be argued endlessly at home, Collin said, but what remains important is the progress on the ground.
> 
> "We did lots of work. We pushed the issue the best we can, as fast as we can, but now it's dependent on the people," he said.
> 
> "We cannot do more than the Afghans are willing to do."



Yep, sure sounds like "war crimes" to me!


----------



## George Wallace

Greymatter

Thank you for your research and lists.  We already have a good idea who this person is, their home phone number, etc.  That is not the question here.  We all have a general idea of where these people are coming from.  

What we are looking forward to here, is not exposing the person posting, but their ideas.  We are looking for a debate.  We are looking for the truth in the facts they claim to be putting forward.  As you know, this site does not dwell well on people posting 'generalities'.  We like to keep it simple and deal with the 'real' FACTS.  

No 'Witch Hunt' need to take place.  Just a cool, calm discusion of the facts and which interpretation of those facts is correct.


----------



## observor 69

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Greymatter
> 
> Thank you for your research and lists.  We already have a good idea who this person is, their home phone number, etc.  That is not the question here.  We all have a general idea of where these people are coming from.
> 
> What we are looking forward to here, is not exposing the person posting, but their ideas.  We are looking for a debate.  We are looking for the truth in the facts they claim to be putting forward.  As you know, this site does not dwell well on people posting 'generalities'.  We like to keep it simple and deal with the 'real' FACTS.
> 
> No 'Witch Hunt' need to take place.  Just a cool, calm discusion of the facts and which interpretation of those facts is correct.



+1 George, "just the facts mam", no bombast, no argumentative run on just the goal of informing our follow members, at all rank levels.
Thanks


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

Wow,  I go away for a few days and 5 pages get added!

I am glad that the very people we were talking about showed up.  I am looking forward to their responces.  Normally when I talk to an anti-afghanistan/NDP/... person it is one on one. Usually their arguments go along these lines:

"We are there for economic reasons"
"By us freeing up American troops, we are helping them in a war we don't support"
"we are trying to buy international reputation, the cost is the blood of our soldiers"
"If we simply pulled out, Canada would be less of a target because there would be less of a cause to attack us"
"we are doing more harm than good because our presence there is slowing down reconstruction efforts"

I've argued each argument several times - I think I even posted most of these on here.  

I wish I had more time to write a better post,  but I'm off to my send of dinner.  I'm off to Gagetown on Sunday.  I'm hoping that if I do well on my course I'll be allowed to request to be sent to Afghanistan.  (With that said,  I know IU have a ways to go before I'm qualified to even ask)

On a side note,  I am an Ocdt, in the reserves, going on CAP.  I know it is a lowly 'appointment' (I don't even have a rank) but still I did work hard to be where I am.  (Hopefully I'll be more proud of myself on the other side of the Summer)


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Okay, It's 20:10 in Quebec, how long do these guys work??


----------



## Trinity

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Okay, It's 20:10 in Quebec, how long do these guys work??



Well, we did have how many umpteen people ask them way too many questions.

I highly doubt they can answer them all tonight.  As anxious as we all are they'll definitely
need some time to prepare a response (despite the fact they said tonight).

I can't wait to see their response myself.


----------



## Haggis

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Okay, It's 20:10 in Quebec, how long do these guys work??



Well, the bars in La Belle Province close around 3:00 AM and they are students (mostly).  Also, what are your priorities on a beautiful spring evening in Canada?  

Me?  I'm passing by the computer on my way to the fridge.  :cheers:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Haggis said:
			
		

> Me?  I'm passing by the computer on my way to the fridge.  :cheers:



Awwwww...bite me..........at work until morn. :crybaby:


----------



## Haggis

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Awwwww...bite me..........at work until morn. :crybaby:



Don't hate the player, Bruce.  Hate the game.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

I was playing the game last night.. and I closed the bars.. it was amusing.. guess we'll just have to chat to pass the time.. so how's about them Montreal Canadiens???


----------



## Haggis

Last time I "played the game" was the final night of the DP4 Infantry that I taught in May.  Gotta love Atlantic hospitality (and beer).  I went back to NDHQ to dry out... ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Valcartier2007 - Thanks for posting.  Interesting exchange here....

*Point 1:*


			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. *We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally.* We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason.



There's a difference between "someone does x" and "someone says they do x" - based on the section I've highlighted, all one can say is that an individual says they did something for a certain reason.  There are accounts here from those who say they were there, so there's at least reasonable doubt as to motive.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> General Andrew Leslie gave a speech in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."
> 
> In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."
> 
> Let's break down the general's logic:
> 
> 1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
> 2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
> 3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.



These snippets seem to be based on Toronto Star coverage of the speech in question in August 2005 at the Couchiching Conference in Orillia - even Canadian Press used the TorStar material (check out the coverage I could find here).  Also, I notice neither of these snippets are contained in the article presented by Major General Leslie at the conference.  We'll assume the quotes are correct.

Yours is one assessment of these fragments - there are other interpretations to the same fragments, though.

Let's look at another snippet, then, from the same coverage - mentioned right after the "There are things worth killing for" quote:

"Patterns of behaviour and beliefs about sovereignty, economics, national interests, national values, social development, the willingness to help others, a drive towards democratic institutions and representational government, the rule of law, quality of life, human rights and national culture are all parts of the larger equation of security requirements and potential solutions."  (This part, by the way, is contained in General Leslie's article.)

So, with that extra bit of information, these are equally legitimate reads of the points in the media:

1.  Making Afghanistan a better place to live could take 20 years.
2.  Canadian troops are fighting, and dying, to make Afghanistan a better place to live.
3.  It takes more than guns and shooting to make Afghanistan a better place to live.
4.  That said, it sometimes takes guns and shooting to deal with those who don't want to make Afghanistan a better place to live.

*Point 2:*


			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Canada's role in Afghanistan, *under a NATO mandate*, can't be divorced from the broader US-led role in the Middle East.



Actually, ISAF is under a _*United Nations*_ mandate.  Check out the applicable Security Council resolutions here.  Anti-war groups (not just yours) consistently ignore or downplay how the UN has OK'ed the ISAF mission.  ISAF is a UN-mandated operation according to eight United Nations Security Council Resolutions -- 1386,  1413,  1444,  1510,  1563,  1623  1659  and  1707.

*Point 3:*


			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"



It can be shown that reconstruction and development are, indeed, happening - check here.  Could more be done?  Yes.  Does this mean what's been done is bad?  No.  I've shown some evidence here of work being done - where is your evidence supporting your claim?

*Point 4:*


			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East.



Again, your evidence?

*Point 5:*
I won't go as far as some who say those opposing the UN sanctioned mission in Afghanistan are siding with the Taliban, or want them to win.  That said, I'd be interested to hear your organization's feelings about the Taliban's approach to:
- gender issues and education;
- small business development and culture; and
- the use of child soldiers.

I believe if the UN-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan were to pack up and leave tomorrow, the people who do what has been described in these examples will do the same to Afghans - again.

*Point 6*
Finally, I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?

Looking forward to hearing more.


----------



## Meridian

pbi said:
			
		

> -they have chosen, for reasons best known only to themselves (but which they might want to reconsider) a "poster boy" who can be politely described as having a "situationally flexible memory", and rudely described as a number of other things. His apparently shameless misrepresentation of facts does not seem to trouble the group. Perhaps they persist in trotting him out because they actually have nobody else?;



Of course they have no one else.  This is the precise object of the "targeted" mailings... to attempt to "drum up" a better poster boy.

Again, as others have stated, I think the issue here is that Valcartier 2007 isn't so interested in actually defending their arguments as they are in plying Sophist arguments and plucking at the socialist heartstrings of Canada's most left province and Taliban-Jack supporters.

The arrogance of main stream media and general lack of credibility that it and the government have with the general populace only furthers a climate of confusion amongst regular Canadians.  As a democratic nation with open access to mutliple media sources  - there is /so much/ "information" available via so many "sources" that it gets awfully messy trying to figure out the smoke from the chaff... The result is that people just give up on believing in anything, and cynically disagree to agree on anything.

It reminds me of a discussion I attempted to have with a colleague at work the other day who is a former Moroccan citizen now living here.   He was trying to convince me of many of the arguments Valcartier has put forward, with much of his conviction seemingly rooted in the belief that I must be somehow brainwashed by George W or MSM if I support the mission in Afghanistan.

Valcartier 2007: as a fellow Canadian, Montrealer, _et étudiant_, I ask you to:


Rebut the counterarguments you have been offered with factual arguments, or concede none exist
Provide counterarguments to your statements, or perhaps even host open debate, via the software provided by http://www.koumbit.net on your own website
Foster open, un-biased and multi-sided debate on the topic, rather than pigeon-holing yourselves into one mindset

I could go on, but I suppose what I'm getting at is perhaps if you approached the issue with standard principles of open, frank discourse and diplomacy, perhaps the world would be more interested in your viewpoint, and perhaps you would actually be fostering the type of communication we need more of in international politics.  


[Edited because I wasn't making sense]


i


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Hi everyone – We’re back! 

Sorry for the delay, but yes, we do work. And yes, it was Friday evening/Saturday morning in Montreal. But still, we’re here, early Saturday morning, and ready to respond to your various arguments and questions. Thanks to everyone who has engaged us on our arguments.

Who are “we”?: We are members of Block the Empire-Montreal and Guerre à la Guerre-Quebec City, two anti-war groups.

We have a public website for our mailout campaign: www.valcartier2007.ca with a public e-mail address and phone number. So, we are not really hiding anything at all, as one contributor has claimed. For example, our media spokespersons are publicly identified. We are here to defend our position, in a spirit of debate and dialogue. 

We appreciate that despite the various threats to close this thread, or ban us, that the moderators of this forum are allowing us to dialogue with you. And we appreciate those folks who've spoken up on this thread asking that we not be banned.

A few other points:

We are not university students. A few members of our groups are, but others are just plain in the workforce in different kinds of jobs and McJobs. We’re all also social justice, anti-war activists.

As far as we know, none of our groups members are in the military, or have served in the military. But, we do have family and personal connections the military. For example, our sisters, uncles and cousins (to name a few connections) are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Importantly, we would like to reply to this comment by pbi:

“ they work from the assumption that Canadian soldiers apparently not only know nothing about their mission, nor about world politics, but are vulnerable to poorly thought out propaganda. They obviously work from the premise that they are morally superior to us and that if only we turn to the light we will be saved. A historically typical view of the professional military from their camp;”

Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you. That comes from a basis of respect, not from moral superiority.

There’s been a lot of comment since we were last online, so we’ll do our best to respond. Our responses are forthcoming.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


PS: Would like to ask “George Wallace” again, is that a pseudonym, or a real name? You probably can guess why we’re asking: is your name an homage to the famous George Wallace?


----------



## Valcartier 2007

RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR RECCESOLDIER --

Many people have cited Professor Reccesoldier’s response as a rebuttal to our Open Letter. With all due respect, the so-called Professor’s response is shoddy. We encourage the folks on this forum who are reading closely, to re-read our open letter (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm), the professor’s supposed rebuttal (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578515.html#msg578515), and our reply below, and then make up your own mind.


1) The Professor takes issue with our examples of Canadian troops killing Afghan civilians.

Here is what we write in our original letter: _“Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes.”_

We also write: _“Canadian troops too have been involved in civilian deaths."_

We go on to provide examples with specific references that we cite. Here are the examples again, with the actual links to the news references, so the readers on this forum can decide for themselves whether we’ve made any misleading claims:

_“- in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol”_
REFERENCE: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/03/15/afghanistan_taxi060315.html

_“- in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed”_
REFERENCE: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2792d7a4-39d1-4901-943e-added0ff883c

_“- in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed”_
[REFERENCE: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061213/afghan_civilian_061213/]

_“- in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar”_
REFERENCES:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/kandahar_ambush_070219/20070219?hub=World
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/27/accidental-shooting-070227.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/02/17/3640893-cp.html

[NOTE: The Professor’s rebuttal is confused on the February 2007 example; there are clearly two separate incidents involving Canadian soldiers, as the references cited show; there is also a third incident involving other NATO soldiers.]


Again, there’s no misleading facts or errors; each of our claims about civilian deaths above is backed up with clear references. Judge for yourself.

Interestingly, the Professor has pointedly ignored the examples of US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. We provide two examples in our letter, not even mentioning the widely cited figure of upwards of 3000 civilian deaths as a result of US air strikes in 2001 and 2002.

Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan. Canada would not be in Afghanistan if the US were not in Afghanistan. And Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.

Our point is not that Canadian soldiers deliberately kill civilians, but that the misguided Afghan mission puts on-the-ground soldiers in the position that they kill and injure innocent civilians. Many members of the Canadian Armed Forces don’t want to be in that position, and they have the right to refuse to be in that position, and to be supported if they resist being put in such an intolerable situation.


2) The Professor takes issue with our view on the treatment of women in Afghanistan. Our source is RAWA (The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) which is anti-fundamentalist. RAWA has denounced the Afghan government that Canadian troops currently defend. In the words of RAWA:

_“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai and its international guardians, are playing shamelessly with the intolerable suffering of Afghan women and misuse it as their propaganda tool for deceiving the people of the world. ... The main cause of the catastrophe in our country is the fact that traitors like Rabbani, Sayyaf, Qanoni, Muhaqiq, Dostum, Khalili, Ismail, Fahim and the like are in power, who have a dark history full of tyranny and barbarism. ... The US government and its allies have committed an unforgivable betrayal to our people by mounting the Jehadi mafias in the power. They have left no doubt for our people and the world that they are after their own global and regional interests and that they have no use for stability, freedom and democracy in Afghanistan.”_ [SOURCE: http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm ]

Again, Canadian soldiers have the right to refuse to be cannon fodder for generals and politicians who are self-servingly protecting warlords and the “mafia government of Mr. Karzai.”


3) The Professor claims we’ve made an error by claiming that _“Canada’s military role in Afghanistan – which began in 2002 – is directly linked to George Bush’s “War on Terror””_.

The Professor states: _“Canada’s commitment to the mission was signaled by PM Cretien on Oct 7 2001”_. 

Fair enough. Actually, JTF2 was immediately deployed by the Defence Minister Art Eggleton after September 11, 2001, before October 7, 2001.

However, our claim is not wrong. Regular Canadian forces were on-the-ground in January 2002, not before.


4) After his so-called rebuttal, the Professor writes:

_“Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle. 

Really, you people put your name to this piece of tripe?  I’d be freaking embarrassed to have my name associated with such a piss-poor product. Are you failing out of university?”_


We stand by our letter, and the facts in the letter, and will let readers judge for themselves whether our letter is “riddled with inaccuracy” or “willfully ignorant of the facts.” There is nothing that the Professor has really refuted. Our letter stands his test. 

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

RESPONSE TO MCG 
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578461.html#msg578461

MCG writes: _This one is called poisoning the well: "who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war"_

Reply: We think it’s very relevant to point out that the current Defence Minister, who is a former General, has personally profited from working for military companies and PR firms. He profited from the connections he made while in the Canadian Armed Forces as a senior officer. We take the view that politicians like O’Connor, and other Generals, have a completely different self-interest than average soldiers. And of course, like with every war, it’s the on-the-ground grunt soldier who dies in carrying out the policies of greedy politicians and generals.


MCG writes: _“The issue about Iraq is a redherring.  Iraq has not been our war; Afghanistan was.”_

Reply: Iraq is not a red herring. US-led involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan is part of a self-declared  -- and ill-conceived -- “War on Terror”.  Does anyone seriously believe, more than 5 years after 9-11, that the Bush-led “War on Terror’” has made the world safer? For the people of the Middle East and Central Asia, US-led Western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is linked.

Our contribution to the so-called “War on Terror” is upwards of 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Our point is that 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan means 2500 more American troops in Iraq. The Canadian Armed Forces works closely with the US. And, we would not be in Afghanistan if not for the presence of US troops. It’s fair comment for us to link the two, and it’s valid if on-the-ground Canadian soldiers don’t want to be complicit in such a war, whether directly or indirectly.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

RESPONSE TO ST MICHEALS MEDICAL TEAM
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578493.html#msg578493


ST MICHEALS MEDICAL TEAM writes:
_“What you fail to realize is that serving members of the Canadian forces are professionals. Do you believe you would have any luck writing a letter to a professional hockey player telling them not to play, or a RCMP officer telling them not to investigate a crime in thier jurastiction?

This is what we do, this is what the people of Canada pay us to do. If you have a problem with what the soldiers of YOUR Canadian Forces are doing, write your MP...

Atleast they will pretend to listen to you.”_


Our reply:

Good line about politicians who “pretend to listen”. So true.

But, about your other point, our view is that soldiers are not unthinking. We respect that, and that’s why we want to reach them (you) directly with our point of view. It’s generals and senior officers who seem to think that soldiers should just do the job they’re paid to do, which is to accept orders.

Incidentally, there is a rich history of soldiers refusing their officers, sometimes on a mass scale. Check out this promo video about Vietnam war resisters called “Sir, No Sir!”: http://notyoursoldier.org/article.php?list=type&type=14

We can both target politicians (and we have), while also trying to dialogue with soldiers.

In Montreal, we have protested both Harper and Gordon O’Connor. Here’s the text of a pamphlet we passed out at the protest against O’Connor, fyi:

[size=10pt]*Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld 
*[/size]
*WHY WE'RE PROTESTING ... AND DISRUPTING!
*
Conservative Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor, is speaking today (April 3, 2007) at the posh Queen Elizabeth Hotel, sponsored by Montreal's Council on Foreign Relations (CORIM).

O'Connor is in Montreal as part of an ongoing Conservative public relations campaign to sell the Afghan mission to the Canadian public. O'Connor himself used to work for multi-national public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, the same firm that fabricated atrocities in the lead-up to the attack on Iraq in 1990.

O'Connor recently described Canada's presence in Afghanistan as "retribution" for the death of Canadians at the World Trade Center on 9-11. He misled the public about the treatment of Afghan prisoners who face torture and death. He is a former General who prior to joining cabinet in 2006 spent eight years as a paid lobbyist for the military industry.

Canadian troops are in Afghanistan to allow more American troops to be in Iraq. Gordon O'Connor, along with Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Peter Mackay, Michael Fortier and others in the Conservative cabinet, are the main Canadian apologists for George Bush's "War on Terror". They hide their true agenda behind the language of "development" and "democracy" (and strategically exploit compliant government-funded "NGOs").

A Minister of Defence who justifies Canada's role in Afghanistan in the language of revenge, who is in the pay of military contractors, and who speaks to an audience of war-profiteering businessmen and politicians at a pretentious hotel, deserves to be actively protested and disrupted.


*WHO IS SPONSORING TODAY'S SPEECH?
*
The main sponsors of today's $90/plate lunch are several companies that profit from war; they include the following Quebec-based companies (all citations are from their public documents and websites):

-- SNC-Lavalin (455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West), who until 2006 sold bullets to the American military for use in Iraq, and who maintain many military contracts thru various subsidiaries. For example, SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. "provides a range of logistics support services to the Canadian military on deployed international operations," including in Afghanistan.

-- Bombardier (800 René-Lévesque Blvd. West), whose military division helps to train NATO pilots, the same pilots who go on to bomb in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

-- CAE (8585 Côte de Liesse), a company that "develops, designs and manufactures aviation training systems for civil and military applications." Military contracts account for 50% of CAE's business, again, to help pilots and soldiers to kill.

-- Oerlikon (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec), who openly brag that 50% of their business is for the Canadian Department of Defence. In their words: "we are one of the largest providers of land defence systems and battle management systems to the federal government. Our business also comprises sales to international defence customers and commercial sales in the homeland security sector."

Other chief sponsors today include L-3 Communications, who are the sixth largest defense company in the United States, as well as Quebec-based companies such as CMC Electronics (active in military aviation), Consoltex and Logistik Unicorp.

The link between O'Connor -- a former military industry lobbyist and PR hack -- and the military-industrial complex, couldn't be clearer and more direct. Today's luncheon is a celebration of war-profiteers, hiding behind the camouflage of "development" and "security" (as well as various police and hotel security). We are here to protest the war-profiteering companies just as much as Minister O'Connor. In collaboration, the Canadian government and Quebecois capitalists are profiting from the so-called "War on Terror".


*THE "LOGIC" OF MAJOR-GENERAL ANDREW LESLIE
*
Major-General Andrew Leslie is Canada's military commander in Afghanistan. Commenting in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie publicly stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Let's break down the general's logic:
1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time Canadian troops kill people more people will want to kill Canadians.

If you add Defence Minister (and former Brigadier-General) Gordon O'Connor's call for "retribution," Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

RESPONSE TO OLGA CHEKHOVA
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578516.html#msg578516


Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences. We cite him too as a tangible example of how soldiers can refuse to be complicit in what they regard as an unjust war.

Of course the Canadian Armed Forces brass would never admit they expelled Juarez because of his opposition to the Afghan mission. Juarez refusing orders in training was his way of showing that opposition, and refusing orders became the pretext to get rid of him. Maybe Juarez could have chosen other ways to show his opposition, but we certainly respect the stance he took (it certainly didn’t win him any friends on this forum).

Question: If Juarez was not expelled for his opposition to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, then why didn’t the Armed Forces allow him to openly express his opposition to the Afghan mission instead of fining and discharging him?

Again, folks are encouraged to listen to Juarez explain himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroLoPn-d4M

We understand the distinction between reservist and full-time soldier. But are folks on this forum seriously claiming that soldiers -- whether reservists or not -- can openly speak out against Canada's role in Afghanistan and still be able to stay in the military without any consequences?

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## armyvern

Welcome back Valcartier2007,

You can probably see that many members of this site await your responses, as do I. I will stress, once again, that you/your consortium will not be banned nor this thread locked as long as site guidelines continue to be followed.

Based upon your post below, I'll also reiterate to you that the membership of this site is made up of a wide variety of people with very diverse backgrounds, age groups, education and employment. 

Much like you state that you are a cross section of Canadian society, so are we a reflection of that same broad society. The largest difference between 'you' and 'us' is that, as is probably quite obvious by now, most of us do not belong to the antiwar lobby. 

Social justice is quite another matter. One does not need to belong to any social justice group to believe that people should be treated fairly in life. However, I temper my personal beliefs in that 'social justice' with a belief that, at the same time, no-one should be given a free-ride on the back of the hard work of others. 

You will find here that most members are also quite abhor the inequities experienced in life by some members of worldwide society, who do work hard and who deserve better. In fact, that abhorrence of those inequities experienced, and quite often the atrocities experienced by them, is exactly why many of us volunteer in this Country's uniform.

Most importantly, you will find that many of us here have vast 'boots on the ground' experience in aiding those members of society less fortunate than we here in Canada. That's right, Canadians have it pretty damned good. Most Canadians, in fact, would find it a huge wake-up call if they were required to spend just one week overseas seeing with their own eyes what we see, and realizing that there are people in this world who actually _do_ have a reason to bitch and complain about their lowly lot in life. 

It is at this point then, that our philosophies will begin to take different paths. Direct experience having 'boots on the ground' makes one realize that war, although not pretty by any means, is necessary. The vast improvements in Afghanistan are witness to this, as are the children who are now out playing (and laughing); the music you can hear playing; the women you can see working, laughing, smiling; the majority of citizens who will still shake that soldier's hand; and that soccer stadiums are used once again for soccer vice executions.

Most importantly it is seen in that democratically elected government to which women was elected, and did the electing. The Taliban would have none of that. I believe in a social justice where society advances, not regresses. Therefore I stand beside my fellow soldiers in volunteering to go back to Afghanistan for further service to continue that advancement in their society that our PRT affords them, or to provide security/fighting forces so that the PRT/CIDA et al can proceed, albeit slowly, with those advances. I volunteer to do this so that the democratically elected government of Afghanistan has a chance to flourish, becoming capable of protecting and defending its citizens and itself against any threat from persons who would wish to see them once again a society of non-rights and public executions without fair right to trial or any form of social justice, a place where children could not play.

Most of all you will find many members of this site with that direct 'boots on the ground' experience who know we are winning this war because they have lived it, and seen it with their own eyes. 

I look forward to hearing your arguments.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

First let me thank your team for the responses.  It is nice to see it in writing.  Now I know the regulars around here are a little rough around the edges - caddy quips are the norm around here - please don't take it overly seriously.  I ask that you do like me and argue substance rather than form...

I've read the thread, I believe I've read all of your postings.  However, I don't recall you mentioning why you believe that sending letters off to soldiers encouraging them to refuse their duties isn't a violation of the criminal code of Canada.  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_61



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Reply: We think it’s very relevant to point out that the current Defence Minister, who is a former General, has personally profited from working for military companies and PR firms. He profited from the connections he made while in the Canadian Armed Forces as a senior officer. We take the view that politicians like O’Connor, and other Generals, have a completely different self-interest than average soldiers. And of course, like with every war, it’s the on-the-ground grunt soldier who dies in carrying out the policies of greedy politicians and generals.



This is one of the issues I haven't had to discuss in a long time.  Firstly,  yes on the surface having a former lobbyist in that position would look like putting a fox in charge of the chicken-coop. And bluntly many people believe there is more than enough contracts to throw around with not enough oversite that he could toss a few to his buddies and collect the kickbacks later.

I think that as a Civi looking in, yes there is cause for concern. However, please bring up examples of decisions he has made that were more in his own interest than the interest of the CF. Inside the CF we have a behaviour/code of conduct, and If O'Connor allowed one single Canadian soldier to suffer out of his own selfish reasons he would be called a blade. (I'm told the reference comes from stabbing someone in the back)

I have a rather creative imagination,  however I can not picture any scenario where O'Connor would knowingly put Canadian soldiers in harms way for personal profit.  If you have evidence to the contrary I implore you to bring it forward - otherwise please respect that you are implying that someone is doing something that is beyond vulgar and beyond obscene.  You are simply implying a very serious breach of ethical conduct by a group of people.  Please show us the evidence of misconduct, or discontinue implying/accusing.

He is defence minister because he knows what the CF needs,  how it works.  (well one could argue those points, but lets just put that he has allot of experience and he was the best person for the job Harper had at the time.)  Now I know you're going to get quite a few responses,  that is why I took only one issue I think others would just let slide.  I'm not going to be back at the computer for a few weeks - I wish everyone here a good debate.  Remember substance over form.  

edited for a rather AMUSING typo :warstory:


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier2007,

A point for you to correct in your posts, we are the Canadian Forces (CF), not the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). It's been that way for many a few years now. 

In your rebuttal below:



> Fair enough. Actually, JTF2 was immediately deployed by the Defence Minister Art Eggleton after September 11, 2001, before October 7, 2001.
> 
> However, our claim is not wrong. Regular Canadian forces were on-the-ground in January 2002, not before.



Would be accurate if you were speaking of "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan proper, but again, contextually it is incorrect. I can assure you, from my own personal experience, that there was at least one Regular Force Unit (not JTF2) who was deployed overseas in direct support of Op Apollo prior to 2002 (16 Nov 2001 actually). I'll let you research that a bit more.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> …
> This is one of the issues I haven't had to discuss in a long time.  Firstly,  yes on the surface having a former lobbyist in that position would look like putting a fox in charge of the chicken-coop. And bluntly many people believe there is more than enough contracts to throw around with not enough oversite that he could toss a few to his buddies and collect the kickbacks later.
> 
> I think that as a Civi looking in, yes there is cause for concern. However, please bring up examples of decisions he has made that were more in his own interest than the interest of the CF. Inside the CF we have a behaviour/code of conduct, and If O'Connor allowed one single Canadian soldier to suffer out of his own selfish reasons he would be called a blade. (I'm told the reference comes from stabbing someone in the back)
> …



See Ruxted’s latest.  This _canard_ is a product of the fervid imaginations of the Liberals and the NDP – the accusations are baseless mud slinging, used by people who think O’Connor is politically vulnerable.  If there was a single shred of evidence that O’Connor, in any way, misused his office he would have been hounded out of it a year ago.



			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> …
> He is defence minister because he knows what the CF needs,  how it works.  (well one could argue those points, but lets just put that he has allot of experience and he was the best person for the job Harper had at the time.)  Now I know you're going to get quite a few responses,  that is why I took only one issue I think others would just let slide.  I'm not going to be back at the computer for a few weeks - I wish everyone here a good debate.  Remember substance over form.



I doubt any Canadian defence minister was ever put in charge because he knew what the military needed – maybe, just maybe Normal Rogers in 1940.  O’Connor is in the cabinet for a variety of reasons – all related to the fine art of Canadian political cabinet-making which requires regional, linguistic, gender, age and _factional_ balances.  In addition, in O’Connor’s case, he was a loyal Harper ‘spear carrier’ for a long, long time.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

RESPONSE TO MILNEWSTBAY
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578888.html#msg578888

You conveniently divided up your post in 6 points. We address them one-by-one:

Point 1:

We’ve addressed the issues around Franciso Juarez in two previous posts.

You also question our interpretation of General Leslie’s comments back in 2005. One of our references is the following: 
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/08/Canada-Afghanistan-050808.html

We are not misinterpreting Leslie. He honestly admits that the Afghan mission will mean killing. 
(O’Connor does not even admit that the Afghan mission is a war: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/31/afghan-war-notwar.html )

Leslie honestly admits that to do the job, it’ll take at least 20 years. And, most importantly, he admits that for every person you kill, you create 15 more that will come after you (this is the key point, which your own re-stating of General Leslie’s views pointedly ignores). By making this admission, Leslie shows some understanding of the mentality of an insurgency. 

Taking Leslie’s words at face value, he is describing a strategy of long-term disaster, for both Afghans and Canadians.

We’re curious: How do people on this forum feel about Leslie promising that the Afghan mission will take two decades, that we’ll be killing people, but that every time we kill an angry young man we create 15 more? That’s a disaster in the making! And you, on-the-ground soldiers, will be one of the victims of this disaster.


Point 2:

Yes, the mission is under ISAF, but ISAF is led by NATO. Check out the ISAF website -- http://www.nato.int/isaf/ --  its banner has the NATO logo.

Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.


Point 3:

No doubt that there are specific “reconstruction” or “development” projects ... all the better to sell the Afghan mission. Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine. There have been similar “hearts and minds” efforts in all wars, including in Iraq right now, and in Vietnam.


Point 4:

You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise? That’s the whole point of so-called “coalitions”. For a longer answer (about US imperialism in the Middle East since WW II), we'll have to defer to a future post (but many of you probably know this history really well). The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous policies.


Point 5:

You ask:_ “I'd be interested to hear your organization's feelings about the Taliban's approach to:
- gender issues and education;
- small business development and culture; and
- the use of child soldiers.”_

We oppose the Taliban; moreover, like RAWA, we oppose all the fundamentalists and warlords, whether they’re Taliban, or in the Karzai government that Canadian troops are defending. We come from social movements that are feminist, anti-patriarchy and queer positive. Obviously, we have nothing in common with thte Taliban.

Here’s a quote from one of our pamphlets: “We reject the false choice between either the Taliban, or fundamentalists like Bush, Cheney and Rice.”


Point 6:

“Finally, I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?”

Great question. Important question. Long answer. We will answer that one shortly (ie. not today), because it can’t be answered quickly (and we’ve already posted a large amount for today!) Your question needs a “big picture” answer that we hope to provide on this forum really soon. That answer will also reply to similar questions posted by davetee, fascistlibertarian and others.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> We understand the distinction between reservist and full-time soldier. But are folks on this forum seriously claiming that soldiers -- whether reservists or not -- can openly speak out against Canada's role in Afghanistan and still be able to stay in the military without any consequences?



Unequivocally, Yes.  I have been part of discussions where aspects of the mission have been debated with quite senior officers with zero reprecussions.  That said, I think that you will find that the overwhelming majority of us in the Canadian Forces support the overall thrust of the mission in Afghanistan.  Even more interestingly, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the CF that I have spoken to who has been to Afghanistan has told me that they would go back in a heart-beat because they believe in the Canadian approach in Afghanistan and they believe in the Afghan people.  Many soldiers in the CF are veterans of the bad-old days of "peacekeeping" (I use that term advisedly) in the Balkans in the 1990s where they were hamstrung by ridiculous Rules of Engagement, an unworkable mission, and political/public indifference from Canada as 80 or so dead soldiers were snuck back into Canada in the dead of the night over the course of a decade.  Trust me, we much prefer Afghanistan- and those people who don't tend to self-select themselves out of the CF, rather than be pushed by a monolithic leadership who "brainwashes" the troops.  Sorry to burst your bubble- we don't do that here. We are fighting against people who do believe in it.  If you think that it is hyperbole, there are actually people here on this board who have been face to face with actual Taliban and the results of their work against the people of Afghanistan.  You might be very interested to hear about the Taliban's sense of "fair play and social justice"...

You seem to have a great deal of dislike for both PM Harper and in particular Defence Minister O'Connor (free country- dislike away) and seem to imply that they are profiting politically and monetarily from the War.  I'm not sure which polls you have seen, but the ones I have show the Conservatives essentially getting killed over Afghanistan (for the wrong reasons,  I might add).  It seems to me that this government is taking a principled approach by remaining in Afghanistan, where good work is being done daily- maybe not at the speed you would like, or in the manner you would like, but it is getting done.  As for personnally profitting from the war, I suggest that, if you have real evidence of either profiteering or corruption that you share it, rather than making what (probably) amounts to slanderous and legally actionable claims.

I will close with a final thought:  I actually have no problem at all with your opposition (although I disagree with your opposition) to our mission in Afghanistan, per se, although I believe that you are not in possession of the facts and have strung together a bunch of recycled anti-Iraq war arguments.  Where you and I part company rather sharply is your group's method.  Your group's blanket mailing the PMQs in Valcartier is morally reprehensible and potentially violates portions of the criminal code.  Why is counciling soldiers to violate the will of Parliament (and make no mistake that, while you may disagree with the vote in Parliament, it, NOT the CF or it's soldiers who decide when and where we fight) illegal you might ask?  Consider the opposite (and hypothetical) scenario: we are a country at peace, but a war breaks out in a country with historic ties to Canada.  Parliament votes to not go to war.  This, however, does not sit well with a group of activists who want Canada to take a side, so they begin sending letters to individual soldiers counciling them to steal weapons, ammuntion and desert the CF to fight in this (hypothetical) war.  Just how happy would you be now?  The whole point of civilian control of the military in Canada is that only our ELECTED civilian masters get to control us- not anybody with a computer and a printer.  You don't like us in Afghanistan? Fine- campaign against the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the next election- but leave the individual soldier out of it!


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Precisions

We don’t feel it reveals any weakness to be more precise, or even make corrections, when warranted. Here are a few that we want to make, based on the comments by various people on this forum:

-	Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan can be dated to 2001. JTF2 was there, and as ArmyVern has pointed out, CF were involved in Operation Apollo which is dated back to October 2001. The main Canadian presence began in early 2002, but it’s more accurate to talk about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan since 2001. As it happens, a previous flyer by Block the Empire also dates Canadian involvement to 2001.

-	We should be referring to “Canadian Forces” and not “Canadian Armed Forces”.

-	In our document “Soldiers in their own words” -- http://www.valcartier2007.ca/soldiers.htm -- we quote former US Marine Ivan Brobeck and then write: “Served in Iraq and then left the army in 2005.” That should read “left the Marines.”

Of course, we feel none of the above takes away from our substantive arguments, and we certainly have not misled anyone. But still, we send along these precisions, and will send along more when warranted.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Bigmac

I have 2 questions for you Valcartier 2007:

1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)

2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?


----------



## pbi

I'm on the run but I'll chime in on a few points. (Good debate so far!)



> the Afghan mission will mean killing



Correct. Sadly, but truthfully, it is unlikely that the Taleban (or any other group of determined, hard-core xenophobic extremists) will ever give up without a fight. Some will surrender, some will get captured, but many will fight and die. The Taleban, in fighting, will kill others, including Canadian soldiers and Afghan civilians. It's an armed conflict. That's why we're there, just as we were in WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf I and Kosovo. If you want to oppose powerful bad people, you often have to use force. And that's why, from time to time, we used deadly force on "peacekeeping" missions like Croatia (Medak Pocket) and, in my opinion, should have used a lot more of it in places like Rwanda. Killing is tragic, frightening and to be avoided if possible, but is not always automatically "wrong" in a moral or ethical sense. 



> Leslie honestly admits that to do the job, it’ll take at least 20 years.



We understand this completely. We spent 40 years in Germany, 30 years in Cyprus, over a decade in Yugo.  We're still in the middle east. Lots of people died in all those places, but all were eventually brought under control. The application of military force was part (but only part...) of the process. You simply can't assign an arbitrary time limit to these things: it has to be results-based.



> And, most importantly, he admits that for every person you kill, you create 15 more that will come after you (this is the key point, which your own re-stating of General Leslie’s views pointedly ignores). By making this admission, Leslie shows some understanding of the mentality of an insurgency.



General Leslie is a highly educated man. In fact, many of our general officers (whom you seem to enjoy casting aspersions on) are outstanding combinations of a high degree of formal education (often from civilian universities) with extensive experience on operations overseas. They combine theoretical knowledge with practical experience: a very powerful combination. The General understands (as we all do) that while at the present time killing is very hard to avoid in Afghanistan, we ("we" including all the other players in the "3D and C" approach) have to keep working to gradually stabilize the country so that killing declines. How long will that take? How long has it taken in Malaya or Ireland or in the Basque Region, or in Haiti?  (The latter two not really being fixed yet).

In the Forces, in our educational system and our training system, we study insurgency: how it comes about, what sustains it, how it has been fought successfully and unsuccessfully, the dangers and pitfalls of a purely force-based approach, and the vital importance of an approach that includes trying to restore normalcy and quality of life, including addressing the underlying political problems. We have a far better appreciation of insurgency than many of the journalists, political figures and others who comment regularly about Afghanistan. It's our professional business.



> Taking Leslie’s words at face value, he is describing a strategy of long-term disaster, for both Afghans and Canadians



No-he's describing the only practical route to long term success. There is no guarantee for success in Afghanistan, and nobody on this site nor serving in Afghanistan believes that there is one. But then, we've never deployed on any mission, any time, that there was a guarantee of success. But simply because success is not guaranteed, or poses high risks, are not valid reasons to give up ad run away. In the end this will be decided by the Afghan people. And we are trying to give them that opportunity. I am very proud to be able to say that during my time there (2004-2005) I was involved in the security operation that allowed Afghans to vote for the first time in decades: for many it was the first time in their lives. Despite the winter weather, the very long distances often on foot, and the deadly threats from the Taleban, those people turned out in the thousands to vote. It was very impressive, especially when you consider that many Canadians are too lazy to vote. We are making a difference.



> Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.



Ha! You obviously have very little real idea how it works. The US might wish that it runs NATO, but it most assuredly does not. I was the Liaison Officer between ISAF and the US operational force HQ in Afghanistan,  2004-2005. ISAF was NOT "run by NATO" it was run at that time by the French, under General Py. ISAF took NO direction from the US: believe me. This statement borders on a conspiracy theory. 

I've got to run (taking my wife out to Saturday breakfast) but I'll be back.

Cheers




_Edited by Vern:  wading in here to correct Pbi's post for him. As he has done the proper thing and taken his wife out for Saturday brunch. I've bumped the part I've edited for form only down (pbi's response showed up as part of the quote he was answering to), and it can be seen here in it's original form:_



> [Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.
> /quote]
> 
> Ha! You obviously have very little real idea how it works. The US might wish that it runs NATO, but it most assuredly does not. I was the Liaison Officer between ISAF and the US operational force HQ in Afghanistan,  2004-2005. ISAF was NOT "run by NATO" it was run at that time by the French, under General Py. ISAF took NO direction from the US: believe me. This statement borders on a conspiracy theory.
> 
> I've got to run (taking my wife out to Saturday breakfast) but I'll be back.
> 
> Cheers


----------



## Meridian

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I will close with a final thought:  I actually have no problem at all with your opposition (although I disagree with your opposition) to our mission in Afghanistan, per se, although I believe that you are not in possession of the facts and have strung together a bunch of recycled anti-Iraq war arguments.  Where you and I part company rather sharply is your group's method.  Your group's blanket mailing the PMQs in Valcartier is morally reprehensible and potentially violates portions of the criminal code.  Why is counciling soldiers to violate the will of Parliament (and make no mistake that, while you may disagree with the vote in Parliament, it, NOT the CF or it's soldiers who decide when and where we fight) illegal you might ask?  Consider the opposite (and hypothetical) scenario: we are a country at peace, but a war breaks out in a country with historic ties to Canada.  Parliament votes to not go to war.  This, however, does not sit well with a group of activists who want Canada to take a side, so they begin sending letters to individual soldiers counciling them to steal weapons, ammuntion and desert the CF to fight in this (hypothetical) war.  Just how happy would you be now?  The whole point of civilian control of the military in Canada is that only our ELECTED civilian masters get to control us- not anybody with a computer and a printer.  You don't like us in Afghanistan? Fine- campaign against the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the next election- but leave the individual soldier out of it!



Superb arguments, SKT!  I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't put it into words appropriately.

I still don't get why the US keeps getting dragged into this.   You are telling Canadian soldiers not to go on a Canadian operation. The op may be in support of a greater NATO mission, but it is still a mission we (as Canadians) have supported.  Claim all the polls you like, if Canadians did not support us in Afghanistan, we would have the NDP in power We don't. Polling is garbage; just look at recent elections where the polls were way off actuals. 

The military is controlled by our democratic government. If you feel our democracy or our government isn't working, then by all means, please, protest away.  But protest in the streets, in Ottawa, to your MP. Convince your fellow citizen, because my friend, votes actually do matter in Canada.  If you aren't able to get the vote to swing your way, perhaps its because your arguments just aren't convincing enough.

What you are doing right now is trying to argue that it is ok to allow individual soldiers to decide which wars to fight in, and which wars not to fight in, with absolute disregard for the government (and thus the people) of the country they are representing. It would appear you are doing this because you haven't been able to raise a solid enough argument to convince a majority of average Canadians to vote out a party who does not support your beliefs. Instead, what you are doing is putting added strain on the individual soldier, for absolutely no reason other than the ineffectiveness of your own platform.


----------



## Bigmac

Valcartier 2007,  you didn't answer my 2 simple questions? Why did you leave after I posted them? :


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for the detailed breakdown, as well as the time to give your position in more detail.  I doubt if we'll ever agree, but always good to exchange information in a civil manner (and let's all keep up the civil tone).



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We’ve addressed the issues around Franciso Juarez in two previous posts.



You make the claim that Juarez was released from the Canadian Forces because he couldn't oppose the war in Afghanistan.  I have read information to the effect that he refused to follow an order during training, which led him to be released.  If you have evidence that Juarez wanted to participate in anti-war rallies while serving in uniform, or that he wanted to wear anti-war t-shirts, buttons or other paraphenalia, and was released specifically for that reason, we'd be happy to see it.

You say soldiers should be thinking and not necessarily following orders blindly, that they should be thinking about what they're asked to do.  Others have addressed the "we're not automons" point, and SeaKingTacco points out an excellent scenario about counseling soldiers to disobey orders, but I'm going to try a slightly different situation.

You and your family are visiting a foreign country, when suddenly war or internal conflict breaks out (think Lebanon last summer as an example).  Canadian soldiers are dispatched to help get you home.  Some of the soldiers, though, knowing your opposition to Canada's participation in the war in Afghanistan, say, "I don't agree with the cause of rescuing people who oppose what we are doing elsewhere, so I refuse to serve in this case."  Would that be reasonable?  No.  I can't speak for everyone who participates here, but I'd be surprised to hear any serving members say they would not do their best to get the job done in the above situation just because they disagree with the people they're helping.

The same principle could be applied to dealing with any state-run protective service - police, fire or ambulance services.  If you work in these organizations and don't agree with the (in this case democratically elected) governance structure's policies or approaches, you have two options - you carry out the orders of those the general public chose to govern, or you leave.  On the other side of the coin, as others have said better than I can, if you're a voter who doesn't like the policies or approaches, tell the politicians, and try to convince enough voters to get rid of those you disagree with.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> *You also question our interpretation* of General Leslie’s comments back in 2005. One of our references is the following:
> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/08/Canada-Afghanistan-050808.html
> We are not misinterpreting Leslie. He honestly admits that the Afghan mission will mean killing.



To be fair, I didn't say you were *mis*interpreting, I was saying there are other, equally valid interpretations to the comments cited.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We’re curious: How do people on this forum feel about Leslie promising that the Afghan mission will take two decades, that we’ll be killing people, but that every time we kill an angry young man we create 15 more? That’s a disaster in the making! And you, on-the-ground soldiers, will be one of the victims of this disaster.





			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> No doubt that there are specific “reconstruction” or “development” projects ... all the better to sell the Afghan mission. Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine. There have been similar “hearts and minds” efforts in all wars, including in Iraq right now, and in Vietnam.



Based on these two points, my understanding of your premise is that there will be _*nothing but*_ killing for 20 years, that there will be nothing but a huge increase in people to shoot at, and that conditions for average Afghans will never improve.

I concede that killing one creates 15 more opponents, but can you concede that if living conditions improve enough for everyone, there's more to be gained by working with those improving conditions than by those destroying moving forward?  If this is the case, people will realize that overall, experiencing progress is better than killing those trying to bring the progress on.  If this is the case, then there will be progressively less need to deal with those opposing improving Afghans' quality of life, hence less need to kill people.  



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Yes, the mission is under ISAF, but ISAF is led by NATO. Check out the ISAF website -- http://www.nato.int/isaf/ --  its banner has the NATO logo.  Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.



NATO may lead, but it does so with the support of the United Nations and, because of that, the world.  If you don't believe UN Security Council resolutions don't mean there is at least a level of international _*sanction*_ for the mission, then are other resolutions (like those indicting Israeli actions against Palestinians) just as meaningless?



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. *Do people seriously think otherwise?* That’s the whole point of so-called “coalitions”. For a longer answer (about US imperialism in the Middle East since WW II), we'll have to defer to a future post (but many of you probably know this history really well). The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous policies.



I presented evidence of development going on to improve the lives of Afghans, and asked for evidence that this is "cover" for anything else.  Saying "yes it is" to my "no it's not" isn't evidence.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We oppose the Taliban; moreover, like RAWA, we oppose all the fundamentalists and warlords, whether they’re Taliban, or in the Karzai government that Canadian troops are defending. We come from social movements that are feminist, anti-patriarchy and queer positive. Obviously, we have nothing in common with thte Taliban.  Here’s a quote from one of our pamphlets: “We reject the false choice between either the Taliban, or fundamentalists like Bush, Cheney and Rice.”



I agree that your dichotomy is not the choice to make -- the choice is between what the Taliban and other bad actors have perpetrated in the past, and improving the quality of life for Afghans in general.  

I'm glad you mention feminist and "queer positive" ideology, since both these groups suffer under the Taliban.   I'm also pleased you make the distinction between "in the Karzai" government and the Karzai government as a whole (which was selected by the people of Afghanistan).



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> "I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?"  Great question. Important question. Long answer. We will answer that one shortly (ie. not today), because it can’t be answered quickly (and we’ve already posted a large amount for today!) Your question needs a “big picture” answer that we hope to provide on this forum really soon. That answer will also reply to similar questions posted by davetee, fascistlibertarian and others.



Looking forward to it.

_- edits to clean up grammar - _


----------



## George Wallace

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> PS: Would like to ask “George Wallace” again, is that a pseudonym, or a real name? You probably can guess why we’re asking: is your name an homage to the famous George Wallace?





That is none of your business.

One could also ask to which 'famous' George Wallace' you may be referring to?

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

George Wallace

or dozens of other real and fictional people who have that moniker.

Edit to fix profile link. We are no longer all George Wallace.


----------



## Meridian

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is none of your business.
> 
> One could also ask to which 'famous' George Wallace' you may be referring to?
> 
> George Wallace
> 
> George Wallace
> 
> George Wallace
> 
> George Wallace
> 
> or dozens of other real and fictional people who have that moniker.



Also has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.  Again, going back to the sophist-style "let me attack the poster or get at his emotions, rather than post substantive arguments".


----------



## Valcartier 2007

_1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)
_
Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism. We seek to expose the links between capitalist globalization and patriarchy, racism and all forms of oppression, both here and abroad. Our work locally aims to disrupt and directly impact the interests of those who are actively complicit in these systems, from companies who fuel and profit from war and occupation, to the supporters and outposts of US Empire and the Canadian state. We endorse the People's Global Action (PGA) hallmarks, and we act in direct solidarity with all those on the frontlines of resistance and struggle against occupation and exploitation - from those resisting the racist "War on Terror" in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia, to the struggle for indigenous sovereignty here on Turtle Island (occupied North America).


_2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?_

We make a clear distinction between soldiers and their families, and the senior officers and politicians who are behind a war and mission we consider unjust. We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families. We might try to hand them a flyer, or talk to them. We plan to protest Canada's presence in Afghanistan, and focus that protest on the politicians and senior officers.

There's been a lot of fear-mongering about our protest, especially by the notorious right-wing talkradio hosts in Quebec City. Don't believe the hype.

For a sneak preview, here's one of French slogans we'll most likely be chanting: 

_*"Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" *_

(It rhymes in French, but the rough English translation is: "Bring home the army, send the politicians!")

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## armyvern

Meridian said:
			
		

> Also has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.  Again, going back to the sophist-style "let me attack the poster or get at his emotions, rather than post substantive arguments".



Give it up Meridian.

Valcartier2007 has asked this question directly twice now. Apparently _they_ are interested in the answer. George has given his response and that should now be the end of it (although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Valcartier2007 has asked this question directly twice now. Apparently _they_ are interested in the answer. George has given his response and that should now be the end of it (although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!



We are ALL George Wallace, in one way or another - you are he, she is he, he is we.....  

I saw my own profile too on that link - just PM'ed GW on it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

Some excellent discussion folks. One thing that strikes me about Valcartier 2007 is that they chose to quote General Leslie, and what they took away from that was that the Afghan mission was doomed to failure. pbi did a bang-up job of correcting that misconception, by pointing out that Leslie was merely speaking the truth... we expect this to be a long, hard and costly mission. The military has no illusions about it, nor are they trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes (including the public, but especially the soldiers who must do the job).

Had Leslie proposed that this would be a quick bloodless mission, I expect Valcartier 2007 would still be quoting him, in much the "Mission Accomplished" light we've seen in the US. It seems to me that there is nothing we can say to make Valcartier 2007 and his peers consider a more moderate approach.

Had the military lied, Valcartier 2007 would have (rightly) exploited that to question our motives and approach. However as pointed out, Leslie, Hillier and many many others have been publicly vocal about the difficulties this mission faces. This honesty is now turned back against us. When we say it will be a long haul, the left gets queasy and considers this proof positive that the mission is doomed to failure.

It's the soldiers - not the social activists - who consider the reconstruction of Afghanistan important enough to work for. These soldiers are committing themselves to a long and costly process, not just because it's their job but because they know it's the right thing to do. The only "personal benefit" they will see from this is to witness a crumbling nation come back from the brink of medieval oppression, but they are willing to pay a high price for it.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this imbalance of 'social conscience' ironic.

P.S. George's name is his real name. He hides behind no pseudonym as he has the courage to publicly stand behind his convictions. His name is no more an homage to an old South racist than yours is an homage to our military base.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

So that’s it from us for now. We’ll try to check-in later this weekend (either Saturday or Sunday night). Can only be online so much, especially in the summer.

Thanks to everyone who sent along their comments and critiques. Again, we appreciate this opportunity to dialogue and debate with CF members.

We’ve tried as best as we can to answer all your questions (and have deferred answering the big question in point #6 by Milnewstbay until later). But, if you feel we haven’t answered a question, let us know. There have been a lot of posts, so it’s hard to keep up! We'll continue to answer, and also pose our own questions.

In closing, for today, just wanted to make a few points about the people involved in activist networks like Block the Empire-Montreal and Guerre à la Guerre:

We are not necessarily pacifists. Many of us believe that you often must fight for your principles, and for what you believe. We are part of social movements, and social justice struggles, with an understanding that to obtain true justice and dignity, you must fight (in various and diverse ways).

One war, for example, that many of us would support (as anarchists) was the fight against Franco and the fascists in Spain.

In closing, we wanted to address another issue. ArmyVern wrote the following: “you will find that many of us here have vast 'boots on the ground' experience in aiding those members of society less fortunate than we here in Canada. That's right, Canadians have it pretty damned good. Most Canadians, in fact, would find it a huge wake-up call if they were required to spend just one week overseas ...”

We also have another kind of “boots on the ground” experience. Many of the people actively involved in the social justice networks of which Block the Empire is a part (and who were responsible for the “Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier”) have extensive experiences in areas of low-intensity conflict, war and extreme poverty.

Collectively, in the past several years, we have first-hand experiences in place like Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, and the refugee camps on the Afghan/Pakistan border. We have experiences in other conflict zones in Latin America (southern Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere), India, Pakistan and more. We haven’t been to these zones as soldiers, but as social justice activists, in various roles. We’ve seen extreme poverty, witnessed various traumas and atrocities, and worked in solidarity with progressive social movements from those areas. Our solidarity work also occurs here in Canada.

It’s those experiences that inform our anti-war position, and our position against Canada’s complicity in George Bush’s “War on Terror.”

Importantly, some of the people in networks like Block the Empire come directly from these zones of conflict, or our parents do. We are not simply armchair critics of war. We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naive, pampered “Canadians” either; some of us migrated to Canada. Our website includes an appeal made directly by an Afghan living in Canada (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/qaderi_eng.htm) We try to root our analysis in the progressive anti-imperialist movements of the Third World. We also are active in social struggles in our own communities (against poverty, homelessness, ecocide, deportations and more).

Finally, we also root our analysis in understanding the colonial nature of Canada, where there are places that do suffer from Third World and Fourth World-like conditions, conditions that are the direct result of Canada’s genocidal policies towards native peoples. It’s important to share that part of our analysis as well. You might disagree with our premise, but it does give you an idea of where we're coming from.

Anyways, let’s continue to break down some barriers between “anti-war activists” and “soldiers”. Look forward to reading your replies. And will respond again. Enjoy your weekend.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Ohh boy.  You guys are all over the place and wayyy too in love with labels like "anti-imperialism".

How did you ever equate Afghanistan and Canada's First Nations? Have you ever heard of "Selection and Maintenance of the Aim"?  I'm not sure what you stand for except (vaguely) against anything the United States is doing in the world...


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> (although I'm wondering why, when I click on his last posted famous "George Wallace" link ... I am taken to my own profile)!!



Sorry about that.  There is a glitch in the program.  I have asked for another member to send me the proper url, as what I have showing up is the code that gives anyone linking to that "George Wallace" a look at their own personal profile.  

Just another problem, being sent up to Mike on another means, that he may want to check out.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt

It's by design... http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?action=profile is a generic link to "your" profile. To go to a specific user's profile, you need to specify their account ID, such as: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/members/2507


----------



## armyvern

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this imbalance of 'social conscience' ironic.



No Mike, you're not. 

I mentioned it in an earlier post of mine as the point where "their" and "our" philosophies take separate paths. 

I, for one, am willing to fight and die so that others (in this case the people of Afghanistan) can move forward into a brighter and more promising future. Sometimes, dying is the cost that must be paid so that others can prosper in a free society. There are many of us out here who believe that cost is worth it, and have seen the improvements made for the Afghan people and their society at cost of soldier's lives. We have experienced the loss of our fellow soldiers in that betterment. We have been witness to it just as we have been witness to those improvements the MSM and the anti-war lobbies tend to ignore in their writings. I would rather have died trying to make that difference, than simply talking about making a difference, or putting forth ideas of talks of peace for example with an enemy who cares not about the value of anything but absolute power over the people. An enemy who _intentionally_ targets an innocent civilian populace because they dared send their daughters to school, or dared to teach females, or dared to hope for something better for their future.

Yes indeed, some things in life are worth fighting and dying for and, for me, the people of Afghanistan and it's society's future are two of them.


----------



## Bigmac

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> _1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)
> _
> Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: *Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.* We seek to expose the links between capitalist globalization and patriarchy, racism and all forms of oppression, both here and abroad. Our work locally aims to disrupt and directly impact the interests of those who are actively complicit in these systems, from companies who fuel and profit from war and occupation, to the supporters and outposts of US Empire and the Canadian state. We endorse the People's Global Action (PGA) hallmarks, and we act in direct solidarity with all those on the frontlines of resistance and struggle against occupation and exploitation - from those resisting the racist "War on Terror" in the Middle East, Latin America, Africa and Asia, to the struggle for indigenous sovereignty here on Turtle Island (occupied North America).
> 
> 
> _2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?_
> 
> We make a clear distinction between soldiers and their families, and the senior officers and politicians who are behind a war and mission we consider unjust. We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families. We might try to hand them a flyer, or talk to them. We plan to protest Canada's presence in Afghanistan, and focus that protest on the politicians and senior officers.
> 
> There's been a lot of fear-mongering about our protest, especially by the notorious right-wing talkradio hosts in Quebec City. Don't believe the hype.
> 
> For a sneak preview, here's one of French slogans we'll most likely be chanting:
> 
> _*"Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" *_
> 
> (It rhymes in French, but the rough English translation is: "Bring home the army, send the politicians!")
> 
> ---
> INFO:
> www.valcartier2007.ca
> info@valcartier2007.ca
> 418-208-7059



Thank you for the response to my questions. So in a nutshell:

1.  Your group are Anarchists.  You do not believe in any government authority. You are willing to escalate your protests to a physical level if necessary.

2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.


----------



## armyvern

Bigmac said:
			
		

> 2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.



Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind that although the troops on parade may not agree with Valcartier2007's philosophies or handouts, those soldiers will act professionally. It_ is _ what soldiers do. 

Let the anti-war movement do what they wish (they will anyway), but I predict they will be ignored by those they wish to target, the soldiers will march on ... their heads held rightfully professional, high and proud.


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier2007,

Please, feel free to log back in to view the thread openly vice coming on as a guest. Really, we don't mind at all.



> Guest (216.144 ~ _Remainder of the IP removed by Vern_)  11:40:38 Viewing the topic Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG.


----------



## Kendrick

Took me forever to read the whole thing, and I'm pissed that I've been missing out on this thread for a while now.  Being a french speaking reservist from Montreal serving within a Vandoo platoon of which few members have received the letter, I feel like throwing in my 2 cents.  

First off, to address Juarez's deal of not wanting to go to war, or not agreeing, I believe it has been adressed a few times, but a few points to add; reservists actually COMPETE to get on mission.  They ask for volunteers in reserve regiments, people raise their hands, and the better ones are sent off.  Never is anyone forced to go.  And as far as getting thrown out of the forces because he disagrees with the war, I know a few people in the reserves that still disagree with the war, and just don't volunteer to go, and nobody forces them towards the door.  The man is a liar, a coward, and a miserable failure.  

The more I think about what I feel like saying, the more I know it will not be constructive, and as a good friend just mentioned to me, would turn this into a non-necessary slugfest.  But what comes to my mind, is more a compilation of feelings that have been brewing for a while.  A mix of rage and shame.  I've been catching up on this thread all morning, and I'm definitely boiling inside now.  And so I choose not to bring new arguments here, but I feel like I must share these feelings.  

I believe in the mission.  I believe in what we can do to help the Afghan people.  I also believe those in charge perhaps aren't doing the right things all the time, that more should be done.  I also believe that the problem is not from Afghanistan itself, but from the wished instability in it that has been fueled for countless years by neighborhing countries, over tribal and ethnic diversities, over wanting a "buffer" zone, over a long gone Cold War.  I believe it is time these people be independent.  But this is not news to anyone here, and I digress.  I also believe that those extremists, or "parties" wishing this instability, know that they cannot win by fighting, and as such are exploiting any propaganda issue possible.  And I also believe that people like the ValCartier group is playing right into it, and doing the work of such extremists group for them, possibly unwillingly.  I also believe that people are mostly blinded sometimes by what they choose to believe, and most times by mere ignorance.  In this case I very strongly believe that people are so blinded in anti-bush, and anti-US feelings, that they are blinded by it anytime there is any US involvement, and see nothing else but US running the show everywhere and trying to dominate and impose whatever they want.  No matter if they are right not, they choose not to see our actual mission, our actual involvement, and our actual doings.  To them, we are but pawns of Bush.  

I chose to do what I am doing.  I chose to go over.  I have a university education myself (oddly enough, probably from the most anti-war school in the province, and I am sure I know some of you guys in your group), and thus I know how it works, and what kind of people are part of it.  My family supports me.  They did not believe in the war.  Nobody believes in war.  As I read book after book after book on the country, the politics, the situation, I became more and more informed, and tried to pass on the information, and came to believe more and more in the potential of the mission.  So did my family.  No one wants to see their sons and daughters go to war.  Go to danger.  The real bravery is from those who accept it, and support it, for the right reasons.  Whether they be right or not is somewhat irrelevant.  They support me.  They support my decision.  They now support the idea, and the potential of the mission.  These people are in need, and backing out of it before the job is over, would just be abandonning them.  That would be the coward way out.  That would be the way such groups as that ValCartier bunch wishes.  The going is getting too tough, people are dying to help people in need, so it's too much for them.  Would you want nobody to help you should you be in the same situation as they are?


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Back on for a minute -- Just posted something en français ... A open letter, in today's Le Devoir, from a brother to his sister who'll be deploying to Afghanistan with the 22nd. You can read it on the French side. But, we wanted to make a quick reply to the following ...



			
				Bigmac said:
			
		

> Thank you for the response to my questions. So in a nutshell:
> 
> 2.  Your group does plan to harrass the troops marching in the street. That is a bad idea as the troops and their families will not be very receptive to you. If you truly want to be heard by the general public I would suggest you stick to verbal protests. If you intend to increase your protests to include more physical confrontation you will only gain a more negative view by the public and especially this forum.



In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## George Wallace

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.



It depends on how you were to go about doing this.  You may claim that it is "Democracy", while the person you are 'assailing' may call it "Harassment".  One is a 'freedom', the other is a 'Criminal Act'.


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Back on for a minute --



Please refer to this post when you come back on. Again, no need to do so as a guest, we are actually pretty receptive to one being openly active around here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579016.html#msg579016


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier2007,

Please. You are at it again.

It would only be honest of you to log in as yourself to view the responses that you are receiving vice reading as a guest. This is you:



> Guest (216.144._removed again_)  12:28:55 Viewing the topic Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG.



Really, what is your concern with being visible here?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers.



If this is the case, how many politicians and officers senior enough for your message do you expect to be in attendance?  In proportion to how many "average soldiers" being there?


----------



## midget-boyd91

> Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective *opposed to war and militarization*,



Opposed to war and militarization. 
*Militarization*- Is that only within developed nations and established governments? I seem to recall that the Taliban are a militant force. They are attempting to gain power, thus equals militarization. 

*Opposed to war*- If you are opposed to* Canada fighting a war*, fine. But if you are opposed to *war in any way shope or form*, then your statement ceases to have any logical sense. NATO (including Canada) leaving Afghanistan would do only one thing. Create *more war.* The Afghan National Army and Police are in no way strong enough to face the Taliban on their own. If we leave, the Taliban is going to continue fighting. They will slowly creep back into the major cities and into the rural districts. If you want the least amount of fighting possible, we need to stay and continue.



> We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families.



Mailing notes to soldiers and their families is quite individual. Even if more than one soldier and their family receives said letter, there is still a note being delivered to *their* homes.

Time for myself to ask some questions from you, as a group.



> Many of us believe that you often must fight for your principles, and for what you believe.



Ahem. You claim that members of the Canadian Forces are committing acts that are "tantamount to war crimes." Have you anything to say about the treatment of Afghan civilians under the Taliban regime, or the treatment of Afghan civilians if NATO leaves and the Taliban gain ground. Or.. what do you have to say to the following: The a unit of the Afghan National Army has been captured by a large force of the Taliban, because the ANA was fighting alone because NATO left. The Taliban are sure to commit acts far worse than a beating to the captured. Now, this is a grim question but, would you prefer a handful of Taliban militants to be beaten and possibly tortured, or hundreds of civilians (including women and children) to suffer the same fate?



> Canada’s complicity in George Bush’s “War on Terror.”


I always find it offending when I hear that term. Are you forgetting that 9/11 was an attack on all of the west, and that two dozen Canadians were among the killed?



> You might disagree with our premise, but it does give you an idea of where we're coming from.


Please, for the love of God, your premise as pointed out by many here over the last few days, is full of holes.  You would gain much more respect among the people of Canada if you would research and use full facts, not half truths. You would gain respect if you paid more attention to something that needs more attention. The money and time you are spending protesting a mission that is giving human rights to millions, could have been much better spend providing food and water to a small African child. It would make more sense to spend your money and time on something that will have a effect.

Thats about all I have of this long-winded speel. Take care.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

well i've been reading this thread now for a couple of days im still not done all of the 14 pages, but there are a few things i feel i NEED to say that i feel cannot wait.

1. Being that I am indeed a francophone, and furthermore Quebecois by birth and culture, I absolutely abhore the fact that it seems like everyone is blaming all of this on Quebec...when in fact this group is just a minute percentage...so don't just lump up everyone in Quebec in this category...i certainly do not think like these people, i 100% support the mission and the troops involved, and everyone must also remember that the majority of the soldiers in Quebec are indeed Quebecois (not all because there are some non-quebecois francophones in canada as we all know)...and those soldiers are just the same as all the other soldiers around the country.

2. I strongly wish that the people going under the user name Valcartier2007, change there username, because i am appalled that they would use the name of a pretty good historic quebec city to tarnish the reputation of our armed forces, and they should be ashamed to use the name of that city and base...

Now i don't need to point out all the fallacies in your arguments i think we all know them, whether you (the anti-war hippies) would like to admit them or not.

Someone made a good point earlier, if we leave A-stan now with the job half done at best...in 5 years everyone will be up in arms about how we didn't do jack sh!t then and how we need to help and go peacekeep.  I also add to that that Canada is very lucky that we did not get attacked by the Taliban, because we were on their list...and i think we can thank all those soldiers who were and will be deployed to A-stan for not having been attacked, because in sending our troops there, we are fighting the terrorists before they cause massive destruction and harm to our people...Going by your (peaceniks) we shouldnt have gone, and should have just let the taliban bomb the crap out of canada or commit some ghastly terrorist act killing thousands of our....YOUR people...and then try to talk it out with them...To me that means you turn your back on your own people you don't even care enough to protect they're lives, you'd rather let terrorists kill un-armed, innocent non-combatants ON PURPOSE then to send in our troops, to defend ourselves from an enemy who is fanatical, in their hate for Westerners and our way of life...

Something you have to understand about soldiers, we aren't war mongers....we don't sit at a desk polishing/cleaning our rifles/guns/etc waiting for the Prime Minister to say I want you to go kill people.  Combat soldiers learn to fight, in the hopes that they won't have to, but that if they do, they will be able to carry out their duty to their utmost capabilities to defend Canada and Canadians from harm...do you really think that Private Bloggins loves getting orders that he is being deployed half way around the world away from home, loved ones etc, to be somewhere that half the people like him while the other half don't know how they feel about him yet, and being shot at daily...do you TRULY think that combat soldiers spend their days waiting for this to happen...

Lastly, our mission's main goal is the reconstruction of a stable democratic government with military and police capabilities, thats why we have MPs and RCMPs overseas teaching the afghans how to soldier and how to be police officers because they do not have those capabilities, and without those the Taliban would easily just come back and take power and kill all who supported the change...we aren't over there seeing how many people we can kill, the media is the one that makes it out to be that way...a Col. or Gen. said it really well in an issue of the Maple Leaf a while back...the media covers our casualties, civilian casualties and enemy casualties as well as any destruction but it doesnt say that i spent a few millions building roads, schools, clinics, etc.


Yes you are entitled to your opinion Valcartier2007....but don't pretend to speak for all Quebecois, because you make me ashamed to be it, because you are giving all Quebecois people false information and making us look like cowards who would rather bury our head in the earth and let things "work themselves out"

Also writing soldiers letters trying to incite mutiny, you clearly don't know the worth of a Canadian Soldier, Aircrew, Sailor...upon entrance into the service we swear an Oath, and i think i can speak for everyone when i say that, that oath, is something very dear to us, and we don't take our being in the Canadian Forces lightly...but i guess you wouldn't know about that kind of thing.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Biggoals2bdone, I don't think anyone here is judging Les Quebecois by Valcartier2007's example.

Having read Valcartier2007's responses to the arguments of the membership here, including mine, I can only say that those responses are the internet equivalent of a childish *"Oh yeah?  Are too!"* retort.

Folks, the pig (and the rest of us) are truly dirty. Whats more, the pig is still a pig and that is the only thing that has or will happen here.  Unfortunately we all should have known better.  You can now count me among the "ignore them and they will go away" group.

 :deadhorse:


----------



## Flip

In my own quest for "truth" I discovered ARMY.ca about a year ago.

As a relative newby and a civvie at that I have a slightly different perspective.

First and most important - this discussion will be here for others to read long after
V2007 has moved on. That's the real value of this board.  People we don't 
even know about will learn and decide what believe based in part on what's here.

What V2007 has probably never realized is that the good people who serve our 
country in uniform (include cops and firefighters) are not objects of curiosity
derision or scorn.  They are not something to tamper with for amusement
or political gain.  They are people. - with real life consequences for their own choices
and the choices and actions of others.  Thus I find the direct mailout to be 
despicable.  Would police officer be urged not to enforce inconvenient laws?
Would a firefighter be harassed?  Political views are one thing.  This direct
approach fails the smell test.

Back to political views,
If a bunch of friends are sitting around one day and decide that tobacco
companies are evil ( for example ).  It's an easy sell.
There is no tobacco execs in the room to show another side.
No one in the room will point out that there are smokers present.
The coke dealer in the room will agree.
The meth pusher will too.

It's easy to say "war is bad" without considering the possibility
that there are worse things.

It's easy to say "America is bad" without considering how the Chinese
would exert a similar level of influence.

It's also very easy to gloss over the distinction between the people
of Afghanistan and the Taliban.

It's very easy to criticize our governments actions without considering
the cost of inaction.

Valcartier2007 - Can you propose an alternative?
How would you right the world's wrongs?
What do you suppose is in Canada's best interest?


----------



## Trogdor

Reccesoldier welcome to the club.

Although using logical reasoning supported by overwhelming facts may not sway the average passive-agressive anarchist goon from their deeply flawed and contradicting ideas; we can all take comfort in one thing.  That is that when we fight it has the effect of providing security for good people doing good work for their country and the removal of truely dangerous and abhorent individuals.  Whereas when the anarchist fights it has the effect of providing the viewers of the world with footage of misguided individuals in black t-shirts having their backsides handed to them by riot police.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No Mike, you're not.
> 
> I mentioned it in an earlier post of mine as the point where "their" and "our" philosophies take separate paths.
> 
> I, for one, am willing to fight and die so that others (in this case the people of Afghanistan) can move forward into a brighter and more promising future. Sometimes, dying is the cost that must be paid so that others can prosper in a free society. There are many of us out here who believe that cost is worth it, and have seen the improvements made for the Afghan people and their society at cost of soldier's lives.




_
I, for one, am willing to fight and die,_

I will have to refute part of this statement from my colleague.

I was always willing to fight for the mission my country sent me.  I was never willing to die.  I do not want to sound crass, or belittle the statement, but this is my take on this.  I accepted the fact in doing the job my country asked of me.  If I was sent to fight, then I would do this.  My job would be to kill the enemy, however, if I were injured or I died, I accepted the fact that it was part and parcel of my job.  I was not doing my job for some belief or cause, my job is as that of a soldier, and I do the bidding of my country.

Those that are willing to die are ideologist, and are there for selfish purposes.  The Taliban, used the help of the western democracies to gain control of Afghanistan, for this type of reasoning.  They oppressed the people there, tortured, murdered, and destroyed a populace for a degenerate means of power.  For their own means.

As a soldier, if my leaders hail the call of help, well then, I am a tool to be used to help liberate those that are oppressed.  I do not go there to judge, it is not my job.  Maybe you should have targeted the MPs', that make the decisions, as opposed to the Canadians that have decided to take up the call and serve their nation.  Oh wait that is right, your beliefs do not entail a Hierarchy of leadership, unless approved by your clique.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

No one wants to die Tess, and certainly most are not willing to die _unnecessarily_; of course we'd prefer that none of us die in that process of fighting. However, as soldiers, that is a risk we take if our government deems us to do so, and it was most certainly clearly explained to me and understood by me when I signed on that line.

That does not make me an ideologist, and on that point you and I will have to disagree.


----------



## the 48th regulator

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No one wants to die Tess, and certainly most are not willing to die _unnecessarily_; of course we'd prefer that none of us die in that process of fighting. However, as soldiers, that is a risk we take if our government deems us to do so, and it was most certainly clearly explained to me and understood by me when I signed on that line.
> 
> That does not make me an ideologist, and on that point you and I will have to disagree.



I was not criticizing you Vern, m'dear, just clarifying for or resident ideologist.

Sorry if I had to use your quote.

Hugs and loves?  I have cooked up some coffee in my trench here, and there is some hot soup being made.

Don't mind the fuel tabes, I ran out of naptha for my wee stove.

p.s, I will save the crackers and candy for you.

dileas

tess


----------



## armyvern

No group hug required (I _hate_ those things!!). 

Dileas Gu Brath.


----------



## Kat Stevens

" "Importantly, some of the people in networks like Block the Empire come directly from these zones of conflict, or our parents do. We are not simply armchair critics of war. We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naive, pampered “Canadians” either; some of us migrated to Canada. Our website includes an appeal made directly by an Afghan living in Canada (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/qaderi_eng.htm) We try to root our analysis in the progressive anti-imperialist movements of the Third World. We also are active in social struggles in our own communities (against poverty, homelessness, ecocide, deportations and more)." "



So, you, or your ancestors, have fled from these conflict zones.  You came to Canada, I assume, because of its stability and freedoms.  Stability and freedoms that were provided, and are still provided, by the spilling of countless gallons of Canadian soldier's blood, on countless battlefields from Kapyong to Normandy, from Vimy to Sha-e-kot.  You would now deny the people of Afghanistan the same security in their own homeland?  Rather hypocritical, isn't it?  This is all from me, carry on.


----------



## pbi

Just back briefly. Wow! Well done thus far. And, to be fair, I have to give credit to Valcartier for sticking with it here in the lion's den. In reading Valcartier's posts, it's very interesting to see that we share some common points of view:

-there is evil in the world;

-good people need to oppose that evil, and that may mean using force including killing people;

-people have to be ready to stand up for what they believe in;

-there can be causes and objects greater than an individual;

-we shouldn't kill people if we don't have to;

-General Leslie is worth quoting; and

-the views and opinions of Canadian soldiers are worth thinking about.


Unfortunately, the choice of the Spanish Civil War as a "good war" from the left wing point of view is so classic and stereotypical that I couldn't believe Valcartier would actually resort to it. Deciding that the Republicans were somehow morally superior to the Royalists really takes some mental gymnastics. Both sides were guilty of hideous atrocities (the Republicans targeted priests and nuns in particular), and both sides enthusiastically accepted the support and advice of hideous totalitarian regimes. While Franco and friends were supported by the German Kondor Legion, Mussolini, etc. the Republicans were only too happy to accept weapons and other support from the equally murderous and blood-stained Stalin, whose support for "human rights" and "freedom" and "democracy" are of course well known.

However, it does point out that apparently Valcartier (or at least some of his confreres) believe that in some circumstances it is acceptable and understandable for Canadians to volunteer to go to serve in combat in far way places, to oppose an enemy who presents a threat to what we believe in, while helping others to achieve what they cannot achieve themselves. Well...so do we.

Cheers


----------



## FascistLibertarian

Note: Im a civ so what I say is in no way linked to the CF.
What makes me really angry about this whole thing is that before 9/11 some of the strongest people pushing for us to take on or take out the Taliban were socialists and the left. Its like they forget what side of the debate they were on as soon as people on the right and Bush started supporting their view. I bet if bush became an anarchist then you guys would change sides again. After all hes evil (no grey here, pure black and white) so you MUST oppose him.
These are the same people who are now saying we need to act in Sudan and who support involvement in Haiti......
I just hope that they would not turn their backs on those mission the second a CF or innocent got killed.

I asked you before what Canadian missions you supported. You did not reply but you did mention that you feel the Spanish Civil War was a just war (for the left). I am to take this to mean you do not think Canada should have been involved in WW1, 2, Korea, Balkans etc all?

The killing 1 makes 15 is not a math equation!

Lastly, innocents are sometimes killed by the police, the police sometimes act in a bad manner and enforce unfair laws. Using your logic I would assume that because of this policing is pointless, after all it only makes more criminals and crime will take a long time (if ever) to get rid of, sho why should we bother? Surely taking out those Crips at Jane and Finch is making 15 more gangstas for every one thrown in jail
would you agree that
1) we should eliminate policing?
2) Police should be able to choose for themselevs which laws to enforce?
3) I should mail a letter to police officers homes telling them which laws they should not enforce?


----------



## George Wallace

FascistLibertarian 

I know it is very frustrating, but I think you overlooked on important point.  These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich

George Wallace said:
			
		

> FascistLibertarian
> 
> I know it is very frustrating, but I think you overlooked on important point.  These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.



With respect,  they (several people I spoke to as well as official NDP policy)  tried to have it both ways a while ago.  Insisting that we pull out of Afghanistan while demanding that we go into Darfur.  It was then I decided that that they are more interested in being "against the man" than actually examining the world.


----------



## pbi

Back again. Seems quiet.........


Are you still there Valcartier?


Is it over?


Cheers


----------



## Bzzliteyr

George, why weren't the protesting before we went to Afghanistan?

Why is this the first time we have heard of them as a group?  Is it because it's convenient that we are in their home province and it's easier?  What about the fact that Valcartier has had troops over in Afghan for at least 6 of the last months?

I'll say it again, these people are like a schoolyard bully or class clown looking for attention.  They're loving this!!


----------



## a_majoor

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> George, why weren't the protesting before we went to Afghanistan?



Like so many others, it is not mission related at all. The flap over Taliban captives being turned over to the GoA only happened when the Conservatives became the governing party; it was OK when Paul Martin was PM. The hypocrasy of the Left is astounding.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

That's my point.. if they are against the government then where have they been up until now?


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Hello, 

We've just offered some quick responses in the French section of the forum. We're going offline now (we've been at work tonight) but we hope to be back online soon (maybe tomorrow or Monday) for further discussion.

Quick answer to Bzzliteyr who asks us where have we been until now: rest assured, we've been quite busy. 

--- 

VALCARTIER 2007
C.P. 55051, 138 Saint-Vallier Ouest, Québec (Qué) G1K 1J0
418 208-7059


----------



## CdnArtyWife

Is it just me, or do they sound like the "collective" Borg when they post?


----------



## medaid

Nope not just you.

'We are the Borg, lower your shields and surrender your ship. Your technological and individual distinctions will be added to our own. We are the Borg'


----------



## The Bread Guy

CdnArtyWife said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or do they sound like the "collective" Borg when they post?



If they really ARE a collective, they might really go for consensus in all their decisions, including their messages - which may be why it feels a bit like writing by committee.  Still, I agree with PBI that they've at least come back to respond.


----------



## RatCatcher

Just fell off my chair......  :rofl:.

By the way Buzz,  how was the parade yesterday??


----------



## Bigmac

In case you are curious what the Valcartier 2007 "collective"  looks like here is a blog site that posted a pic of one of them. The blog site is on our side by the way! Get a load of who we are dealing with! :

http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/


----------



## armyvern

Bigmac said:
			
		

> In case you are curious what the Valcartier 2007 "collective"  looks like here is a blog site that posted a pic of one of them. The blog site is on our side by the way! Get a load of who we are dealing with! :
> 
> http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/



BigMac,

He looks like my brother, who isn't anti-war. Is that supposed to mean something??  :  

Read through the 16 pages that here, you'll see your link already posted. You'll also find other posts in here which make mention of the the other groups forming this "collective."

Edited to add:

If you have nothing constructive to add to this thread ... just don't.


----------



## Bigmac

I think we are all beginning to repeat previous statements and posts. Responding to Valcartier 2007 is like trying to have a conversation with a boring relative. Eventually you run out of topics and repeat the same things over and over again. 

      This group is Anarchist. They are anti - just about everything that you and I believe in and value about our great country. In my opinion we are giving them more credit than they deserve.

     I believe Valcartier 2007 have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame on this site but they are not bringing anything new to the table. I think they have had more than enough attention and probably feel like they are now one of the cool kids for the first time in their lives. At least someone is listening to them! You can all at least credit yourselves for their renewed self esteem.

     We can't change their minds and they can't change ours. How long are we going to dance in circles before this thread ends?


----------



## armyvern

Bigmac said:
			
		

> I think we are all beginning to repeat previous statements and posts. Responding to Valcartier 2007 is like trying to have a conversation with a boring relative. Eventually you run out of topics and repeat the same things over and over again.
> 
> This group is Anarchist. They are anti - just about everything that you and I believe in and value about our great country. In my opinion we are giving them more credit than they deserve.
> 
> I believe Valcartier 2007 have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame on this site but they are not bringing anything new to the table. I think they have had more than enough attention and probably feel like they are now one of the cool kids for the first time in their lives. At least someone is listening to them! You can all at least credit yourselves for their renewed self esteem.
> 
> We can't change their minds and they can't change ours. How long are we going to dance in circles before this thread ends?



Such is sometimes the nature of debate my friend.

If they want to post their arguements, we can still post counterpoints. There is a wealth of experience and actual hands-on knowledge of the ACTUAL situation on the ground in Afghanistan from people on this forum that rebuke Valcartier2007's points. They may choose to contribute those points and facts.

Seriously, do you think Valcartier2007 is the only one reading this thread? I see 14 guests in it now (none of whom are Valcartier2007 BTW), so maybe, just maybe, some other less informed individual is actually learing some facts on this issue rather than the normal left-wing diatribe and arguments.

Quite simply put, if you don't want to contribute ... keep out. That's easy enough to do isn't it?


----------



## George Wallace

Bigmac said:
			
		

> This group is Anarchist. They are anti - just about everything that you and I believe in and value about our great country. In my opinion we are giving them more credit than they deserve.
> 
> I believe Valcartier 2007 have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame on this site but they are not bringing anything new to the table.




I think you have made a very valid point in stating that they are not bringing anything new to the table.  We are all quite literate here.  For their "Collective" to come and simply regurgitate their propaganda sheets, the same ones they provide links to on their sites, really doesn't say much for their capacity to discuss their thoughts.  I hope that they can get rid of the "Collective" and openly discuss as "Individuals" what they are trying to present.  

I find it farcical that they have to withdraw from the discussion for long periods in order to come up with replies (references to their info sheets) to counter points presented.  It gives the impression that they are dysfunctional, and have to conduct their own discussion and edit a reply in the backrooms of cyberspace, before posting it here.  Do they even have a quorum within their own "Collective"?   

The interest in this topic is quickly falling off, due to the lack of 'real discussion'.  As such, it will die its' own slow death of natural causes.


----------



## armyvern

Moderator Warning

Keep your needless BS posts out of this thread. I just deleted another. 

I'll say it again, if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, then don't bother. That's three times now. 

Last warning, next time the official warning system comes into play.

ArmyVern
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## FascistLibertarian

Well I do think we have to give them respect for coming here and at least trying to debate with us. 
While I am in favour of the mission we do have to understand that a person can be informed and intellegent AND against the mission (just saying this).
We all already have our point of views and it is human nature to get your point of view and then look for evidence to back it up (rather than looking at the evidence and then making a choice).
We also have to respect that a lot of people have asked them a lot of questions. It has got to be a bit of overload for them, think of the response if one of us went to the green party fourm and started to post pro-nuke arguements.
So in closing I am happy that in this country at least we can have a free open source discussion or debate over the merits of a military mission, its one of those things that makes this country great.
And I am happy that these groups are able to express their opinion.

That being said I think the debate will show that we are in the right and that they are wrong.


----------



## HItorMiss

Valcartier2007

CBC about 2 months ago ran a program on Afghanistan and it's mission. 

Cross Country Checkup: 29 Apr 2007

You will find that at aprrox 1 hour 19 mins a soldier just returned from the mission comes on the air and refutes many of the anti-war facts you claim as truth with honest, objective thoughts. These come from the fact he has spent a year in that country. I hope you listen to the program and that it helps to clarify in your mind the mentality of a soldier who has been to that country.


EDIT: Time of soldier coming on air
_Edited by Vern to correct hyperlink for HitorMiss_


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Quick answer to Bzzliteyr who asks us where have we been until now: rest assured, we've been quite busy.



Pretty vague answer... thanks.


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Reply: We think it’s very relevant to point out that the current Defence Minister, who is a former General, has personally profited from working for military companies and PR firms.


 This is still poisoning the well.  You think that generals & politicians have a different way of viewing war when compared to soldiers?  Well they probably should because it is the generals & politicians that have to consider these things from the strategic perspective of the nation.

However, you have not presented any argument of relevance with your observation that the MND is a former soldier & defence industry employee.  Do you want us to believe that anyone with such a background is only capable of making the inherently wrong decisions?  Or, are you trying to suggest that he is corrupt & receiving defence industry kick-backs for prolonging the war?  If you really believed the position you are arguing to us, you could present your case by discussing the issues and not by going after the person.  But, if you are happy arguing logical fallacies just keep in mind that you will not be fooling anybody with a critical mind.

You have also answered my observation that your Iraq reference was a red herring by reinforcing that logical fallacy with more of the same & you ignored the remainder of my post (I assume because you just don’t have answers that even you believe).  However, I will not pursue my previous concerns at this point.  Instead, I am curious as to your position on a series of short questions:

1. 	Do you understand that Canadian & American forces operate under different rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan?  Do you think this is a relevant fact?
[NOTE: for reasons of operational security, the details of the differences cannot be discussed here.]

2.	What should be done in Afghanistan?  Who should do it?

3.	What should be done in Iraq?  Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq.  Here I give you the opportunity)

4.	What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up?  Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living?  If yes, how?

5.	Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence? 

6.	Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?

7.	Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?


----------



## Greymatters

Gone for two days and missed out on the best part of the thread:

Okay so we want to discuss in a free and logical manner.  We’ll let them respond.  Excellent.  I went through all their arguments and find that the V2007 crew repeatedly makes the same inconsistent errors in delivery.  The V2007 member uses numerous argumentative fallacies (some deliberate, others unacknowledged) that he/she ignores when convenient for them, but point out with great enthusiasm when found in counter-arguments. This is the whole reason I posted the list earlier.  

These groups all use the same form of illogic, and here’s the main problem:  You can’t claim to be quoting ‘facts’ and using ‘references’ to establish truth, then follow it up with comments about “known truths” which are actually only opinions.  Instead of posting all 6 pages of their argumentative errors, here’s a list of the most important ones:  

“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai…” statement  – V2007 treats it as a fact.  It’s not a fact, it’s a statement made any another person, thus is no more valid than anyone else’s opinion.  How are they corrupt and a mafia, or at least any different from any other government?

“Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan.”  statement.  Again, opinion.  

“Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.” Statement.  V2007 implies that NATO soldiers are killing Afghan citizens therefore Canada as part of NATO is killing Afghan citizens.  Political rhetoric, and false logic that falls under the category “if you pull off all four legs, the frog goes deaf” logic.

“Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you.” statement.  A backhanded complement.  We ’can be’ free-thinking’, and they ‘know soldiers who are freethinking’…but the phrasing indicates we are not included in that group.

“It’s generals and senior officers who seem to think that soldiers should just do the job they’re paid to do, which is to accept orders.”  statement.  A blanket generalization which I know to be untrue, therefore based on you own bias.  Some generals and senior officers may be like that, but not all of them are. 

“Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld” statement.  A V2007 opinion, not a fact. 

 “In the same speech, he stated: ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’”   Statement.  V2007 makes a series of interpreted logic from a selected statement that is obviously not a fact, but may be the Generals personal opinion.   

“Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East” statement.   Imaginative use of the words ‘sounds like’ and ‘being used as a cover’.  These are not facts these are opinions.  

“Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences.” statement.   Denial of alternate perceptions of the events involving Juarez is not logic, its bias.  

“Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.” Opinion. 

“You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise?” statement.  Opinion again, despite implying they would give evidence. 

“Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine.” statement.  Development and reconstruction projects are developed and run by foreign affairs departments and NGO’s, not the military. This is not just opinion and bias, its paranoia.     
_Edit - This used to be a pretty solid rule up until last year.  The line is probably a lot murkier now. _ 

“The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous (US) policies.”    While many of the world’s errors could be attributed to the USA, it’s a pretty big reach here.  It’s the same as saying that the US was responsible for the fall of the USSR.  It ignores a million other factors that contributed to the situation.  More ‘deaf frog’ logic.   

“Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.”  followed by “One war, for example, that many of us would support…”  and even later admit that they are willing to be violent ("we are not all pacifists") and “willing to fight for what they believe in”.  Isn’t this counter to anarchist anti-war ideology?  Or is it a case of ‘the end justifies the means’?

Sidenote:  Army Vern notes that the V2007 crew are logging on as guest rather than by account.  It may be that they are at a workplace where the company has a policy against non-work-related Internet use… or they just thought they were being covert.

“We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naïve” statement.    Admitting you are ignorant of a full understanding doesnt mean your limited knowledge makes you right.  It means that you havent looked at both sides of a conflict and that you have only a half-full understanding of the situation.  Its not about being naive, its about not being informed.  (Especially when you blame Harper for our being in Afghanistan despite the fact that Chretien and the Liberals approved our intervention there.)

So.  Now instead of just leaving it at that, I give you three questions to which I would like to hear your responses:

1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there?  And why did you start now?

2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?

3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately.  How will this improve the country?   What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Just a shout out to my brothers in blue in Quebec City.  I'll be thinking about you June 22.  







To Valcartier 2007, I hope your protest brings you all the rich rewarding experiences that you are hoping for and will most keenly deserve.  Enjoy the free society that _war_ veterans have won for you.


----------



## Big Foot

zipperhead_cop, I don't agree in the least with Valcartier 2007. That said, I do accept the fact that they have the hard-fought right to protest, as long as it is peaceful. So long as it remains peaceful, I hope that the pic you just posted does not become reality on June 22. The Vandoos deserve much better than that, although they also deserve much better than to have a bunch of ill-informed, self-proclaimed anarchists protesting their very important mission. Anyways, what I'm saying here is that I hope that the protest remains peaceful.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Protesters in general are peaceful.  Anarchists are not.  As soon as you see people showing up with scarves over their faces, or wearing gas masks, you can be sure they are not there to spread informative dialogue.  Typically, there is a core of people who have a message to spread.  Then there are a bunch of clowns that end up starting fights.  They could care less about the message, they just want to fight.  Much the same as soccer hooligans.  
I'm sure Val 2007 will deny to the death that this is the intent of their aim.  But you can already see them angling towards it.  They will only "target" the organizers or high ranking individuals.  They only want to "talk" to the families.  Like any family member wants to talk to one of these gumps right before their loved one is about to deploy.  
In 2000 I was right in the heart of it when the OAS was in town.  There were lots of granola eating "burn the money, plant a tree" types, but it was the anarchists that were the ones who caused all of the problems.  It is a common pattern all over the globe.  
All they want is TV time and some clips they can put on YouTube so they can blog each other off about how cool they are.  Unfortunately, ignoring them tends to not work, because they will do whatever they need to in order to get noticed.  
The good part is, modern policing here in the major Canadian cities have taken the lessons learned from the Brits, and are getting good at public order events.  There will be several police video's rolling, and the people who are inciting the crowd or throwing things from the rear will be spotted and taken out.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Hi everyone – We’re back! Hope you’ve had a safe and fun weekend.

Sending along as many replies as we can after this message.

Just a few background notes:

There seems to be a big deal being made of the fact that sometimes we’re on this forum as a “guest”. Well, when we read and reply to posts, we login; when we’re done, we logout. Sometimes, we check the forum board during the day (as you, we’re curious about responses). Plus, we use a public computer terminal, so other folks might be checking out the forum as well, with no intention of replying. Or, the forum page gets left on this desktop. So, not sure what the problem is? When we post, we login like any of you; when we’re done, we logoff.

George Wallace wrote that we “withdraw from the discussion for long periods in order to come up with replies.” That’s not how we operate. We’re not on this forum ALL the time because we have other commitments (work, organizing, family, friends, just like you). We reply when we can, and we’ll continue to reply.

Again, we appreciate this opportunity to debate and dialogue. Many folks seem to want to just shut down the debate, so we appreciate being here even more. 

At the beginning, we were being openly dismissed (and even the factual basis of our letter was questioned). It seems most of you are quite willing to accept the factual basis of our argument (ie. we’re not simply making up facts), but disagree with our interpretations of those facts, and our conclusions. 

We conclude that the Afghan mission is unjust, and many of you believe the opposite. That’s an advance from where this all started (some examples of the dismissive quotes were: “leave, and don't come back”: “full of logical falsies & inaccuracies”; “Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle”).

Still, we got a basis for our point of view that many of you now respect, and we can all move to discussing our interpretations and conclusions.

Anyhow, we got a bit of time (“we” are several folks, who consult each other and reply; right now, there’s two of us working on these replies in English), and we’ll reply to as much as we can in the next little while.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

pbi said:
			
		

> it's very interesting to see that we share some common points of view:
> 
> -there is evil in the world;
> -good people need to oppose that evil, and that may mean using force including killing people;
> -people have to be ready to stand up for what they believe in;
> -there can be causes and objects greater than an individual;
> -we shouldn't kill people if we don't have to;
> -General Leslie is worth quoting; and
> -the views and opinions of Canadian soldiers are worth thinking about.



Yup! We agree. But can you can also add: *the views and opinions of anti-war protesters, even the anarchist anti-war protesters, are worth thinking about.*



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the choice of the Spanish Civil War as a "good war" from the left wing point of view is so classic and stereotypical that I couldn't believe Valcartier would actually resort to it. Deciding that the Republicans were somehow morally superior to the Royalists really takes some mental gymnastics. Both sides were guilty of hideous atrocities (the Republicans targeted priests and nuns in particular), and both sides enthusiastically accepted the support and advice of hideous totalitarian regimes. While Franco and friends were supported by the German Kondor Legion, Mussolini, etc. the Republicans were only too happy to accept weapons and other support from the equally murderous and blood-stained Stalin, whose support for "human rights" and "freedom" and "democracy" are of course well known.



We do not identify with, or support, the Stalinist opposition to Franco. There was a clear anti-Stalinist opposition to Franco and fascism. It was Churchill and Roosevelt who made an alliance of convenience with Stalin, not the anarchists!

A good starting point about the Spanish Civil War, for those of you who are interested, is the Ken Loach film: "Land and Freedom". It's widely available at most video stores. It's not a documentary, but a drama, based on real events. Check it out! Even if you don't agree, you'll enjoy the drama of the film.

We could recommend some good books and websites too, if you're interested. Just let us know. The Spanish Civil War, and the anarchist role, is something that is resulting in a lot of misinformation on this thread.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

We think you now agree that we accurately quoted General Leslie from 2005; however, we disagree on the interpretation of his remarks. We want to clarify this point, because it’s coming up on this discussion again and again.

The key remark is: “"Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Many of you who’ve cited Leslie think he’s being honest, and has outlined a clear mission for Canada’s military role in Afghanistan.

This is our interpretation:

Yes, it’s quite honest for Leslie to have admitted in 2005 that killing people overseas creates animosity that “blows back” against you. You kill some insurgents, and you create many more.

While you see honesty and clarity, we see a contradiction (and a disaster): Leslie is essentially admitting that what we’ll have in Afghanistan is a never-ending war. That’s the so-called “logic” we take issue with. You’ll never be able to end the war, if you’re creating more people who want to kill you when you kill them (and your main job, as soldiers, is to kill, you all admit that, as does Leslie).

Importantly, the “Taliban” has become a catch-all term to refer to any insurgent, whether that person is actually a member of the Taliban, or someone who objects to a foreign military occupation in their country (or is just angry at the presence of foreigners). These are fluid categories, and, frankly, officers giving orders are not making these distinctions. 

Sure, you’re killing “Taliban”, but you’re killing people who are not “Taliban” but are having that label applied to them. Plus, as RAWA (http://www.rawa.org) has pointed out (and, interestingly, their point of view has been pointedly ignored), you are defending “Taliban-like” forces and warlords. They are essentially your allies, who aren’t much better than the Taliban.

If you add to this argument, the increasing civilians deaths (and yes, unfortunately, Canadian soldiers are responsible for their proportionate share of civilian deaths) the Afghan mission is a quagmire: a quagmire for Canadian soldiers, and certainly, a tragedy for Afghans. It’s a disaster, constructed by politicians and generals, and it’s the on-the-ground soldiers who’ll suffer the consequences.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Many of you take issue with our linking of the US army with the Canada’s Afghanistan mission, and the influence of the US over NATO. Again, many of our disagreements come down to interpretations, not facts:

We believe that the Afghan mission is inextricably linked to the US and their foreign policy in the region. You seem to think that it can be separated. We stand by our assertion, and we think your distancing of Canada’s role in Afghanistan from the broader role of the US in the Middle East is simply naive.

US airpower permitted the land occupation. That same airpower, which backs you up, killed more than 3000 Afghan civilians. You would not be in Afghanistan if the US military wasn't there either.

The word “responsibility” has come up many times on this thread. Canada, and the Canadian Forces, should take responsibility for the allies who we have aligned with, and the ramifications of that alliance. This is not simple anti-Americanism, it’s understanding the geo-political reality of Canada’s role, and drawing the relevant conclusions.

The same logic applies to NATO. Sure, NATO is made up of many countries; but again, to downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO (and therefore, over the entire Afghan mission) is just naive.

Canada has made a clear choice to support an ill-defined “War on Terror”, the “War on Terror” led by George Bush. With all due respect, it’s simply hypocritical to try to delink Canada’s role, and complicity, with the broader foreign and military consequences of that war.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

George Wallace said:
			
		

> These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.





			
				Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Although using logical reasoning supported by overwhelming facts may not sway the average passive-agressive anarchist goon from their deeply flawed and contradicting ideas; we can all take comfort in one thing.  That is that when we fight it has the effect of providing security for good people doing good work for their country and the removal of truely dangerous and abhorent individuals.  Whereas when the anarchist fights it has the effect of providing the viewers of the world with footage of misguided individuals in black t-shirts having their backsides handed to them by riot police.



In reply to George Wallace and Wolfe117 above, on anarchism, we strongly encourage folks to get informed about anarchism as a political theory and practice, instead of relying on stereotypes.

A good starting point is the Anarchist FAQ which is linked at:
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

If you want more info, just ask. Nous pouvons aussi recommander des liens en français.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> The same logic applies to NATO. Sure, NATO is made up of many countries; but again, to downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO (and therefore, over the entire Afghan mission) is just naive.


You are still fighting with logical fallacies.  "NATO (and thereby ISAF) is controlled by the US bogeyman and if you don't believe it you are naive."   Maybe you could provide us some fact to support the notion that the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

MCG said:
			
		

> You are still fighting with logical fallacies.  "NATO (and thereby ISAF) is controlled by the US bogeyman and if you don't believe it you are naive."   Maybe you could provide us some fact to support the notion that the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO.



We never wrote that "the US has monopoly on the thoughts of NATO". We wrote that you can't "downplay the decisive influence of the US over NATO." That's very different. We stand by our assertion; it's international relations 101.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

We haven’t forgotten about the question that many of you have posed about our “alternative” to a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It’s a large answer, and we’ll give it in bits and pieces as we continue this debate. But, we want to anticipate here parts of that reply:

One aspect of that reply is explaining our worldview, which differs quite starkly from many of you. You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.

It bears repeating that many of us involved in networks around Block the Empire and other anti-war, international solidarity groups, are linked to Third World liberation movements. These are movements of self-determination, movements of dignity, movements that are able to articulate their past, present and future. We should listen to these progressive movements (like RAWA, or L'Observatoire de l'Asie centrale et du Moyen-Orient), instead of politicians self-servingly rationalizing their charity.

Our model is solidarity, which is the opposite of charity. 

Closely linked to this point is an understanding of history, especially recent history. The role of the US and Canada in Afghanistan in 2007 can’t be delinked from previous foreign and military endeavors in years past.

From the end of the Second World War to the end or the Cold War, the US (with Canadian complicity) consistently undermined progressive movements in the Middle East. For example: Mossedeq was democratically elected the leader of Iran, and his government insisted on some level of control over Iran’s natural resources (instead of all profits flowing to Western companies). But he was overthrown in a CIA-coup (like Allende, or like so many other governments, leaders, and movements). 

In Afghanistan, the US (with its allies) helped fund anti-women, fundamentalist warlords, which undermined secular, progressive movements in Afghanistan, which were quite strong. Now, after the previous policy “blowbacks” in their face, we are now given an ahistorical narrative about poor Afghans who need to be “saved” from other vicious Afghans.

This is just a taste of the background needed to understand our alternatives. We can’t glibly go over our worldview or the history of Western intervention in the Middle East, in a simple post. We take the question too seriously for that.

We do suggest two books in our For More Information (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/info_eng.htm) section of our website. Check them out. Ahmad Rashid’s “Taliban” explains the West’s role in helping create the Taliban in the first place (and the economic self-interest, related to pipelines). Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls' book – Bleeding Afghanistan -- is also a great backgrounder to the current situation in Afghanistan.

We’ll continue to contribute about alternatives, and this post is just a start on that question.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

It's 3am, and we (the two of us who are replying in English tonite) need to work in a few hours, so we'll call it a night.

We'll follow this debate and discussion throughout the week, and reply when we can. We always appreciate your thoughtful replies and questions. Don't worry, we won't disappear from this forum as long as you're interested in debating these issues.

Have a good week!

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> it's international relations 101.


but did you not tell us that you are not a university student? How is it you know the curriculum of this course ... or are you simply trying to suggest that disagreement implies lesser intelligence and thereby frighten me into compliance?

I appreciate your acknowledgment that NATO in capable of independent thought.  I don't know what you mean by "decisive influence" but you have now clarified that it is not total control.  Therefore, I'd suggest that the influence of France & Germany (to name only two) in ISAF should play a certain role toward moderating the US bogeyman that you fear to be at the helm.

... but I don't want to get lost on this track.  Lets get the details of your answers to the questions that GreyMatter & I have asked?

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.


There is certainly nothing Kipling about it.  We are there at the request of the democratically elected Afghan government.  If you take a close look at our policies, there is an emphasis on Afghans determining their future, on Afghans undertaking their reconstruction, and on Afghans leading.  Our help will let the Afghans get where they are going faster & with less violence.

However, I am starting to suspect that you are also in a minority of Canadians that would believe we should never do a peacekeeping mission.  Would I be correct in making such an assumption?  If this is the case then you probably do not care that, despite being a party to the conflict, we are able to minimise the violence as that nation rebuilds.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Our model is solidarity, which is the opposite of charity.


You’re going to have to clarify what you believe these words to mean for me.  Which one implies helping people because that is the right thing to do?



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Closely linked to this point is an understanding of history, especially recent history. The role of the US and Canada in Afghanistan in 2007 can’t be delinked from previous foreign and military endeavors in years past.
> 
> From the end of the Second World War to the end or the Cold War, the US (with Canadian complicity) consistently ….


Without even going into your historical perspectives, you appear to be using Ad hominem tu quoque as an argument against the US being able to offer its help today.  You are also suggesting Canada is guilty by association & there for also cannot help.

Why should mistakes of the past prevent nations from helping other nations today?


----------



## KevinB

MCG -- I think the International Relations 101 was a quip, to use when one refers to something they believe is common knowledge.  I'm not going to quibble on that issue, but point out to Valcartier2007 that they still have not really adressed the issue of the UN support and mandates.  They still like to use the US as a whipping boy.

  The biggest issue I have with the people I call the OUT Crowd (out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan), is what happens then?
What do they expect to happen and what is their plan.  It is quite easy to say that the Afghan gov't is corrupt and incompetant (I'd argue that most human constructs have some incompetance and corruption in them at some level), however you also need to offer a solution, and frankly lets all drop acid and rave in the streets is not really a solution.

Before I take anyone arguement seriously it needs to have a plan, and at this point all I see is rhetoric, there may be some good points in it -- but it does nothing to solving the issues at hand.  


Later -- I have to go oppress some Iraqi's


----------



## Trooper Hale

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Later -- I have to go oppress some Iraqi's


Good post I6, i was getting all serious and studious until that last line. Good point.
My view on your "OUT" crowd, who Valcartier belongs too, is that they love vague rhetoric and empty ideas. Valcartier seems to be suggesting that we just 'up and go' and leave the Afghans to their own devices, that they'll sit down, sort it out and create what will quickly be a wondrous utopia. I'd much rather be "highly condescending and paternalistic" then be a part in sitting back and watching people massacre each other which is what will happen if we, the West, do pull out.

If Valcartier is correct in saying that we the Western World have caused this mess, then i think we should be the ones to help clean it up (And thats help, as in a shared help) and create a better place to be by allowing people to achieve their nations goals with as little violence as possible. I'd much rather someone actually helping me out, rather then them just waving and saying "Solidarity man, good luck with that".
 While we may be responsible for the occasional death or accident, we're definately stopping hundreds more. But then again, i suppose i'm being highly condescending and paternalistic.


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> There seems to be a big deal being made of the fact that sometimes we’re on this forum as a “guest”. Well, when we read and reply to posts, we login; when we’re done, we logout. Sometimes, we check the forum board during the day (as you, we’re curious about responses). Plus, we use a public computer terminal, so other folks might be checking out the forum as well, with no intention of replying. Or, the forum page gets left on this desktop. So, not sure what the problem is? When we post, we login like any of you; when we’re done, we logoff.



No big deal, there just exists a simpler way for you to go about viewing on this forum while logged in as yourself. Being logged in as yourself also allows you the opportunity to view other members profiles (such as mine   ), a feature which isn't available when viewing as a guest.

Click on "Profile" (on your Army.ca toolbar)
Click on "Account Related Settings" (on the left side of your screen)
Uncheck "Show others your online status"
Scroll to bottom of page and enter your password
Click on "Change Profile"

There you have it. You can then use your own login, view your posts and responses that you are receiving, and not be visibly seen to be doing so by forum members or others you wish not to see you. You will then also have the capability to review your own posts, edit and modify, even post if necessary, and view profiles of forum members if required. None of which you can do as a guest.

As for the public computers you are accessing, interestingly enough, the members of the general public who enter through the possible pages left on the desktops by yourself, seem to be entirely interested in only viewing this very thread, and the franco version of same and nothing else. Is there a mathematician on this site capable of figuring out the odds of this?

All of this, of course, means very little in the grand scheme of things. I just thought that you should know there is an easier and more up front way of going about viewing site goings-ons and responses that you are receiving, with much more functionality as a forum member.



Edited to make "public computer" plural.


----------



## George Wallace

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We haven’t forgotten about the question that many of you have posed about our “alternative” to a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan. It’s a large answer, and we’ll give it in bits and pieces as we continue this debate. But, we want to anticipate here parts of that reply:



This reply only tells me that you as a Collective have not given it the thought that it deserves and you have no solutions.  Surely if you did, you would have been able to reply right away to the question.  Now we have put you on the spot, and you must withdraw and confer and create some solutions to parade for us.


----------



## scoutfinch

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> One aspect of that reply is explaining our worldview, which differs quite starkly from many of you. You see your role in Afghanistan as “helping” Afghans. Frankly, at times, the defenders of Canada’s role in Afghanistan come across as highly condescending and paternalistic, using language that is the modern-day equivalent of the “white man’s burden”, a form of neo-colonialism.
> 
> In Afghanistan, the US (with its allies) helped fund anti-women, fundamentalist warlords, which undermined secular, progressive movements in Afghanistan, which were quite strong. Now, after the previous policy “blowbacks” in their face, we are now given an ahistorical narrative about poor Afghans who need to be “saved” from other vicious Afghans.
> 
> This is just a taste of the background needed to understand our alternatives. We can’t glibly go over our worldview or the history of Western intervention in the Middle East, in a simple post. We take the question too seriously for that.
> 
> We do suggest two books in our For More Information (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/info_eng.htm) section of our website. Check them out. Ahmad Rashid’s “Taliban” explains the West’s role in helping create the Taliban in the first place (and the economic self-interest, related to pipelines). Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls' book – Bleeding Afghanistan -- is also a great backgrounder to the current situation in Afghanistan.



(1)  Rashid's book is an excellant study of the emergence of the Taliban.  

(2)  Don't cherry pick from your sources.  Rashid's book discusses American involvement with the Taliban but it also discusses American efforts to curtail the persecution of women and to advance human rights by the late 1990s.  It also notes that the Taliban first emerged without prodding of the US and that Taliban would have flourished without American involvement AND  that the Taliban regularly flaunted their 'power' in the American faces and totally rejected most American efforts to influence the Taliban government.   Moreover, America ultimately abandoned the Taliban because they could not maintain any influence over the Taliban.  This point is quite clear in Rashid's work.

(3)  The mere suggestion that the elimination of progressive, secular movements in Afghanistan was not a DIRECT result of the Taliban is laughable.  The Americans had so little control over the Taliban on this issue that their responsibility for this would be tangential at best.  

(3)  Either you have selectively read or selectively cited from Rashid's work.  Your reliance on his work for your position is quite academically sketchy.  He is very clear:  the Taliban regularly thumbed their collective noses at the Americans.

I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan:  Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007?  Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan?  Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government? 

These are not hollow rhetorical questions.  Answer them yourself and then tell me whether there needs to be international involvement.  I would like to see your written response to these questions.


----------



## Mortar guy

This is a fascinating debate and one I wish I had seen earlier! I think it's very impressive that Valcartier2007 has shown such courage and idealism in coming here to debate this topic and I have to admit that I respect the way he/she/they has been maintaining a civil tone.

That being said, I could not ever be swayed by their arguments. Idealism is a great thing but quite frankly its value in the real world is extremely limited and at the end of the day, the debate has to end and someone has to _do_ something. This is where Valcartier2007's arguments come apart as (and many have pointed this out) they are essentially a long string of problems without solutions. Yes it is horrible that civilians die in war; nobody wants that. Yes, some people publicly lump all opposing groups in with the Taliban (although I've yet to see a "senior officer" do so as Valcartier2007 points out). However, taken from a teleological/utilitarian point of view, one can understand that the consequences of doing nothing are far worse than the effects of doing something. I spent a year in Afghanistan working with the highest levels of their Government and I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that the majority of Afghan people welcome our presence and are grateful for our help. After 30 years of war, most want nothing more that to live in peace with their families and most realize that NATO is there to help them achieve that. This is where Valcartier2007's argument meets another roadblock - the fact that the Afghan people, the Afghan government and the UN all want Canada there. Most Afghans are opposed to the oppressive and twisted interpretation of Islam espoused by the Taliban and most are desperate for peace and prosperity. If Canada and NATO were to leave Afghanistan, I guarantee you that the best outcome they could expect would be another decade of civil war with the worst being a return to the oppression of the Taliban. Is this what you would like to see Valcartier 2007? More fighting, millions more refugees, more starvation? How could you possibly believe that leaving 30 million people twisting in the wind could be a just (and justifiable) course of action?

I would like to propose a theory as to why Valcartier2007 thinks this would be a good thing: you have absolutely no idea what is really happening in Afghanistan. Relying on the news media for information and blinded by rhetoric, you are both unable and unwilling to understand that we (i.e. NATO and allies) are doing good things in Afghanistan. You don't hear about the fact that GDP per capita has more than doubled since 2002; that millions of refugees have returned home; that Kabul is a vibrant city once again; that over 50% of the country (the North and West) are peaceful; that Afghanistan has a functioning democracy with greater voter turn-out and greater female representation than most Western countries; that thousands of kilometers of roads and hundreds of schools and clinics have been built. I don't blame you for not knowing these things but I do hold you absolutely responsible for taking the public position you have without knowing what you are talking about. I find such a thing to be abhorrently irresponsible as I would never dream of publicly speaking out about something I had only the vaguest of ideas about. I would be afraid of looking like an absolute fool in public when someone who was actually knowledgeable spoke up.

MG


----------



## pbi

Valcartier: your reference to Kipling and the "white man's burden" belies how little you actually understand about either the intent or the execution of the development and security aspects of the campaign in Afghanistan. The thrust of the entire thing, very clearly, has been and is to build the Afghan's own ability to run things, improve things and secure their achievements against those who simply want to destroy everything and revert to a bloodthirsty theocracy.

When I served as a liaison officer at the US force HQ in Bagram (2004-2005), I was party on a daily basis to the planning, briefings and conferences on this very subject: the US called it "building the Afghan capacity", and it ran the gamut from agricultural development to training the ANP, and everything in between. The clearly stated purpose was to stand the Afghans on their own feet. Since then, this approach has been adopted by ISAF and applied by Canada. We definitely don't want to decide things for them, nor could we in a realistic sense. it's not our country, and Afghans don't take very well to foreigners pushing them around.

It is most definitely NOT charity (I've been on enough overseas missions to be able to tell the difference, and to see the harmful and debilitating results of too much "aid" without any real capacity building. Most Canadians I know who have been involved in helping and training Afghans have a high degree of respect for them, opposed to the paternalistic colonialist (not to say racist...) view that you apparently impute to us.

But, I sense that for you and your group, none of our arguments really matter. The presence of the US , (despite all the other qualifying and mitigating factors that have been brought forward by posters here) is the mark of Satan: nothing done by international forces in Afghanistan could possibly be any good at all because the wicked US is involved. No doubt you will next trot out the story about the Afghan pipeline as the reason for being there.

Whether you and your group approve of it or not, we are allies with the US. We share in NATO and we share the defense of North America with them.  It is unrealistic to think that it would be any other way. A truly meaningful neutrality (ie such that of Sweden or Switzerland) would cost so much to ensure (compulsory military service, for a start...) that it is a non starter. Partly as a result of this, we have never been a neutral country, nor a pacifist one. While we were involved in peacekeeping for a relatively brief period of our national history (and may still be again), it never consumed the majority of the CF and was never the primary institutional focus. We are a nation with national interests and international obligations, just like any other. These include being an honourable and trustworthy member of alliances we sign up to, as opposed to running away when it gets nasty. 

Cheers


----------



## Greymatters

How is it that according to these guys everything that we do is wrong?  Is there nothing that we have done right?  

I still see no strategy on what your actions would be in place of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.  Its easy to point a finger and say 'thats wrong', but it takes a bit more intellect to devise a replacement plan.


----------



## Flip

The peace movement can arguably count the US withdrawl
from Vietnam a victory for them. I would say a hollow victory.



> If Canada and NATO were to leave Afghanistan, I guarantee you that the best outcome they could expect would be another decade of civil war with the worst being a return to the oppression of the Taliban. Is this what you would like to see Valcartier 2007? More fighting, millions more refugees, more starvation? How could you possibly believe that leaving 30 million people twisting in the wind could be a just (and justifiable) course of action?





> I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan:  Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007?  Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan?  Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government?



I like these paragraphs in particular.
It reminds me of the consequences of that withdrawl.
It shows me we could repeat history if we do as the peace movement
is calling for.

Does anyone remember what happened after that withdrawl?

Valcartier2007 do you have any idea?


----------



## xena

Seriously, if you want to make Afghanistan better, do something real about it.  Go there.  Build schools, hospitals, sewer systems, whatever.  If you can go there and do it better than the CF, good on you!  Give it a shot!

If you want to sit back in Canada, (enjoying the priveleges and freedoms that people better than you died for you to have), and just whine about a vague world situation, you're wasting your breath.

That's not to say this discussion is bad.  This is great!  Hopefully this can show that a stereotype of a soldier being a mindless automaton is totally wrong.  (Actually the days of the "dumb grunt" are long gone - I have the highest respect for the intelligence and creativity of people on the "pointy end", and that's from a retired CSS Wog!)  ;D

I'm just suggesting that instead of protesting things, try to come up with tangible solutions, and implement them!  Make things better on the ground in Afghanistan.  You don't have to be involved with the military to do that.

Just my two rubles though...


----------



## geo

Attached is a PDF document of a letter issued by the Cmdr of LFQA to the families of our serving members....


----------



## Greymatters

I cant believe Im actually checking to see if V2007 has written anything back...what is the world coming to...


----------



## a_majoor

Although Valcartier2007 says "they" are in solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, it is a very strange sort of solidarity when they essentially advocate abandoning the people of that nation to the wolves.

Indeed, given their claim that the Coalition Forces are committing "war crimes", it seems odd that they are pushing for a situation where they themselves will be _explicitly_ cupable of committing crimes against humanity. *Calling for Canadian and ISAF withdrawal is no sin of omission, and people who make that call must be held accountable for the consequences. *

If they were to be successful, will Valcartier2007 be prepared to defend their actions at the ICC in the Hague?


----------



## bjr

> In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers. Moreover, we may try to talk to people, as well as offer people flyers. We even shared a chant: "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez les députés!" That's not a "plan to harrass the troops." That's democracy.



Valcartier2007:

I'm not even close to a soldier. (Far from it -- I'm a bespecled, skinny-yet-flabby student who lives vicariously through the army.ca forums when I'm insominatic and curious about the military.) But I think you're missing part of the reason people in the CF have reacted so strongly to your information campaign. I think it's a simple clash of values: Military discipline meets anarchist crap-stirring. Whether or not you're actually jeering individual soldiers during protests, to honourable soldiers, your letters are the next worst thing. They're an insulting implication that, given a page full of propaganda, a soldier could be convinced to disobey orders and desert his buddies. To people in the military, this isn't even up for debate. One of the highest virtues to a soldier is loyalty, and you're suggesting they abandon this virtue. It's their equivalent of being asked to cross a picket line and work as a scab -- it's a non-option. The decision to go to Afghanistan was made in the political sphere, and once that decision was made, CF members were obligated by their code -- both their formal legal code of discipline and their informal code of conduct -- to follow that order. By suggesting that they should abandon their core beliefs, you're suggesting they give up their identity. 

I know suggesting that some values might be subordinate to free thinking is probably anathema to an anarchist, and I'd usually agree that freedom of conscience is nearly an absolute right. But the Canadian Forces is one of the very few spheres of Canadian society where this isn't the case. "That's democracy"? A military isn't a democracy. It is a hierarchy, and when the people up the hierarchy give an order, it isn't put to a vote. As citizens, CF members are free to write letters to the editor, protest government decisions in the street, and vote. But as soldiers, they must follow all lawful orders. If those orders send them to Afghanistan, so be it. If they were not willing to limit their freedom of conscience in such a way, presumably they wouldn't have joined the CF.

Naturally, there are limits to this logic. I hope that no Canadian soldier would participate in, say, ethnic cleansing, simply because it was a lawful order in some hypothetical bizzaro Canada. But to most members of the CF (and most Canadian citizens), the Afghanistan mission is so vastly removed from this scenario that desertion isn't even on the radar screen. This was a political decision that some may agree with, and others, such as yourself, may disagree with. But if we're going to have a Canadian military, we can't have a Canadian military that sees large numbers of members leave every time they don't support all aspects of a mission. And try as you might, I don't think your histrionics about evil empires cruelly imposing neocolonial systems on Afghans holds much water. While it is debatable whether the 2001 invasion has improved the conditions of the Afghan people, I don't think it debatable that NATO countries are operating with the long-term interests of the Afghans at heart. Yes, there are multiple reasons why the 1st world is in Afghanistan, some of which might not be so altruistic. But those reasons are still within the sphere of lawful orders that soldiers are obligated to accept.

Finally, I think you're being disingenuous when you suggest this is merely an attempt to enter into a dialogue with soldiers. I suspect that you're well aware that you're not going to convince a meaningful number of CF members to disobey orders and desert. I also suspect you're acquainted with the concept of "earned media," and know how to work the press. Congratulations -- it has worked. But as your 15 minutes comes to an end, I'd like you to admit two things: (1) That your primary goal was getting noticed by the media, *not* influencing the grass roots of the CF; and (2) You were motivated, at least in part, by an attempt to either become a legal test case yourself (by being prosecuted for incitement to mutiny) or by finding a CF martyr to be prosecuted in your place, with an eye at all times to maximizing your media exposure.

I'm not suggesting that this makes your message wrong or worthless. (Hey, you need some way to get your message out.) I just think, as I indicated, that it is disingenuous to come on army.ca and pretend this is a battle for the hearts and minds of rank-and-file CF members.


----------



## RatCatcher

Well said BJR, truly well said. I believe you may have taken words out many of our mouths.


----------



## Juvat

Bravo!  Nicely said and well put together BJR.  So when are you joining?


----------



## Long in the tooth

BJR - a fine piece of writing.  Almost brought tears to my eyes!


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on the "dialogue":
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20070618.wdoos0618/BNStory/National/home



> Anti-war protesters will confront Afghanistan-bound troops on Friday in Quebec City as a sign of the tension in Canada's most anti-war province.
> 
> Organizers of the protest plan a counter-march to oppose what is intended to be a high-profile send-off parade by the Royal 22nd Regiment at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.
> 
> More than 2,000 uniformed soldiers of the Vandoos and other regiments are scheduled to take part in a support-the-troops parade as part of a public-relations offensive by the Armed Forces to try to win the hearts of Quebeckers, who consistently show the lowest level of support for the Afghan mission in Canada.
> 
> But not everyone has been persuaded. Last week, anti-war protesters sent 3,000 letters to Valcartier military families, urging soldiers to reject their deployment and resist becoming “cannon fodder” for the war. On Friday, the demonstrators will protest along a parallel route to the soldiers.
> 
> *“We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do* [emphasis added],” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

An opinion from the Vancouver Sun that relates:



> Unrestrained disrespect for troops, families
> 
> Amanda Baye
> Special to the Sun
> 
> 
> Tuesday, June 19, 2007
> 
> 
> Upon hearing the news that the War on War Coalition sent out letters to military personnel for their forthcoming tour in Afghanistan, my heart sank.
> 
> I was stunned by the coalition's audacity and angered at its unrestrained disrespect for our troops and their families.
> 
> In February, my husband, a reservist based in Vancouver, was deployed for his first Afghanistan tour. The months leading up to his deployment were stressful and emotional. I was dealing with countless uncertainties.
> 
> I dreaded the worst-case scenarios, and feared for his safety. I could not imagine receiving a letter from the War on War Coalition stating that my husband was nothing more than "cannon fodder" during an already distressing time.
> 
> My husband's decision to go to Afghanistan was not based on a whim, nor made with ease; rather it was debated and carefully considered.
> 
> However, once he made his choice, he was firm. There was no way a tacky letter issued by "WOW" would have changed his mind. He considered this opportunity to serve his country alongside other resolute and devoted men and women an honour.
> 
> I may not believe in this war, but I believe in my husband and respect his decision. It is a shame that the War on War Coalition cannot do the same.
> 
> Amanda Baye lives in Vancouver.


----------



## Trogdor

It's up to every individual to decide for themselves what is worth fighting for and what isn't (or decide if fighting is ever justified).  

I've made my decision and those in the anti movement have made theirs.  Nuff said.

Civilian deaths in war are a horrible eventuality.  They are never justified in any sense, even if they are accidental.  However what those in the anti-war movement fail to realise is that by withdrawing our support for the Afghan government there will continue to be civilian deaths and most likely on a larger scale.  The Taliban killed innocents in the name of their Whabbi ideology before the invasion, they have continued to target them over the past 7 years and unless we defeat them they will go on killing civilians long after we leave.  

My single question to the perpetrators of this sad and pointless mailing is if you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Um...hello??   Hello?   Valcartier2007???   Bonjour??  YOO HOOooo.....

Guess they're gone.. oh well, it was fun while it lasted.. 

Oh, about 15 minutes.. go figure.. hehe


----------



## RatCatcher

I'm starting to look forward to friday! I hope to see these guys; maybe when they look into our eyes and see that their ideology, however misguided by the whole "wrongs" of the world, will not stop us from completing a mission that we beleive in. I truly believe that the people of Quebec will come out en masse to support us


----------



## Greymatters

BJR had a nice post there.  +1 

The problem with V2007 and groups of their ilk is that they use faulty logic and construe opinion as fact.  Anyone can be convinced of the truth by a good argument if you:
a) use the truth
b) have verifiable facts
c) back up opinions with fact
d) dont delve into 'known truths' that are not accepted as 'known truths' by the rest of the world. 
But they dont.  Before you know it, its suddenly all about the US-imperialist-total-globalization-big-brother-defence-industrialist plot and no longer about the original topic.  

That said I am particularily put out by these kinds of comments:   “We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do [emphasis added],” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition."  Thats prettyy much foreshadowing for a ****-disturber, and is merely said to deny any accountability or responsibility on their part.  Its the same tactics used by a lot of unions.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Um...hello??   Hello?   Valcartier2007???   Bonjour??  YOO HOOooo.....
> 
> Guess they're gone.. oh well, it was fun while it lasted..
> 
> Oh, about 15 minutes.. go figure.. hehe



Nope, we're still here. And we will be vigilant about participating in the debate on this forum, don't worry about that. But, just because we're absent from the forum for a day, or two, doesn't mean we've gone away. As long as folks here are open to debate and discussion, so are we!

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## Valcartier 2007

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> I cant believe Im actually checking to see if V2007 has written anything back...what is the world coming to...



GreyMatter -- you're jonesing for a fix! Here's something to tide you over:


We address some of the so-called "argumentative errors" that GreyMatter has outlined below ...



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai…” statement  – V2007 treats it as a fact.  It’s not a fact, it’s a statement made any another person, thus is no more valid than anyone else’s opinion.  How are they corrupt and a mafia, or at least any different from any other government?



Our quote is from RAWA (http://www.rawa.org), a feminist Afghan organization. The members of RAWA are truly courageous in their sustained opposition to fundamentalist forces in their country. They have been consistent in their opposition to all fundamentalist forces, and not hypocritically and self-servingly choosing certain warlords to be allies, and others to be enemies. We assert that their point of view is a valid one to share, and has a high degree of credibility. How is sharing this view of the Karzai government (widely acknowledged to include warlords) an “argumentative error”?



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan.”  statement.  Again, opinion.
> “Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.” Statement.  V2007 implies that NATO soldiers are killing Afghan citizens therefore Canada as part of NATO is killing Afghan citizens.  Political rhetoric, and false logic that falls under the category “if you pull off all four legs, the frog goes deaf” logic.



We've addressed both these interpretations (interpretations made from facts) in our previous posts, most recently here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579738.html#msg579738
Moreover, our original letter – yes, the letter that started this whole thread (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) – clearly provided examples of civilians killed by Canadian soldiers. Those examples stand unrefuted on this forum (despite RecceProfessor's attempt).



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you.” statement.  A backhanded complement.  We ’can be’ free-thinking’, and they ‘know soldiers who are freethinking’…but the phrasing indicates we are not included in that group.



We appreciate the openness by many on this forum to engage our ideas and debate. Moreover, we were responding to the assertion by one person on this forum than somehow we stereotypically dismissed all soldiers as non-thinking robots. We don't believe that to be the case. The entire premise of our mailout to more than 2000 soldiers proves we don't think soldiers are monolithic in their thinking. Why assume the worst in our intentions?



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld” statement.  A V2007 opinion, not a fact.



Yes, our opinion, based on how O'Connor bungled the prisoner torture scandal, and his links to companies and PR firms in the military-industrial complex. But how is this an “error”. You might disagree with our opinion, but where’s the “error”.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “In the same speech, he stated: ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’”   Statement.  V2007 makes a series of interpreted logic from a selected statement that is obviously not a fact, but may be the Generals personal opinion.



We posted a reply about General Leslie's logic: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579737.html#msg579737

No one has responded to that yet. 

Others have agreed with Leslie’s comments, as do we: when you kill fighters in an insurgency, you don’t necessarily eliminate the insurgency, but you create the basis for a sustained insurgency (or, as Leslie put it, ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’).

Again, where’s the “argumentative error”, aside from GreyMatter just saying so?



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East” statement.   Imaginative use of the words ‘sounds like’ and ‘being used as a cover’.  These are not facts these are opinions.



Under COIN doctrine (both US and the new Canadian COIN policy), reconstruction and development are necessary to fight insurgency; they're cover for the real point of COIN, which is killing insurgents. This is a pretty straightforward assertion. Read the COIN manuals; we have.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences.” statement.   Denial of alternate perceptions of the events involving Juarez is not logic, its bias.



We've addressed this point at length in a previous post here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578958.html#msg578958



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.” Opinion.



Again, do folks seriously think the US is not the main force in deciding what happens in Afghanistan? And, GreyMatter, how is asserting this view (call it an opinion), an “argumentative error.”



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise?” statement.  Opinion again, despite implying they would give evidence.



“Evidence”. For the sake of argument, how about a counter-fact: 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan does NOT lend credibility to the US-led “War on Terror”. Not sure why we would have to prove on an army forum that the use of Canadian forces in a US-led conflict lends credibility in the eyes of international opinion, and not the opposite. But if you’re suggesting that Canada’s invovlement does not lend credibility, so be it. We disagree.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine.” statement.  Development and reconstruction projects are developed and run by foreign affairs departments and NGO’s, not the military. This is not just opinion and bias, its paranoia.
> _Edit - This used to be a pretty solid rule up until last year.  The line is probably a lot murkier now. _



Under COIN doctrine, development and reconstruction are part of a broader counter-insurgency strategy. You might disagree about the “smokescreen” remark, but where’s the paranoia? Again, read the COIN manuals.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous (US) policies.”    While many of the world’s errors could be attributed to the USA, it’s a pretty big reach here.  It’s the same as saying that the US was responsible for the fall of the USSR.  It ignores a million other factors that contributed to the situation.  More ‘deaf frog’ logic.




The US (and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia) providing money and arms into Afghanistan in the 1980s directly contributed to the strength of fundamentalist militias and warlords. In some cases, the militias were created by those outside funders. That is an incontrovertible fact. Does anyone on this forum seriously want to take issue with the fact that the US crucially contributed to the creation of fundamentalist warlords and militias in the 1980s? And now, in the 2000s, you’re fighting the blowback of that policy (the Taliban) while allying with other fundamentalist warlords whose own atrocities you ignore.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.”  followed by “One war, for example, that many of us would support…”  and even later admit that they are willing to be violent ("we are not all pacifists") and “willing to fight for what they believe in”.  Isn’t this counter to anarchist anti-war ideology?  Or is it a case of ‘the end justifies the means’?




Finally, an argumentative error ... but by GreyMatter. How does saying “we are not all pacifists” mean “we are willing to be violent”. About supporting or not supporting wars: we oppose all wars undertaken to further a capitalist, colonialist or imperialist agenda. Supporting the fight against fascism by Franco (or the fight against Nazi occupation by Jewish partisans, or the maquis against Vichy and the Nazis) does not make us violent.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Sidenote:  Army Vern notes that the V2007 crew are logging on as guest rather than by account.  It may be that they are at a workplace where the company has a policy against non-work-related Internet use… or they just thought they were being covert.



We already explained this elsewhere: it’s not about “company policy” or about “being covert”. And, from ArmyVern’s response to us, she was helpfully pointing out the advantages to being logged in more regularly, rather than reading as a guest. Not sure what GreyMatter is trying to imply about our motives here.



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> “We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naïve” statement.    Admitting you are ignorant of a full understanding doesnt mean your limited knowledge makes you right.  It means that you havent looked at both sides of a conflict and that you have only a half-full understanding of the situation.  Its not about being naive, its about not being informed.  (Especially when you blame Harper for our being in Afghanistan despite the fact that Chretien and the Liberals approved our intervention there.)



We also opposed the Chretien Liberals and their policy on Afghanistan, and we’re fully aware that there’s a continuity between the Liberals and Conservatives.

But again, where’s the “argumentative error” that GreyMatter said he would prove?

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## 1feral1

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> The letter tells soldiers that if they go to Afghanistan they will be complicit in war crimes and torture.



These people believe their cause is right and just, just like child molsters beleive what they do is NOT wrong.

As a democracy, we just have to respect their thoughts. I don't agree with their tactics, but as long as there is war, there will always be protesters. They come from all walks of life, just read below.

I knew a guy for 25 yrs, he went through Cadets, the Militia, on to the Regular Force Did CCUNCYP and UNPROFOR, was a rebel and a top bloke, a defender of the faith and keeper of the relm. Because of my time in Iraq he now refers to me as a war criminal and a murderer, and he is totally SERIOUS. he never wants to hear from me again, and says peace is the only way, and the US is evil, destroying everything it touches.

He emailed me when I was in theatre after I sent a group UNCLAS 'eSITREP'.

I don't know what twisted him up or who/she/what influenced him, but he was written off. It bugs me too, but life rolls on. There goes 25 yrs, pissed down the toilet.

Personally I now think he is a few tracer rds shy of a full belt, but I respect his opinion.

Regards,

Wes


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Quote from: milnewstbay on June 11, 2007, 12:30:44
The letter tells soldiers that if they go to Afghanistan they will be complicit in war crimes and torture. 

What our letter (available at: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) exactly says on this topic is:

"Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes;"

We were quite deliberate in our wording: "tantamount to war crimes".

We do believe that if you hand over prisoners knowing they stand a strong likelihood of being tortured, killed and otherwise deprived of basic human dignity, then yes, that's tantamount to war crimes.

And, if you kill civilians, by putting into practice rules of engagement (whether the US ROE or Canadian ROE), that permits shooting at civilians -- or airstrikes that kill civilians -- that too could be construed as "tantamount to war crimes."

It's a question of taking responsibility: Don't blame us, or our letter, for reminding soldiers of the possibility of their complicity in war crimes, and for urging soldiers who don't want to be put into that position to refuse and resist.


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> ....  by putting into practice rules of engagement (whether the US ROE or Canadian ROE) ...


Do you understand that Canadian & US ROE are different (by virtue of having been written by different governments) and that Canadian soldiers do not operate under US ROE?  This is not a pick or choose situation and your implication that our soldiers are operating under another nations ROE is just plain wrong (as are any inferences & conclusions you draw from this).


... still waiting on answers to these questions too.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717


----------



## Valcartier 2007

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you understand that Canadian & US ROE are different (by virtue of having been written by different governments) and that Canadian soldiers do not operate under US ROE?  This is not a pick or choose situation and your implication that our soldiers are operating under another nations ROE is just plain wrong (as are any inferences & conclusions you draw from this).
> 
> 
> ... still waiting on answers to those questions too.



Yes, fully aware of that. That's why we referred to "US ROE or Canadian ROE". That would imply two rules, no?

But, we pointed out that under Canadian ROE, Afghan prisoners have been handed over to forces that engage in torture, or worse. Canadian ROE has not prevented other prisoners from being handed over to US Forces (who operate the despicable Guantanamo system, as well as engaging in torture at Bagram). And, under Canadian ROE, Afghan civilians have been shot and killed.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Going offline for the night. But, again, that doesn't mean we're not going to respond or participate in this debate. We'll be back soon.

Before going, wanted to draw your attention to an opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen that makes some useful points, in our view, about the Afghan mission. It's titled "Afghan tragedy and farce" and it's linked at: 
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=cc309ac0-4571-40e9-9856-06da0089030b

Good night.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Yes, fully aware of that. That's why we referred to "US ROE or Canadian ROE". That would imply two rules, no?


It does imply two rules and that is why it is wrong or irrelevant (red herring).  There is only one set which applies to Canadian soldiers; Canadian soldiers do not use US ROE.

Your prisoner debate is also a red herring.  If you are following the issue as closely as you claim, you will be aware that Canada has fixed the prisoner protection issues.  We do not hand prisoners to the US and we have not done so for a very long time.  This is also obfuscating the present issue.


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Before going, wanted to draw your attention to an opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen that makes some useful points, in our view, about the Afghan mission. It's titled "Afghan tragedy and farce" and it's linked at:
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=cc309ac0-4571-40e9-9856-06da0089030b


The counter view was already posted here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63190/post-577833.html#msg577833


----------



## Valcartier 2007

MCG said:
			
		

> Your prisoner debate is also a red herring.  If you are following the issue as closely as you claim, you will be aware that Canada has fixed the prisoner protection issues.  We do not hand prisoners to the US and we have not done so for a very long time.  This is also obfuscating the present issue.



Hey MCG, let's agree to disagree. You believe the prisoner debate is a red herring, and that the prisoner protection issues have been fixed. We believe the opposite. Moreover, has anyone been brought to justice -- military or otherwise -- for handing over prisoners to the US, or to Afghan forces that torture? If not, then the issue is still alive.

Good night (again).


----------



## BootStrap

MONTREAL — Anti-war protesters will confront Afghanistan-bound troops on Friday in Quebec City as a sign of the tension in Canada's most anti-war province. 

Organizers of the protest plan a counter-march to oppose what is intended to be a high-profile send-off parade by the Royal 22nd Regiment at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. 

More than 2,000 uniformed soldiers of the Vandoos and other regiments are scheduled to take part in a support-the-troops parade as part of a public-relations offensive by the Armed Forces to try to win the hearts of Quebeckers, who consistently show the lowest level of support for the Afghan mission in Canada. 

But not everyone has been persuaded. Last week, anti-war protesters sent 3,000 letters to Valcartier military families, urging soldiers to reject their deployment and resist becoming “cannon fodder” for the war. On Friday, the demonstrators will protest along a parallel route to the soldiers. 

“We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do,” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition. 

For some, the conflict is personal. Francis Dupuis-Déri, a political science professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, will be on the protesters' side of the barricades. His younger sister, Capt. Catherine Déri, will be marching with her regiment on the other side. 

“I love my sister, so I'm very troubled and worried that she's being deployed to Afghanistan, even if it's her personal choice,” Prof. Dupuis-Déri said in an interview yesterday. “My sister will be on the other side of the police line on Friday.” 

The professor calls the Afghan mission an “unjust war” and says he believes Canada is doing the bidding of the White House by sending troops. He wrote an open letter to his sister in Quebec newspapers last week, asking her – and other Canadian soldiers – how many would return home in coffins. 

The Friday event “is to make the soldiers look like family men and sympathetic people, while they're going over to make the situation worse. Their presence will cause deaths and support a corrupt regime. We want to counter the army's marketing operation,” he said. 

Capt. Déri, for her part, says she respects her brother's viewpoint but supports the Canadian mission's goals. 

“I'm all for difference of opinion and my brother sharing his views. It's very democratic, and Canadians are flying around the world so that others have the same freedom,” Capt. Déri said in an interview. 

Friday's march is part of a blitz by the Armed Forces to boost troop morale and bolster support for the mission on the eve of the Quebec regiments' departure. 

On Thursday, 1,700 soldiers in their desert-coloured uniforms will attend a CFL pre-season game between the Montreal Alouettes and Toronto Argonauts at Montreal's Molson Stadium. 

Soldiers are also heading to 18 cities and towns across Quebec to hand out flags representing the Afghan mission, as part of a “goodwill” gesture, said Lieutenant-Commander Hubert Genest. 

“We often have to explain the work we're doing,” he said, calling the mission “noble” and saying it coincides with Quebeckers' priorities of peace and stability. 

“We're trying to engage people so they understand there's a difference between the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is for a good cause,” he said. 

The $125,000 send-off on Friday is the final public event for the troops before they deploy at the end of next month. It begins with a gathering for soldiers and their families at the Quebec City Convention Centre. 

Original plans called for the parading troops, under the eye of politicians and dignitaries, to file down Quebec City's Grande Allée and past the Quebec National Assembly. But the Armed Forces are in talks with police about possibly changing the route, another army spokesman said. 

Quebec-based soldiers are to land in Kandahar at a time when opposition to the mission in the province remains high. A poll published in the current issue of Policy Options, a Canadian public-policy magazine, found that only 38 per cent of Quebeckers thought the Afghan mission enhanced Canada's reputation, 10 points below the national average. 

Un-Fu..ing believable. Where does he get off on asking his own sister how many of her fellow soldiers will return in coffins.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

MCG said:
			
		

> ... still waiting on answers to these questions too.
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438



Haven't forgotten. Will answer as soon as we can ...



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717



That reply is here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> That reply is here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635


No.  That does not address any of his three questions.


----------



## McG

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Hey MCG, let's agree to disagree. You believe the prisoner debate is a red herring, and that the prisoner protection issues have been fixed. We believe the opposite.


Then we may as well just give up  debate.  This is one of your central premises.  If the prisoner issue is resolved, then what leg do you have to stand on?



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Moreover, has anyone been brought to justice -- military or otherwise -- for handing over prisoners to the US, or to Afghan forces that torture? If not, then the issue is still alive.


More red herring.  The system is fixed and the mission is now being conducted with better protections in place.  Witch hunts for past corrected faults will have no impact on the conduct or merit of the mission today.

If you think a criminal investigation is required (and I don't think one is), that is another subject for another thread:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/57191.0.html


----------



## Hawk

I've stayed quiet, and not commented because I've had nothing constructive to add, but I've monitored this thread daily.

BootStrap - that professor's question to his sister: "where does he get off" wouldn't even begin to apply if my brother said something like that to me. There'd be one unholy war erupt between us, and I'd be a long time forgiving him, if I ever spoke to him again. 

Keep up the debate. The silent listeners are enjoying this, learning much, and look forward with anticipation to the next installment.

All the best and Godspeed to the Vandoos


Hawk


----------



## Not In My Name

Hey, 

first off, I have to establish that I'm also a member of Block the Empire. It is hard for us all to consult each other for each reply on this forum. But since we are not completely and dogmatically communistic about everything all the time (we're anarchists after all!), I figured I'd chime in from my own part of cyberspace. We'll keep replying as Valcartier2007, but I hope other members of BLEM, and other comrads from QC can register as themselves and chime in if they feel like it. Don't be surprised to find that my writing style is different from that you got used to from Valcarier2007. I just was not typing before - I stand a 100% by what we've posted so far.

Another thing is, I'm a franco, so please bare with me if my grammar or spelling is flawed. I'll do my best, but some sentences are probably going to come out a little wicked.

And thirdly, I do want to insist that that my interventions will reflect my own interpretation of this issue, and will not necessarily be shared by everyone in BLEM-Montreal, and/or Guerre à la guerre-QC (and even less so between us and the various pacifist groupings in Quebec, with whom we don't always see eye to eye, but  genuinely respect and often work with).

First, I'd like to say that, in my opinion, this thread is very interesting on many levels. In terms of what's being said - arguments and counterarguments -  and also from an anthropological stand point - the way things are being expressed, people's various attitudes and the evolution of the debate itself.

One can appreciate the varying degrees of civility of individuals throughout the thread. Some folks had very epidermic (can you say that in English?) reactions last Monday and Tuesday (J11 and J12) when they learned that we had sent letters to the soldiers in Valcartier. It ranged from the disgusted to the enraged to the extremely hostile (didn't someone make a thinly veiled death threat at some point?).

Initially, we were thought to serve the Taleban and other assorted "terrorists" by sending letters to soldier's home addresses. Then it was revealed that we had made a mass mailing, and did not actually know the soldiers' addresses. Then most entries were about whether or not it'd be a good idea to file a legal action against us. Then this gave way to passive-aggressive comments about how all "us people" smoke pot and don't wash, or what have you.

And we started to reply as Valcartier2007. And suddenly it turned from a peacenick bash-fest to a somewhat civilised debate.

One can see how people are conditioned to think of "the other" as some kind of cliché, an amalgam of stereotypical ideas that we cultivate in our own minds.

We went from terrorists (or terrorists lovers) to criminals, to useless hippies to intelligent people you can actually exchange ideas with and maybe even learn a thing or two from.

We are not exempt from this reflex. We also do tend to have a pretty caricatural picture of the military men and women. But we don't think soldiers are stupid, as some people have implied on this forum. As we mentioned elsewhere, we do respect soldiers as human beings capable of individual reflection, critical judgement and ethical action, and this is the actual premise of our action. 

We were conscious that soldiers would not immediately respond to our call and defect en masse. We're not stupid either. But we did, and still do, hope that down the road, Canadian soldiers will start questioning Canada's role in Afghanistan, Canada's posture as a great humanitarian country and, eventually, their own involvement in the centuries old colonialist/imperialist imposture that is Canada.

We hope that our endeavor will generate doubt and debate. In the media, yes, but we're not counting on the mass media to start questioning the legitimacy of the Canadian State, or that of it's foreign policy, or even that of it's subservience to the White House mandarins (and the shady cabal of Global Rule financiers, let's not forget these fu***rs!), for that matter, any time soon. The media complex is one cog wheel in the imperialist machine.

No, we hope that this, and the demonstrations that we intend to hold, and continue to organize, will start a movement from the base up. We hope that the doubt and debate will propagate like a virus through the public, within families, among coworkers, at grocery stores and doughnut shops across this great territory. The country is already divided right down the middle on the issue of Afghanistan. That means that  *A LOT OF PEOPLE* already agree, at least to some extent, with what we are thinking and saying, and writing on this forum

The "Support Our Troops" rhetoric is but another tactic of the State to garner support _for their own agenda_. That of global domination by Western elites, the same elites which have been putting the rest of us down for centuries.

And people are not buying it. Buying it less and less. What we are attempting, with our daily work, with these initiatives, is to build this skepticism into a tidal wave, a movement that they will not be able to ignore any more.

At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta! 

Why don't *you *say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children.

Canada must get out of Afghanistan. Because we don't belong there any more than we belong in any other sovereign state. Us being there is us taking our moral superiority for granted. It's racist and it's wrong. We're there on false pretexts, and we're being lied to, day after day after day. 

I guess what I'm getting at is a beginning of an inkling of an answer to "THE BIG QUESTION": what will happen in Afghanistan after we leave? What's our solution, if we're so smart, hey?

We don't have one convenient prepackaged answer to this question. And no one does. It takes time and, to be blunt, the Afghans need to figure out what the hell they want to do with their country. Not us.

Our role would be not to interfere with their evolution. Not to train and arm fundamentalist bastards that'we'll later use as an excuse to invade. Not to install puppet regimes that serve our elites' interests. Not to protect the war criminals and murderers who are on this government. Not to brutally occupy their ancestral territory. Not to pretend helping them by building a road in the North while shooting farmers in the South. Not to fight a ludicrous "war on drugs" while almost all of the drugs production pours into our markets and boosts our twisted economies. Not to indulge in this maniacal fantasy that is the "War on Terror". Not to plunge head first in this vicious circle of violence and terrorism (we are the terrorists!), and create generations after generations of young people willing to die because we killed their parents and their parents' parents. Not to kill these kids' parents.

Not to follow the US Empire, like the pathetic poodles that our politicians make us to be.

Not to buy that second car, that third TV, that fifth cell phone, that razor with 14 blades and 3 speed vibrate mode, that GI Joe action figure for little Timmy: all that goddam crap that we fill our empty lives with.

Not to keep up this unsustainable *addiction to oil*, that is the one fundamental reason for these wars we wage everywhere; because it's OUR crap, and we want to keep it, and have more of it.

Not to bury our heads in the sand, like we've been doing for to long.

By realizing that our comfort and privilege is their pain and suffering; that our unsustainable wealth is their unlivable misery!

You know?

So yeah, I don't know what to tell you about Afghans and their lives after we get the hell out of it. But I can tell you that we should never have been there in the first place. And we did go there because, our world is fucked up, excuse my french.

And it is in this sad state because we have let the global hamburglar Capitalists make it in their own image.

I hope my comrads will take me up on this and add their own two cents. Once again, our attempts at a solution is SOLIDARITY.

I've ranted for way too long, never thought in my life that I would write on an army forum (!!), I'm tired, working in a few hours, and have a lot more to do because, yes, we will be marching in Quebec City on Friday and we will be loud cause, folks, that is the only thing we can do.

I won't give my real name here, cause I am not too fond of goons sending death threats to me and my loved ones.

I'll go by Not In My Name. You can call me whatever you want, I'm sure there will be coloured epithets... (please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame) 

Peace out.


P.-S. I invite you to visit our media section at http://www.valcartier2007.ca/media_eng.htm where we have gathered a lot of articles and analyses pieces on Canada's role in US Imperialism, on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, on the trick that's being played on Canadians with "hearts and minds" operations, and the so-called "4th block", which is PR and propaganda by another name, to ease this bullshit War down Canadians' throats.

Also, to know more about what we - and millions more ragers around the world - are about, please visit the People's Global Action http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/en/.

Cheers.


----------



## scoutfinch

I was taking the time to craft a thoughtful response until I harkened back to this:

"At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta! 

Why don't you say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children."

How patronizing and insulting! Trancelike conformity? That is utter bullsh*t.  Just because soldiers disagree with you they are unthinking automotons???  Sorry but you have just wasted more of my time than I care to admit.


----------



## Reccesoldier

> Moreover, our original letter – yes, the letter that started this whole thread (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) – clearly provided examples of civilians killed by Canadian soldiers. Those examples stand unrefuted on this forum (despite RecceProfessor's attempt).



I said I wasn't going to do this but here I go anyway.

Your spin on the deaths of those civilians does not take into account the circumstances under which each and every one of those deaths occurred.  Your dismissal of those circumstances is purposefully fraudulent and disingenuous.  This might wash with the willfully uninformed and ideologically opposed (who have never made a habit out of examining facts) but it won't work here.

Your political and ideological agenda has twisted the reality of these situations out of phase with fact and common sense.  

Using your flawed interpretation of these events (ie. discounting all cause and effect relationships) I could rationally come to the conclusion that each and every one of these Afghans were not killed by anyone but died due to acute lead poisoning.  :


----------



## Reccesoldier

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> I was taking the time to craft a thoughtful response until I harkened back to this:
> 
> "At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!
> 
> Why don't you say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children."
> 
> How patronizing and insulting! Trancelike conformity? That is utter bullsh*t.  Just because soldiers disagree with you they are unthinking automotons???  Sorry but you have just wasted more of my time than I care to admit.



Olga, it's worse than that.  "Ya Basta" is a direct reference to the plight of Mexico's indigenous people and their "leader" Sub-commandante Marcos.  In other words V2007 is saying that our (soldiers) plight is so bad that we must rise up and strike out at the government for oppressing us. :  

Further illustration that V2007's ideals and thoughts have no basis in reality or fact.  

Hello? McFly... We're all volunteers


----------



## FascistLibertarian

Edit to add: The below quotes are all from Not In My Name



> The "Support Our Troops" rhetoric is but another tactic of the State to garner support for their own agenda. That of global domination by Western elites, the same elites which have been putting the rest of us down for centuries.



What is your rhetoric, what is your agenda. Be honest with yourself and look inn the mirror.



> Canada must get out of Afghanistan. Because we don't belong there any more than we belong in any other sovereign state. Us being there is us taking our moral superiority for granted. It's racist and it's wrong. We're there on false pretexts, and we're being lied to, day after day after day.



So you think Canada should never interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state, wow. So every sovereign state has the right to do whatever it wants to its people and we are the bad people if we do anything. This is less of a slippery slope than a cliff. What about Rwanda and the Nazis?



> Not to plunge head first in this vicious circle of violence and terrorism (we are the terrorists!)



Wow, this is some messed up thinking. While I agree that anyone can commit war crimes, if your going to call us (I am not sure who you mean by we) terrorist then could I ask you a question. What are the Taliban? Democrats?



> Not to follow the US Empire, like the pathetic poodles that our politicians make us to be.



Yeah just like we did in WW1, 2, Vietnam, Iraq, your right, Canada rubber stamps whatever America does, we have no independent foreign policy, its nice being the 51st state.



> Not to buy that second car, that third TV, that fifth cell phone, that razor with 14 blades and 3 speed vibrate mode, that GI Joe action figure for little Timmy: all that goddam crap that we fill our empty lives with.



What does this have to do with the mission? We get it, you don’t like capitalism and conspicuous consumption, that’s great, how does this relate to the mission?



> Not to keep up this unsustainable addiction to oil, that is the one fundamental reason for these wars we wage everywhere; because it's OUR crap, and we want to keep it, and have more of it.


If you really think oil is the reason for these wars I really don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think the GWOT has brought down oil prices one bit. I guess it is cheaper for us to fight these wars use that money to buy oil….. :



> Not to bury our heads in the sand, like we've been doing for to long.


Yeah this whole war, def nothing in the media or the radio or anywhere. Its scary how we can be in a war and no one is talking about it...... :
that darn MSM never trying to give us any info....



> So yeah, I don't know what to tell you about Afghans and their lives after we get the hell out of it. But I can tell you that we should never have been there in the first place. And we did go there because, our world is ****ed up, excuse my french.



That’s great, we shouldn’t have gone there so now we shouldn’t deal with the situation. Great logic there….. Why deal with the present situation?

Now explain exactly how the mission is capitalist or imperialist.

Oh and COIN is not always about killing insurgents, theres enemy based and population based strats. You should check out http://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php for the best information. As well you should check out the successful COIN opts, but I am sure you would think these are war crimes.


----------



## Michael OLeary

> I'll go by Not In My Name. You can call me whatever you want, I'm sure there will be coloured epithets... (please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame)



Hiding behind anonymity.  Why is that, do you think?  Perhaps because the conformist hive-mind collective we know as Valcartier2007 and "Not In My Name" all realize that there are very few old anarchists.  Eventually they realize that they cannot sustain their own hate-based idealism and that it doesn't put food on the table.  And the alternative, of course, is growing up and joining the real world.  One day they just fade into that hated 'establishment' and become one more citizen more worried about having a safe neighborhood for their own kids to go to school than raving about Imperialistic oppression in countries they've never visited.  There have been a few mentions of them having to "go to work in a few hours" in wee hours posts; how many do you think are proudly wearing their V2007 Anarchy t-shirts at these jobs and showing off the bandannas they plan to wear over their faces if any of their ilk decide to do more than chant on Friday?  And, I suppose down deep they know it's tough to get a real job someday if your potential employers can Google you up as an anarchist demonstrator.  So please, hide away, that way we know that your commitment is only as deep and long-lived as the affected thrill of "standing up to the man" in a crowd.


----------



## armyvern

Can you people please link at least once to the people you are quoting or mention their name in your response??


It'd help some of us from flipping back and forth between 10 screens if we wish to respond to a statement trying to confirm who exactly said what.

Thanks

Vern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## GAP

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Hiding behind anonymity.  Why is that, do you think?  Perhaps because the conformist hive-mind collective we know as Valcartier2007 and "Not In My Name" all realize that there are very few old anarchists.  Eventually they realize that they cannot sustain their own hate-based idealism and that it doesn't put food on the table.  And the alternative, of course, is growing up and joining the real world.  One day they just fade into that hated 'establishment' and become one more citizen more worried about having a safe neighborhood for their own kids to go to school than raving about Imperialistic oppression in countries they've never visited.  There have been a few mentions of them having to "go to work in a few hours" "to their MacJob?" in wee hours posts; how many do you think are proudly wearing their V2007 Anarchy t-shirts at these jobs and showing off the bandannas they plan to wear over their faces if any of their ilk decide to do more than chant on Friday?  And, I suppose down deep they know it's tough to get a real job someday if your potential employers can Google you up as an anarchist demonstrator.  So please, hide away, that way we know that your commitment is only as deep and long-lived as the affected thrill of "standing up to the man" in a crowd.


----------



## scoutfinch

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Olga, it's worse than that.  "Ya Basta" is a direct reference to the plight of Mexico's indigenous people and their "leader" Sub-commandante Marcos.  In other words V2007 is saying that our (soldiers) plight is so bad that we must rise up and strike out at the government for oppressing us. :
> 
> Further illustration that V2007's ideals and thoughts have no basis in reality or fact.
> 
> Hello? McFly... We're all volunteers



Oh I got it, reccesoldier.  I just wasn't going to delve into any further analysis of his/her comments after the 'trance' comments.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Wow, i'm on the other side of the world and i'm insulted. So you think we've all got our heads buried in the sand? Totally ridiculous. Totally. Most of us here have lost friends over there. My count is at 3 so far. And you lecture us on how we're not looking at the bigger picture? How we dont know whats going on? Have you been to Afghanistan? Because your telling a whole lot of Canadian soldiers who've been over there about a country that you've never been too. You think we can learn something from you? Any respect we had has quickly evaporated!

I'm very upset with the tone you've used and the assumptions you've got.


----------



## Teflon

Not In My Name

At last,  some one over there has taken a step out if only briefly from the collective hive mind and spoken as an individual! 

For Anarchists they certainly like to remain tightly grouped.


----------



## DaveTee

noname guy,
I can't wait for reality to hit you and your "comrades" like a freight train. 

I don't even think anything you said was worth debating. You just ramble off into a pile of garbage. At least Valcartier2007 could hammer out some replies that weren't stereotypical (i want to say idealist, but you said that was too lame) 





> (please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame)


 anarchist fool responses.

Let's blame capitalism for everything (including the computer you typed out your "reply" on) and not intervene anywhere. You accuse soldiers of sticking their heads in the sand when you want Canada to the same as a nation. Your rubbish arguments go on and on...


----------



## FascistLibertarian

DaveTee stop being so brainwashed, they really got you buddy! Didn't you know that before 1776 and Adam Smith's the wealth of Nations there was no war or poverty or imperialism or colonialism. Everyone lived together equally and happy regardless of race religion ethnicity etc. Then in 1776 the book got published, that whole American Rev started, and there has been nothing but war and genocide since. :
If only we could all become socialists it would solve everything  socialists never have war or anything bad! In fact it would be slander to say every totalitarian regime was socialist in nature.


----------



## DaveTee

Your right! I've been so misguided! Clearly kingdoms ruled by the will of one guy were the way to go! I mean obviously the medieval age was called the dark age because of poor lighting, nothing else. And the age of enlightenment was called as such because it lightened the weight of gold. Yup, finally I learned something! Thank you facistlibertarian, for teaching me!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just for my own info was each letter personally addressed to each individual solider i.e.
Brigadier Admiral Ex Dragoon
123 Armed Forces Lane
Some City, Some Provice
Canada, postal code


----------



## Reccesoldier

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just for my own info was each letter personally addressed to each individual solider i.e.
> Brigadier Admiral Ex Dragoon
> 123 Armed Forces Lane
> Some City, Some Provice
> Canada, postal code



Not as far as I know.  Shotgun method, much like their arguments, they throw out sh*t and hope some sticks. :boring:


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Ex, they sent the envelopes in a mass mailing to the PMQ areas with "occupant" as the addressee...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> But we did, and still do, hope that down the road, Canadian soldiers will start questioning Canada's role in Afghanistan, Canada's posture as a great humanitarian country and, eventually, their own involvement in the centuries old colonialist/imperialist imposture that is Canada.
> 
> At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!



..and to this I say "Hey you, welcome to the warning system!!"


----------



## RatCatcher

They also sent them into the civillian communities surrounding the base. So not only were soldiers targeted but also civilians.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

I have been reading this thread for awhile now and posting my own little comments. Anyways having thought this over a bit this is how I feel.     (id put a little Quebec flag here if there was one)

You have stated that you read COIN manuals. I suspect the reason that you read these are not to learn how to defeat the enemy but so you can find tactics and strategy that you disagree with. I hope besides COIN manuals you also take some time to research the great history of Canada, and of Quebec. I am so proud of Canada and Quebec, and you should be as well! I am aware that French speaking Canada historically and contemporary does not have the same degree of support for the Canadian military during war.

You should be very proud of the great things Canadians from Quebec have done in service of their country, but I suspect you will think they were duped by Imperialists who just wanted to take over the world.

In the Great War about 1,000 Canadians were sent with the 1st Division to France including a French speaking Company. They, along with my Great Grandfather, met their baptism of fire at 2nd Ypres. Whatever you want to say about why they fought show a little respect and pride! The second Canadian contingent had a French speaking regiment (the 22nd Battalion), you may have heard of them, the Van Doos. You should be extremely proud of what this battalion has accomplished (do a little research), and will accomplish (just watch).

I have stood at Dieppe where the Fusiliers Mont-Royal stormed the beach in an attempt to bring liberty and freedom to conquered peoples, over 100 of them died. This seriously hurt Quebec’s support for the War. Think of these men when you march, young men who died fighting against tyranny and oppression. The Royal Rifles of Canada (an English speaking battalion with many native French speakers) were at Hong Kong, they fought for 17 days in December and did our nation proud. You doubtlessly feel as garrison troops they were supporting Britain’s Imperialism and Racism. I am sure the Chinese and other minorities feared the Japanese far more than the British Empire. But the lesser of two evils argument never appeals to you does it? These men signed up to fight Hitler and spent 4 years in a Japanese POW camp under the worst possible conditions. My great uncle was there. I have talked to Hong Kong veterans; they are a diverse group with many varied opinions. They are unanimous in saying they should not have been sent. I have also heard many say that if there was a war on and they could go they would volunteer again, they would go to Hong Kong again, because they are soldiers and soldiers follow orders. Soldiers from Quebec fought bravely in the Battle for Normandy and later in the Battle for North West Europe. All this might not mean anything to you but it means a hell of a lot to me.

Quebec might not have supported Canadian overseas commitments as much as other parts of this country have, and that is alright by me. But the people going to Afghanistan right now are volunteers. Canada has made a commitment to the country and people of Afghanistan, people often lacking the dignity and freedom that we take for granted. The other Canadian regular force battalions have already gone. It is time for the Van Doo’s to do their part, make their contribution. There is no doubt in my mind that they will act in a manner that will make Canada, Quebec, and the people who wore the Van Doo uniform before extremely proud. I happen to value the chapter they are writing in our nation’s history. You should show support for these people, who volunteered out of their own free will to go far from their home to help others, who are willingly risking their lives. And you should show a little respect, as we all want to make this world a better place.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks Recce and Bzzliteyr


----------



## Not In My Name

Hale said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm on the other side of the world and I'm insulted. So you think we've all got our heads buried in the sand? Totally ridiculous. Totally. Most of us here have lost friends over there. My count is at 3 so far. And you lecture us on how we're not looking at the bigger picture? How we dint know whats going on? Have you been to Afghanistan? Because your telling a whole lot of Canadian soldiers who've been over there about a country that you've never been too. You think we can learn something from you? Any respect we had has quickly evaporated!
> 
> I'm very upset with the tone you've used and the assumptions you've got.



Hi Hale and others who have responded to my rant.

I thought that was clear, but I guess there is no harm in clarifying further, i.e. repeating it once more:

We do not think that soldiers are any more or any less stupid than civilians.

When I say "We", I mean privileged citizens of the Global North, or the Western Hemisphere, or the First World, call it what you will.

Us North Americans are very much so privileged in any way. 

When I say "we are the terrorists", for instance, I mean Western military powers who wage wars on lesser privileged, colonialised peoples. 

When I talk about heads buried in the sand, or transe-like conformism, this does not apply exclusively to soldiers, as some of you have written (please don't be so offended by a single man's words, it's not worth it...), but to the whole of privileged Western so-called civilisation.

Conveniently, no one has even tried to challenge this assertion - the point and crux of my intervention, really -  that we, of the wealthiest Western nations, are profiting daily from the colonial and imperialistic policies that our governments have imposed on the rest of the world for centuries.

I am also implying that our military adventurism is closely tied to our social-economic systems, namely global capitalism, and our deep-rooted addiction to privilege.

Please, if you can, prove me that I'm wrong. To me this is indisputable fact.

It is obvious that some, if not most, of you and I don't agree on many, many things. I nonetheless have the same right as you to express it. 

I find that most replies to my entry so far are disingenuous, at best, and in total bad faith in the worst cases.

I have not implied, for example, that Middle Ages or totalitarian regimes were better than capitalist rule. On the contrary, I strongly believe that humanity is on the path of emancipation from systemic inequity, and that authentic people's solidarity will prevail, I hope sooner than later.

I have not mentioned Adam Smith, and the sarcastic wiseass slants against socialism reveal a lack of understanding of both capitalism and socialism more than anything. I'm sorry, but these posters' remarks do not come across as particularly informed. Observers will decide for themselves.

On the other hand, I'm sorry if _I_ come across as pretentious, but no one has even came close to address the very important issues that I raised. 

It's all childish reactions, and/or outrage founded on distortion or miscomprehension of my assertions.

As for the Gentleman who dismisses me for choosing to withold my real name, I would point out that very many users of this forum are also anonymous. 
Why do you need my personal information, anyways? 

Can't you just address my discourse and my beliefs without resorting to belittling me on secondary issues? 

And, why would I give my real name on a forum where I find so much hostility toward myself, my beliefs and life choices? It would be suicidal. 

I can tell you this, since you seem to be interested in my personal profile:

I am 33 years old, from an average working class background. I am from rural Quebec and have been living, studying and working in Montreal for the last 15 years. I'm somewhat educated - more than the average, I guess. I have traveled a bit, which has allowed me to both witness first hand the inequity of this world and appreciate my own   privilege. I've tried very hard to understand the root causes of this inequity, and I've come to the conclusion that illegitimate authorities, plutocracies, exploitation, genocidal policies, racism and all forms of discrimination are to blame for the deep imbalance which characterizes our world.

I have been involved in many social justice projects for many years. A quick examination of the People's Global Action Hallmarks http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/pga/hallm.htm,  manifesto http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/en/pgainfos/manifest.htm and organisational principles http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/cocha/principles.htm will indicate the general framework of my politics.

I consider myself an anarchist, because I reject the authority of the State and its institutions, of the Capitalist order and of the organized religions. That does not mean that I don't use a computer, to reply to a particularily crass comment, nor that I don't have my own contradictions to deal with.

It just means that I have chosen to reject most of the premisses on which Canadian "business as usual" is based on.

I have chosen a certain path for my own life, as all of you have, and I don't intend to change it any time soon. To imply that all anarchists are childish rebels that eventually go back to the conformity is a facile and misguided generalisation.

I genuinely write this in a spirit of dialogue. If you don't want to dialogue on the issues I and others in my group raise, please don't lend us bad intentions or demonise us. As someone has said before, we can agree to disagree, without having to be nasty to each other like schoolchildren. 

I gather that the ones who have responded will not change their minds, other, more discreet users of this forum, might actually take the time to reflect upon the ideas we put forth. That's the whole point. We also take into consideration the genuinely frank and pertinent comments made by the more thoughtful participants.

Again my comrads and I would only like for soldiers to reconsider what the State, the Army, the education system and other classical institutions have always presented them to be the only true reality.

If we can convey to you why we think Canada should not be in Afghanistan, then maybe we can discuss openly strategies to help the Afghan people, and all other oppressed people in this world, by other means than military ones.

Of course, If you actually do like to go in other peoples' countries with guns, tanks, warplanes and a heavy-handed attitude, we have a long way to go...

Resistance is fertile,

yours truly, 

Not In My Name


----------



## RCR Grunt

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> ..... And, why would I give my real name on a forum where I find so much hostility toward myself, my beliefs and life choices? It would be suicidal. ...............



Maybe he would just like to send you an open letter.


----------



## Kat Stevens

" "If we can convey to you why we think Canada should not be in Afghanistan, then maybe we can discuss openly strategies to help the Afghan people, and all other oppressed people in this world, by other means than military ones." "

When are you going to realize that the Afghan people were oppressed long before the first pair of Canadian boots ever hit the ground?  So, "Tough noogies, have a nice life" is your plan for the Afghans when we leave? Nice, very solidarity-ish of you.


----------



## scoutfinch

You said:

At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this *transe-like conformity*, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta! 

And you claim that "It's all childish reactions, and/or outrage founded on distortion or miscomprehension of my assertions."

I am a firm believer in precision with language.  I read your words and they are very clear.  I don't think I distorted or failed to comprehend your assertion at all.  I think I understood it quite precisely.

Unless you wish to retract your comment about soldiers and their *transe-like conformity*?


----------



## WLSC

My humble opinion...  I don't thing Canada is over there only for humanitarian reasons.  We will never know, anyway not any time soon.  But, those official, known reason are enough for me and that why I'm going in A-stan this summer.  

I think people like V2007, that object those ideas are so deep in their individualism and there idealism that they are sure to have all the answers.  Historians in Quebec just begin to says it was not the idea of the century to be against the conscription during WW2.  They realised it was not of the King of England but again the Nazis that the war was all about.  It took time, but...  

Anyway...my 2 cents


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Not in My Name,

Although I completely disagree with much of your argument, and contend that many of your "facts" are merely articles of faith, of kant that has been de-canted, I will admit that, on the whole, you seem to have honestly attempted to engage in civil discourse - and on the whole, that approach has been reciprocated.

The discussion to date has been interesting - I hope that it remains civil.  Having said that, put a mongoose and a cobra in a cage, and even if you provide a checker board, they are probably not going to play checkers...


----------



## smitty66

Not in My Name,
First of all, please do not make the assumption that people who have not replied or reacted to your posts may be so inclined to read your "pearls of wisdom" or click on the provided links.  I think perhaps you give yourself and your "Comrades" a bit too much credit! Most of the people here are inclined to working within the democratic framework established by the founders of our Nation, not dabbling in Psuedo-Socalist/Anarchist tripe.  
I have, for the past few days, read this thread and some of the associated threads on this and other sites. I have come to the conclusion that if the world were to follow down the path you and your ilk suggest we would be staring at a global conflict of catastrophic proportions. Isolationist policies have in the past, been proven to allow dictators to thrive, chaos to spread and many innocent people to lose their live because more developed Nations did nothing! The Armchair policy analyst is a great position to be in, you can never be held accountable for decisions, because you are never in the position to make one. Why don't you hop on a plane and go and make a difference somewhere in the underdeveloped countries of the world.  I know quite few who are doing the very same, both in the military and with NGOs, and they can rest assured they can do their work "In My Name".


----------



## DaveTee

Since i was dubbed crass I'll try to explain my comments further, and I'll keep it formal.

My remark about your computer - mostly saying that capitalism is probably why you even own one, but disregard it.
My remark about the totalitarian / Adam Smith post - Just mostly for a bit of good fun, being silly.

And now, to try, hopefully with some eventual help from more qualified people, to disprove your worldview.



> I am also implying that our military adventurism is closely tied to our social-economic systems, namely global capitalism, and our deep-rooted addiction to privilege.
> 
> Please, if you can, prove me that I'm wrong. To me this is indisputable fact.



That's an opinion. Not a fact. Addiction to privilege? Have you seen how soldiers live in the trenches? Even regarding civilians, I guess it's wrong to want a high quality of life?
I think Norway was rated the best country to live in (quality of life wise) in something I read a while ago (can't find the source, sorry). So does that make Norway a violent, militarily adventurous country? 

Global capitalism...depends what you mean by that. Canada doesn't have a pure capitalist economy. If it did, government would have no intervention or say in anything business does. That's Adam Smith, pure _laissez-faire_ capitalism. We have a mixed socialist and capitalist economy, taking from both. Global capitalism is often trotted out by anti-globalisation protesters at G8 meetings and such, without ever explaining themselves or reasons for loathing globalisation. I researched globalisation for an article and found not one online anti-globalisation source that would explain anything. So just because you say so, doesn't make it true.

Military Adventurism: WOW! That is quite a term. I don't think peacekeeping or going off to world wars. Perhaps the privateers preying on Spanish galleons could be classed as such, but I doubt that any Canadian operations could be.



> I have not mentioned Adam Smith, and the sarcastic wiseass slants against socialism reveal a lack of understanding of both capitalism and socialism more than anything. I'm sorry, but these posters' remarks do not come across as particularly informed. Observers will decide for themselves.



you did state previously that: 


> That of global domination by Western elites, the same elites which have been putting the rest of us down for centuries.





> global hamburglar Capitalists make it in their own image.





> Not to buy that second car, that third TV, that fifth cell phone, that razor with 14 blades and 3 speed vibrate mode, that GI Joe action figure for little Timmy: all that goddam crap that we fill our empty lives with



Sorry for drawing some conclusions from that. Now as regards your western elites...Look up the history of Canada. We were a colony until 1867. Ah but you were probably referring to the United States. Well they were whooped by us in 1812 and slaughtered each other in 1863. This hardly suggests "Putting the rest of us down for centuries". Ah but maybe it was the Europeans? Well they have been waging war and killing each other since Roman times, and I guess you could claim that one empire has had the upper hand over another at one point, if you so wish.

There are more of your points that I disagree with. However I don't have the skills or inclination to deal with ALL of them. I'll let someone else do so. In the spirit of the "enlightened debate" which you so love to trot out and champion like the moral crusader you are, I would like to know this:
1) What are your major qualms with capitalism?
2) What do you propose in it's place?
3) How do you counter the previous contradiction of "solidarity with humans" and the reality of leaving the Afghan people with their pants down?
4) When you say you are educated more then most, what do you mean? Are you an international relations student? Political Science? Economics?
5) What made you change your opinions to their current iteration?

I hope you find this more civil than my previous post and reply accordingly. Sorry for the length.


----------



## xena

smitty66 said:
			
		

> ... Why don't you hop on a plane and go and make a difference somewhere in the underdeveloped countries of the world.  I know quite few who are doing the very same, both in the military and with NGOs, and they can rest assured they can do their work "In My Name".



+1


----------



## Not In My Name

Olga Chekhova said:
			
		

> You said:
> 
> At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this *transe-like conformity*, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!
> 
> And you claim that "It's all childish reactions, and/or outrage founded on distortion or miscomprehension of my assertions."
> 
> I am a firm believer in precision with language.  I read your words and they are very clear.  I don't think I distorted or failed to comprehend your assertion at all.  I think I understood it quite precisely.
> 
> Unless you wish to retract your comment about soldiers and their *transe-like conformity*?



Well I am confirming to you right now: I believe soldiers are ensnared in a transe-like conformity, but no more and no less that the general population. It's not about soldiers in particular, except that we are here on an Army forum, addressing soldiers specifically, specifically about the unjust War they're involved in and their own Rules of engagements.

Of course the comment will be addressed to soldiers. But it applies as well to equally ensnared civilians, which compose the vast majority of society. I include myself and many other radicals, to a certain extent, in this vicious pattern. 

And this dynamic, not that soldiers are part of it, is the question. Why do you take it so personal? Why are you being so defensive?

Are you saying that soldiers are enlightened beings, emancipated from the conformity model which objectively traverses all classes, gender, ethnicities and age groups in Western Societies?

No,  I am not retracting. 

Most comments made by military personnel on this very thread, on this very forum, confirm that soldiers are a generally conservative bunch, very much in line with the dominant values of said societies: patriotism/nationalism, allegiance to institutions, total faith in the capitalist system, etc.

I am not making this up ! This what you have consciously, but also unconsciously, chosen. We are all the subject of unconscious conditioning processes. It's a fact, whether we like it or not. I challenge you to prove me wrong!

The problem here is that, because I am saying this, you automatically assume that I consider myself to be morally superior than you are. I don't; and I'm not. 

I merely believe that we were set on different paths in our lives, which lead us to different places and different conclusions about the world. Again, we're not saying you're monsters or morons. You're just in a different place, and we're trying to bring you a different point of view.

And we're doing it because we feel it is a major, serious issue, and that many lives are in the balance.

Again, don't take one man's opinion so seriously. I'm just a regular guy. We all are.

NIMN

P.-S. I'm self employed and need to discipline myself here, otherwise I would spend way to many hours arguing with you guys.
I'm going to sign off, but I'll be back, and so are we as a collective with Valcartier2007.


----------



## Munxcub

smitty66 said:
			
		

> ...I have come to the conclusion that if the world were to follow down the path you and your ilk suggest we would be staring at a global conflict of catastrophic proportions. Isolationist policies have in the past, been proven to allow dictators to thrive, chaos to spread and many innocent people to lose their live because more developed Nations did nothing!...



You don't say... So doing things the way Anarchists want would lead to anarchy?


----------



## xena

Not In My Name,

You have yet to answer many other direct questions put to you here.  I'm personally interested in the moral ambiguity of advocating a military withdrawal that would undoubtedly lead to countless civilian deaths in Afghanistan.  Is that what you seriously advocate?

Please pay attention to *all* the questions put to you - not just the ones you have an "off the rack" answer for.

My apologies if the above reference to stock answers being "off the rack" seems too capitalist.

Also, the few comments about going to Afghanistan yourselves to help out if you feel so strongly, are *not* dismissive.  There are numerous agencies there doing numerous things to help the Afghans.  Why aren't you involved?


----------



## Blindspot

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> Well I am confirming to you right now: I believe soldiers are ensnared in a transe-like conformity, but no more and no less that the general population.



Brains! BRAINS!


----------



## GAP

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Brains! BRAINS!



They are to be issued next week, on a priority basis....


----------



## Not In My Name

Blindspot said:
			
		

> Brains! BRAINS!



I gleefully notice that the notorious anticapitalist/anticonsumerist metaphor, exploited with great succes by George A. Romero in a series of popular films from the 60's on to the 00's, is not lost on everyone.

Props to blindspot for picking up on the living-dead reference. Except, Romero's undead were silent. The "Brains" quote is an idiotic recuperation by dilletante exploitation film directors. Everyone knows the dead don't talk.

Another mainstay of the "living dead" series and various other zombie classics, experts will agree, is the military's role as the real bad guys...

But I digress. (Told you I'm not beyond contradictions!)

NIMN


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Brains! BRAINS!



I believe the quote from "Night of the Living Dead" (et al.) is:

"Brains! Fresh Brains!"


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Huh?  Did he just completely over analyze a simple "brains, brains" comment?  Yikes!! Get some sleep, big day on friday!


----------



## Blindspot

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> Everyone knows the dead don't talk.



Haha! Incorrect! Dracula was quite eloquent. 

My apologies to the mods for hijacking this thread with debate on the articulacy of the undead but how can we trust "Not In My Name" with world political facts if he don't even know this?


----------



## Not In My Name

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Huh?  Did he just completely over analyze a simple "brains, brains" comment?  Yikes!! Get some sleep, big day on friday!



For those who did not get it: consumerists are like zombies. This is directly related to my earlier infamous "trans-like conformity" comment. See 1978's "Dawn of the dead", which takes place in a shopping mall, for more on this. This is not over-analysis, this has been a widely accepted lecture of the zombie franchise since it's inception.

It also allowed me to plug in the anti-military comment. 

But let's leave the zombies alone, shall we.

NIMN


----------



## Trogdor

Valcartier2007

Are you going to respond the this question I posed on page 19?



> My single question to the perpetrators of this sad and pointless mailing is if you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?



Personally I've heard a lot of exaggeration of the facts from antiwar types to support their cause.  However, I am still yet to hear their suggestions as to what we should do as an alternative to protect those who need protecting.

Hopefully you are all intelligent people who have a knowledge of the history of Afghanistan.  If this is truly the case then I'm sure you're all aware of the strict and cruel punishments the Taliban would hand out to those who didn't follow their interpretations of Sharia Law.  The public executions, the partial amputations, the throwing of acid in the faces of women who did not wear the Burka, and the systematic targetting of Afghan democrats, royalists, socialists, or any one with a political view other than Islamist views.  Considering the well known fact that the Taliban did this and more during their rise to power in the early 1990s, during their rule from 1996 to 2001 and have continued to use these intimidation tactics against civilians since their ousting.  So if we aren't to fight this kind of tyranny then what should be done instead to change the situation and protect the lives of millions of average Afghans?


----------



## George Wallace

I am getting confused the more you try to explain "trans-like".  Are you trying to refer to "trance", as a person was hypnotized and put in a trance?  Or are we trying to describe something like "transcendental'?


----------



## 1feral1

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> When I say "we are the terrorists", for instance, I mean Western military powers who wage wars on lesser privileged, colonialised peoples.



Well, this line did it for me, and I realise that any time responding to such CRAP is totally worthless.

What we have here is an audience seeker, hoping to get a reaction, and he/she has got it.

I am over this guy/girl.

Signed, just another 'terrorist'

 :


Wes


----------



## Not In My Name

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am getting confused the more you try to explain "trans-like".  Are you trying to refer to "trance", as a person was hypnotized and put in a trance?  Or are we trying to describe something like "transcendental'?



That was a typo. I mean "trance-like", of course, as should have been obvious by the context in which I used this term several times before.

You guys are really looking hard to pinch us!


----------



## Yrys

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> You guys are really looking hard to pinch us!



Personnaly, I would say that George Wallace was trying to understand what you wrote...

But if you don't care about that  : ...


----------



## scoutfinch

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Valcartier2007
> 
> Are you going to respond the this question I posed on page 19?
> 
> Personally I've heard a lot of exaggeration of the facts from antiwar types to support their cause.  However, I am still yet to hear their suggestions as to what we should do as an alternative to protect those who need protecting.
> 
> Hopefully you are all intelligent people who have a knowledge of the history of Afghanistan.  If this is truly the case then I'm sure you're all aware of the strict and cruel punishments the Taliban would hand out to those who didn't follow their interpretations of Sharia Law.  The public executions, the partial amputations, the throwing of acid in the faces of women who did not wear the Burka, and the systematic targetting of Afghan democrats, royalists, socialists, or any one with a political view other than Islamist views.  Considering the well known fact that the Taliban did this and more during their rise to power in the early 1990s, during their rule from 1996 to 2001 and have continued to use these intimidation tactics against civilians since their ousting.  So if we aren't to fight this kind of tyranny then what should be done instead to change the situation and protect the lives of millions of average Afghans?



Kindly answer the question put to you here.


----------



## Mortar guy

You know, one thing I've always thought funny about people like Not In My Name and Valcartier2007 is that they are essentially scared and ignorant, just like the rest of us.

I agree that the bulk of society is wilfully ignorant and even zombie-like - hell look at voter turnout in Canada or our insatiable desire for "stuff". Those things make me mad/scared too and I try my best to do my part by recycling, eating local foods, consuming less, driving less, supporting local business, getting involved with local politics, voting, joining the Army to help my fellow man, etc. However, what Not In My Name et al. do when they see the same problems is retreat into a world of hubris, rhetoric and moral superiority. That way they can scoff at us "zombies" with our "head in the sand" and say to themselves "I'm not like them, I'm _better_." 

The thing they fail to realise is that they have no dominion over reality and truth and they rarely have realistic answers to real-life problems. They often speak in absolutes and state opinion as fact when the real world abhores absolutes and where perception is often reality. That's why you will never see a coherent alternative from them about how solve Afghanistan (or Darfur or Nazism or poverty). Rhetoric mandates that they must be anti-military and show "solidarity" with the people of Afghanistan when in fact they don't really know what either of those means. They shout "Solidarity" at rallies and march through the streets while the soldiers they relfexively loathe and look down their noses at risk their lives, and occasionally lose their lives, to bring peace and hope to a people that have known neither for a generation. The saddest part is that their ilk will rarely put their money where their mouth is and actually _do_ something to change the world other than mouth slogans like... well, like zombies. But of course, they're not zombies as most have read much about the world and some have travelled and all have formed strong opinions of how they want to see their world look. I would just caution Not In My Name and Valcartier2007 that you pause for a moment before calling any kettles here black. Soldiers are often very well educated, worldly people who have formed strong opinions about how they would like the world to be.

The irony here is that most soldiers are probably truer socialists than these anarchists. The word socialist has a negative connotation to it and most soldiers would object to the description but I ask you to think about it. Being Canadian they may already be strong supporters of many left-leaning policies like universal health care and EI. More to the point, they understand the need for those who are better off to help those in need. They know better than most in this country that there are people who are desperately poor and they are willing to risk their lives to improve their lot. They recognize the need for the collective to come to the aid of the most destitute and oppressed.

That's all I got.

MG

P.S. I'm still waiting for your alternative solution to our problem in Afghanistan.


----------



## smitty66

Mortar Guy,

Well said!


----------



## a_majoor

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> The irony here is that most soldiers are probably truer socialists than these anarchists. The word socialist has a negative connotation to it and most soldiers would object to the description but I ask you to think about it. Being Canadian they may already be strong supporters of many left-leaning policies like universal health care and EI. More to the point, they understand the need for those who are better off to help those in need. They know better than most in this country that there are people who are desperately poor and they are willing to risk their lives to improve their lot. They recognize the need for the collective to come to the aid of the most destitute and oppressed.



There is a difference between this and Socialism. Understanding and acting to help others in need has been recognized for millennia as the mark of nobility; you can see references to this in "The Iliad". Socialism takes this from an internal trait and converts it into an external imperative; you WILL help those in need, and "WE" (the Government, the people, the proletariat, the factory soviet) will define who needs help and how much.

You can see how extorting from the unwilling and the arbitrary nature of defining the "needy" distorts Socialism and predisposes it to failure. Private charity is limited in size and scope, the donor usually knows the beneficiary, and con men are limited in the number of naive donors they can fleece.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Not In My Name said:





> Are you saying that soldiers are enlightened beings, emancipated from the conformity model which objectively traverses all classes, gender, ethnicities and age groups in Western Societies?



As a matter of fact the military conformity model _*does*_ traverse all classes, gender, ethnicities, ages, religions, political philosophies, ideologies and world views.  There isn't a single soldier here who can't say that he/she has worked, served and soldiered with every conceivable fraction of society.  

But our conformity is of purpose not ideology like you and yours.

I've kind of been waiting for the Mods here to send you and V2007 off to school as they are fond of doing when someone shows a penchant for talking out of their ***, but since it doesn't seem to be the way they want to play this I would personally like to encourage you to look around a bit and discover the multifaceted nature of the members here.  Perhaps then you'll at least be able to comment from a point of informed ignorance.


----------



## Good2Golf

In the hope that further consideration will be given to the message (in several cases provided by folks who have walked the ground and spoken with Afghans face to face) of armed force as a conditionally necessary and complementary element to assist development under the Rule of Law, this thread has remained open.  Please keep the discourse civil and the spirit of meaningful discussion/debate in mind.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## WLSC

> The thing they fail to realise is that they have no dominion over reality and truth and they rarely have realistic answers to real-life problems. They often speak in absolutes and state opinion as fact when the real world abhores absolutes and where perception is often reality. That's why you will never see a coherent alternative from them about how solve Afghanistan (or Darfur or Nazism or poverty). Rhetoric mandates that they must be anti-military and show "solidarity" with the people of Afghanistan when in fact they don't really know what either of those means. They shout "Solidarity" at rallies and march through the streets while the soldiers they relfexively loathe and look down their noses at risk their lives, and occasionally lose their lives, to bring peace and hope to a people that have known neither for a generation. The saddest part is that their ilk will rarely put their money where their mouth is and actually do something to change the world other than mouth slogans like... well, like zombies. But of course, they're not zombies as most have read much about the world and some have travelled and all have formed strong opinions of how they want to see their world look. I would just caution Not In My Name and Valcartier2007 that you pause for a moment before calling any kettles here black. Soldiers are often very well educated, worldly people who have formed strong opinions about how they would like the world to be.
> 
> The irony here is that most soldiers are probably truer socialists than these anarchists. The word socialist has a negative connotation to it and most soldiers would object to the description but I ask you to think about it. Being Canadian they may already be strong supporters of many left-leaning policies like universal health care and EI. More to the point, they understand the need for those who are better off to help those in need. They know better than most in this country that there are people who are desperately poor and they are willing to risk their lives to improve their lot. They recognize the need for the collective to come to the aid of the most destitute and oppressed.



MG +1


----------



## Not In My Name

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> You know, one thing I've always thought funny about people like Not In My Name and Valcartier2007 is that they are essentially scared and ignorant, just like the rest of us.
> 
> I agree that the bulk of society is wilfully ignorant and even zombie-like - hell look at voter turnout in Canada or our insatiable desire for "stuff". Those things make me mad/scared too and I try my best to do my part by recycling, eating local foods, consuming less, driving less, supporting local business, getting involved with local politics, voting, joining the Army to help my fellow man, etc. However, what Not In My Name et al. do when they see the same problems is retreat into a world of hubris, rhetoric and moral superiority. That way they can scoff at us "zombies" with our "head in the sand" and say to themselves "I'm not like them, I'm _better_."



I'm starting to think that some people here are willfully ignoring what we are writing. My last relevent comment (putting aside the zombie digression) was about how we are also fallible human beings; I specifically wrote that I don't consider myself morally superior; that I am indeed full of contradictions; I implied that I am myself a consumer of goods, some of them useless; that we don't think that soldiers are stupid (we must have written this a dozen times already, but it seems you don't want to believe us!) and that we don't think we're better than the rest of the people. In some ways, we all are zombies, if you will. 

We just have a different political analyses of the world than most, and we do blame the global capitalism system and imperialism for a lot of what's wrong with the world today.



> The saddest part is that their ilk will rarely put their money where their mouth is and actually _do_ something to change the world other than mouth slogans like... well, like zombies.



In fact, as we have said before as Valcartier 2007, all of us spend a great deal and energy within social justice movement, fighting for migrant rights, against the criminalisation of difference and/or dissidence, with international solidarity projects, in direct solidarity with victims of savage capitalist development abroad, in unions, student movements, housing rights and, as is the case here, against militarisation and the Economy of War. In Montreal we are specifically targeting the corporations and individuals who profit from War, the people responsible for the absurd catastrophe in the making that is Canada's mission in Afghanistan, the imposture of the "war on terror", and so on.

I assure you that we do put our money (or lack thereof, actually) where our mouths are. I would guess that you don't spend much time paying attention to what anarchists and activists are doing on a day to day basis. Except when we launch a public campaign that concern you directly. 



> Soldiers are often very well educated, worldly people who have formed strong opinions about how they would like the world to be.



Again, we never said or even suggested that soldiers are not capable of rational thinking and to form ideas and opinions for themselves. This is getting repetitive.



> The irony here is that most soldiers are probably truer socialists than these anarchists.



Socialism, like most once relevant political concept, such as, say, democracy, don't mean much anymore because it's been used and recycled a billion times times by any conceivable political ideology to justify their means. 

It's true that it's been used by totalitarian regimes to justify atrocities. I personally don't give too much credit to such concepts because it lost all meaning a long time ago.

Democracy, for instance. How many times have I read on this forum that "we", meaning the Canadian armed forces, are fighting abroad to protect our democratic rights here in Canada.

This is completely absurd! This is George Bush logic! And it's obviously the official PR drill that you guys get. It's ridiculous, every time a PR officer get in the media they pitch the same tired old line!

You don't protect democracy by bombing or occupying a foreign countries. You don't celebrate democracy by installing a puppet regime made of war criminals or by leading subversive wars and covert operations to topple democratically elected regimes (yes, like our main ally has been doing consistently all over the world for more than 60 years now. Yes. I know, we are Canada, not the US. But a very elementary study of our recent history will show how our economies, and therefore political agendas are very closely linked. Our explicit support to the "War on Terror" is very indicative of this increasing integration. Check out for the North-American Security and Prosperity Partnership, coming to a town near you. )

 When you have a "choice", every 4 to 5 years, between a bunch of wealthy white guys who all worship at the altar of profit and economic growth, what you have is a plutocracy. Not a democracy. We are living the illusion of democracy, which is * institutionalised privilege*. Again I'm repeating myself.

And on the same logical framework, you don't reinforce security by killing people. We are obviously less secure now than we were before Canada jumped on the "War on Terror" bandwagon. And the further we go down that path, the more we are objectively identified with the US program, and the less we are secure.

And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc.

Again, the question is, how do you put an end to a vicious cycle?




> P.S. I'm still waiting for your alternative solution to our problem in Afghanistan.



We're working on it. Maybe if you ask a thousand more times, it'll go faster.  

NIMN


----------



## Yrys

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> Again, the question is, how do you put an end to a vicious cycle?
> 
> We're working on it.



Just my opinion, but shouldn't you have work on it *before* sending the letter ?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

NIMN,

I have given you the benefit of the doubt so far:



> Not in My Name,
> 
> Although I completely disagree with much of your argument, and contend that many of your "facts" are merely articles of faith, of cant that has been de-canted, I will admit that, on the whole, you seem to have honestly attempted to engage in civil discourse - and on the whole, that approach has been reciprocated.
> 
> The discussion to date has been interesting - I hope that it remains civil.  Having said that, put a mongoose and a cobra in a cage, and even if you provide a checker board, they are probably not going to play checkers...



I have even accepted the fact that you fail to realise that items of faith or opinion are being purported to be fact:



			
				Not In My Name said:
			
		

> Democracy, for instance. How many times have I read on this forum that "we", meaning the Canadian armed forces, are fighting abroad to protect our democratic rights here in Canada.
> 
> This is completely absurd! This is George Bush logic! And it's obviously the official PR drill that you guys get. It's ridiculous, every time a PR officer get in the media they pitch the same tired old line!



I am afraid though that I am going to have to call you on this one:



> And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc.



This is an overtly classist and even racist comment, and beyond the pale - and reflects your ignorance of the demographic from which the Forces is drawn.

It's sad really - the discussion seemed worthy of my attention.  Now, not so much.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

_Quote,
And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc._

Tread lightly, my friend, especially today. I[ and I'm sure most on here] am not in the mood for insults towards those who put lives on the line so that you have the freedom to insult them.


----------



## Not In My Name

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Quote,
> And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc._
> 
> Tread lightly, my friend, especially today. I[ and I'm sure most on here] am not in the mood for insults towards those who put lives on the line so that you have the freedom to insult them.



I'm sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see the insult here.

I also fail to see how my comment is classist or racist. Are you saying that he Army is NOT recruiting among, student, natives and poor communities. Did I make this up?

I always held the belief,that armies, all of them, did in fact recruit in marginalised communities and that that, in fact, is a racist and classist dynamic. I'd be interested in knowing how exaclty I'm mistaking here. I actually live by an anti-classist and antiracist code of life, you see, so I'm really interested to know how I'm going wrong here, there is always room for improvement.

Again, It was not my intention to insult anyone.
But maybe you can indicate to me what is false about this remark, so that I can maybe understand better the dynamics of military recruitment.

Sincerely, 

NIMN


----------



## Etienne

Alright, been in the side line for a while but now I need to talk...

First : _*I am from Valcartier*_ and I will be on parade Friday marching with all my brother's in arm
Second : By fall I will be in A-Stan,making sure that people over there will in the years to come have the same liberty of speech as NIMN and people of war on war
Third : Insult on my school degree will _*NOT*_ be tolerated you better have a masters in something really important to permit yourself a comment like that. You would be surprise to find out some guys school degree...you would see that a lot have their University complete. But still they join, something that even if I explain, you would never understand..... 

Etienne

P.S While writting, saw your reply... and yes I was offended maybe it's because I am to dumb to understand you correctly.. :


----------



## Etienne

In fact NINM in your profile ...would you be kind enough to tell : your age, school degree and branch and what you do for a living... don't be shy..

Thank you

Etienne


----------



## Mortar guy

NIMN,

You're back-pedaling hard here. You can deny all you want but everyone who has read these posts of yours has seen the following:



> Well I am confirming to you right now: I believe soldiers are ensnared in a transe-like conformity, but no more and no less that the general population.





> Most comments made by military personnel on this very thread, on this very forum, confirm that *soldiers are a generally conservative bunch, very much in line with the dominant values of said societies*: patriotism/nationalism, allegiance to institutions, total faith in the capitalist system, etc.





> At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity



Etc., etc.

I have read all your posts and I have no doubt in my mind that, despite your exhortations to the contrary, you really do think yourself superior to most of society. You present your opinions as "indisputable facts". Here's a gem that proved to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are blinded by your rhetoric and are far too naive:



> Conveniently, no one has even tried to challenge this assertion - the point and crux of my intervention, really -  that we, of the wealthiest Western nations, are profiting daily from the colonial and imperialistic policies that our governments have imposed on the rest of the world for centuries.



Just ignoring for a moment that this is a _non sequitur_, explain to me exactly how Canada is profiting from Afghanistan. Their economy is smaller than PEI's and they have nothing we want in terms of resources and territory. We have poured billions of dollars into this mission and have lost 60 of our nation's best in an effort to bring peace to the Afghans. So again, how are we profiting? I promise you that if you reply with the words "George Bush" or "U.S." or "empire", your argument will be laughed at by all those with an IQ higher than the ambient air temperature. Try to respond without slogans or canned anarchist phrases and we'll see what you come up with.

Making blanket statements like:



> Not to install puppet regimes that serve our elites' interests. Not to protect the war criminals and murderers who are on this government. Not to brutally occupy their ancestral territory. Not to pretend helping them by building a road in the North while shooting farmers in the South.



Also belies your lack of knowledge about a very nuanced and complex situation in Afghanistan. This is all rhetoric, I know, but let's assume that you really did know something about Afghanistan and it's recent history. Well, then you would know that, unlike the absolute statements above, the Afghan government is not a puppet regime but rather one elected by the majority of the Afghan people. And, while there are some unsavory characters in both the Government and Parliament, there are many more like Minister of Education Hanif Atmar or Minister of Finance Ahadi who are enlightened, educated leaders. Afghanistan has a functioning independent parliament and a constitution developed by Afghans. As for brutally occupying Afghanistan, your hubris probably does not allow you to see that we are there at the behest of the UN and at the invitation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Just to add some icing to the cake - we've also built stuff in the south and tend not to shoot farmers unless they shoot at us first. This last statement of yours would be exceedingly insulting except for the fact that it comes from someone so unaware of the reality of Afghanistan. 

At the end of the day, you still come to this debate without a hint of an alternative solution. We have been told a number of times that your proposal is coming and that we just have to be patient. This is easily the most hilarious cop out I have ever witnessed! Well done. You've gone to all the trouble of forming groups (War on War etc.), mass-mailing letters, joining Army.ca for a good debate and you only thought of developing a counter-plan _after_ someone here prompted you!! You have to be kidding!? This is why I will never take you seriously and why I wrote what I wrote earlier: your doctrine is a smokescreen to hide your insecurity and nothing more. 



> Again I'm repeating myself.



Here's a tip that will help you avoid this problem: if you present a coherent and _complete_ argument the first time, without holes big enough to drive a truck through, you won't have to repeat yourself. You'll find that people here love to pile on people who present poorly thought out ideas. It's part of this whole independent-thinking thing we're trying on.

MG


----------



## Carbon-14

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> ...We're working on it. Maybe if you ask a thousand more times, it'll go faster.



I'm sorry, but maybe if you stopped saying "Its coming, its coming!" and actually deliver it (has many days has it been?) people wouldn't continuously ask for it.  And to be honest, your posts feel like a lot of vague promises but little substance.  A promise of utopia as soon as we all realize that the bourgeois is the enemy of the working man.  Of course we ALL have to realize it or it doesn't work.  I'd be much more convinced if Not in My Name/V2007 can point to where their system is working successfully.  Of course its not working anywhere because the evil corporations/capitalist system of exploitation won't let it.  I will not contend for a second that our system is perfect, but for the most part it works.  I've read through what you've said and I don't believe that what you propose will ever work.  Maybe I'm dumb, maybe you're just bad at explaining it.  But as long as the majority of people are like me (perhaps a sheep.  But a happy sheep!), your system is insurmountably flawed.


I also think it most Canadians heard your complete message they most definitely would not be on your side.  But perhaps I'm wrong.  I do believe you should take a step back, finish your proposal on fixing Afghanistan (and maybe the world) and bring it here when you're done.  


P.S.  I'm starting my own anarchy club.  Message me if you're interested.  Elections for vice-president start Saturday.    ;D

+1 to Mortar guy's posts


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Soooo-

To sum this up so far-

1. Soldiers are smart, unless we are stupid or zombies  (V2007 will let us know when each happens).

2. V2007 wants CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!!! (I always read that as a yell...) but, errr... didn't really have a follow up plan for what would happen next.

3. Democracy, Socialism, Capitalism (in fact all -isms) mean whatever anyone wants them to mean. Again, V2007 will let us know when we get the definition "right".

4. Most everything bad in the world can be laid squarely at the feet of Imperialism and Capitalism (whatever Imperialism and Capitalism "mean").  The USSR was evidently on the verge of utopia before NATO and the US ambled along...

5. The US Government, led by the evil genius GW Bush is the puppet master, pulling pretty much every string in the world.

6. Canadian soldiers, apparently, are recruited (pressed?) from trailer parks and are incipient war criminals, every one of us.

7. V2007, having never spent a day in uniform, knows more about our COIN doctrine (having read a book! about it) than any of us who have devoted our lives to the study of armed conflict.

...It is like arguing with a 7 year old. I agree with PPCLI Guy- this is getting tiresome.

NIMN- you have every right to believe what you want to believe about the world- just don't be surprised when you get blowback trying to convince soldiers who have met real evil face to face in many unsavory locations around the world, that they should run away from their sworn duty.   And since you wish to press the point:



> And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc.



This statement implies that this is the sole source of recruits to the CF.  This is demonstrably untrue- the CF is recruited from a wide strata of society, encompassing pretty much every socio-economic group in Canada.  What you meant, however (and are now trying to weasel out of implying now that you have been called on it) is that only the poor, desperate, stupid and indigent (hell- let's throw in Native, too, since you mentioned reserves) would join the CF to fight. 



> I always held the belief,that armies, all of them, did in fact recruit in marginalised communities and that that, in fact, is a racist and classist dynamic. I'd be interested in knowing how exaclty I'm mistaking here. I actually live by an anti-classist and antiracist code of life, you see, so I'm really interested to know how I'm going wrong here, there is always room for improvement.



Well, you are wrong.  If you had done even basic research, rather than believe everything that your V2007 buddies have been filling your head with, you would know, too.

Edit: removed extra word


----------



## Mortar guy

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see the insult here.
> 
> I also fail to see how my comment is classist or racist. Are you saying that he Army is NOT recruiting among, student, natives and poor communities. Did I make this up?
> 
> I always held the belief,that armies, all of them, did in fact recruit in marginalised communities and that that, in fact, is a racist and classist dynamic. I'd be interested in knowing how exaclty I'm mistaking here. I actually live by an anti-classist and antiracist code of life, you see, so I'm really interested to know how I'm going wrong here, there is always room for improvement.
> 
> Again, It was not my intention to insult anyone.
> But maybe you can indicate to me what is false about this remark, so that I can maybe understand better the dynamics of military recruitment.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> NIMN



Just saw this. This is what I'm talking about. Don't open your grocery hole unless you have a good understanding of the topic at hand! In the end you look like a fool and will just p1ss people off. Your veneer thin knowledge of this topic, no doubt based heavily on stereotypes and third-hand information, is truly incredible. You must have a big brass pair to come on to a site called Army.ca (of all things) and blurt out those pearls.

No, the CF does not actively recruit from poor or underprivileged communities. All Canadians are given an equal opportunity to join and serve. If anything, the CF tends to try to recruit those with degrees and post-secondary diplomas, and people with those tend to come from the middle class.

Keep up the great posts! Very entertaining!

MG


----------



## Wookilar

....deep sigh....

So, let me get this straight.......you (collectively speaking) go to workshops, conferences and hold rallies and demonstrations. 

We (again, collectively) hand out aid, help people on the ground, try to spread humane treatment and kill bad guys (you may/may not agree with our methods, that's fine. Sometimes I don't either).

The problem I have I guess is this: I am quite left-wing (so everyone gets an idea, but that truly does not describe my political/social thought processes and how it fits in with our current political system) and I am quite knowledgeable about the activities of many social advocacy groups (inter and intra state; all shapes/sizes/goals) and support those that I can (and feel that deserve it).

Why is that a problem? Well, basically, because groups represented by V2007 and NIMN never really accomplish anything and that really burns me. All that fury, energy and commitment thrown away in spouting rhetoric rehashed from Vietnam War protesters (don't believe me? Dig up some articles. Check on youtube. I'm done doing your research for you).

The repeated asking for your solutions to the situation in Afghanistan is not unreasonable, we are all wondering why you did not have the answer ready BEFORE you got here. You did actually think this through, did you not? Stopping the current plan (that is working, whether you believe it or not) without having another plan to go on is suicide (but, since it's not YOUR suicide, I guess that is ok). Proof that the current course of action is working: soccer, kites and little girls going to school (prove me wrong). You didn't actually think that you could come on here and convert "us" with out having a solid plan (or even a basis of a plan)?

Of course you did! Again and again, we are being told that we are taking things too personal (we don't mean soldiers specifically, we're all zombies). Bull. You did mean us, or you wouldn't have said it in the first place so do not attempt to be cute and self-deprecating in order to save some face. Let's face it, a majority of your groups think we are all overloaded with testosterone and just want to kill something. Very few of you have any actual close contact with CF members (there is obviously some, someone is giving you buzzwords like COIN) and would never willingly sit with one and eat a meal.

I posted a lot of pages ago. I (along with others) pointed out that some of your basic documentation is patently false. We've even seen "the pipeline" resurface. All we are getting in return is more rhetoric about how capitalism is bad, the US are warmongers and we are all puppets (or do you prefer zombies) of the industrial/military complex.

Again, your post "explaining" for our benefit what the symbolism in "Night of the Living Dead" means, shows your true thoughts again. You are here to educate us. Fine, give me some concrete facts (not opinions on political structures) and some workable solutions (in this reality, not the one you are hoping for) and I will learn. When the day comes that ST:NG is the norm for our society, you and I may well sit down and enjoy some fine Romulan Ale, but until then, my buds and I will enjoy a timmies (and maybe a can of pringles from the canex) after a days/nights work (whether that be rebuilding a school, a lumber mill, a brick kiln, digging wells, replacing well pumps, protecting the people that are trying to build them or killing people that are trying to kill us). You just keep holding your counter-protests, causing civil disturbances and endangering lives (attempt to prove me wrong, and I will blind you with photos of molotov-throwing anarchists and peace activists at "protests" around the world). But those are just The Man framing you. Anarchist protests never degenerate into violence.

Wook

edit: for spelling and just to add, your comment on the whole recruiting from the lower classes thing; you said it your self, a belief. Stop watching American war movies. 

For the sake of data collection only, I come from a solid middle-class background, had completed secondary education (in a very useful and lucrative sector) and had traveled a good part of the planet before I joined. I left a good management job, almost 15 years ago, so I could make a difference. I know more people in the CF (Reg and Res) that have college diplomas/university degrees than I do civilians that have the same (and my social circle is quite wide).


----------



## 1feral1

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> _Quote,
> And the more we need soldiers, that we recruit in CEGEPS, on reserves, among the poorer classes of people, etc._
> 
> Tread lightly, my friend, especially today. I[ and I'm sure most on here] am not in the mood for insults towards those who put lives on the line so that you have the freedom to insult them.



Well said Bruce!

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## cavalryman

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if I offended you, but I fail to see the insult here.
> 
> I also fail to see how my comment is classist or racist. Are you saying that he Army is NOT recruiting among, student, natives and poor communities. Did I make this up?
> 
> I always held the belief,that armies, all of them, did in fact recruit in marginalised communities and that that, in fact, is a racist and classist dynamic. I'd be interested in knowing how exaclty I'm mistaking here. I actually live by an anti-classist and antiracist code of life, you see, so I'm really interested to know how I'm going wrong here, there is always room for improvement.
> 
> Again, It was not my intention to insult anyone.
> But maybe you can indicate to me what is false about this remark, so that I can maybe understand better the dynamics of military recruitment.



Sunshine.... are you so naive that you can't see the irony in your statement?  You claim to be an anti-classist, yet you attempt to class military members as coming from marginalized communities.  As you say, you hold a belief - in other words, something not based on fact.

Funny, but when I look at my unit, and at the members heading over with TF 3-07, I don't see anyone from a "marginalized" community.  I'd venture to say that a large chunk of my troops (and all my officers) have at least as much, if not more education than you probably claim to have, and a pretty solid understanding of life.  They're for the most part men and women from a middle-class background who want to do something worthwhile that will really make a difference in the world, i.e. something other than protesting and spouting nonsense.

I wish you luck in your voyage through life.  Maybe some day you'll understand what the fine people here have been trying, with great restraint and politeness to explain to you.  I've always found that personal and intellectual growth happens when one removes the cotton from one's ears and sticks it in one's mouth.


----------



## SupersonicMax

V2007, NIMN, too many words, not enough actions...


----------



## kenneyb210

"This is completely absurd! This is George Bush logic!"

That, to me, is  the shark jump. 

I am glad to see that the forum has gotten more to  the point. The CF on one side with their beliefs and the other. No question the anarchists have strong beliefs, they desire change, work to spread their message. blah blah

On the other hand...Quebec City will no doubt be exciting ...are there any other venues in other cities?

In Alberta, I would really like to know if the CF is involved in any "rally round the flag" type events.


----------



## Blindspot

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I'd venture to say that a large chunk of my troops (and all my officers) have at least as much, if not more education than you probably claim to have, and a pretty solid understanding of life.  They're for the most part men and women from a middle-class background who want to do something worthwhile that will really make a difference in the world, i.e. something other than protesting and spouting nonsense.



NIMN, I have this one...

You're a zombie. An imperialist, capitalist, democracy-defending, monarchist, machine-loving, camouflage-wearing sucker in the employ of evil plutocrats. Your educations and experience means nothing to us because everything western sucks.

Now where's the hordes of women with unshaved armpits I was promised?


----------



## cavalryman

Blindspot said:
			
		

> You're a zombie. An imperialist, capitalist, democracy-defending, monarchist, machine-loving, camouflage-wearing sucker in the employ of evil plutocrats.



Aaaaaand loving it!

*Ugh - I'm all that, _*and*_ channeling Don Adams  *


----------



## Not In My Name

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Sunshine.... are you so naive that you can't see the irony in your statement?  You claim to be an anti-classist, yet you attempt to class military members as coming from marginalized communities.  As you say, you hold a belief - in other words, something not based on fact.
> 
> Funny, but when I look at my unit, and at the members heading over with TF 3-07, I don't see anyone from a "marginalized" community.  I'd venture to say that a large chunk of my troops (and all my officers) have at least as much, if not more education than you probably claim to have, and a pretty solid understanding of life.  They're for the most part men and women from a middle-class background who want to do something worthwhile that will really make a difference in the world, i.e. something other than protesting and spouting nonsense.
> 
> I wish you luck in your voyage through life.  Maybe some day you'll understand what the fine people here have been trying, with great restraint and politeness to explain to you.  I've always found that personal and intellectual growth happens when one removes the cotton from one's ears and sticks it in one's mouth.




Sunshine!!?? How old do you think I am? 

This is very patronizing. I started to write on this forum last night in a spirit of dialogue, but now it seems that anything I might write will be ridiculed, turned on it's head, used against me, etc.

It is obvious that I am not going to change any one's mind here (I didn't think I would from the start) and that was not really the point. Most people here just don't want to hear the arguments we're making. It's all crap to you and that's the end of it; there is absolutely no openness on your part. So much for coming straight to the dragon's Den.

I don't think I was particularly nasty, or belligerent, or insulting at all. Yet you have all chosen 1) to distort pretty much everything I wrote to make me look bad, according to your dearly held values (anything I wrote was bad a priori; even saying that military types are generally conservative was construed as an insult, for God's sake!); 2) ignored all valid points I have made - mainly about you serving first and foremost Western domination of the world (as if Canada was not part of NATO, was not the US' main ally, was not apologising for Israels' crimes, was not a colonial power, etc.) - you could only resort to weak sarcasm about these central arguments - (if you seriously believe that Western privilege is legitimate and has been legitimately acquired, it's worse than I thought, I had assume that some of you would be willing to concede at least as much); and 3) accused me of all sorts of evil that I know have nothing to do with my personality. I guess it's more convenient to demonise your opponent. 

Well, I came here hoping for dialogue and was treated like crap, simply because I happen to hold a completely different set of beliefs than most of you.

Now, *we will see which way the wind blows in the next weeks and months*. I can assure you that your beloved mission will turn sour, one way or another.  Take my word for it, soldiers. That is inevitable. It's beyond me that you can't recognise this.

You're all for democracy, you say, well you'll have to abide by it when the Canadian people want this bullshit war to stop.

Unless, a terrorist attack happens on Canadian territory... wouldn't that be convenient for war profiteers. Or another "terrorist plot" is uncovered. Or anything that can justifying staying in Afghanistan for years to come.

Yet, I can't help but notice that no one really seriously denied or debunked any of my main criticism. Again, just a see of sarcasm. Why? And why are you so hostile? One could interpret this as negative acknowledgement.

A lot of you, most in fact, were busy cornering us on the after-war issue, cause you know full well that it's maybe our only real weak spot. It's nearly impossible to come up with an alternative solution to your military occupation, the disastrous situation YOUR PATRON POLITICIANS AND HAWKISH INTELLECTUALS CREATED FOR THE WORLD.

There you are, if that can flatter you're camouflage-clad egos: you won. You can stay in Afghanistan for 20-30 years, how about that? That's a sustainable approach. It will definitely serve democracy ans insure our security. That's logical. Then, when angry young men come from from Pakistan or Pashtun country to blow stuff in Toronto or Montreal, you can "liberate"  these territories too, bring democracy there, why not. This is manifest destiny.

There are so many places to "liberate" still. The whole world needs the Canadian military to fix it. You guys go on walking the walk!

We've said it before and we will say it again: this is a vicious circle, and you're feeding right into it.

On the other hand, you've been trained to follow orders and shut up. You've been trained to kill too. Unless I'm wrong about this also? You're paid to serve and obey; it might be easier in these conditions to actually believe all the bullshit they feed you. It's understandable, in a way. Again, I'm speaking to all the ones who felt compelled to aggressively blast me here. I do not think that all soldiers are the same.

You may think I'm full of crap, but after today's experience I can honestly say that many of those who assaulted me here fit this unflattering description as well.

I don't think any less of soldiers in general, despite what you might think. Even if I disagree with the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, I hope that you all come back alive and well to your families and friends. To those who think I'm being disingenuous about this, insert favoured profanity here. I care about people, whether this fits your preconceived idea of what an anarchist is, or not. I don't like people dying for oil and/or the variety of false pretexts served daily by politicians.

This being said, I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you here by myself. You can rejoice in your defeating me with your superior intellects and infallible argumentation (many of you seem to have an issue with proving that you are indeed intelligent, what with all the talk of formal education, the obsession with "facts" vs. "opinion", what's with that?). I know that you know these last exchanges here sucked, and they sucked precisely because you consciously disrespected me whereas I was only trying to engage in dialogue. That is the way of the bully.

I, had no intention to offend anyone here. I believe it is my mere presence amongst you that was found to be offensive.

At least I learned one thing: the Canadian military is composed of, intellectualy superior, middle class people with degrees. No underprivileged people has ever been lured in the Canadian Army against the promise of of financial security, no Sir! :-\ This is a myth!
Such despicable tactics could never happen in Canada, the perfect country. (Excuse the sarcasm, it appears to be contagious... time for me to leave here.)

If my comrads feel there is anything to be gained from sticking around here, I will gladly let them do it, and even participate in the dialogue. Me, I'll take a break from this place. It's been an intersting 24 hours though... I hope I have at least got some radical points across to some more open minded people.

I might take a peak here in a few days from now, after the Quebec City encounter.

Again, a heartfelt Godspeed to the troops.

Not in My Name


----------



## Trinity

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> the obsession with "facts" vs. "opinion", what's with that?). I know that you know these last exchanges here sucked, and they sucked precisely because you consciously disrespected me whereas I was only trying to engage in dialogue. That is the way of the bully.



Funny that how facts get in the way of opinions.  Last time I checked in philosophy and debating,
facts helped prove your arguments.  Funny if we asked for facts, we're like that.



> Me, I'll take a break from this place. It's been an intersting 24 hours though...



For both you and us.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

We haven't disappeared. 

A couple of the people who usually respond in English are out of town, or busy at work. We'll be back online soon, probably by Saturday or Sunday. We're looking forward to continuing this discussion and we hope you are too. 

----
VALCARTIER 2007
C.P. 55051, 138 Saint-Vallier Ouest, Québec (Qué) G1K 1J0
418 208-7059 * info@valcartier2007.ca * www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Valcartier,
You are welcome back anytime......as for that other condescending stooge...... :deadhorse:


----------



## Wookilar

NIMN,

I try very hard to be polite, it has actually kept me alive a couple of times so I think that I am fairly good at it. You, however, test me.

As the good Trinity has already pointed out, you do not bring facts or valid points, you bring opinion and diatribe. 

Do I believe in "Western domination of the world"? Ummm, actually, no I do not. I BELIEVE that we, in the 1st World, have a responsibility to help those less privileged then us. I KNOW that there have been too many times that the international community has sat on the sidelines and done absolutely nothing to stop unmitigated crap from happening to innocent people.

You do not like war. Fine. Neither do I (and I have actual experience to back up that opinion. How about you?). You don't like the US. Fine. Neither do I (as a political entity of course, the people are no worse or better than anyone else on the planet), but I do like many of the US Marines and Army members that I have worked with over the years. There are more than a few countries/political groups that I do not agree with, but I'm not going to get insulted if I can not get them to agree with me. That, for want of a better word, is juvenile. None of us care how old you are, your qualification for being tagged as "Sunshine" comes from your reluctance to realize that what you are spouting is YOUR OPINION and not irrefutable fact.

For all your protesting of not being "particularly nasty, or belligerent, or insulting" you certainly were. To all of us that wear the uniform of the CF. And you meant to be. I'm just really curious to know where the heck you get off calling into question our values and that's ok, but when we challenge yours, it's no longer fair game? You want debate? Fine, bring it. But bring facts, bring case studies, from a variety of sources. When you post a comment from someone, post it all, don't take it out of context.

We ask you for a solution, you have none. Shocking. We have a solution. You don't like it. Shocking again.

I am a "doer", you will find that many of us here are "doers." It is not enough for us to sit back and bitch and whine about stuff we don't like, we joined so we could help people. You don't seem to want to "do" anything. If you did, you would have a plan, or at least an idea, a concept. But you don't. I'm really not sure why I'm wasting anymore bandwidth on you, must be my compassionate side. You just keep protesting the evil Western World (without a plan to make things better), and I'll keep protecting your back.

Oh, and just one final point: "the disastrous situation YOUR PATRON POLITICIANS AND HAWKISH INTELLECTUALS CREATED FOR THE WORLD." ummm, just to let you know, those are your politicians, not mine. Speaking of the current situation in A'stan, it was the very left-leaning Liberals that sent us there. Where were you then? Just ask most CF-types on their opinion of the Liberals since PET and you may be surprised, they were certainly not our patrons. 

Did you vote in the last federal election? I did. I suppose that would be very anti-anarchist of you though. Good luck on changing the system from outside.

Wook


----------



## 1feral1

Not In My Name said:
			
		

> Sunshine!!?? How old do you think I am?
> 
> Not in My Name



Like I said, why waste time with attention seekers like this. At least this oxygen thief has been silenced on here by his own demise. He gave himself enough rope, and did the merry jig, just like Saddam! NIMN had hidden agendas. That was obvious. 

Is this war wrong? Well maybe so, but going about it the way NIMN did on here, it just ended up biting him in the arse. I don't mind peoples opinions, we all got them. None of us on here are war mongers, and merchants of death, but he paints us all as brainwashed robot zombie storm troopers with a death wish, and the west (yes his/our Canada) as a terrorist org. That is simply shyte!

I knew what his style was and I did not bite. I got more important things to do (like sitting on the toilet) when it comes to posters of the substandard quality that this so called 'man' has demonstrated in the small number of posts he created.

Might have to have a CC and ginger when I get home, ha!


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Why is it so hard for our enlightened friends above to understand this??

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/227225
EDITORIAL
TheStar.com - comment - Aid won't work without arms
Aid won't work without arms
Jun 20, 2007 04:30 AM 
A report on the murder of a Canadian aid worker in Afghanistan last summer should give serious pause for reflection to Canadians who think this country's combat role there should be ended and replaced by aid and reconstruction work.

Mike Frastacky, a Vancouver carpenter, was building a school in northern Afghanistan when he was hauled from his bed, tied up and shot after a terrorist leader gave the order, "Kill the infidel."

A report on the incident by Afghan security investigators reveals that his death was a planned, political murder rather than a random act of violence. He was killed because he was doing reconstruction.

This is the threat that every aid and reconstruction worker lives with, and their situation seems likely to become more dangerous as the Taliban becomes more violent in its efforts to regain power.

On Sunday, a massive explosion ripped through a busy street in Kabul, killing dozens of Afghan civilians and police and wounding many more. The terrorists vow to continue such attacks on aid workers and civilians on a "daily" basis.

These events emphasize the importance of a continued combat role for Canada and its NATO allies in the Afghan war. They also emphasize the reality that without the continued effort to take the war to the Taliban, aid and reconstruction will be impossibly dangerous. Indeed, they would become pointless because abandoning the war means handing Afghanistan back to a Taliban dictatorship.

Maintaining Canada's will to fight that war, however, is certain to grow more difficult as casualties mount. Already, 56 Canadian soldiers have died in the war and the Taliban's campaign is becoming more violent as it grows more desperate. As casualties rise, political and public pressure to disengage from Afghanistan is likely to increase in Canada.

There are indications that the terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan are experiencing difficulty in finding recruits among Afghans themselves and have been replenishing their ranks with Chechens, Uzbeks and Arabs. That may be an extension of the war, but it is not one that should discourage Canada. It is more importantly a sign that war against terror there is working, that Canadian combat troops are slowly succeeding in making Afghanistan safer so aid workers such as Mr. Frastacky can eventually do their jobs without fear.


----------



## Reccesoldier

> what with all the talk of formal education, the obsession with "facts" vs. "opinion", what's with that?


  :rofl: I can't believe that he actually posted that! :rofl:



> If my comrads feel there is anything to be gained from sticking around here, I will gladly let them do it,



So much for complete anarchist equality.  Get that the rest of you "_comrads_"?  The great NIMN has deemed it permissible if you wish to cary on the conversation.:  Is it just me or does anyone else get the mental image of a petulant Louis the 14th waving a handkerchief at his courtesans?  :king:


----------



## DaveTee

Good riddance to that guy. I hope we can still debate with Valcartier though, they actually make points rather then going on about how awful western society is etc.


----------



## DG-41

> Well I am confirming to you right now: I believe soldiers are ensnared in a transe-like [sic] conformity, but no more and no less that the general population.



I find it interesting how often this comes up.

When confronted with intelligent, passionate, and well-educated soldiers, the common response from the _soi disant_ educated activist community is to accuse these selfsame soldiers as being brainwashed zombies who believe what they believe not because of rational thought and first-hand experience, but because they are the poor mindless tools of the evil forces that run the world.

It is a dehumanizing tactic: "I can ignore your devastating evidence that explicitly refutes my position because you are less than human".

If the irony was any thicker, we could s\bolt it to the underside of a GWagon as mine protection.

DG


----------



## RetiredRoyal

are you sure they didn't get mailed directly from the PQ offices?

PQ MNAs refuse to applaud soldiers
Resulting remarks set off raucous debate

Kevin Dougherty
CanWest News Service

Thursday, June 21, 2007

QUEBEC -- The Quebec National Assembly erupted into shouting matches Wednesday after some Parti Quebecois members refused to stand to applaud seven Afghanistan-bound Canadian Forces officers, an action Health Minister Philippe Couillard called "pathetic."

The soldiers were taking in Question Period from a legislature balcony and they were there as news broke that three more Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan Wednesday.

PQ house leader Diane Lemieux, who did applaud, angrily called on Couillard to withdraw the remark, setting off a 10-minute procedural debate and shouting matches across the floor.

Rising to answer a question on another matter from Bernard Drainville, the PQ health critic, Couillard ended his answer by added his views on some PQ members, including Drainville, who did not stand to applaud the officers.

"I would like to comment on something that I saw at the beginning of Question Period which seems to me regrettable, pathetic.

"There is a group of military personnel from the Royal 22nd who are with us today, who are going to represent Canada overseas and risk their lives," Couillard said.

"They were saluted by most members of the National Assembly, except for an important group who remained seated."

Lemieux insisted her colleagues did salute the officers, even if they did not all stand. "One can express one's solidarity in several ways," she said.

But she also took a shot at Couillard, referring to the four years he worked in Saudi Arabia setting up a neurosurgery service in Dhahran, accusing Couillard of "going abroad when the [health] system [here] was in difficulty" and doing so "to make money abroad."

The turmoil ended when Speaker Michel Bissonnet called a timeout of about 30 minutes to review tapes of the debate.

After the timeout, Couillard withdrew his remarks.
© The Vancouver Sun 2007


----------



## Danjanou

Ah hell, see what happens when you take a night off from the forums. Ok a little late but still after all the amusement he’s provided us here it seems only fitting to give NIMN a proper farewell. Besides odds are he’s lurking here still. 8)

So mod hat off and target to your front, and ….



> Sunshine!!?? How old do you think I am?



In physical years or intellectual?



> This is very patronizing.



And what would you call the verbal diarrhea you’ve been spouting here?



> I started to write on this forum last night in a spirit of dialogue, but now it seems that anything I might write will be ridiculed, turned on it's head, used against me, etc.



Actually I don’t think you needed our help to have your words and thoughts ridiculed. They seem to be quite capable of that on their own.



> It is obvious that I am not going to change any one's mind here (I didn't think I would from the start) and that was not really the point. Most people here just don't want to hear the arguments we're making. It's all crap to you and that's the end of it; there is absolutely no openness on your part. So much for coming straight to the dragon's Den.



Actually we do want to hear your arguments. We’ve been open and polite. Case in point your fellow traveler Valcartier2007 has remained within the confines of grown up debate and is still welcome here. As for the crap part…. Well I think that has pretty much covered itself here.



> I don't think I was particularly nasty, or belligerent, or insulting at all.



If you say so, I’d say there are plenty of posts here to the contrary.



> Yet you have all chosen 1) to distort pretty much everything I wrote to make me look bad,



Really you consider a concise examination of your arguments and a presentation of counter arguments backed by factual evidence as opposed to dragging out tired old slogans distortion. I have to get a copy of whatever dictionary you use.



> according to your dearly held values (anything I wrote was bad a priori; even saying that military types are generally conservative was construed as an insult, for God's sake!); 2) ignored all valid points I have made - mainly about you serving first and foremost Western domination of the world (as if Canada was not part of NATO, was not the US' main ally, was not apologising for Israels' crimes, was not a colonial power, etc.) - you could only resort to weak sarcasm about these central arguments - (if you seriously believe that Western privilege is legitimate and has been legitimately acquired, it's worse than I thought, I had assume that some of you would be willing to concede at least as much); and 3) accused me of all sorts of evil that I know have nothing to do with my personality. I guess it's more convenient to demonise your opponent.



Oh where to begin with this one? Ah why bother. You’d fail to get the point and the others here already get it. You did get one thing right though. We do have dearly held values.



> Well, I came here hoping for dialogue and was treated like crap, simply because I happen to hold a completely different set of beliefs than most of you.



No it was more like when began acting like a petulant five year old throwing a temper tantrum at the dinner table because you didn’t want to eat your Brussels Sprouts. 




> Now, *we will see which way the wind blows in the next weeks and months*. I can assure you that your beloved mission will turn sour, one way or another.  Take my word for it, soldiers. That is inevitable. It's beyond me that you can't recognise this.


Hey if you know something about what’s going to happen over there of here, please feel free to share it, or is this just wishful thinking on your part.



> You're all for democracy, you say, well you'll have to abide by it when the Canadian people want this bullshit war to stop.



Correct if the legally elected Government of this Country carrying out the wishes of the people tell us to go we will. Hopefully that will not be until the job is finished, but we will see.



> Unless, a terrorist attack happens on Canadian territory... wouldn't that be convenient for war profiteers. Or another "terrorist plot" is uncovered. Or anything that can justifying staying in Afghanistan for years to come.



Dude stop watching Michael Moore videos. Seriously you almost sound like you want them to hit us. Of course I’m sure that you only prefer they killed and maimed us bad Canadians and not enlightened progressives like yourself. Sorry it just does not work that way.



> Yet, I can't help but notice that no one really seriously denied or debunked any of my main criticism.



Really? And just what colour is the sky in your world?



> Again, just a see of sarcasm. Why? And why are you so hostile? One could interpret this as negative acknowledgement.



Actually sarcasm is a long used and effective military weapon, as is the use of spellcheck, but I don’t think you got that.



> A lot of you, most in fact, were busy cornering us on the after-war issue, cause you know full well that it's maybe our only real weak spot. It's nearly impossible to come up with an alternative solution to your military occupation, the disastrous situation YOUR PATRON POLITICIANS AND HAWKISH INTELLECTUALS CREATED FOR THE WORLD.



Actually I thought it was more like we stated we have a job to do there and will leave only when it is finished versus your argument which appears to be leave now and well whatever happens after that…..um we’ll get back to you on it.



> There you are, if that can flatter you're camouflage-clad egos: you won. You can stay in Afghanistan for 20-30 years, how about that? That's a sustainable approach. It will definitely serve democracy ans insure our security. That's logical. Then, when angry young men come from from Pakistan or Pashtun country to blow stuff in Toronto or Montreal, you can "liberate"  these territories too, bring democracy there, why not. This is manifest destiny.
> 
> There are so many places to "liberate" still. The whole world needs the Canadian military to fix it. You guys go on walking the walk!
> 
> We've said it before and we will say it again: this is a vicious circle, and you're feeding right into it.



We won, oh goody I’ll go out and buy myself a bigger hat to accommodate my inflated ego because I won a debate on the Internet with some putz who in the words of Sean Connery brought a knife to a gun fight. 

BTW if meaning staying “there” or some other place for 20-30 years means that “it” does not come here, then that’s a sacrifice the men and woman here are willing to take. We’ve been in other places longer. 

Perhaps a read through our history would show you that. Feel free to take a visit to the CWM in Ottawa anytime, believe it not there are some here who would not consider it a waste of time to guide you around it and try and explain who we are and why it has been necessary to do what we have had to do over the past several generations if not longer.

Failing that you can just crawl back into the hole of selfish self righteous denial you have created for yourself. Don’t’ worry better men and woman than you will ever be will continue to ensure the freedoms and security you take for granted are maintained.



> On the other hand, you've been trained to follow orders and shut up. You've been trained to kill too. Unless I'm wrong about this also? You're paid to serve and obey; it might be easier in these conditions to actually believe all the bullshit they feed you. It's understandable, in a way. Again, I'm speaking to all the ones who felt compelled to aggressively blast me here. I do not think that all soldiers are the same.



Don’t flatter yourself there skippy. No one was compelled to come on here and tear you a new one and most here have (until now) shown great restraint.



> You may think I'm full of crap, but after today's experience I can honestly say that many of those who assaulted me here fit this unflattering description as well.



Speaking personally I’ll take an insult from you mon ami as a compliment.



> I don't think any less of soldiers in general, despite what you might think.



Funny your rather patronizing comment may have us think otherwise.



> Even if I disagree with the deployment of troops to Afghanistan, I hope that you all come back alive and well to your families and friends. To those who think I'm being disingenuous about this, insert favoured profanity here. I care about people, whether this fits your preconceived idea of what an anarchist is, or not. I don't like people dying for oil and/or the variety of false pretexts served daily by politicians.



Despite our very obvious differences I’m willing to accept that is a sincere comment and I thank you for that.



> This being said, I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing with you here by myself. You can rejoice in your defeating me with your superior intellects and infallible argumentation (many of you seem to have an issue with proving that you are indeed intelligent, what with all the talk of formal education, the obsession with "facts" vs. "opinion", what's with that?). I know that you know these last exchanges here sucked, and they sucked precisely because you consciously disrespected me whereas I was only trying to engage in dialogue. That is the way of the bully.



Yeah sorry with that whole “facts” versus “opinion” thingy we’re funny that way.



> I, had no intention to offend anyone here. I believe it is my mere presence amongst you that was found to be offensive.



Not your presence sunshine.



> At least I learned one thing: the Canadian military is composed of, intellectualy superior, middle class people with degrees. No underprivileged people has ever been lured in the Canadian Army against the promise of of financial security, no Sir! :-\ This is a myth! Such despicable tactics could never happen in Canada, the perfect country. (Excuse the sarcasm, it appears to be contagious... time for me to leave here.)



No the men and woman of the Canadian Forces are composed of a variety of people from all walks of like, cultures, and socio economic groups. When they take their uniforms off they have the same dreams and concerns as the rest of the country's citizens, wondering about their mortgages and taxes. Will their favourite team make the playoffs? Planning for their children’s future. They do however share a bond which unfortunately despite our numerous attempts to explain it to you here, you seem incapable of understanding, and that is your loss. 

And yes it is time for you to leave.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Valcartier 2007: What about the unanimous extension last September of the ISAF mission by the UN Security Council?  It certainly was no tool of the US regarding Iraq.  And surely Canada should take heed of the UNSC?
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8826.doc.htm

Even the _Toronto Star_, in its own editorial today, gets things right:

Giving Afghans a chance
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/227712



> ...
> Canada has provided 2,500 troops and a $1.2 billion aid package to help the Afghan people emerge from decades of foreign occupation, civil war and, in recent years, Taliban rule. Every extra day that President Hamid Karzai's democratically elected government is given to affirm its authority is a day of hope for the Afghan people.
> 
> Canadian troops are striving to buy Afghan democrats time by preventing extremists, who want to topple the government and turn Afghanistan back into a launch pad for terror attacks, from regrouping.
> 
> Despite Afghanistan's desperate poverty and social chaos, the Afghan army and police are slowly growing stronger. Girls go to school in many areas. Communities rebuild roads, medical clinics, water systems, hydro lines and other basics. Kids can fly kites again. While the Taliban will not fade completely from the scene, their insurgency has been disrupted. They have been reduced to intimidating small villages, planting bombs and making videos in the desert.
> 
> Here at home, pressure may be building to pull Canadian forces from Kandahar when their current combat stint draws to a close late next year. At that time, Parliament will be right to debate thoroughly whether to extend the mission beyond early 2009, taking into consideration such issues as whether Karzai is making sufficient progress and whether Canadian aid is getting to those who need it most.
> 
> But on the dusty back roads, Canada's troops can take pride in knowing that the nation honours them for serving in a decent cause, giving Afghans a chance to build a better future.



And the military situation may be rather better than you think--even the Taliban seem to think so:

Canadians in action in Afstan/Taliban's terrorist tactics
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/06/canadians-in-action-in-afstantalibans.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Greymatters

Ah, man...I finally have time to make a decent reply to V2007 and about 8 pages have been added since then...  all my comments would be redundant. 

Good read though - there is a demonstrated difference between V2007 and NIMN.  No loss with departure of NIMN.


----------



## DaveTee

WARNING: The following paragraph is silly:

I  was thinking about this debate this morning. I thought maybe if we put in simpler terms it will be easier to see why those who support the mission do so.
Let's say you live in a nice neighborhood. You drive a BMW, go to the gym and have big biceps. You know a kid called Afa Ghani. He's poorer then you and less educated, but has a strong will and a good sense of humour. You think he's a nice fella. Then this kid called T. Ali Ban beats him up and eggs up his house. Do you go and kick T. Ali Ban's ass and then never check with Afa Ghani again? Hell no! Your going to go see him again to make sure he's ok, maybe walk him to school or help him paint his house. 

I know it's silly...but can we not apply what we would do as good natured humans to a world context? Can we not help the Afghans rebuild their country, without people feeling that we're only there for our own motives? 

Please note: I am not a soldier or a member of the CF (Yet). I support the war in Afghanistan though, and this is just my opinion as a limited observer. I'm sure CF personnel who have served in Afghanistan can explain much better than I, yet I just thought I'd take a stab at it.


----------



## Greymatters

Hmmm....  no. Simpler is preferred, but your example doesnt demonstrate the severity of violence being suffered over there py the general public at the hands of fundamentalist and criminal elements.  Think more in terms of "this guy and his gang shot up our house, and then, etc...


----------



## xena

Yeah, but you have to admit, it's a really good stab at it by a civvy.  Don't you think?


----------



## DaveTee

Greymatter I know the violence is much worse, I was just trying to paint in a day to day setting. Basically just to prove that if someone told you not to help Afa Ghani from getting his ass beat everyday, you'd think they were a little strange lol. But feel free to sub in egg for RPG and machine gun, and paint for sandbag.   

Thanks xena.


----------



## Danjanou

It’s a good stab at an analogy yes but not quite there. I also would not put Canada in the body builder, BMW owner category as far as nations states go. It may be nice but we ain’t there. I think we’re more the Honda Civic and occasionally go jogging before swimsuit season type.

The general idea is true though, this is not rocket science. If you see an injustice or wrongness being committed do you not have a moral obligation, not a right, an obligation to try and right it. What applies at the individual personal level also holds true in the larger global community. FDR's famous "garden house" statement to explain Lend Lease to the US public prior to the US entry in the Second World War holds true, it's simplistic yes but true.

There was a post on the forums earlier today re a recent incident on the Montreal Subway system where transit employees did not intervene in an incident where a man was physically assaulting a woman. The excuses reasons given were interesting “not our job”  “too busy” and sometime about “union rules” as I remember it.

To me that is a basic breakdown at the lowest level of our society. I’m not necessarily advocating vigilante justice here with the transit employees actively intervening, although two were supposedly security guards so one would presume they have the skills sets to do so, but to say you’re too busy to even dial 911. Come on give me a break.

What applies to us a society applies at all levels. Whether it is intervening as individuals to stop a crime, or as a nation choosing to help another nation in it’s time of need, and who incidentally cried out for that help.


----------



## xena

DaveTee said:
			
		

> Thanks xena.



I said it was a good try.  Not perfect.  Don't let it go to your head.   

If/when you get to Basic, you'll find out that your absolute best is never good enough!  But there's more about that on other threads.

Back to the regularly scheduled debate...


----------



## DaveTee

hahaha I won't, I realize it was far from perfect! Just thought it would illustrate the point that Danjanou made much clearer. We (the more fortunate countries) do have an obligation to help those who need it. This isn't colonialism or "white man's burden" as was previously stated. It's just being a good citizen on a world scale.

Also...when I get to basic...my opinions go in the backburner lol. But I think I've got about a year to let them out. I should be all out of things to say by then.  

EDITED SPELLING


----------



## RangerRay

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why is it so hard for our enlightened friends above to understand this??
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/227225
> EDITORIAL
> TheStar.com - comment - Aid won't work without arms



Qu'est-ce que hell?  Did I suddenly fall into some kind of wormhole and end up in Bizarroland where the RED STAR is writing this?  

Or is the fog lifting?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

> I'm sorry, but maybe if you stopped saying "Its coming, its coming!" and actually deliver it (has many days has it been?) people wouldn't continuously ask for it.  And to be honest, your posts feel like a lot of vague promises but little substance.



Maybe V2007 is actually made up of Lieberal party members?   ;D

Funny, none of my earlier comments were addressed by these guys.  That suggests that they will be looking to provoke a fight, probably to show what a bunch of mindless, brainwashed killbots the CF are.  
Anyone who is at the parade keep a heads up.  If these clowns can't get the violence going with verbal crap, watch out for things like sling shots, rocks or noxious gas bombs.  It wouldn't surprise me to see them trying to walk through the ranks and try to disrupt the parade either.  Hopefully, the local police will be swift and harsh in taking them out of the mix.  
Best wishes to all our members in the parade today.  The rest of us are with you.


----------



## RatCatcher

I was at the Allouettes game last night and I can give one compliment to V2007, they were quite respectful in their protest.  They tried to give the front rank a copy of the letter (I think, I didn't take one although a couple people did out politeness... or they needed paper to spit their gum onto.»).  

We received an overwhelming welcome into the stadium and many of us received claps on the back from Als partisans. My hats off to the allouettes organization and their fans!!


----------



## Journeyman

RatCatcher said:
			
		

> *I was at the Allouettes game last night.... *


See the Globe & Mail, Vandoos join Alouettes fans for tailgate party


Shared in accordance...copyright.....please don't kill me lawyers.....appropriate words here.....


----------



## FascistLibertarian

> “Quebeckers whine more, but we're going to do the job better than les Anglais,” said Master Cpl. Tommy Mailloux of the famed Royal 22nd Regiment, known as the Vandoos. “Francophones have a reputation to defend. We're the only French-Canadian regiment.”


thats the kind of spirit that makes the Vandoos great!

Its funny that NIMN made us all wish for the 'good old days' of VC2007


----------



## Bzzliteyr

So, I went to the game last night too.. all I remember is that weird Pmed making a ton of noise and getting thrown out by security... 

Not really.  I only saw one protestor myself, and I don't think he was from "them".  He was an older gentleman who voiced his opinion out loud as we left the parc to march to the stadium.

I shook General Hillier's hand last AND I kissed a Toronto Argonaut, which is a funny story I'll tell later on...


----------



## Greymatters

FascistLibertarian said:
			
		

> ... Its funny that NIMN made us all wish for the 'good old days' of VC2007





A convert!  Someone get him!

 ;D

JK, I think they are busy with their extracurricular activities at the moment...


----------



## GAP

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> So, I went to the game last night too.. all I remember is that weird Pmed making a ton of noise and getting thrown out by security...
> 
> Not really.  I only saw one protestor myself, and I don't think he was from "them".  He was an older gentleman who voiced his opinion out loud as we left the parc to march to the stadium.
> 
> I shook General Hillier's hand last AND I kissed a Toronto Argonaut, which is a funny story I'll tell later on...



? ? ?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Watched a video clip on CTV about the “party” The reporter on the ground seemed decent, but the announcer seemed miffed that there was no massive protest about the party.


----------



## Flip

Dave!


> I know it's silly...but can we not apply what we would do as good natured humans to a world context? Can we not help the Afghans rebuild their country, without people feeling that we're only there for our own motives?



What you have described in your analogy is called Values based foreign policy.
That's fine.............but,

We do have a national interest motive as well. 
If T. and his cronies succeed - then we have more "gangstas" in our "hood"
More trouble later on.

All in all - the fewer Islamofascist states exist , the better (for all humanity).

GodSpeed and Good luck to the VanDoos!


----------



## RatCatcher

Buzz...at least you didnt kiss the general! Did you notice that the general didn't take part in the "Military started" Wave!!!


----------



## Etienne

Was he on the Jumbotron side ? cause we were the ones starting the waves... the other side of the field..  :warstory: As for the protesters, haven't seen them, saw some funny looking people holding a red sing, but just a blimp..

Thanks Al's fan for your applause and cheering...

Etienne

P.S.   Go Argos !  ;D


----------



## DaveTee

Flip,
Yes I know we have a vested interest in the stability of all states... (values based foreign policy - i knew there was a word for it somewhere lol was looking for it couldn't recall)
The point I was really trying to make is that morally, we should be there, and we would do the same for a person on an individual basis. 
I know the whole point is far more complex then that, I just felt it was a good argument in it's own way, but again, I'm far from qualified to go into this stuff in detail, at least until I finish my degree and get into the CF.


----------



## Flip

Dave,

It's more than "stability".  The growth of Islamic extremeism is a global
problem.  They are opposed to the "state" as we know it.
Not to mention just about everything else, we in the west care about.
Unchecked, these monsters would have us back in the bronze age
ASAP.

I have a friend who is a former missionary and devout pacifist.
Opposed to war in general - He sees this one as necessary.
I was VERY surprised!  

But you do present a traditional Canadian "value" - I'm all for that. 

I just see this as a bitter pill now to prevent the spread of a
disease later.


----------



## DaveTee

Flip,
I agree with you there. This is a global problem. It happened a few times throughout history that Islamic militants (well more like states) took over huge tracts of land. Like the Moors, who controlled Spain, the Mamelukes who took over a chunk of the middle east and Egypt, and the Ottoman Empire. They were stopped only when confronted with an enemy they couldn't beat. I'm rambling a bit, hopefully I explain this clearly...That was in a time when nations were controlled by monarchs and powerful people, where there wasn't really any media, and public opinion didn't even come to play in any decisions made by the state. So here's where it become somewhat relevant: what do we nowadays, when there's almost no support for any war by the public? How can we stop this culture clash? Does it have to be war, or can peaceful means be used in most cases?

Side Note: I don't claim all Muslims to be a problem, far from it. I knew a few that I worked with who hated Al Quaeda, and I think the overwhelming majority are peaceful, run of the mill people. For the most part, the ones causing these problems are extremists. Also, I do think continued troops in Afghanistan are necessary. And again, I have to state that this is my opinion only.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

So this Argonaut comes of to our end of the stadium before the game start.. Belli is his name.. 78?  And he walks over to the stands as all the Army guys cheer and points to a group of three lovely female officers and gives them the old "come here" move.. they get up and go to the fence for what everyone assumes is a photo op.  He then decides that he'll be kissing each one of them on the cheek as everyone erupts in a great cheer!!  Everyone chuckles and he starts to walk away... I, being the shy guy that I am decide to run down to the fence and (for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination sake) offer my cheek up for a kiss.  He, being a good character comes over and decides to flip the tables on me and points at his cheek.  The pressure from the crowd is immense and I decide to play along as he did and I move in for the peck on the cheek....

He turns his head and plants a big wet one on me!!! Yeah.. he kissed me.. that's it.. 

And that's the story that I will never hear the end of.. thank you.


/end of thread hijack.

Go ALS!!!


----------



## DaveTee

ha ha that's a hilarious story  ;D


----------



## BootStrap

I do think continued troops in Afghanistan are necessary.

exactly it is amazing that people do not realize that you cannot have reconstruction without the area first being pacified of insurgents. Because if we pull out in 2009 (Highly unlikely I think) and just send medical and financial aid then these will be targeted by the insurgents (and then the politicians will complain about this) and we will leave our allies to pick up were we left off further stretching out their resources and manpower, and if we cave in to the will of the antiwar and political groups then all of the sacrifices made by the men and women who have been overseas and the ultimate sacrifice made by those who fell, will all be for nothing (I probably did not word this last part correctly, so If anyone is offended, I apologize).

Also it sickens me that these people will even think about demonstrating against the soldiers. If you are against the war, that's fine, that is the beauty of a democracy where any idiot can have any opinion that he wants and not worry about being stoned, beheaded/hanged, mutilated...etc. But at the very least show some goddammed respect for the soldiers who are going over. 

Godspeed Van Doos 
(By the way, who won the game)


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Montreal won the game.

I'd just like to remind all that it is not just the Vandoos going over, there are Recce troops from 12RBC, Engineers from 5RGC (and others), Tanks from all the regiments and support trades from all over Canada.

Let's go with TF03-07 for the group title, I keep hearing others during parades ("Force Inter-Armée Afghanistan" for one).  I would just like to remind everyone that it may be the 3R22R Battle group but there are many more units that compose it.

See you tonight Val2007!!


----------



## DaveTee

Well, goodluck and godspeed to all of them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention some Highlander with a fluffy bit on his hat.  ;D


----------



## Hawk

Bzzliteyr - I'd give almost anything to have seen that!!!

When is the Vandoo's march today? I live in Manitoba, and I'll miss the late news tonight - could I catch it on the supper-time news (6:00 pm CDT)?


Hawk


----------



## RatCatcher

And 4 PMeds!!! Anyway, Im sure those of us with TF will have updates later tonight and tomorrow after the parade. See you soon V2007! Hawk, the parade is early evening here, might be better off with the late night news. RDI is doing some live coverage(french newsworld) most of the evening.


----------



## BootStrap

Right sorry about that, I just keep hearing about the Van Doos.
God Speed to everyone deploying on Task Force 3-07.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

They have already started the media circus from what I can see. Commencing with this morning's announcment from the bigshots.  I suspect there is ample media coverage of this event partly thanks to Valcartier2007 and his friends.  

I think it's great that they Valcartier2007 the media interest in this event and am glad that more Canadians will be exposed to what our soldiers will be doing and they will be able to support us even deeper in regards to the mission we are departing on...Oops, I bet that's not what Val2007 expected.  Oh well, you win a few you lose a few.


----------



## Greymatters

I think that all this medis hype is a bit of 'blowback' for the VC2007 gang.  They intended to gain media attention for themselves, and arouse the frenzy of anti-war activitis across the country, but they are actually drawing attention to the CF, and a lot of support for the CF, from those who would otherwise not have noticed...


----------



## RatCatcher

Well ladies and gentlemen, it was a great parade, longer than normal speeches however the streets were filled with.... wait for it.... Supporters  . One small group of protesters that I saw... got drowned out by a fellow soldier with a Harley (Vroom Vs Voice.... Vroom takes it!) 

A word to the people of Qc , Thank you for a wonderfule parade through the streets.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Well, that was VERY uneventful.

We did our parade inside the palais de congres, then proceeded to march outside to the streets of Quebec.  We were all anticipating the protestors but did not see hide nor hair of them the whole parade route.  Oops, that's not correct.  I saw four people that looked like potential protestors on the parade route, one of which with a hockey stick in their hand.  And there was the drunk guy with a paper in front of the parliament buildings but I think he was part of his own "group", hehe.  And then the guy/gal with a tambourine near the end of our march who made it a little hard to keep the pace as the band went in the congress building.  I was in the first of 4 "guards" of approximately 500 people (6 deep in ranks).  I didn't feel threatened at any time and we had police walking beside us on the whole length of the route.

The march started with thinly filled sidewalks but they started to fill with cheering spectators by the time we got to the grande allée.  Many votes of encouragement from the local population made me stand taller with pride evertime I heard a cry of support!!  I must have said "merci" a hundred times!!  

We returned to the palais de congres and it's at that time (being the first ones in) that I heard what I think might have been the elusive protestors making noise outside.. they were chanting something but were drowned out by the cheers of support from the spectators!!

Thank you Ville de Quebec for all your support!!


----------



## GAP

Just watching the news on CTV and they are entirely focusing on the protesters, never even showed the military parade. Talk about spin


----------



## Hawk

Glad to hear it went well. I'll catch CTV at 11:00 here.


Hawk


----------



## 1feral1

GAP said:
			
		

> Just watching the news on CTV and they are entirely focusing on the protesters, never even showed the military parade. Talk about spin



See, thats the media. To them its about ratings, warping and twisting truth to appease a minority, artifically influence the 'sheeple' and create controversy. Shame on them. Sure cover th story, show both sides, but at the end of the day, those guys are going to war, their necks literally on the line, and this is the crap coverage they get. Thanks CTV and CBC for your support! AH's! All of them!

Honestly, I find that in very bad taste. To helll with them all! They are not fit to wipe my arse! Sorry, but thats how I feel! 


Wes


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Maybe I was at the wrong parade?  We had Hillier, Dallaire, Lt. Gov of Quebec, Mayor of Quebec City, Gen. Leslie, Ambassador of Afghanistan, Dion, Jean Charest.. I mean, it must have been the same parade.. I guess I must have missed all the "action" outside.


----------



## Yrys

I missed the first part of CTV News. But on "CTV Local News", the military parade and the protesters were in first.
The journalists said that the protesters were outmarch, outnumbers and that military people didn't heard them, because
civils on the street, there to support the military, were cheering to loudly for the potesters to be heard.


----------



## GAP

The clip they showed at 10:35 pm is different than the clip shown at 10:05pm....


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Yeah, the CTV clip I caught had MUCH emphasis on the protestors but if you look, there are no military people present while they(the protestors) are being "spoken" to by the local population...


----------



## Hawk

CTV was pretty slanted, wasn't it? They got close enough on the few protesters that they filled the screen. Quebec has always had a problem with the Military. Some things just don't change even a couple of generations later. 

Nothing on our local news, but then we had a tornado take out 4 houses today and flip a loaded semi into the ditch! We had our own wild day happening in Manitoba!


Hawk


----------



## RangerRay

I would like to know how the "progressives" in this country can stand in 'solidarity' with leftists in the Middle East who want our presence and normalized relations with the West?  I believe that they feel betrayed by their western "comrades".

Fair Dealings, etc. etc.

<a href="http://www.nypost.com/seven/04012007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/betrayed_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm">Betrayed:
How Mideast Progressives Feel About Their Western 'Comrades'</a>


----------



## Bigmac

Well, with all the hype and dialogue on this site I was expecting a much bigger turnout of protestors for the parade. From all accounts it looks like Joseph Bergeron and his small group of protestors were ineffective other than in the twisted media. 

    In the end, the true heart and spirit of the people of Quebec prevailed and their cheers drowned out the protestors. Despite not neccessarily supporting the war in Afghanistan they showed their support for their troops and that speaks volumes to the men and women about to deploy.
  
     To the false media, Joseph Bergeron and his group I say ..... :nana: !!


     To the people of Quebec who came out in force and showed they cared about their troops I applaud and salute you! 


    To the troops preparing to deploy, I know you will make us proud.  Remember and know that you have an entire country supporting you!


----------



## MarkOttawa

A good CP story:

Two solitudes on Afghan cause
Anti-war marchers far outnumbered by supporters, families of troops
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/843066.html



> Antiwar protesters chanting "Canada out of Afghanistan" evaded police Friday night and marched side-by-side for a time with Quebec soldiers as they paraded through the streets in fatigues.
> 
> While a small number of protesters tried to taunt soldiers as they marched in step, the antiwar contingent was far outnumbered by loved ones and supporters of the more than 2,000 members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, who will head to Kandahar this summer.
> 
> "We’re here to support our troops," said Alexis Miller, who was visiting Quebec City from Kamloops, B.C.
> 
> She was not happy with the protesters.
> 
> "I don’t like it at all. You might not agree with the war but you have to support your troops."
> 
> Soldiers from CFB Valcartier, known as the Van Doos, will deploy to Afghanistan en masse for the first time this summer. More than 2,000 Van Doos and a total of 2,500 troops will begin heading to Kandahar in July.
> 
> Before they go, the military is trying to win over the public in the province where opposition to Canada’s role in the war is highest.
> 
> The military parade Friday set the scene for a show down.
> 
> "We’re protesting against the war," Sophie Schoen, one of the organizers, said from one of two school buses full of protesters headed to Quebec City to protest. "We have every right to be in the streets and show our opposition."
> 
> Schoen said politicians and top military brass are the target.
> 
> "Our aim is not a confrontation with the soldiers and their families," she said.
> 
> At the military base in Valcartier, organizers said they were not concerned about the protest.
> 
> "They’re pacifists. Nobody’s scared of pacifists because they’re peaceful people," joked Capt. Mathieu Dufour, spokesman for the base. "We don’t expect any problems."..
> 
> On Friday, Premier Jean Charest, Afghan Ambassador Omar Samad and Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor were among those who honoured the soldiers at a ceremony before the parade.
> 
> With row upon row of soldiers at attention before him, Charest lauded the soldiers for defending liberty and justice.
> 
> "You are the acting arm of Quebec pacifism," Charest said. "You are liberators.
> 
> "The hour has come for the recognition of your courage."
> 
> Samad stressed that the presence of NATO troops in his country is necessary to help rebuild.
> 
> "I ask all Canadians, including those who may have doubts about this mission, to take a look at the alternative," he said. "For millions of women and children and men, there is no alternative."
> 
> But as the military has ramped up its offensive to win the hearts and minds of the public, so have antiwar groups...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## old medic

I rolled my eyes at CBC newsworld a few days ago when they announced on their 
broadcast that the protesters were going to bus in 500 people. 

Interesting to see what the truth really was:  





> two school buses



Also interesting in this article:


> "Our aim is not a confrontation with the soldiers and their families," she said.





> While a small number of protesters tried to taunt soldiers as they marched in step


----------



## George Wallace

In accordance with the Fair Dealings Act:

This from CTV on Sympatico.MSN.ca:



> * sympatico.MSN.ca *
> 
> 
> *Protesters hold rally at parade to honour troops*
> 23/06/2007 8:16:59 AM
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Activists holding coffins and wearing masks protested the Afghanistan mission on Friday, during a military parade in Quebec City to honour soldiers heading for the war-torn country.
> 
> Members of the War on War Coalition said they were criticizing the mission but not the troops, who were members of the Royal 22nd Regiment, popularly known as the Van Doos.
> 
> The soldiers, expecting the protest, tried to confuse the activists by marching in the opposite direction as the parade began. But the activists soon caught up.
> 
> "We want to tell people that we are against sending our troops to Afghanistan, because this war is unjustified," Mathilde Forest-Riviere, spokesperson for the War on War Coalition, told CTV Newsnet.
> 
> Canada's mission in Afghanistan is set to continue until February 2009.
> 
> But NDP Leader Jack Layton said Canada should stop aggressive military action in the war-torn country and move towards political negotiations.
> 
> "It's a war that clearly has no end in sight. It's not improving the lives of the people of Afghanistan -- in fact, what it's doing is building support for the Taliban," Layton told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday.
> 
> "A whole new approach should be underway here, and Canada should be in the forefront of that approach, leading to a cease-fire and a comprehensive peace process."
> 
> NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, speaking in Montreal after he reviewed an honour guard, said military operations are still crucial in Afghanistan.
> 
> "We are in combat because there are, unfortunately, still many people in Afghanistan who do not want to see reconstruction and development, but want to see that nation sliding back into the black hole where it was before 2001," he said.
> 
> ................



More on LINK.


Funny how they had to "wear masks" to protest in public.  Don't they have the courage to stand up and present themselves as members of our society in protest rather than hide incognito behind masks like a criminals skulking in the night?

As for the military trying to fool them by marching the opposite way; what a bunch of garbage.  Parades are planned and follow rather strict formats.  Things like that are not impromptu.  Just shows that there is a journalist somewhere who delights in "Poetic Licence" when writing their articles.


----------



## WLSC

I thing the parade was plan that way but they told the journalist something else...  Even the famillies were not a «the good place» wen the parade begin


----------



## armyvern

Bigmac said:
			
		

> Well, with all the hype and dialogue on this site I was expecting a much bigger turnout of protestors for the parade. From all accounts it looks like Joseph Bergeron and his small group of protestors were ineffective other than in the twisted media.



Bigmac

I've learned not to expect too much from the vocal 'extreme' minority in this country (even in Quebec). Once again, they have proved to be _all talk - no action_.

Same thing with this very thread. Despite the fact that V2007 has promised a response to one of the very first (and by far the most important) question posed to him by site members interested in his groups' point of view. 

After a week and a half, we still have no answer to the big one.

V2007, I'm still eagerly awaiting your response, but just to bring it up again in case you've somehow forgotten this most important issue:

*"What does your group intend to do about the situation in Afghanistan should coalition forces pull out now like your group sanctions?? How are you going to provide security, stability, and a bright future for the good citizens of Afghanistan??"*

Does it really take this long to come up with an answer?? You've had since 2001 to think about it and get your collective shit together. Please don't tell me you have no _plan_, that you have nothing organized ... I'd be very disappointed individual to learn that a person such as you who is advocating and pushing for the CF to leave the overwhelming majority of Afghan citizens to protect themselves from extremists simply because we wear a CF uniform has squat plans in place on how to deal with the aftermath of such a move.

Can't you please post your plan?? You insist our government is so wrong being involved; just what the hell is your solution?? 

You wanted a debate. We're still waiting. Debating is about discussing ones options and their pros and cons. And, despite yourself being asked repeatedly and being given plenty of opportunity, you and your collective have failed to post a single damned option other than "get out now." 

I thank my lucky stars every morning that I'm not a citizen in a country where ideological people, with no plans, such as yourself, decide my fate. I'm thinking that the good citizens of Afghanistan are happy for that too.


----------



## canadianblue

I can understand why some people are against the war because they have non-violent and pacifist inclinations and in the end its their right to oppose government policy. However sometimes it seems that people would like to simply give a huge talk on creating a more peaceful world without looking at the reality of the situation. The fact is we can't keep on doing reconstruction as long as the Taliban is attacking, and things have been slowly but surely improving in Afghanistan. As for many of the "facts" in the letter to the Vandoos, they are all half truths, if you think Afghans were better off under the Taliban you are truly off in lala land.

As for why we're there, look up September 11, 2001. We have a reason for being there, and it can't really be compared with the current conflict in Iraq since that war was based of ficticious reasons, or for that matter it can't be compared to the Vietnam war either. 



> Unless, a terrorist attack happens on Canadian territory... wouldn't that be convenient for war profiteers. Or another "terrorist plot" is uncovered. Or anything that can justifying staying in Afghanistan for years to come.



Its a conspiracy!!! :



> Props to blindspot for picking up on the living-dead reference. Except, Romero's undead were silent. The "Brains" quote is an idiotic recuperation by dilletante exploitation film directors. Everyone knows the dead don't talk.



They do in the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror specials. 

I myself think that I'm fairly progressive [NDP] in my political views, but the anti-war crowd just seems out to lunch everytime they protest or open their mouths with regards to Afghanistan. I especially tire of the whole idea that Canadian soldiers are "imperialistic invaders".


----------



## MarkOttawa

ArmyVern: The answer to your question is easy :



> ...NDP Leader Jack Layton said Canada should stop aggressive military action in the war-torn country and move towards political negotiations.
> 
> "It's a war that clearly has no end in sight. It's not improving the lives of the people of Afghanistan -- in fact, what it's doing is building support for the Taliban," Layton told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Friday.
> 
> "A whole new approach should be underway here, and *Canada should be in the forefront of that approach, leading to a cease-fire and a comprehensive peace process* [emphasis added]."



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## armyvern

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> ArmyVern: The answer to your question is easy:
> 
> Mark Ottawa



I get your sarcasm. 

A cease-fire and peace process with those who would dishonour it the moment the boots are off-the-ground ... does not provide security, stability, electricity and reconstruction.

It only provides the hope for such, but then, so does the current mission ... and at least our collective "we's" are in there actually doing something about it right now, instead of bleating about it.

What is the plan for after the boots are off the ground?? Clearly your quote from the left leads one to believe that they have a plan in place to accomplish all these things with AFTER a cease-fire and pull-out ... Yes?? ... Maybe??

Where the heck is it? And do they have a Plan B for when the non-existant Plan A falls to rat-shit?? You know, other than a Plan B which calls for the troops to go in and evacuate their collective peaceful butts and have to start from scratch again??

Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for the plan from the experts on the left-leaning teeter-totter.


----------



## BootStrap

If Taliban Jack wants to negotiate with the Taliban then he is more than welcome to go over to Afghanistan in person and try to broker a deal with them.
 ;D ;D


----------



## Trogdor

BootStrap said:
			
		

> If Taliban Jack wants to negotiate with the Taliban then he is more than welcome to go over to Afghanistan in person and try to broker a deal with them.
> ;D ;D



Ahmen to that man!


----------



## vonGarvin

Here's the crew to negotiate:


----------



## pbi

I'm in the midst of getting ready to move, so I've been away from the firing line for a couple of days. I just caught back up on the fray. Whew! That was knock-down, drag-out. Although it ended fairly predictably, I'm glad we decided to bring VC2007 and NIMN aboard. It was worth it.

First of all, IMHO there is a great danger in us constantly preaching to the converted around here: your arguments get stale and flabby because nobody seriously challenges them. Kind of like what happened to NIMN, who, like some sort of anarchic mad Rumplestiltskin, stamped his feet and ranted until he burst into flame and self-immolated. IMHO we gave ourselves a good intellectual shot in the arm by taking these folks on, although some of the very able posters who crossed swords with NIMN obviously don't need any help in the brains dept (not even fresh brains..).

Second, I was certain that NIMN would eventually reveal his true inner beliefs about us, despite his initial veneer of civility and patronizing lectures on assorted geopolitical and social issues. We all saw, in the end, exactly how I am sure he and most of his ilk view us soldiery: a collection of weak-willed redneck simpletons, culled from the dregs of society, witlessly doing the bidding of The Dark Ones while braying patriotic dogma. His final denouement was much like the memorable words of Jacques Parizeau who, (handed a defeat by the disobedient electorate), ranted darkly about "money and the ethnic vote..." thus exposing for all to see some of the nastier beliefs that often lie at the basis of extreme political movements. After all, who but the sick poor and stupid would join the Army, right? (Navy and Airforce people be quiet...)

Finally, I think that we got a chance to see how utterly sterile anarchism really is: it offers lots of "antis" to everything under the sun, but has thus far failed to offer any meaningful solution to anything. Perhaps this is why it is a belief system that has never, to the best of my knowledge, manifested itself in any kind of "government" (or is that an oxymoron?) or achieved much at all except provide a rallying banner for disaffected people who don't like "the System" but can't be bothered to do much constructive about it.

I hope that we have established a precedent that in future we don't just sit around muttering about folks who p1ss us off: we go out there and drag 'em into the living room!

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

+1 pbi....very well written.


----------



## MarkOttawa

pbi:    As for "money and the ethnic vote", see these guest-posts at _Daimnation!_:

Dumont and the Jooooooos
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009690.html

Quebec cartoonists agree: "Jews are devious"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009705.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## pbi

On this whole business, I have sometimes heard  that those left-wing folk who shout about "struggling" for "revolution" on behalf of the masses actually don't love the proletariat types at all, but look on them as lumpkins who must be led by their intellectual and political betters, and put out of the way if they become too "reactionary". The masses are useful, but stupid, and certainly not able to find their own way out of their "empty lives" without people like NIMN and Co. to light the way. 

I wonder what VC2007 et al. thought about the reaction at the parade? Would they have viewed it as a success?

Cheers


----------



## 1feral1

pbi said:
			
		

> I wonder what VC2007 et al. thought about the reaction at the parade? Would they have viewed it as a success?



In their own twisted up minds, I beleive they'll say yes, they got national publicity and made aware of, regardless of the outcome, and thats what counts to them. 

Personally, I find them a national embarrassment. 

Although I don't agree with what they are doing, I fully defend their right to do it. Thats what we fight for!


My 2 bob,

Wes


----------



## MarkOttawa

pbi: It's called Leninism--the vanguard of the proletariat.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/his1b.htm



> Lenin now had an iron grip on what Paul Johnson aptly calls "a small organization of intellectual and sub-intellectual desperadoes, which he could completely dominate." (Modern Times) In other times and places, control of such a band would hardly have sufficed for a small gangland rumble, but as fortune would have it, Lenin had hit upon the right formula for his peculiar historical moment...



And from American Communists today:
http://rwor.org/a/v19/920-29/921/anar3.htm



> Leading the masses to recognize the essential nature of programs and forces which promote such capitalist restoration--and leading them to wage revolutionary struggle against this--is a decisive question in socialist society. And, further, it is crucial to lead the masses to continually revolutionize the party as a crucial aspect of revolutionizing society overall and carrying forward the advance toward communism as part of the world proletarian revolution...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Reccesoldier

PBI, MarkOttawa beat me to it.  "Populists" the world over have, and continue to use the ruse of egalitarian revolution to become tyrants in their own rights.  Don't forget, Uncle Joe, Adolf, Pol, Mao, Fidel and more recently Hugo and Robert all came to power through methods labeled "popular", either by vote, revolution or insurrection.


----------



## Greymatters

Sigh...and the wait continues for VC2007 to return...


----------



## FascistLibertarian

He is reading the board right now  ;D
Shouldnt be long


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Hi folks – we’re back!

It’s not an early morning, but a late night (it’s the St-Jean holiday in Quebec). There are several replies we’d like to make (most likely tomorrow night), but, we thought we’d get back to you about this question:



			
				pbi said:
			
		

> I wonder what VC2007 et al. thought about the reaction at the parade? Would they have viewed it as a success?



Our campaign – as Block the Empire, Guerre à la Guerre and other groups --  includes offering a dissenting point of view from the prevailing government and senior officer chorus about Canada’s role in Afghanistan.

As you know, there is a concerted “charm offensive” organized by the CF and Tories in Quebec to sell the Afghanistan mission (where at least 75% of the population is against the mission, according to recent polls). We feel it’s important to offer another point of view at these CF “psy-ops” on the Quebec population, when possible.

We were present in small numbers at the recent football game at Molson Stadium. About two-dozen of us handed out flyers to fans and soldiers, when possible. (BTW, Larry Smith, senior member of the Conservative Party, is the President of the Alouettes, which explains why they were willing to be part of this transparent PR event in Montreal.) 

We also mobilized this past Friday in Quebec City (as this forum has discussed). Our goal was never to outnumber the soldiers, but to be an effective protest on the streets of Quebec City. Our demo numbered about 1000 people, which we consider to be significant. There were two buses from Montreal (about 100 folks) plus probably another 100 or so that drove their own vehicles to protest, as well as others from all over Quebec. Of course, the majority of folks were from Quebec City itself.

Importantly, at the end or our march (we took St-Jean into Place d'Youville and the Old City), about 500 protesters marched to the parade area. We were alongside the soldier parade for a good 30 minutes; at the end, a portion of our march was within the parade itself for a few minutes. That’s quite symbolic: marching Canadian Forces soldiers divided by banner-waving anti-war protesters, at least for a few minutes.

Despite the hype, on this forum and elsewhere (about violence, rock-throwing, jeering, etc), our demonstration got its point across effectively, in our view.

We didn’t have any beef with the soldiers, who politely either refused to take our flyers (the majority) or were curious and grabbed one (after their parade of course). Many of us had interesting conversations with supporters and family of the Valcartier soldiers too, who willingly took our Open Letter -- http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm -- and other materials (the Open Letter was also postered along the parade route, along with the poster of "Soldiers in their own words" -- http://www.valcartier2007.ca/soldiers.htm).

The media attempts to portray Friday as “protesters versus soldiers”, when our goal was to get a debate going, not just via the media, or through the superficial intermediary of politicians, but also on the streets (maybe something of a novelty for “polite” Canadians).

Our message was also effectively carried by our active media spokespeople, including Joseph Bergeron, Sophie Schoen, Mathilde Forest-Rivière and others. Again, our efforts have been quite public and transparent.

(Many people on this forum have complained about mainstream media coverage of the parade; well, not surprisingly, we have our complaints too, about the superficial coverage of our protest.)

Generally, we’re reasonably satisfied about the success of the recent protests and pickets. Importantly, with our mailout to the Valcartier soldiers, we feel we’ve opened up space for discussion about another important element of the Afghanistan mission debate: the ability, and feasibility, of average soldiers to refuse to participate in a mission they consider to be ill-conceived, or unjust (that's what started this thread in the first place!).

And, to re-iterate, we are not targeting average soldiers and their families for blame (as Joseph Bergeron explained well on the clip that ran on CBC’s national news: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/mov/halton-parade070622.mov). Rather, we’re targeting the politicians and senior officers responsible for a disastrous policy. Two of our slogans on Friday night (especially while we marched alongside the soldier parade) were: "Le problème, c'est pas les soldats, c'est les politiques du Canada" and  "Ramenez l'armée, envoyez le députés" [the slogans don’t sound so great in their English translation, so we’ll just leave them in their original French, which is quite straightforward anyway].

Our recent actions (at the stadium in Montreal, on the streets in Quebec City), build on other mobilizing efforts, such as pickets and protests last fall and this past spring against Hamid Karzai, Stephen Harper and Gordon O’Connor when they each visited Montreal. Moreover, we see our anti-war work as linked to other social justice organizing (which includes working in situations of extreme poverty and conflict).

Anyways, just sharing our overview of some recent events, including the Friday protest and parade.

Again, it’s a late night for us, not an early morning. We’ll get back to you about other stuff early this week. Don’t worry! We’re not going to disappear. We’re here to debate, dialogue, and defend our position, and to get more insights into yours. Just because we’re silent for few days doesn’t mean we’ve disappeared. And, we will answer your questions. You’re a tough bunch (in the good way, kind of), and we’ll definitely get back to you. We’ve provided some lengthy posts already, and we’ll provide some more.

Have a good and safe week all.

-- The Valcartier 2007/Block the Empire Team (English)

-----
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca


----------



## GAP

> And, to re-iterate, we are not targeting average soldiers and their families for blame



Then sending the letters to the families of soldiers did not fall into this category?


----------



## pbi

Valcartier: you said:



> (Many people on this forum have complained about mainstream media coverage of the parade; well, not surprisingly, we have our complaints too, about the superficial coverage of our protest.)



It's very interesting that the Right, the Left (amongst whom I would tend to include your party) and often folks in the Centre complain endlessly and with apparently genuine conviction that the Mainstream Media (MSM) is a totally biased tool of  "The Other". You know:

"The MSM just serves the interests of corporate military-industrial complex and the agenda of the imperialist Israel apologists. They only print bad stuff about us guys on the Left" 
OR​"The MSM is full of left-wing commie pinko drughead freaks who hate the military and everything our society stands for. They only print bad stuff about us guys on the Right " 
OR​"The MSM doesn't bother representing what normal, everyday Canadians think. They sensationalize everything and encourage the weirdo extremists out on the Left and Right by giving them an audience. They just confuse and alienate us guys in the Centre."

So, just who does the media serve, if everybody is pissed off at them?

Cheers


----------



## FascistLibertarian

If your not pissed off at the media, it is probably very biased towards your views already


----------



## Reccesoldier

"The MSM doesn't bother representing what normal, everyday Canadians think. They sensationalize everything and encourage the weirdo extremists out on the Left and Right by giving them an audience. They just confuse and alienate us guys in the Centre."

We have a winner!  ;D


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Valcartier 2007,

Much as this debate has been good, it is getting very close to the time for your group to come up with some answers or this thread, and others like it, will come to a close.

Without an answer to this question your group is nothing but a fart in a windstorm,

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN?


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Hi folks – we’re back!
> ...
> 
> Moreover, we see our anti-war work as linked to other social justice organizing (which includes *working in * situations of extreme poverty and conflict).
> 
> Anyways, just sharing our overview of some recent events, including the Friday protest and parade.
> 
> ....



Can you clarify my bold please?? With the tremendous emphasis that your org has on the current CF mission in Afghanistan, are you saying that you actually have boots-on-the-ground *working in* this situation in Afghanistan right now?? Actual direct factual knowledge of the situation on ground?? If so, why are you forgetting and not talking about the progress that those very Canadian soldiers who you want pulled out are making?? That progress is obvious to anyone who has been on the ground.

Or do you mean "working on" vice "working in??" And speaking of "working on," many of us are still awaiting that answer to the BIG question that you have still failed to provide. Valcartier2007, what exactly is your plan of action for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan should coalition forces leave as you wish them to do? What will you then do about it to ensure that your "peaceful" hopes become a reality??

We've waited long enough. A debate isn't a debate without the details. Let's have them soon please, because for a group that seems to think you have all the answers to solve all the world's problems, you have no answer to the big questions. Just more talk of lesser important things than actual realities. You are falling far short here in providing anything signifcant to any sort of debate. We've heard your spin already, now we want the details and it's about time you provided them.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We were present in small numbers at the recent football game at Molson Stadium. About two-dozen of us handed out flyers to fans and soldiers, when possible. (*BTW, Larry Smith, senior member of the Conservative Party, is the President of the Alouettes, which explains why they were willing to be part of this transparent PR event in Montreal*.)




Just so you know and don't "pick" your facts, once again, not only the Als invited uniformed members in "Support the Troops" night events.  Blue Bombers in Winnipeg did the same thing SEVERAL times last year and I'm sure many other sport teams did the same.  

Max


----------



## DG-41

I actually think there is a place in society for these sorts of protest groups. War is the State-sanctioned killing of people by agents of the State, and so it behooves the State to ensure that this is only done against legitimate targets for the best of reasons.

Furthermore, in a representative democracy, the ultimate overseers of the State are the citizens of the State, so there is a responsibility, if not outright duty, for citizens to examine the conduct of their agents and the reasons for employing them.

Should the reasons for going to war be substandard or poorly justified, or if the conduct of the agents of the State not measure up to the moral standards required of legally-employed agents of the State, then there is a moral obligation for the citizens of the State to protest. It is both right and good for citizens to watchdog our mission and our conduct while employed on that mission.

However, that assumes that the protesters are properly informed on the mission and on the conduct of the mission, and are either reacting to shortfalls in the mission itself or in mission conduct. A protest group that is merely pushing a "war bad!" agenda brings nothing to the debate, offers no value to the citizenry, and is failing its moral duty to the State, its citizens, and its agents.

By that standard then, let's examine Valcartier's Open Letter and see how they measure up:



> For several months you’ve been preparing for your mission to Afghanistan, and you will be leaving shortly for Kandahar. During your training, you’ve been told again and again that your mission is to stabilize Afghanistan, to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, to liberate women, and to establish democracy. We are writing this letter to offer you a dissenting point-of-view about your deployment that we hope will prompt you to reconsider your participation.



So far, so good - except for the phrase "reconsider your participation". To open such a letter and state right in the opening paragraph that the aim is to get soldiers to attempt to "opt out" of a deployment (as if such a thing were even possible) is to display an utter lack of understanding of the military ethos, military ethics, and the sense of military duty. This is a profound lack of understanding of the target audience and defeats the purpose right here - you might as well try and sell pork chops in Saudi Arabia.



> The Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Still, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor -- who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war – recently stated that your presence in Afghanistan is “retribution” for 9-11. [Edmonton Journal, January 21, 2007]



This paragraph shows lack of understanding about the mission - we are not conducting operations against the Afghan people, we are conducting operations against the destabilizing, terrorist agencies operation within Afghanistan, namely the remnants of Al Quada and the Taliban.

Al Quada DID, in fact, attack a Canadian ally (in a horrific manner that deliberately targeted civilians and incorporated them into their weapon systems) and have repeatedly stated that they intend to attack Canada. The Taliban provided them with support and an area to run their training camps; the two groups are allied. To this day, they attack innocent Afghan civilians in an attempt to terrorize them, with the ultimate goal of reasserting their control over the country. They are a legitimate threat to Canada and Canadian interests, and are thus legitimate targets. That they happen to be brutal, repressive barbarians just serves to ice the cake.

This paragraph is ineffective.
    


> The Canadian government defends its involvement in Afghanistan in the name of women’s liberation. However, the Afghani government that you are defending is comprised of warlords who are just as brutal in their treatment of women as the former Taliban regime. In the words of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):
> 
> “The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai and its international guardians, are playing shamelessly with the intolerable suffering of Afghan women and misuse it as their propaganda tool for deceiving the people of the world. They have placed some women into official posts in the government who are favored by the warlords and then proclaim it as symbol of "women's liberation" in the country.” [RAWA Statement on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2007, www.rawa.org]



This paragraph reveals a common problem with protest literature - a marked propensity to see all issues in terms of black and white, with no shades of grey allowed.

Sadly, the real world does not work that way. The ideologies of a society do not turn on a dime; it takes time to effect change.

If the start state is the brutal repression of women made State policy under the Taliban, and the desired end state is for Afghan women to enjoy the same level of freedom that they do in Canada, then the current state is somewhere along that continuum. No soldier or true student of Afghan history will deny that there is much more work to be done, but it is also undeniably true that a lot of good has already been accomplished.

Furthermore, the complaint against "working with warlords" also reveals a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground and an ignorance of history. It may serve you well to read up on the problem of "de-Nazification" during the reconstruction of West Germany after WW2 - how do your rehabilitate a State where all the people in charge were members of a criminally and morally corrupt regime? It turns out that you cannot attempt to weed them all out - do some reading.

So this paragraph is ineffective.
    


> Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes; here are some examples:
> 
> - this past April, US airstrikes killed at least 57 civilians in Herat Province, more than half of who were women and children [International Herald Tribune, May 12 2007];
> - earlier, in Nangarhar Province, another 19 civilians, including an infant, were killed indiscriminately by US troops, who forced journalists to erase their videotapes of the incident [CBC News, March 4, 2007].
> 
> Canadian troops too have been involved in civilian deaths:
> 
> - in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol [CBC News, March 15, 2006];
> - in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed [National Post, August 23, 2006];
> - in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed [CTV News, December 13, 2006];
> - in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar [Canadian Press, February 17, 2007, CBC News, February 17, 2007 and CTV News, February 19, 2007].



This paragraph talks about the killing of civilians by our side, and I think this talking point is spot-on. Yes, we HAVE killed civilians. Not on purpose, and certainly we are doing everything we can to avoid further incidents (as the target audience is well aware) but every time we kill an innocent Afghan civilian, we do the mission harm. It is in everybody's best interests to not kill civilians, and this is an area where I think we could stand improvement.

(as a quick aside, it is worth pointing out that the bad guys are very much aware that the mission is harmed when civilians die, and so they do everything in their power to put civilians in harm's way during their operations - an utterly reprehensible policy.)

But these are NOT "tantamount to war crimes". By the laws of armed conflict, soldiers are allowed to defend themselves, and a civilian killed in legitimate error (usually because he did something threatening, like attempt to run a checkpoint - which in a conflict where the other side does not wear uniforms and actively masquerades as civilians, needs to be taken seriously) is NOT a criminal act. So to tell a soldier that defending himself is criminal is to lie to him.

And the target audience knows that. 

So this paragraph is ineffective.



> The Afghan mission is based on lies. Canada’s military role in Afghanistan – which began in 2001 – is directly linked to George Bush’s “War on Terror”. 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means 2500 more US soldiers in Iraq, despite widespread opposition to that war. The “War on Terror” has been a failure, and has meant less safety and security in the world, particularly for the civilian populations of the Middle East. According to your commander in Afghanistan, Major-General Andrew Leslie: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you." [CBC News, August 8, 2005]



Canadians are not responsible for American foreign policy. That the Americans might leverage Canadian good deeds to further their own "evil" agenda does not invalidate the good being done by Canadians.

This paragraph is also ineffective.



> The “Taliban” was declared defeated back in 2002 by George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, but more than five years later, they’re inexplicably back and stronger than ever. It’s clear that as long as there are foreign forces in Afghanistan, there will be thousands of average Afghans motivated to actively resist those forces. In North America, the mass media brands all opposition to foreign occupation as "Taliban", that dangerously serves to marginalize all Afghani resistance.



Germany, defeated in WW1, was back again a few years later for WW2. An initial defeat does not mean your enemies will not regroup, rearm, and try again.

If anything, this serves to underscore the need for an armed security presence in Afghanistan - because the Taliban have proven that they can and will regroup and rearm, and unless someone is there to oppose them, any attempt at reconstruction will ultimately be torn down once they return.

Again, ineffective.



> Canada’s role in Afghanistan is a trap. It means on-the-ground Canadian soldiers become “cannon-fodder” for the illogical and unjust policies of generals and politicians.
> 
> As armed forces soldiers, you know better than anyone the potential consequences of resisting orders to participate in this mission. But you can refuse to participate in this war. Already, one Canadian reservist has refused to serve in Afghanistan. Daily, US soldiers resist orders to serve in the Middle East, and many have come to Canada to seek refuge.



Several problems here:

The first is that everybody knows that Reservists cannot be compelled to serve overseas, so a Reservist "refusing to serve" is like a hooker refusing to go to church.

Secondly, everybody knows the "Reservist" you are talking about - it's a small Army, we all know each other to some degree. The individual in question failed all his training courses and, once it was obvious that he was unable to serve in any meaningful capacity, made himself out to be a conscientious objector instead. He is a failed human being and a piss-poor example of a soldier. 

Thirdly, Iraq Is Not Afghanistan, and we are not Americans. What the Americans do in response to Iraq has nothing to do with us our our mission.

So, once again, ineffective.

So to sum up, your "Open Letter" displays a complete lack of understanding of your target audience, the goals of the mission, how the mission is being conducted, or the political realities of the situation. It had not a snowball's hope in hell of ever succeeding, which categorizes you and your group as being either good intentioned but hopelessly incompetent, or jingoistic "War Bad!" types fundamentally (and I use that word on purpose) incapable of participating in rational debate.

Allow me to reiterate - I think there is a place for Anti-War groups, anti-war protests, and legitimate critical analysis of the mission and its conduct. Indeed, I feel that there is a duty for citizens who are not inclined to serve in the Forces themselves to perform this analysis and watchdog role. But that being the case, your own attempt is an utter failure, given the gaping flaws in both your analysis and your delivery strategy.

DG


----------



## Yrys

pbi said:
			
		

> So, just who does the media serve, if everybody is pissed off at them?



The intere$t of theirs $hareholders, probably...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Okay.. I am not so sure if I heard right.. but for the last week the media has been openly reporting that the Quebec people do NOT support the mission, *70%* of them.  Why does Val2007 seem to always bend facts for more impact?  It has become 75% in his rebuttal.  How am I supposed to take anything these characters say seriously if they can't avoid twisiting one simple little number??????


----------



## The Bread Guy

Yrys said:
			
		

> The intere$t of theirs $hareholders, probably...



Got it in one guess, Yrys!


----------



## Yrys

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Got it in one guess, Yrys!



Thank you , thank you , /bowing   .


----------



## Trogdor

So I guess Valcartier2007's group is going to continue to avoid the big question then?!

Here it is again.



> If you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?



Maybe their group just generally doesn't have any good alternatives, or perhaps they are okay with the idea of the Taliban coming back into power.


----------



## CdnArtyWife

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> Maybe their group just generally doesn't have any good alternatives, or perhaps they are okay with the idea of the Taliban coming back into power.



B-I-N-G-O!


----------



## PMedMoe

> The Afghan people have never attacked Canada *or* Québec



Since when is Quebec *not* part of Canada?


----------



## Haggis

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Since when is QuebeC *not* part of Canada?



Well up until 1841 they weren't.  Since then, I'm _pretty sure_, they've been included.  Isn't there a hockey team somewhere in Québec called Les Canadiens?

(Edited the year because of MarkOttawa's references, below.  Thanks.)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Haggis: Actually Quebec (along with what is now Ontario) was part of a single province called "Canada" from 1841, as a result of the _Act of Union, 1840_, until the _British North America Act, 1867_.
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006530

The two constituent elements, Canada East and Canada West, had equal representation in a single legislature (this favoured Canada West which had a smaller population in 1841).

In fact, when a larger "Canada" was formed in 1867 it united three (not four as most people think) provinces while at the same time dividing the existing province of Canada.  From the _BNA Act_:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/loireg/p1t1-1.html



> Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom:
> ...
> 3. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those *Three Provinces* [emphasis added] shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
> ...
> 5. Canada shall be divided into Four Provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
> 
> 6. The Parts of the Province of Canada (as it exists at the passing of this Act) which formerly constituted respectively the Provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada shall be *deemed to be severed* [emphasis added], and shall form Two separate Provinces. The Part which formerly constituted the Province of Upper Canada shall constitute the Province of Ontario; and the Part which formerly constituted the Province of Lower Canada shall constitute the Province of Quebec...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Bzzliteyr

You see, now I am starting to learn something.. more than what I can say for the verbal (textual) diarrhea that Val2007 feeds...


----------



## PMedMoe

Thanks for the history and geography lesson.  

It bothers me that they separate them like they are two _totally_ different places (e.g. Canada and Greenland).


----------



## Haggis

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Haggis: Actually Quebec (along with what is now Ontario) was part of a single province called "Canada" from 1841, as a result of the _Act of Union, 1840_, until the _British North America Act, 1867_.
> http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006530



Yeah, yeah, yeah..... :

I fixed my post. In ten years nobody will care because it'll all be given back to the First Nations.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

RecceDG, excellent analysis.  The one point where I might challenge you is on your assumption that this was meant to affect soldiers, upon which you base your assessment that the letter was ineffective.  IF that was the case, then you're right.

But what if the stated objective wasn't the true objective?  What if mailing these letters was no more than a PR stunt, meant only to garner attention?  What if the chance of reaching a disaffected soldier was nothing more than a long-shot potential side-benefit?

If it was a PR stunt, it was quite successful.  And if the true audience wasn't the Canadian Forces, but rather the Canadian public, the errors in the text are far less easy to discern, since most Canadians aren't particularly well-informed about either the mission or the duty and ethic of soldiering.

I'd suggest that if you haven't considered this type of domestic political protest in terms of PSYOP, you should look at the situation again from that perspective.  It may change your conclusions about the protesters' effectiveness, and consequentially about the level of effort that will be required to counter it.


----------



## Greymatters

Youve probably already noticed they use the term 'psyops' in their statments and claim to know how it is used.  The next step, using it with their own materilas, is pretty obvious.


----------



## McG

Now that NIMN's I hate Western Society distraction is over, would V2007 mind please answering the many questions posted?


			
				Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> My single question to the perpetrators of this sad and pointless mailing is if you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> 2.	What should be done in Afghanistan?  Who should do it?
> 
> 3.	What should be done in Iraq?  Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq.  Here I give you the opportunity)
> 
> 4.	What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up?  Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living?  If yes, how?
> 
> 5.	Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence?
> 
> 6.	Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?
> 
> 7.	Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?





			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> So.  Now instead of just leaving it at that, I give you three questions to which I would like to hear your responses:
> 
> 1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there?  And why did you start now?
> 
> 2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
> 
> 3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately.  How will this improve the country?   What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?


Val2007,
If you will not get to answering these, you are wasting our time.  So far, you've stuck to issues on the periphery and ignored what you've found difficult to stand behind.


----------



## McG

I'd also be interested in your thoughts on this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63566.0.html


----------



## Jungle

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Valcartier 2007,
> 
> Much as this debate has been good, it is getting very close to the time for your group to come up with some answers or this thread, and others like it, will come to a close.
> 
> Without an answer to this question your group is nothing but a fart in a windstorm,
> 
> WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN?


We will not be getting an answer. They have no plan, just like there is no debate here; a debate is two-way. The people representing Valc 2007 here are writing, but not reading.
As has been mentionned before, 70% of the population of Québec are opposed to the mission (75% if you ask Valc 2007... is that like the 1000 protesters Friday night, vs the 500 that were reported ??) then why do they feel such a need to convince them ??
They have no intention of answering our questions, they simply want to repeat the same thing over and over, as it makes them feel important, like they are "contributing" something to something... leave them to their dreams. We all know who really makes a difference:



> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT
> (Paris Sorbonne,1910)



People like those represented by Valc 2007 arenot taking any risks; they cannot make mistakes, because they are not doing anything; and they expect perfection from govt organisations and the CF, a perfection they cannot even dream to achieve. We know we make mistakes, and we hate it when they happen. But we learn the lessons from those mistakes, and carry on. SOLDIER ON. This is something these people cannot do: they cannot "carry on" in the face of adversity.
We know, as Winston Churchill said, that "If you're going through hell, keep going" !!
I'm done reading these people.


----------



## Reccesoldier

Ok, we're all beating around the bush, a first I believe for the denizens of this site, so I'll be the first to come out and say it.

Valcartier2007 is a hit and run troll.

His unwillingness inability to respond to the most basic question anyone advocating a pullout from Afghanistan should have formulated an answer to immediately after, if not while, they were contemplating their preferred course of action is a complete and utter crock.  Stringing the members of this site along with tales of long weekends and complaints about work are crap.  Most if not all of us here work, yet apparently only V2007 is busy enough not to answer a simple question.

I am asking the moderators to finally kick this troll to the curb, in spite of what some here believe, he is no better than NIMN, just a more polite version of the same troll.


----------



## armyvern

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ok, we're all beating around the bush, a first I believe for the denizens of this site, so I'll be the first to come out and say it.
> 
> I am asking the moderators to finally kick this troll to the curb, in spite of what some here believe, he is no better than NIMN, just a more polite version of the same troll.



No need for you to ask ...

He's already been given his fair warning by the mod staff here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582425.html#msg582425

It is time that he put up ... or shut up and his next login will determine the outcome. He either answers the questions posed to him as he has promised to do; or he is gone. End of the non-debate.


----------



## DG-41

No, that's way too agressive and paints us in a horrible light. It makes us look like intolerant assholes who punt anybody who doesn't conform to groupthink.

This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.

There is plenty of room for opposing ideas and debate, and it isn't fair to impose any sort of artifical deadline on his answers to questions. Even protestors have lives outside of the Internet.

As long as he remains polite, let him stay.

DG


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Well considering i've had my fair share of run-ins on this site, and what not, I still agree, that THEY should answer the question, instead of just "spouting off" with the rhetoric.

We indulged them early on, and countered they're points, with valid facts and arguments, while they have done nothing but use catch phrases and snappy words like COIN and ROE.  I don't believe that saying "okay, we understand what you are saying about us being there, you want the soldiers out, but, we can all agree that there is a problem over there, and by taking us out of there you're stopping that course of action, what do you suggest we do to help A-stan, so as to not let the Taliban and Al-queda take power again, and enable them to stand on they're own 2 feet".

I posed the question that way, because if their answer is just "SOLIDARITY, and to leave them to figure out they're own crap, its not our problem", well that is not a very progressive course of action.


----------



## Pikache

If these guys fail to produce anything of substance, they'll just fizzle out as more members realize that they are all talk and nothing else.

So, if V2007 and his folks don't produce, well, life keeps going


----------



## zipperhead_cop

RecceDG said:
			
		

> As long as he remains polite, let him stay.



As much as I hate hippies, I have to agree.  
There is always the odd chance that Val2007 bragged off to his (her, their? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





) hemp loving buddies and there is maybe a fence sitter that is just hanging out because they are just a social misfit and want someone to hang out with.  Someone might learn something by accident.  Stranger things have happened.  
Plus, I think it's kind of funny that we can crank out responses in a heart beat, since they come from the heart and from a basis of reality.  They need to assemble the collective, fight over the conch and then agree on a noncommittal fluff answer.  For me, it holds a morbid fascination.  Knowing that you are repeatedly being schooled, but still feeling as though you need to hang in there just to save some sort of face.  
C'mon.  You guys already pulled off the flys wings and one half of it's legs.  Watch it spin in circles now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

zipperhead_cop: And then auger in ;D.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## zipperhead_cop

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> zipperhead_cop: And then auger in ;D.



Shhhh...you're giving away the ending!


----------



## Reccesoldier

RecceDG said:
			
		

> No, that's way too agressive and paints us in a horrible light. It makes us look like intolerant assholes who punt anybody who doesn't conform to groupthink.
> 
> This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.
> 
> There is plenty of room for opposing ideas and debate, and it isn't fair to impose any sort of artifical deadline on his answers to questions. Even protestors have lives outside of the Internet.
> 
> As long as he remains polite, let him stay.
> 
> DG



Obviously I disagree 

32 pages of rebuttal does not an intolerant a$$hole make.  In fact in light of Val2007's refusal to answer any but the simplest of the points raised in opposition to his "beliefs" he fits the description, intent and modus operandi of the Troll to a "T".

We as a community have bent over backwards to ensure that Val2007's viewpoint was heard, and we debated his every point to no avail, not even an answer in most cases.  When he/they did answer there was a consistent lack of supporting evidence and fact, and facts that were presented were dismissed out of hand as "propaganda". Again, the hallmark of a Troll.

It is not the absence of "groupthink" it is the absence of any "think" on Val2007's part.  Except for mouthing leftist/anarchist platitudes and _promising_ to come to the table _next time, I promise pretty pretty please_ with his/their plan and course of action he/they has not even sustained the simplest of arguments.

I absolutely agree there is plenty of room for ideas and debate, too bad Val2007 has not been able to respond in any way to the former or contribute in any tangible way to the latter.  It's like a frustrating and humorless parody of the Monty Python Argument sketch, with Val2007 as John Cleese and the rest of us as Michael Palin.


----------



## armyvern

RecceDG said:
			
		

> This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.



I do?? Gee, I've been doing most of the bans lately and I'll tell you what ... they all deserved them.  

I think V2007s been given plenty of fair opportunity to respond, in fact, much more than any of us mere mortal members would have been given prior to being banned for spamming and trolling the site. 

He's been polite, I'll grant you that. But so have I, and being the redhead that I am ... I am very quickly growing tired of the repeated bullshit spammy posts from him that consist of nothing more than regurgitated twists of the truth, and absolutely ZERO of substance. He has not posted a single idea on what he would do to address the situation. He asked for the debate, and he has failed miserably to produce.

No one else would get away with it here, why the hell should he? There are many threads on this forum where opposing viewpoints and real debate of actual plans (not nonexistent and long-promised plans) occur, even from those on the left who are members of the civilian populace.

Look up "Tamouth" any time you want and his posts. He's my personal favourite and I actually miss him around here. He's not banned. But there is one big difference. Tamouth actually threw in some facts (and lots of opinion) to back up his posts instead of vitriol. And Tamouth had no problem when one of his points of fact was shown to be wrong. He was a big enough man to admit it instead of ignoring it. I have all the respect in the world for people like him even though he drove me batty. 

Ideas and plans I have no problem with. Repeated spinny propaganda, I do. There's the difference. He's got his fair warning. 32 pages later, he's had enough time (they've had enough time is more like it) to come up with something .... anything. It's just not happening. 

His thundering in will certainly not be the fault of anyone who actually contributed to the dialogue in this thread ... it will be due to his own lack of having even the common courtesy to answer the questions posed to him by members of this site, despite the fact that we were polite enough to address his points. Too bad for him because I think their plan would/could have been interesting to say the least. My sympathy clock ran out yesterday ... because today is Monday and I hate Mondays.

And here endeth MY rant.


----------



## Trinity

Valcartier2007

This is what I'm left to believe.

You want Canada out of Afghanistan NOW, don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars.

Yet with no alternative solution for Afghanistan the only conclusion that I can come
up with and I'm sure others might agree with is you just don't care about the people
of Afghanistan.  Your solution is "who cares" IMO (from your lack of response)

In fact, that answer would be beneficial because you can then protest about how America
and her allies invaded a country and then left it in shambles, thus, you could have
it both ways.

Prove me wrong. Out of all the outstanding questions and facts left untouched by you
and your group, answer this question.  What is the alternative plan to Canada not
being in Afghanistan?  That's what I believe the ENTIRE site is waiting to hear.  I think
a week is enough to have come up with a "plausible idea". No one is asking day by day
detailed plans, but a plausible idea.  

Otherwise, sadly, I'm left to believe you don't care about the people of Afghanistan and all your rhetoric 
has been simply to bash the United States simply because you have a hatred for them.


----------



## ClaytonD

I think that it's important to ask yourself if you have actually learned anything from this 32 page argument. When I used to be in the 'anti-war no matter what' crowd, I began to realize that I wouldn't absorb any of the facts or beliefs that came from the other side, I would always just brush other arguments off as wrong, while not actually considering WHY I think they are wrong, just that they are because I am right. Once I realized this, I started to look at both sides of the argument, and started looking at facts and not just plain old leftist opinion pieces. I had quite the transition. 

I think that VC2007 is smart, but he's fallen into the trap of not wanting to admit a flaw gigantic hole in his argument. The best thing in my mind for any debater who is caught with an argument he cant pull a good rebuttal to is to say  "Okay, I admit I don't know/can't argue that point JUST YET, please give me some time to consider it." Spewing different versions of the same thing you said 25 times ago just pisses people off.

All I have learned from VC2007 in his arguments is that he is against the war (For whatever reason), but he can not come up with a proper idea or course of action for when (if) the Canadian troops are pulled out early. His (or their) argument against the war so far is incomplete, which means that he is basically saying, as a representative of the people that are protesting the war, the whole gang of protesters have an incomplete argument against the war. 

I'm babbling now. But that's my take on the debate so far.


----------



## Trooper Hale

ClaytonD, thats really, REALLY well said. My ex-girlfriend was the same in that she was "anti-war no matter what", "They dont want us there", "We're not helping anyone". One of the boys showed her photos of his trip (Canadian bloke, not Australian), she talked to people who'd been over there and one of the Dragoons she met got killed. She did what you said, she made an effort to learn and she came around to some extent. She doesnt support our war in Iraq, but she's very, very supportive of Australia's efforts in Afghanistan and has even gone so far as to say we should be doing more (which we definately should be).
Its all about education and understanding, she's still a left-wing hippy who goes to Greenpeace meeting and hangs out with people who have deckchairs hidden in their hair, but she now has a view point and an understanding that enables her to debate the mission. She's not ignorant. And i think thats whats wrong with a lot of folks out there.


----------



## 1feral1

I PM'd V2007, and as predicted and suspected, I have not heard back a single word. 

I had some fair dinkum questions, which were well pressented. Obviously ignored

Like I said hidden agendas here for sure. 

He was not real, just an attention seeker who demanded an audience. Well he got that didn't he, adn he has made an arse not only of himself, but what he stands for.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Benny

Being 'Anti war' is just another kind of extremism. Your mind is made up without ever even thinking about it.


----------



## ClaytonD

Hale said:
			
		

> ClaytonD, thats really, REALLY well said. My ex-girlfriend was the same in that she was "anti-war no matter what", "They dont want us there", "We're not helping anyone". One of the boys showed her photos of his trip (Canadian bloke, not Australian), she talked to people who'd been over there and one of the Dragoons she met got killed. She did what you said, she made an effort to learn and she came around to some extent. She doesnt support our war in Iraq, but she's very, very supportive of Australia's efforts in Afghanistan and has even gone so far as to say we should be doing more (which we definately should be).
> Its all about education and understanding, she's still a left-wing hippy who goes to Greenpeace meeting and hangs out with people who have deckchairs hidden in their hair, but she now has a view point and an understanding that enables her to debate the mission. She's not ignorant. And *i think thats whats wrong with a lot of folks out there.*



+1 to that. On the bold part, you could say that sometimes it almost isn't entirely the ignorant people's fault that they are ignorant due to conflicting media and people who SOUND convincing like VC2007, but really aren't making up a whole argument.







			
				Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I PM'd V2007, and as predicted and suspected, I have not heard back a single word.
> 
> Like I said hidden agendas here for sure.
> 
> He was not real, just an attention seeker who demanded an audience. Well he got that didn't he, adn he has made an arse not only of himself, but what he stands for.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



+1

He sure did get his audience, 32 pages of it. I think that he has discovered that the posters here have brains, and aren't 'trance-like' zombies, he should at least acknowledge the fact that he doesn't know quite yet the answer to the 'ultimate question' . And although he was polite, he can only ride on that for so long.


----------



## Trooper Hale

Australians unite! While they're all sleeping we should take over! In fact, we are taking over!
Both of you are right though, they follow in the same way that emo kids or punks all dress the same and say the same thing. They dont know what they're protesting, only that they think its cool to do so.


----------



## Benny

Hrmm...We could depress them with an army of emo kids and peaceniks, then take over with our kangaroo cavalry! Victory is assured!


----------



## zipperhead_cop

There's a few Canucks still about!

Okay consider this.  We are keeping things half way stable in A'stan.  VC2007 wants us out yesterday.  What will happen when we (the NATO "we") pull out like that?  The country will go to the crapper.  There will be no government.  No government will be like....

Wait for it....

*ANARCHY!*

Duh.  They are self confessed anarchists.  Of course they want to see things screwed up.  It's all they stand for.   
Just because some of them can eat at the big table and use whole sentences doesn't make them worthy opponents.


----------



## Trooper Hale

That has to be it! You've realised their master scheme! No wonder your a cop, you should be a detective.
Its almost true though isnt it? Like someone said before, they'd love to be able to say that not only is the war stuffed but if we pull out then we've abandoned Afghanistan. Your damned if you do and damned if you dont.
Now back to this Kangaroo Cavalry...they'd be super mine resistant and we call know that they're killers. We could even have mounted Koala's on them, killer attack koalas! I think i talked of that in another thread.


----------



## Michael OLeary

OK, it looks like we're done here for now and this thread is locked.  

Valcartier2007, please start a new thread when and if you have a fully developed plan to present.  Be advised that returning simply to start pounding out the same tired rhetoric without a proposal for Afghanistan after your desired withdrawal will be considered trolling, and your account will be dealt with in accordance with the Conduct Guidelines.


Army.ca Staff


----------



## Valcartier 2007

[So, now this thread refers to the following: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63632/post-582863.html#msg582863 ...

which in turn refers to the following: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352

We indicated clearly that we would answer, but it seems like folks are being somewhat closeminded, by prematurely locking down threads.

Anyways, here's one of our responses, and we hope it doesn't get locked down before we can respond to the various other questions on the original debate and discussion about our Open Letter to the Soldiers of Valcartier (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) which started this whole discussion ...]


Various folks have asked: *“What is the alternative to the current Canadian mission in Afghanistan?”*

The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:

- Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).

- Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.

- Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades. 

- Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.

- De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.

- Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).

- Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).

- Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.

- Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).

(For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)

- Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.


Another related question is: *Would the Taliban “take over” if Canada left? *

Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.

Moreover, it’s a bit a stretch to think that 2500 troops in a vast area of southern Afghanistan, or even upwards of 35,000 NATO troops in the entire country, has “control” of a large, diverse and rugged nation like Afghanistan. Even mainstream military analysts (like RAND) acknowledge that.


Another question asked by several folks on this forum: *Would a civil war result?*

There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.


This post constitutes a general answer to the question: what is the alternative? We have not addressed the neo-colonial underpinnings of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, or even delved into the details of the recent history of Western involvement in Afghanistan (which would expose greed, corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, not some higher calling to “help” Afghans). These are important points, crucial, but usually dismissed on this forum (refer to the responses to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352 )

The alternatives proposed above mean a radical shift, not just in policy, but in worldview, by government and army officials.

While struggling to make that shift happen (that’s what international social movements are all about), on-the-ground soldiers can refuse to participate in the mission. They can refuse to participate in a mission that: 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia; 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians; 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections); 4) cannot succeed even on its own terms, and perpetuates conflict and misery.

Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.


Again, hope this doesn't get heavy-handedly locked down, before we can make more responses to previous questions on the original thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352

---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## Valcartier 2007

This is in reply to MCG's post at http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438, a thread that has subsequently been locked down (despite the fact that many people were waiting on that thread for our responses).

Anyways, we'll just have to reply here:

MCG asks: *1.    Do you understand that Canadian & American forces operate under different rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan?  Do you think this is a relevant fact?
[NOTE: for reasons of operational security, the details of the differences cannot be discussed here.]*


Yes. But Canadian ROE result in civilian death and injury. If those ROE were imposed anywhere, they’d alienate the civilian population. You can see the Canadian ROE in practice in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsO54MQi6es&mode=related&search=


MCG asks: _*2.   What should be done in Afghanistan?  Who should do it?*_

See our recent response on this thread. But one quick (if glib) response: trust progressive Afghans (like the women at RAWA) to decide what should be done. Of course, Afghans should do it, and we should facilitate that, not impose our vision. Importantly, in fighting for genuine alternatives, we should reject the pretence, paternalism and colonialism inherent in questions like "What is your plan for the future of Afghanistan". Of course, it's Afghans that should determine their own future, and not have one imposed from abroad, whether by NATO, or Saudi Arabia.


MCG asks: *3.   What should be done in Iraq?  Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq.  Here I give you the opportunity)
*

The US and all other foreign forces should get out. Iraqis should have full control of their oil resources and profits (not Western companies). The US should pay reparations to Iraqis. We should trust Iraqis of good will, across sectarian and ethnic lines, to decide how they want to go forward in their communities. Western occupation only worsens the situation. The alternative is still difficult, but tangibly better.

Do you acknowledge that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 is perhaps one of the greatest military and foreign policy blunders in history? And that the invasion and occupation has made the world considerably less safe? And that the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians as a result of this invasion and occupation (not to mention millions of refugees, as well as the thousands that died due to the economic embargo in the decade before the war) are war crimes? If so, shouldn’t the architects of that crime be tried and punished?


MCG asks: _*4.   What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up?  Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living?  If yes, how?
*_

Who talked about “giving up”? That’s posturing. A substantive and radical change in how we, the West, engage with Afghanistan is not giving up. De-linking geunine, Afghan-determined, reconstruction and development from NATO-led counter-insurgency is not “giving up”.

There would be no “sudden” better standard of living. But if allowed self-determination, over time, Afghans would certain have better lives.


MCG asks: _*5.   Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence? *_

According the most recent news reports, and NATO admissions, there has been a troubling and striking increase in civilian deaths. US airstrikes killed more than 3000 civilians in the early stages of Enduring Freedom. Yes, fewer Afghan civilians would be killed if the NATO counter-insurgency were to end.


MCG asks: _*6.   Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?*_

There is currently a civil war, that’s lasted for almost three decades. We have taken a side, with Karzai and certain warlords, against the Taliban, but also against average Afghans who don’t want to have to choose between either side. RAWA (www.rawa.org) has made this clear (and people on this forum have refused to engage their arguments, which argues that Western governments are complicit in keeping anti-women fundamentalist warlords in power).


MCG asks: _*7.	Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?
*_

If the Canadian mission in Afghanistan was based on genuine reconstruction and development, and not counter-insurgency (using PRT programs as cynical psy-ops on the civilian population), then the mission would be radically different. Are you comparing Bosnian “peacekeeping” to the current mission? Other posts on the previous (locked-down) thread have made a clear distinction, as do we.


Readers might be interested in a previous reply to MCG here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578953.html#msg578953

---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## vonGarvin

Valcartier 2007
I disagree with your point of view.  That being said, I think that the end state for this war* we would both agree *should* be a more stable Afghanistan, not "Canada-East".  (*which is being lost only in the minds of defeatists, who generally have no idea of what is going on "on the ground".  They are fed stories, from all sides, that rarely reflect the truth.  By this I mean that neither Main Stream Media reports nor official NATO communiques tell all).
There are fundamental flaws in your argument (eg: that Karzai is a US puppet.  I mean, how often do puppets lash out at their masters?  Also, he was elected by Afghans, not appointed by Haliburtun, or whatever).  I will not go through what I see as flaws in your argument for the very reason that regardless of what I say about your premises, you will maintain your conclusion: Canada out!  Now!

I would rather you consider this UN Mandated Mission from an internationalist point of view.  Since I am indeed in the army with years of experience and yet I don't have the expertise to run a strategic level counterinsurgency operation, I can only assume that you don't have that expertise as well.  So, the nit-picking details of whether or not we should have Canadians running around "over there" without body armour or armoured vehicles, I would rather ask that you seek out all the information that you can regarding Southern Afghanistan.  

I would offer that Canada is in the good fight.  Mistakes have and will continue to be made.  In the end, I don't judge the morality of something based on its consequences, nor the act itself, but rather the motivation behind that act (see: Aristotle).  In the case of Afghanistan, NATO is, I believe, acting on good faith and with good intentions.  The fact that Canadians have to go over there and kill people who would kill us is tragic, but necessary.  Just as we had to bomb Caen in France in 1944, causing the deaths of hundreds of French Civilians, in the end, it was just.  In Afghanistan, we are making every possible effort to avoid such deaths.

In the end, I fear that Anti-Americanism may be the driving force behind much of the "Anti-Afghanistan" movement in Canada.  We don't have Iraq to protest, so let us pick on Afghanistan.  I would offer that you go south, visit with the Left in the US, and see that they are indeed in the same position as I (in the most part) about Afghanistan: it is a just war.


I look forward to your reply.

Cheers

(Edited for clarity and to keep points relevant)


----------



## Valcartier 2007

GreyMatter asked questions here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717

We replied to bulk of GreyMatter’s post here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635

And here are the rest of the responses:

GreyMatter asks: _*1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there?  And why did you start now?
*_

We oppose all Canadian military involvement, not just the VanDoos, and not just Quebec involvement. We’re not nationalists (either Canadian or Québecois). But, the Valcartier base’s proximity to us, in Quebec, prodded us to act more tangibly in our local context.

We didn’t just “start now”. We’ve been active against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan since 2002. Some of us have been protesting since October 2001 (when “Operation Enduring Freedom” was announced). Recently, we have picketed Hamid Karzai, Gordon O’Connor and Stephen Harper when each of them visited Montreal.


GreyMatter asks:_* 2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
*_
There is a humanitarian crisis in the Sudan, a genocide. If intervention (non-imperialist intervention) can stop killing, then it should happen. As we’ve stated before, we’re not all pacifists.

BTW, many of our members have been active in defending the rights of Sudanese refugees (one important aspect of this crisis). Some of us were present in Ottawa, in January 2006, after the Cairo Massacre, alongside Sudanese refugees (including Darfur refugees) residing in Canada. The photos of that demo, with explanatory captions, are here: http://photos.cmaq.net/v/SudaneseDemoinOttawa/ (click on the photos for captions)


GreyMatter asks:_* 3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately.  How will this improve the country?   What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?
*_
We’ve addressed that question here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582874.html#msg582874

with a prelude here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579743.html#msg579743

---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
(non-imperialist intervention) = no US involvement

Nice to see Para's Jan Brady Syndrome Theory is alive and well.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

This is in response to Olga Chekhova's post here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579784.html#msg579784


Olga Chekhova writes: _*1)  Rashid's book is an excellant study of the emergence of the Taliban. *_

Agreed.


Olga Chekhova writes:_* (2)  Don't cherry pick from your sources.  Rashid's book discusses American involvement with the Taliban but it also discusses American efforts to curtail the persecution of women and to advance human rights by the late 1990s.  It also notes that the Taliban first emerged without prodding of the US and that Taliban would have flourished without American involvement AND  that the Taliban regularly flaunted their 'power' in the American faces and totally rejected most American efforts to influence the Taliban government.   Moreover, America ultimately abandoned the Taliban because they could not maintain any influence over the Taliban.  This point is quite clear in Rashid's work.*_

US (and Saudi, and Pakistani) funding of fundamentalist warlords and fighters in the 1980s resulted in the “blowback” of the Taliban. This was acknowledged in the 1990s, before 9-11. The term “blowback” (coined by the CIA) implies the lack of control over something you helped get going in the first place. There's no cherry-picking here. We're making a clear, direct point.


Olga Chekhova writes: _*(3)  The mere suggestion that the elimination of progressive, secular movements in Afghanistan was not a DIRECT result of the Taliban is laughable.  The Americans had so little control over the Taliban on this issue that their responsibility for this would be tangential at best.  
*_

Warlords funded by the US (and Saudis, and Pakistanis) in the 1980s, long before the formal emergence of the Taliban, were crucial in eliminating and marginalizing progressive, secular movements. This is clearly outlined in Rashid’s book. And yes, the Taliban continued, and continue, in that tradition.



Olga Chekhova writes: _*(3)  Either you have selectively read or selectively cited from Rashid's work.  Your reliance on his work for your position is quite academically sketchy.  He is very clear:  the Taliban regularly thumbed their collective noses at the Americans.*_

As shown in the above responses, there is no cherry-picking involved. We’ve drawn legitimate conclusions from Rashid’s well-researched book.


Olga Chekhova writes: _*I would ask you to contemplate one point as you talk about the dangers of an 'ahistorical' assessment of our involvement in Afghanistan:  Is there a difference between the Taliban of the 1990s and the Taliban of 2007?  Would we see a 'kindler and gentler' Taliban if we left them to reassume power in Afghanistan?  Or would they do as they say they intend to do -- that is, revert, to a violent anti-Western, anti-women form of government? *_

There are both continuities in the Taliban of the 1990s and today, and differences. We don’t have any illusions about the Taliban remaining a patriarchal, violent, anti-woman force (like many of the jehadis currently in the Karzai government). We oppose both, unlike the Canadian Forces that is allied (and complicit) with one gang of warlords. 

Another important point: the term “Taliban” is often used synonymously for any insurgent opposition to foreign occupation, and that’s a fatal error. Some insurgents are hardcore Taliban, others are allies, and others are simply Pashtun opponents with no clear alliance with the Taliban. The failure to recognize those nuances is disastrous. And it has been disastrous (for Afghan civilians).

---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## HItorMiss

Val you do understand that the Sudanes(Sp?) has refused international intervention in it's affairs and for any country or coalition of countries to intervene without the host governments consent often referred to as an "INVASION". So in essence we would invade a foreign nation with military assets and by doing so we would complicate the issue that much more.

This is where your premise on foreign matters falls short, Afghanistan wants us (NATO) in their country, in fact any Afghan person I have met and there are hundreds at this point has praised Canada for it's presence in their country. I think you need to spend more time studying the positive affects of the mission vice all the time on complaining about it. Since all the information you have is secondary source at best and usually skewed to your own thought process I think perhaps your entire argument fails in it's mission. Perhaps if your so inclined to want to help solve the problems of Afghanistan you ( as in all your members) should and could easily volunteer to go over to Afghanistan as part of an internationally recognized NGO and see first hand how the mission goes and how best you would then improve it.

If you are truly committed to making Afghanistan a better more stable country you would persue this course. I sincerely doubt any of you are however as most of people I have ever met that involve themselves with groups such as your are all about the talk and the complaining and never ever take any real action that would in anyway help anything along. It's all well and good to sit in nice safe Canada and sip your Half Caff No Foam Chai Latte and discuss "Imperial" US Policy and how Canada is just playing lap dog to it's southern Neighbour. But it's entirely another to up and decide to travel to this war ravaged nation and put yourself in danger for the betterment of Humanity.


EDIT: To correct an important typo... "Me fail English? Thats Unpossible!


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Okay.. I am not so sure if I heard right.. but for the last week the media has been openly reporting that the Quebec people do NOT support the mission, *70%* of them.  Why does Val2007 seem to always bend facts for more impact?  It has become 75% in his rebuttal.  How am I supposed to take anything these characters say seriously if they can't avoid twisiting one simple little number??????



We're not twisting numbers. Just writing late at night, and made a typo. Do folks here sometimes make typos, or get a little sloppy?

To be clear: the number is 70%, not 75%. We stand corrected, but there was no intention to mislead.

More importantly, our argument is not based on opinion polls or popularity. We have not cited the unpopularity of the mission in Quebec as a reason to leave Afghanistan. That's an argument for politicians, not us. We'll stick to the arguments (and grassroots organizing, campaigning and mobilizing).

---
VALCARTIER 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## vonGarvin

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We're not twisting numbers. Just writing late at night, and made a typo. Do folks here sometimes make typos, or get a little sloppy?
> 
> To be clear: the number is 70%, not 75%. We stand corrected, but there was no intention to mislead.



Fair enough.  Been there, done that.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> More importantly, our argument is not based on opinion polls or popularity. We have not cited the unpopularity of the mission in Quebec as a reason to leave Afghanistan. That's an argument for politicians, not us. We'll stick to the arguments (and grassroots organizing, campaigning and mobilizing).
> 
> ---
> VALCARTIER 2007
> www.valcartier2007.ca


I would offer that the inclusion of the stats (typo notwithstanding) implies its importance and/or relevance.  I'm sure we can both agree that there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> I would offer that the inclusion of the stats (typo notwithstanding) implies its importance and/or relevance.  I'm sure we can both agree that there are Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.



What we wrote (correcting the stat) was:_ "there is a concerted “charm offensive” organized by the CF and Tories in Quebec to sell the Afghanistan mission (where at least 70% of the population is against the mission, according to recent polls)._

The relevance of the stat is that the clear unpopularity of the Afghan mission in Quebec (according to polls) has prodded the Conservatives and the CF to ratchet up their "charm offensive" to sell the mission here.

Again, we're making arguments, not relying on polls.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

> Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.




Ok you better explain yourself by what you mean for decades? After the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the west basically left Afghanistan alone to determine it’s on fate (which seems to be your choice as well). It wasn’t until 2001 that the US & the west began to take a real interest in the area. We tried leaving them alone, it didn’t work. Now your solution is to throw huge amount of funds at them without any real control. Where are these funds coming from? Shall we reduce aid elsewhere?


-





> Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.


2 problems, many of the donor nations made substantial pledges which they never honoured. How do plan to force them to? Also funding is sitting in banks not being used because the NGO’s won’t go out into the area. The only aid really getting into the contested areas is through the PRT’s which you wish to cut off. Are you going to be the judge of who gets the aid? How are you going to enforce your choices? Are you going to suspend the current Afghan government to do so? 

As the Taliban have been quite clear that their goal is put in place a strict Islamic state into the NWF and Afghanistan. Can you explain why they should sit back and allow western based NGO’s subvert their process? Did you forget how they treated NGO’s during their regime? As far as they are concerned you are just as much their enemy as I am. 

I am sure you are aware of the damaging nature of to much aid? My Muslim sister in-law worked in Aceh before and after the tsunami, her opinion of most NGO’s went into the toilet based on their performance there. 

Would it be nice to get rid of the warlords and poppies? Absolutely, are you willing to go into a fullscale war to do so? It will mean mobilizing the Canadian population, possibly instituting a draft and fighting a war as least as big as Korea.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

My mistake.. I never realized how close the "5" and "0" keys were on the keyboard....


----------



## vonGarvin

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> The relevance of the stat is that the clear unpopularity of the Afghan mission in Quebec (according to polls) has prodded the Conservatives and the CF to ratchet up their "charm offensive" to sell the mission here.
> Again, we're making arguments, not relying on polls.


Fair enough.  Having said that, even in such a clear-cut Just War as World War Two, the government still produced the "Why We Fight" type of "charm offensives".  One (not you, but others) cannot criticise the government for not 'explaining' the war and turn around complain when they do.  I am not certain if you've criticised the government (incumbent or former) for lack of policy-explanation, so please don't take this as an attack against you or yours, but rather the likes of those who would


Cheers


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> This is in response to Olga Chekhova's post here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579784.html#msg579784
> 
> ...
> 
> There are both continuities in the Taliban of the 1990s and today, and differences. We don’t have any illusions about the Taliban remaining a patriarchal, violent, anti-woman force (like many of the jehadis currently in the Karzai government). We oppose both, unlike the Canadian Forces that is allied (and complicit) with one gang of warlords.
> 
> Another important point: the term “Taliban” is often used synonymously for any insurgent opposition to foreign occupation, and that’s a fatal error. Some insurgents are hardcore Taliban, others are allies, and others are simply Pashtun opponents with no clear alliance with the Taliban. The failure to recognize those nuances is disastrous. And it has been disastrous (for Afghan civilians).
> 
> ---
> VALCARTIER 2007
> www.valcartier2007.ca



The CF that is complicit with with that democratically elected government of Afghanistan?? The same CF that operates under a UN madate within that country we were invited into?? It is very clear that you don't like democracy. You repeatedly call us complicit and occupiers despite the actualities and despite the provision to you of the clear references and mandates for which we serve in that nation. Despite the fact that the elections were broadcast worldwide on TV, and the fact that the people of Afghanistan spoke with their votes, you seem to want to ignore all of that because it does not suit your angle and take on the imperialistic American Empire you wish to believe exists south of our very own border here at home.

Yet, you condemn us as complicit occupiers when we were invited in by those very peoples, the overwhelming majority of whom support us and want us to remain there continuing with the good things we do. In the meantime ... you are contradicting your own morals on "occupation" by sanctioning the deployment of the CF into the Sudan, without a mandate from the UN and especially without any desire by that sovereign nation to have us there. You choose to call it genocide, so that makes it OK to bend the rules for you. What the hell do you think the female population was experiencing under the Taliban?? Or does that not count because it didn't get broadcast on worldwide television and happen on such a grand scale?? And the simple plain facts are ... THAT was occurring prior to 2001.

Why then, if you can justify the Sudan, can you not justify the US in Iraq? No, they weren't invited in there either (just like the Sudan) but heck, I'd argue there are many Kurds amongst other ethnic groups who were experiencing the wilful rampant murder of their peoples by the Hussein government dictatorship. By your own measurements of standards for intervention, the US should have been in Iraq, and so should Canada have been ... before September 11th 2001. 

How absolutely hypocritical of you. Are Afghan women/moderates not worth as much to you as the Sudanese? Are not the Kurds? Yet you continue to profess you speak for the oppressed in the world. I see that's only a priority when it's convenient for you or when it suits your anti-US agenda..

For me, this all boils down to your group being interested in nothing more than opposing any American, and that is your goal.

And you are going to sit here and tell us the difference between an insurgent and the Taliban?? We know the difference. And that is exactly why we are currently in Afghanistan my friend. You see that very Taliban government dictatorship harboured and sectioned the actions of both insurgents and terrorists after 9/11. They are different groups, but all all 3 are most certainly the enemy.


----------



## FascistLibertarian

Yes the US should pull all the troops of Iraq right away. That will make everything of so much better.  :
Why deal with what is happening now when you can blast past mistakes.

These guys would have had us pull out of ww2 after Dieppe and Hong Kong . :


----------



## Staff Weenie

Vern - you don't know how right your statements are.

When I was an Undergrad, I was a long-haired protester too. I was even 'President' (or El Presidente...) of an on-campus group that worked for freedoms in El Salvador. Eventually, I became extremely disillusioned with all these groups, because once you strip away the cover of rabid anti-Americanism, or even thinly cloaked antisemitism, there's nothing left of any value.

These people protest and protest. They fight like pit-bulls to blame the Americans (or Jews, or American Jews) for everything.....and yet they cannot propose any viable options. 

They have no real answers.

And all the reasoning and logic we can apply to address their issues only fuels the fire. Being 'cut down' by the soldier or policeman is their Red Badge of Courage. They can retreat to their academic Ivory Tower and play themselves the hero in the Grad Students Pub. 'Look at me, I'm the man now, somebody buy me a drink'

I know this, as many years ago it was me, bragging about how I faced down the 'fascist police' during anti-aparthied demonstrations...


----------



## DaveTee

Whats great is that V2007 can argue that the whole situation is caused by the US. They propped up the Mujaheddin during the civil war. That's not quite right. It wasn't a civil war, it was the SOVIET invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps you conveniently forgot that? The only reason anyone went there in the 70s and 80s was because the USSR invaded Afghanistan. So, if we follow this argument...the Soviets could be blamed for the whole war, the rise of the Taliban etc. Oh but wait! What does the second S in USSR stand for? Socialist? I think it goes United Soviet Socialist Republics...Its definitely ALL western imperialist neo-colonial capitalists causing every bad thing in the world. 

See how words and facts can be warped to form crappy arguments? Ill go one farther to prove the point:
The USSR was founded by Lenin...Lenin was a man, born from a lady...His mother, who was descended from her mother, etc...Therefore, the person most responsible for the war in Afghanistan is: LENIN'S GREAT GRANDMOTHER!!!

Anyone can make phony arguments out of thin air.


----------



## Flip

The crux of V2007's philosophy seems to be that the world would be a
better place if the US weren't such "imperialists".

If the western powers would only do something different, 
then things would be different!  And if we stopped using labels
like "bad guy" there be no bad guys. - seems sensible to me.
Yup, I'm finally starting to understand "peaceniks".

Withdrawl of troops from Afghanistan and would be cruel way to start reinventing the world. 

Simple analogy:

V2007 - If there was a gun battle going on in the drug house at the end your
block, would you phone the police?  I would!
That's the nation state in action. Most of the world thinks of nation state as a good thing.
It maintains things like law and order, hospitals, schools, banking, industry.
You and I depend on this.  (and it's institutions)

So do the people of Afghanistan - but some people want to withdraw the police.
Withdraw law and order,  thus removing hospitals, schools ,banking ,industry.

Al Qaeda want to remove the police.
The Taliban want to remove the police.
Drug dealers want to remove the police.
Peace activists want to remove the police.

Hmmmm.

Yes, V2007 - it's really that simple.


----------



## Mortar guy

This is getting comical! I have posted several times refuting key parts of your arguments but you simply refuse to acknowledge my arguments. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that I speak from experience, having been an advisor to Karzai's government and tend to back my arguments up with facts and evidence. See my responses in italics to your arguments below:



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:
> 
> - Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
> 
> _This is a black and white generalization. Since 2002, the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan has gone to great lengths to eliminate warlord influence from Afghanistan. The Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program and the current Disarmament of Illegally Armed Groups program are both targeted at removing the teeth from warlords. Furthermore, the more notorious warlords have been marginalized politically with almost none still serving in high levels in government. In fact the "warlords" (a highly generalized and subjective description) you speak of are a broad group including some who fought nobly in defence of their people (the Massouds of the world) to some who were down right evil people (the Dostums). What is more, Karzai's cabinet is made up of a broad spectrum of Afghans from all ethnic groups and with a large representation of women. Most are educated and even enlightened leaders who want peace and prosperity for their people (I know this because I have met several of them, have you?) Just so you know, RAWA doesn't know everything and shouldn't be your only source!_
> 
> - Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.
> 
> _You realize he was elected by the Afghan people right? You realize that before he was elected he was chosen by a Jirga of elders from across Afghanistan right? You realize that both of these events were UN supported and were deemed legitimate by several monitoring bodies? What are you suggesting, that the US rigged both the Jirga and the election right under the noses of the UN, EU and several other monitors!?
> 
> So what if Canadians serve as his advisor. You do realize that he can and does reject our advice, right? You do realize that we are there advising him because he views Canada as a friend of Afghanistan and a country that can be trusted to give impartial, disinterested advice, right? Do you even know what kind of advice we're giving him? I'll give you a hint: it's not political advice and we don't tell him how to run his country._
> 
> - Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.
> 
> _You do realize that we do this, right? You know that one of the principles behind our involvement in Afghanistan is the realization that our abandonment of Afghanistan in 1989 got us into this mess in the first place, don't you? I'm sure then that you also know that Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian aid money then too. Can we do more? Absolutely. However, don't even begin to suggest that this is a worthwhile proposal as anyone who knows anything about Canada's involvement would know this is already happening._
> 
> - Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.
> 
> _This is such an ignorantly rhetorical and polemical statement as to almost defy understanding. The first sentence is essentially a fundraising drive for your sole source of information on Afghanistan: RAWA. To suggest that aid should not be linked to the higher COIN strategy demonstrates two things. Firstly, it shows that you should read more books on COIN as economic development has always been an important tool of defeating an insurgency. Secondly, you really need to get your facts straight and stop making sweeping, generalized statements. The vast majority of Canada's aid does not go through the PRT but rather goes through CIDA to such projects as the National Area Based Development Program, the DIAG program, women's literacy and microcredit/micro finance initiatives. Finally, as someone who was present when both the Afghanistan Compact and the Interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy were developed, I can tell you that the Afghans are very much leading the development planning. Of course the donors have a say as its their money but the way it works is that donors essentially buy into programs initiated by the Afghan government rather than dictating programs to Afghanistan. It wasn't always that way but things are improving every month. You can't take what happened in 2003 and use that as an example of why things don't work today because things have changed dramatically._
> 
> - De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.
> 
> _Yet another generalized and vague statement. Independent NGOs are under no obligation to work with ISAF and often choose not to. To suggest that the COIN campaign and development are somehow seperate activities that can be de-linked displays a incredible misunderstanding of what is happening in Afghanistan and how COIN campaigns are prosecuted._
> 
> - Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).
> 
> _This is hypocritical and paternalistic in addition to being plain wrong. The vast majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran have returned and there is an entire Ministry in the Afghan government that is responsible for resettling and assisting those people. However, what is interesting here is that your proposal is at odds with much of what you say in other posts. You suggest that we should let the Afghans sort things out and fend for themselves but then in the same post you suggest that the only hope for Afghan refugees is emigration to the sanctuary of the West. Please tell me this proposal is a test to make sure we're paying attention._
> 
> - Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).
> 
> _Again, a blanket statement that is condescending and insulting to the thousands of moderate Afghans who are striving for a better life. To make a generalized accusation that all consultants are puppets and all who work for the current Afghan government are fundamentalists is ignorant in the extreme. This statement more than any other shows your true colours and demonstrates for everyone to see that you are not interested in the reality of Afghanistan or the plight of her people. You have an agenda to push and that agenda is to get people you approve of into power in Afghanistan, nothing more. By suggesting that no one is listening to progressives is once again to show your lack of knowledge about how the Afghan government works and what is going on over there. I have attended meeting where the full spectrum of Afghan politics has been in attendence - from former warlords, to feministists, to former communists, to western educated refugees and all were given the opportunity to speak. And this was not just one meeting, I have been to dozens like that._
> 
> - Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.
> 
> _The irony here is that the only person who seems to think we call the entire insurgency "Taliban" is you! Those of us who have been there or who are going know far better than you do that there are many factions with many interests. If you want to give us a history lesson about defeating the Pashtuns, maybe you should give us the whole lesson. The Brits had very little trouble defeating them in the Second and Third Afghan wars with relatively small forces. There is no such thing as an undefeatable tribe and Pashtuns are not all united against the coalition. In fact large Pashtun tribes or sub-tribes are either neutral or supportive of the Karzai government (Karzai himself being a Pashtun)._
> 
> - Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).
> 
> _We are? Because after Op MEDUSA and BAAZ TSUKA, we seemed to be winning. So let me see if I get this straight. You - a civilian who has never been to Afghanistan nor fought in any kind of war, are telling us - a group of people who take home paycheques based on their proficiency at all things military, that we're losing the war!? So by reading newspapers and endlessly quoting LGen Leslie out of context, you figure you're qualified to make this assessment?_
> 
> (For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)
> 
> - Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.
> 
> _Again, a blanket statement that is insulting to soldiers. I've already addressed the "led by Afghans" canard you keep rolling out but I doubt you'll refute that as you have only RAWA as a reference. I speak a bit of Dari and am learning Pashto. I was in a situation where I was being shot at and I did not return fire for fear of hitting civilians in the crowd. Many Canadian soldiers have been in similar situations and to make generalizations to the effect that we are trigger happy killers who roam the countryside in tanks and APCs looking for a fight will get you in serious trouble. Its good to see you finally showing your true soldier-hating, biased colours though!_
> 
> 
> Another related question is: *Would the Taliban “take over” if Canada left? *
> 
> Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.
> 
> Moreover, it’s a bit a stretch to think that 2500 troops in a vast area of southern Afghanistan, or even upwards of 35,000 NATO troops in the entire country, has “control” of a large, diverse and rugged nation like Afghanistan. Even mainstream military analysts (like RAND) acknowledge that.
> 
> _What a pipe dream. "Of course it would work if the Taliban weren't there" is the gist of your argument. What pie-in-the-sky daydreaming! I would also like you to prove that the Taliban are more popular now with the Pashtuns than prior to 2001 because as I mentioned before, large groups of Pashtuns are very much pro-Karzai and pro-ISAF (just ask guys who've been there and know first hand)._
> 
> Another question asked by several folks on this forum: *Would a civil war result?*
> 
> There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.
> 
> _This is a non answer. Civil war already exists so it's OK if it exists in the future!?_
> 
> 
> This post constitutes a general answer to the question: what is the alternative? We have not addressed the neo-colonial underpinnings of NATO involvement in Afghanistan, or even delved into the details of the recent history of Western involvement in Afghanistan (which would expose greed, corruption, hypocrisy and self-interest, not some higher calling to “help” Afghans). These are important points, crucial, but usually dismissed on this forum (refer to the responses to: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352 )
> 
> The alternatives proposed above mean a radical shift, not just in policy, but in worldview, by government and army officials.
> 
> While struggling to make that shift happen (that’s what international social movements are all about), on-the-ground soldiers can refuse to participate in the mission. They can refuse to participate in a mission that: 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia; 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians; 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections); 4) cannot succeed even on its own terms, and perpetuates conflict and misery.
> 
> Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.
> 
> 
> Again, hope this doesn't get heavy-handedly locked down, before we can make more responses to previous questions on the original thread: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
> 
> ---
> VALCARTIER 2007
> www.valcartier2007.ca



Well, at least your views are now out in the open and its clear for all to see that you are not interested in reality or even workable solutions. You make generalizations, often based on information that is years out of date and always tinged with rhetoric. You refuse to acknowledge facts and data presented by other posters and quite frankly your "proposals" here are naive half-measures that ignore many of the realities of Afghan life. The icing on the cake is that your hatred of soldiers and misunderstanding of who we are and what we do is starting to show through your veneer of civility.

In my opinion, you are just like NIMN only more polite. He was exposed as a parrot spouting rhetoric and slogans and it seems you have trouble moving past that point yourself. You remind me of people who post great ideas about how the Army should be organized but who, when asked to provide details, never deliver.

MG


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

V2007:
You seem to like to use labels, and big words to veil what you really mean, with all your talk of neocolonialism, warlords, non-imperialist, blah blah, how about you quit trying to muddy the water, and just say who or what you mean EXACTLY instead of these ambiguous half-truths/whole lies.  Do you know these persons, groups etc PERSONALLY, do you have any evidence to the accusations you make towards them?

Also you never really answered any of Olga's questions, you side stepped them by spewing the SAME EXACT things you said originally you did not defeat or even make an attempt to defeat her arguments.

You said this "Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor" and like many others will point out to you, if it hasn't already been, HE WAS ELECTED BY THE AFGHAN PEOPLE, the US didn't grab him and say you're the head honcho now and you will do as we say.

The problem with your answer to "what happens if we take the troops out of A-stan"  is severely lacking, fact: the Taliban were running things in A-stan with an iron fist, before we (UN sanctioned troops) moved in there, under their regime, women and minority groups were oppressed, beaten, tortured and killed, with this power base and no one challenging them at the time they were able to amass weapons, ordinance, and come up with plans of attack.  If we take the troops out, considering how raw, and undermanned the Afghanistan National Police and the army are they would never be able to fight back the Taliban when they would come back for the power.

Therefore making it impossible for fair treatment of women, minorities, and to rebuild.  You say we must make reparations, and let them rebuild their country, the only way they can do that is if someone helps them stave off the Taliban until they can be able to stand on their own 2 feet, at the same time, look at all the millions of dollars we are spending in REBUILDING, schools, clinics, houses, and paving MANY KMs of roads. I think the many people to have gone overseas can tell you that more afghanis are for what we are trying to do there then those who are against.

I agree with others assessment about you, that you are only out to get the US, and bash them, because of the many points however unvalidated they are that you have made, seem to indicate you are very anti-american, and make no sense in offering that we go to Sudan instead when we in fact would be INVADING that country.

FACT: UN approved what we are doing there.
FACT: The Afghans asked to come and help and continue to want it. (I'm not saying every person from that country wrote us letters asking us to help lol)
FACT: our aim isn't to just send a bunch of guys there and blast every person we see, unfortunately civilian casualties do happen, but then would you tell police officers to stop policing because an innocent bystander was injured in apprehending a suspect?  hell I would go so far as to say should you people stop protesting because people haven been hurt by protesters in the past.


Canada isn't losing the war, we would lose the war if we listened to you, we're doing exactly what we aimed to do, help rebuild, educate the people, aid in reconstructing the government, helping in standing up the Afghan army and police. If you say we're losing the war because we're not sending more troops in then that in and of itself goes against your argument also, but to say that you are also implying, that the soldiers there now are useless and not accomplishing anything, and that the ones who died did so for no reason. WELL I REFUSE to believe that, and I think I can safely say that many others will agree with me on that, and that we ARE making a difference.  You say the Rules of engagement are alienating the afghan civilians, do YOU even know what our ROE are?  If I may add also, that of course WAR alienates civilians, THEY DON'T like it, and neither do we, but we do what must be done.

P.S Doing nothing (like you suggest) DOES = giving up, plain and simple.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Valcartier, 

Here is a post of mine from last year, I suppose she's just an 'imperialistic plant' hiding out in my Dentist's office?

_A Thank You From An Unexpected Place 
« on: November 08, 2006, 17:10:17 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm just going to post this quick as I worked a night shift, followed by the moving company this morning delivering my furniture and a dentist appointment at 1300 to fill/ refill 7 cavities.

The dentist said he would give me a few minutes to rest my jaw as he had been going at it for about half an hour straight. He left the office and the dental asst. with the most amazing eyes and olive skin sat the chair up.
Naturally being Bruce I had to engage her in conversation and found out she had just finished her schooling and was just two weeks into her 150 hours of job placement. Well not only was she cute but a sweet accent that I thought sounded French so I asked her about it. Well it turns out she is from Afghanistan, and of course I show her my army.ca T-shirt hidden under my bib and her already luminous face lightened up even brighter and she said how glad she was that we were over there trying to make her homeland safer.

 We chatted for about 10 minutes and she made no bones about it being safer there now than before when the Taliban was there. In fact, her Mother and Brother just returned not long ago from hiding in Pakistan and moved into Kabul and the brother was investing in building a new shopping centre. 

Since I've never had or will have, the opportunity to " go over" this was my first meeting with someone 
from there and it was a very nice experience. If this young lady is an example of the gratitude then no wonder many wish to go back and keep helping..........._


----------



## Remius

Wow. Looks like Val2007 achieved his aim.  34 pages later and 14000 views.  That's better than 3000 letters being sent to the Vandoos, considering people come here for info on joining the CF or just plain info on the CF.  They have their point of view we have ours, nothing new is being presented here.  I believe a search will give Val2007 all the info they need on our point of view if they want to understand it.  This thread, although interesting has run its course and is now going in circles.  I predict that if this goes on, the the next 34 pages will be much of the same.  

Stop beating the horse... :crybaby:...he's dead already.


----------



## Babbling Brooks

Some of Val2007's "alternatives" could benefit from the bright light of fact and realism:



> - Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
> 
> - Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.



Who, other than the Northern Alliance warlords, could the allied nations have made common cause with to depose the Taliban dictatorship?  No other indigenous group had the capacity.  Unless you're trying to suggest a unilateral invasion, which would have been far more open to criticism of neo-colonialism than the actual course of action taken at the time.

Once the Taliban had been displaced, an interim gov't was set up, and then elections were held.  Karzai won those elections and formed a government - so unless you have compelling evidence that the Afghan elections were fraudulent, I'd suggest that calling Karzai a puppet of the U.S. is a stretch, to put it politely.

Just because you don't like him, doesn't mean the Afghans shouldn't be able to choose him.

And by the way, many of the warlords don't seem particularly impressed by him either.  But it's instructive to note that instead of having him assassinated or staging a coup, as they would have in the past, these same fellows have instead formed a rival political party - the <a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/freeheadlines/LAC/20070625/AFGHAN25/international/International">United National Front</a> - to wrest control from him in a peaceful and legitimate way.



> - Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.



A weak point, but not one where we're going to come to any sort of agreement, I'm afraid.  You're obviously not satisfied with the payments made, and I am.  I point you to the case of <a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/whatever-happened-to-niaz-mohammed.html">Niaz Mohammed Hussaini</a> as evidence that Canada thinks long and hard about how best to deal with each individual set of circumstances.



> - Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.



On this point you are quite simply out to lunch: read up on the <a href="http://www.nspafghanistan.org/content/index_eng.html">National Solidarity Program</a> and <a href="http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/En/JUD-1251644-SQ4">MISFA</a>.



> - De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers.



I don't expect you to be convinced, but I've already debunked that line of argument <a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/first-aid.html">over at The Torch</a>.  The NGO's cannot provide more than temporary relief of the symptoms of Afghanistan's malaise without the active intervention of western military forces to address the sickness itself.



> - Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).



Interesting point from an immigration-policy standpoint, but not particularly germane to the rebuilding of Afghanistan as I see it.  Maybe I'm simply missing how pulling people out of the country affects its development in a positive way.



> - Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).



So it's not that we're not listening to Afghans, it's that we're not listening to your approved list of Afghans.  I hope you're honest enough to see the hypocrisy of that sentiment.  You say we're picking sides, and not picking the right side.  I say we're not picking sides, because we're listening to the democratically elected Afghan government.  To side against an elected government in order to support one particular elite sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.



> - Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.



It has been widely recognized by the CF that there are a multiplicity of factions within the insurgency, but the moniker "Taliban" is used as a convenience, since most Canadians would tune out if the CF started lecturing them about <a href="http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2006_10_30.html#005976">the differences between the Hekmatyar faction and the Haqqani faction</a>.  I find the remainder of your point confusing.  You seem to be arguing that "Taliban" and "indigenous resistance" aren't overlapping, when the "Taliban" has always enjoyed its highest level of support in the Pashtun south.

Interestingly, support for the Taliban even in the south of the country runs no more than 50%, according to the most <a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2006/12/i-havent-much-time-for-pollsters.html">comprehensive opinion poll</a> conducted in Afghanistan in recent years.  And it runs close to 10% nationally - a dismal figure by any reasonable standard.  The Taliban have nothing to offer the people of Afghanistan other than misery, which is why they are opposed by ordinary Afghans on the whole.  For us to abandon the country to that pack of evil thugs would be a betrayal of the highest order.



> - Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).



Why would we recognize something that isn't true?  The situation in Kandahar province is significantly improved over when Canada first moved south in force a few years back, on any number of levels.  You note that civilian deaths are rising, but is the rate of civilians killed by NATO forces rising?  Is it yet anywhere near the numbers killed by the insurgents?  No and no.  You also fail to note other indicators of progress, like the dramatic drop in the infant mortality rate or the vast improvement in the economic situation of the average Afghan since the Taliban were overthrown in 2001.  I say that food in their mouths, schools for their children, and close to 40,000 less dead infants and toddlers means something to them, and in the balance, means more to them than the regrettable deaths from coalition actions.



> - Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.



You're now recycling previous points, Val2007.  Much of the reconstruction and development is in fact being led by Afghan civilians, through the NSP in conjunction with local elected councils.  And you're wrong about not being able to win hearts and minds with force.  When the local population lives in fear of the thugs who prey upon them, Canadian soldiers with the ability to protect them from those thugs through the legitimate and proportional application of deadly force is indeed <a href="http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/02/two-in-heart-one-in-mind.html">a hearts and minds victory</a>.

If that's all you have to offer Afghans who are depending upon our help to survive and build a better life for themselves and their children, I'd say it's pitifully thin gruel.


----------



## Haggis

Crantor said:
			
		

> Stop beating the horse... :crybaby:...he's dead already.



There's an icon for that:  :deadhorse:


----------



## Pikache

v2007, I suggest you cut down on the rhetoric and use logic more often.

Save your rhetoric for your group meetings, because we're frankly not amused by them, and it only makes you look dumber.

Not to mention you fail to address key points made by the members and keep repeating same rhetoric.

Is this the best you can do?


----------



## Hawk

I've spent a great amount of time reading everything written on this thread. Like many other people here, I've never been in Afghanistan, and never will be. I'm beyond the age where the military wants me back! For the most part, I have nothing useful to add, but I applaud every rebuttle made here!

V2007-You rely on a poll for your number of Quebecers opposed to the war. I'd be interest in knowing which polling firm conducted this poll. I used to work for one.

I've said it before, somewhere on this site, and I'll say it again: the poll questions can be s*kewed to reflect whatever answer you want to get. The demographic can be chosen to get the answer you want. Certain responses can be eliminated to get the answer you want. Polling companies are snake-oil salesmen - and there is at least one in Canada worse than most. I won't tell you the name - but tell me which company's polls you're going by.*


Hawk


----------



## Armymedic

Ok, now this is starting to get old.


----------



## Remius

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Ok, now this is starting to get old.


+1


----------



## Haggis

It would seem that, despite whatever counter arguments we put forth, our presence in Afghanistan is simply part of a broad, imperialist, Zionist influenced, capitalist American conspiracy to dominate the region.

It would seem that, despite EVIDENCE to the contrary, the Taliban aren't all that bad.

It would seem that, despite EVIDENCE to the contrary, we are fighting a national insurgency against a nationally based and broadly popular uprising against foreign invaders.

It would seem that, despite all the EVIDENCE, we are not welcome in Afghanistan by those who truly wield the power.  Also, it would appear that we are naive to believe that the true leader in Afghanistan is the legitimate, elected and internationally recognized President of the Government of Afghanistan.

I, and all my comrades, just don't "get it".

We are dupes.

We are pawns.

We should leave.  Now.  And never go back, no matter what happens when the Taliban return to exact retribution on enlighten and reintegrate all who have "aided the aggressor". Clearly, they were misled by the unbelievers.

We should allow NGOs to work freely and unhindered in Afghanistan.  The Taliban will protect them from the murderous drug lords and warlords and, more importantly, the influences of the US dominated international community.  In fact, the Taliban will welcome any and all international aid with open arms and work to improve the lives of all Afghans, regardless of ethnic origin, gender, political or religious beliefs.  Just look at thier history.  We can trust them!

Valcartier2007, you have me sold.    I'm going to pack for Darfur.

(Edited to be less suspect of the Taliban's methods and motives)


----------



## ClaytonD

You know what? I don't think that people even CAN argue the morals of the mission without taking another situation in a different country that is possibly worse, and saying we are bad people for not going there instead of Afghanistan, like VC2007 and other protesters do. The more I think of the simple points of what we are trying to do there, the more I can not argue against the war.

You CAN definitely argue the way the operation in Afghanistan is being carried out, even you guys definitely criticize some aspects of NATO's way of handling things.

Obviously I'm making a bit of a jump here with my first statement, but the simple morals of the operation are pretty hard to poke a hole through.


----------



## Pikache

ClaytonD said:
			
		

> Obviously I'm making a bit of a jump here with my first statement, but the simple morals of the operation are pretty hard to poke a hole through.


Hence why V2007 and his irk want to bring the evil Yank world domination conspiracy thing, to present Taliban as the 'lesser evil', because we all know that Yankee imperialists want to subjugate the world. lol


----------



## MarkOttawa

No Western country is going to Darfur for quite a while yet, if ever--see this update at another topic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25883/post-583019.html#msg583019

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 1feral1

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> v2007, I suggest you cut down on the rhetoric and use logic more often.
> 
> Not to mention you fail to address key points made by the members and keep repeating same rhetoric.
> 
> Is this the best you can do?



I got nothing against anyone against this war, we all have opinions, but when there is spin and hidden agenda, thats where I stop, - cold! 

Val is an audience seeker/attention getter trying to get us to 'bite' for a reaction to inflate his own head. We've seen it all before.

Like I said earlier, he did not even take the time to repsond to an honest and open basic PM, and that tells me enough. Just another trolling INet turd which needs to be flushed.

He's ran his course, and waisted our time, so enough is enough!


Wes


----------



## Benny

Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> - See our recent response on this thread. But one quick (if glib) response: trust progressive Afghans (like the women at RAWA) to decide what should be done. Of course, Afghans should do it, and we should facilitate that, not impose our vision. Importantly, in fighting for genuine alternatives, we should reject the pretence, paternalism and colonialism inherent in questions like "What is your plan for the future of Afghanistan". Of course, it's Afghans that should determine their own future, and not have one imposed from abroad, whether by NATO, or Saudi Arabia.
> 
> - Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).



- "Trust progressive Afghans" seems to be 'Trust people who Valcartier2007 likes'. You will just be replacing one government with a puppet one of your own choosing. Which sounds exactly like what you are accusing others of doing.

- Opening the floodgates to refugees would be disasterous. The most able and educated would get out, leaving the poorest of the poor behind. You would be making a weak country even weaker. Worse than that, most of those who leave will be those who oppose the taliban, further weakening resistence to these tyrants.

Your heart seems to be in the right place, but your ideas are far from practical.


----------



## armyvern

V2007,

You do realize that RAWA is and has always been against deals or talks with the Taliban right??

You also realize that they have/do urge the UN to intercede which is exactly what it is now doing?

Just checking.

http://www.rawa.org/events/un_apr28-07_e.htm


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Reccesoldier said:
			
		

> Ok, we're all beating around the bush, a first I believe for the denizens of this site, so I'll be the first to come out and say it.
> 
> Valcartier2007 is a hit and run troll.



“Hit and run troll”??!!

Just to put things in perspective (and to give a bit of a summary of the debate so far):

We began on this thread (and on army.ca) with two posts:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578352.html#msg578352
and
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578377.html#msg578377

In reply:

we were told to “leave and don’t come back” (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578379.html#msg578379);

we were warned that we might be banned for spamming (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578402.html#msg578402);

we were described “as a tool for the Taliban” (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578431.html#msg578431);

our arguments were described as “full of logical falsies & inaccuracies” (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578461.html#msg578461);

we were described as: “one of those useful idiots that have been and are so useful to our enemies” (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578515.html#msg578515);

we’ve even been compared to child molesters (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580636.html#msg580636);

we were also asked our political affiliation (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578975.html#msg578975) and we replied (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578992.html#msg578992) without asking any of you for yours.


To be fair, a few of you argued for continued debate and discussion (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578584.html#msg578584).

And we took ZellDietrich’s advice to “argue substance rather than form” (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578962.html#msg578962).


Here’s a non-comprehensive list of the various replies we have provided to your arguments about the Afghan mission, which along with our original letter (www.valcartier2007.ca) provides clear evidence that we have arguments and facts to back up our assertions:

Response to RecceProfessor:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578948.html#msg578948

Response to MCG
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578953.html#msg578953

Response to St.Michael’s Medical Team
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578953.html#msg578953

Response to Olga Chekova
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578958.html#msg578958

Response to Milnewstbay
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578967.html#msg578967

Precisions:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578972.html#msg578972

More on General Leslie’s Logic:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579737.html#msg579737

More about NATO and the US:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579738.html#msg579738

On alternatives:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579743.html#msg579743

Reply to GreyMatter
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635

Reply to Milnewstbay
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580641.html#msg580641

[And, after the thread was locked down, and then opened up again:]

On alternatives:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582874.html#msg582874

Reply to MCG
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582883.html#msg582883

Reply to GreyMatter
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582899.html#msg582899

Reply to Olga Chekova
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582901.html#msg582901

And certainly, more to come ...

---
Valcartier 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Glad to see that RAWA's views are being read and engaged on this forum ...



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You do realize that RAWA is and has always been against deals or talks with the Taliban right??



Yes, absolutely. And they have been consistent in opposing ALL fundamentalist warlords (including the ones in the Afghan government defended by Canadian troops).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You also realize that they have/do urge the UN to intercede which is exactly what it is now doing? http://www.rawa.org/events/un_apr28-07_e.htm




Yes, RAWA has called for international intervention. But it has been specific about the kind of intervention, and for what purpose.

One quote from the letter you cite:
_"After the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, with great disappointment and surprise, Afghan people witnessed how the US government with the help of the UN handed over power to the “Northern Alliance”, which is an even much more criminal band than the Taliban. Following this treason and cruelty to the people of Afghanistan, parliamentary elections were observed under the UN supervision, and predictably, due to the established power of the Northern Alliance mafia, the outcome was a disgusting parliament full of criminal warlords and those responsible for the plundering of Afghanistan and reducing it to the current terrible state."_

And here's another one from their International Women's Day statement (http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm):
_"The world came into motion in the name of "liberating Afghan woman" and our country was invaded, but the sorrows and deprivations of Afghan women has not just failed to reduce, but actually increased the level of oppression and brutality day by day on this most ruined population of our society. The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai and its international guardians, are playing shamelessly with the intolerable suffering of Afghan women and misuse it as their propaganda tool for deceiving the people of the world. They have placed some women into official posts in the government who are favored by the warlords and then proclaim it as symbol of "women's liberation" in the country. But the presence of a number of women in high posts is not important unless they touch the depth of our people's adversities and sufferings, like the parliamentarian Malalai Joya, and uncompromisingly struggle against the bloody enemies of woman's rights and democracy and consider women's emancipation as an integral part of the liberation of our whole country from the filthy shackles of the fundamentalists and their foreign masters."_

Seriously taking into account RAWA's positions would mean a radical change in Canada's mission in Afghanistan (which currently helps prop up Karzai and certain warlords). And, RAWA's positions stand in contrast with the PR talking points of politicians and officers defending this mission.

---
Valcartier 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## armyvern

Valcartier2007,

Aren't you being a tad bit holier-than-thou with your attitude??

After all you came on here, and have infered that we soldiers are war criminals, automatons who can't make our own decisions, pawns of George Bush, imperialists, not free-thinking, oil-protecting, willfully capable of killing innocent civilian members of Canadian society who give not a shit about the ills of world-wide society or the injustices to people occuring in it.

You choose to constantly refer to links about the death of civilian cab drivers et al as your grounds for us being war criminal murderers. Wrong. We, as do you, have the inherant RIGHT to defend ourselves against what we perceive to be an imminent threat to our life. Tragic incidents have occured, but proper warnings were given and our right to self-defense began at the minimal level of force required to stop that threat. With each warning shot fired, and IGNORED/UNHEEDED, the threat level escalates. And as long as we use that force according to that scale, escalating only as required ... no one will be charged with murder or war crimes like you have moaned has not happened. Why not??

We are NOT war criminals. Read the Geneva Conventions; it will tell you as much about the right to self-defense as will international law.

You are wrong.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Glad to see that RAWA's views are being read and engaged on this forum ...
> 
> Yes, absolutely. And they have been consistent in opposing ALL fundamentalist warlords (including the ones in the Afghan government defended by Canadian troops).
> 
> Yes, RAWA has called for international intervention. But it has been specific about the kind of intervention, and for what purpose.



And this response is just priceless by you. It just verifies and confirms that you are an anarchist. The *democraticlly elected government of Afghanistan* ... how many times do you need to be told that? We would be in there defending *whatever* government the people of Afghanistan chose with their votes. RAWA certainly prefers democray ... read through their site some more ... it's in there, or is that not a quoatable item by them from you because it contradicts with your own personal outlook on government??

Do not twist the democratic choice of the vast majority of Afghans citizens into a "Canadian troops" are supporting a fundamentalist regime. THEY voted, they chose, we support. 

And that is the plain simple fact of the matter.


----------



## Valcartier 2007

Mortar guy said:
			
		

> This is getting comical! I have posted several times refuting key parts of your arguments but you simply refuse to acknowledge my arguments. I suspect that that has something to do with the fact that I speak from experience, having been an advisor to Karzai's government and tend to back my arguments up with facts and evidence.



This is the first time you’ve presented an argument to us on this thread backed up with specific “facts and evidence”. And, we reply to your points below (your comments in _italics_, our original comments in yellow, and our replies in regular type):

We wrote: - Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).

_This is a black and white generalization. Since 2002, the UN Assistance Mission to Afghanistan has gone to great lengths to eliminate warlord influence from Afghanistan. The Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration program and the current Disarmament of Illegally Armed Groups program are both targeted at removing the teeth from warlords. Furthermore, the more notorious warlords have been marginalized politically with almost none still serving in high levels in government. In fact the "warlords" (a highly generalized and subjective description) you speak of are a broad group including some who fought nobly in defence of their people (the Massouds of the world) to some who were down right evil people (the Dostums). What is more, Karzai's cabinet is made up of a broad spectrum of Afghans from all ethnic groups and with a large representation of women. Most are educated and even enlightened leaders who want peace and prosperity for their people (I know this because I have met several of them, have you?) Just so you know, RAWA doesn't know everything and shouldn't be your only source! _

With all due respect, a group of Afghan women, who are the targets and survivors of warlord/Taliban attacks, have a bit more credibility about Afghanistan than a foreign military officer who advises a US puppet. RAWA has clearly named the warlords propped up by the Afghan government you defend: http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm

RAWAs assertions contrast starkly with yours: RAWA talk from personal experience about the attacks on women by warlords who are within the current government, and you are making excuses for those warlords and the government. Your reply is actual proof of the complicity with warlords, insofar as you dismiss the point of view of a group of Afghan women who have bravely spoken out against fundamentalists (and have suffered the brutal consequences). Your dismissal of RAWA, in defence of Karzai, is stunning, in the context of the incredible struggle that RAWA has fought for women’s rights.


We wrote: - Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.

_You realize he was elected by the Afghan people right? You realize that before he was elected he was chosen by a Jirga of elders from across Afghanistan right? You realize that both of these events were UN supported and were deemed legitimate by several monitoring bodies? What are you suggesting, that the US rigged both the Jirga and the election right under the noses of the UN, EU and several other monitors!?_

Yes, Karzai was “elected”, in the context of a US-led invasion and occpuation. The Jirga was called under those auspices. Moreover, the election was criticized widely for intimidation and fraud. Here are a few sources to consider:

http://www.rawa.org/election.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20091-2004Oct9.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0817-01.htm

Consider this from the New York Times on October 1, 2004: _“These days, Mr. Bush and other administration officials often talk about the 10.5 million Afghans who have registered to vote in this month's election, citing the figure as proof that democracy is making strides after all. They count on the public not to know, and on reporters not to mention, that the number of people registered considerably exceeds all estimates of the eligible population. What they call evidence of democracy on the march is actually evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.”_

Certainly, as a Canadian Major who advised Hamid Karzai, you have a clear self-interest in pretending that his power is legitimate.

No doubt, “Hamid Karzai is the democratically elected President of Afghanistan” is one of the main talking points all CF officers learn. On-the-ground, we would hazard to guess that most Afghans understand that Karzai would not be in power without US-led intervention, and if he wasn’t pliable to their interests. That doesn’t mean Karzai doesn’t at times disagree, or pretend to disagree – this is a neo-colonial relationship after all – but he’s acceptable to the predominant American interests, which is why he’s kept in power. 


_So what if Canadians serve as his advisor. You do realize that he can and does reject our advice, right? You do realize that we are there advising him because he views Canada as a friend of Afghanistan and a country that can be trusted to give impartial, disinterested advice, right? Do you even know what kind of advice we're giving him? I'll give you a hint: it's not political advice and we don't tell him how to run his country._

“Advising” the Karzai government is complicity with that government. Would we think any less of the people offering official “advice” to any government?

You ask if we “even know what kind of advice we’re giving him?” Of course we don’t. Can you be specific? As a CF Major, what kind of advice did you offer Karzai or other members of his government? Please be specific. If you believe in your work, and your mission, you certainly would have nothing to hide in this regard.


We wrote: - Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades. 

_You do realize that we do this, right? You know that one of the principles behind our involvement in Afghanistan is the realization that our abandonment of Afghanistan in 1989 got us into this mess in the first place, don't you? I'm sure then that you also know that Afghanistan is the single largest recipient of Canadian aid money then too. Can we do more? Absolutely. However, don't even begin to suggest that this is a worthwhile proposal as anyone who knows anything about Canada's involvement would know this is already happening._

We mention “genuine reparations” and not “aid”. There’s a huge difference between the two (or, to mimic your tone for a moment: You do realize there’s a difference between “reparations” and “aid”, right?).


We wrote: - Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.

_This is such an ignorantly rhetorical and polemical statement as to almost defy understanding. The first sentence is essentially a fundraising drive for your sole source of information on Afghanistan: RAWA. To suggest that aid should not be linked to the higher COIN strategy demonstrates two things. Firstly, it shows that you should read more books on COIN as economic development has always been an important tool of defeating an insurgency. _

The “insurgency” you mention is not simply a “Taliban” insurgency, but also native Afghans who object to a foreign presence, or the nature of that foreign presence.

We appreciate your honesty in admitting that aid is linked to COIN strategies, and not some benevolent independent effort to actually “help” Afghans: "aid" is subject to the prerogatives of NATO counter-insurgency prerogatives.


_Secondly, you really need to get your facts straight and stop making sweeping, generalized statements. The vast majority of Canada's aid does not go through the PRT but rather goes through CIDA to such projects as the National Area Based Development Program, the DIAG program, women's literacy and microcredit/micro finance initiatives. Finally, as someone who was present when both the Afghanistan Compact and the Interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy were developed, I can tell you that the Afghans are very much leading the development planning. Of course the donors have a say as its their money but the way it works is that donors essentially buy into programs initiated by the Afghan government rather than dictating programs to Afghanistan. It wasn't always that way but things are improving every month. You can't take what happened in 2003 and use that as an example of why things don't work today because things have changed dramatically._

Again, as you admit, Afghans can lead development or planning efforts only insofar as they collaborate with the prerogatives of COIN efforts. Your attitude in dismissing RAWA is instructive of how other independent Afghans would be treated if they offer to pursue development autonomously of COIN efforts.


We wrote: _- De-link genuine development and reconstruction from NATO-led counterinsurgency. To not do so destroys the credibility of the sometimes good-faith efforts of development workers._

_Yet another generalized and vague statement. Independent NGOs are under no obligation to work with ISAF and often choose not to. To suggest that the COIN campaign and development are somehow seperate activities that can be de-linked displays a incredible misunderstanding of what is happening in Afghanistan and how COIN campaigns are prosecuted._

The problem here is that our “aid” and “development” efforts are linked to our COIN efforts. In other words, we expect “collaboration” (not independence) from Afghans who are recipients of aid. That’s a classic neo-colonial relationship.


We wrote: - Allow freedom of movement for Afghan refugees to settle where they want to (instead, they languish in other poor countries like Pakistan and Iran, or resettled in Afghanistan with very few economic prospects). Western countries – Germany, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – should offer full asylum to Afghan refugees (this is exactly what the family of Nasrat Ali Hassan -- the taxi driver killed by a CF soldier, demanded).

_This is hypocritical and paternalistic in addition to being plain wrong. The vast majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran have returned and there is an entire Ministry in the Afghan government that is responsible for resettling and assisting those people. However, what is interesting here is that your proposal is at odds with much of what you say in other posts. You suggest that we should let the Afghans sort things out and fend for themselves but then in the same post you suggest that the only hope for Afghan refugees is emigration to the sanctuary of the West. Please tell me this proposal is a test to make sure we're paying attention._

Would you like to reconsider your statement that “the vast majority of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and Iran have returned”? There has certainly been resettlement, but there are upwards of 2 million Afghan refugees in Iran and Pakistan. Consider this article: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0517/p07s01-wosc.html?page=1

Incidentally, the Block the Empire network is made up of individuals originally from Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan (as well as many other countries), so we know a little something about what’s happening in that part of the world, and we have family and loved ones in that region (some of us were born and raised in that region).

The alternative we propose here – allowing Afghan refugees the rights and mobility that anyone holding a Canadian or EU passport might have – is serious. Why are you so dismissive of a suggestion that actually provides people with options in their life (ie. allows for their self-determination). Or do you prefer Afghans to always be in the position of deference to Western prerogatives, and the advice of Canadian Majors.

We would like to share this observation: anytime an Afghan shows independence from your CF talking points on Afghanistan (like the women of RAWA), or a proposal is made that provides for a huge measure of independence (like allowing Afghan refugees the mobility rights of Canadians, via residency), you dismiss them out-of-hand. That is highly instructive of what “independence” means in the NATO officer worldview.


We wrote: - Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).

_Again, a blanket statement that is condescending and insulting to the thousands of moderate Afghans who are striving for a better life. To make a generalized accusation that all consultants are puppets and all who work for the current Afghan government are fundamentalists is ignorant in the extreme. This statement more than any other shows your true colours and demonstrates for everyone to see that you are not interested in the reality of Afghanistan or the plight of her people. You have an agenda to push and that agenda is to get people you approve of into power in Afghanistan, nothing more. By suggesting that no one is listening to progressives is once again to show your lack of knowledge about how the Afghan government works and what is going on over there. I have attended meeting where the full spectrum of Afghan politics has been in attendence - from former warlords, to feministists, to former communists, to western educated refugees and all were given the opportunity to speak. And this was not just one meeting, I have been to dozens like that._

The pretence of democracy is not democracy. Glad to know that you attended meetings with “the full spectrum of Afghan politics”. Why do you defend a government that so clearly marginalizes so many of those voices then?


We wrote: - Recognize that the entire insurgency against foreign troops can’t uniformly be dismissed as “Taliban”. A large part of the insurgency is an indigenous resistance to foreign invasion, particularly by the Pashtuns of the south. You can never defeat an indigenous Pashtun insurgency (to even think you can shows an astounding ignorance of the history and culture of Central and South Asia, repeating the mistakes of the Raj). The foreign presence provides a pretext for Taliban recruitment amongst the Pashtun.

_The irony here is that the only person who seems to think we call the entire insurgency "Taliban" is you! Those of us who have been there or who are going know far better than you do that there are many factions with many interests. If you want to give us a history lesson about defeating the Pashtuns, maybe you should give us the whole lesson. The Brits had very little trouble defeating them in the Second and Third Afghan wars with relatively small forces. There is no such thing as an undefeatable tribe and Pashtuns are not all united against the coalition. In fact large Pashtun tribes or sub-tribes are either neutral or supportive of the Karzai government (Karzai himself being a Pashtun)._

We insist on making a distinction between “Taliban” and the rest of the insurgency, because some members of this forum continue to insist that CF is fighting and killing “Taliban.” It’s clear that the insurgency against foreign troops is more complex than that.

Your reading of Central and South Asian history is somewhat quaint (ie. colonial); do you still refer to the 1857 Indian rebellion as “The Mutiny”. Terms like the “Second and Third Afghan wars” are imperial history (written by a certain school of British historians, and no doubt regurgitated at RMC). If you’re going to be active in a region of the world like South and Central Asia, it might be useful to try to understand history from the point of view of the locals. The point is that the British never brought the majority of Pushtun lands or peoples under their control. They’ve certainly written a lot of glorious “history” about their various “wars”, and the Afghan princes and kings they put into power or deposed. (Kind of like the contemporary history of putting Karzai into power, “democratically,” and the glorious war we’re now supposedly winning.)

But, this is all a distraction from the main point (which is not that the Pushtuns are an “undefeatable tribe” as you write; Pushtuns are a people of some 40 million living in Afghanistan, Pakistan and all over the world thru migration): the insurgency in southern Afghanistan is just as attributable to a long-standing Pushtun resistance to foreign meddling as it is to Taliban ideology.


We wrote: - Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).

_We are? Because after Op MEDUSA and BAAZ TSUKA, we seemed to be winning. So let me see if I get this straight. You - a civilian who has never been to Afghanistan nor fought in any kind of war, are telling us - a group of people who take home paycheques based on their proficiency at all things military, that we're losing the war!? So by reading newspapers and endlessly quoting LGen Leslie out of context, you figure you're qualified to make this assessment?
_
Civilians are certainly entitled to question this war, and to have our opinions about it. You might disagree with our assessment, but please don’t question our ability to make it.

You state we “endlessly quote LGen Leslie out of context”. Can you be more specific?


[We've reached the maximum length for a single message on this forum. The rest of this reply will follow in the next post.]

---
Valcartier 2007
www.valcartier2007.ca


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
With all due respect, a group of Afghan women, who are the targets and survivors of warlord/Taliban attacks, have a bit more credibility about Afghanistan than a foreign military officer who advises a US puppet



Thats it, screw it,........you can appeal to Mr. Bobbitt but thats it as far as I'm concerned. 

Bye.


EDIT: For those curious it wasn't his[their] politics but I am tired of them mocking the efforts that our brave men and women have accomplished there. We have many who have been BTDT who deserve more than " we have some who were born there, etc". Twenty years ago was 20 years ago..............this has come full circle.
Bruce


----------



## armyvern

RAWA,

A group of women who are unsatisfied with the outcome of those democratic elections that they voted in. RAWA membership numbers do not represent the majority of Afghan women. Therefore, RAWA is a women's group, granted, whose views represent only the numbers of their membership.

A small number of women in a vast country speaking from their point of view DOES NOT constitute what the majority of Afghan citizens want (or even what the majority of Afghan women want). The election results kind of confirm that don't they?

I could start a women's group right here in Canada and say the sky is purple ... just because I have a group of us that say so ... doesn't make it so, nor does the fact that my group exists and has pictures of violet tinged skies taken at sunset give me any more street-cred than someone whose got a picture of a nice blue sky on a sunny day.

If someone who was actually directly involved with supporting that democratically elected government doesn't have an ounce of cred according to you ... then I'll pull up some other websites and commentary by other Afghan women's groups for you that, quite frankly, don't agree with RAWAs viewpoint. Or would you rule them as uncredible too because they don't support your anti-American-anarchist-biased viewpoint??


----------



## garb811

Having been lurking in this one, I'm now at the point where I think many of the army.ca members are; frustrated and irritated at your continued charade at trying to pass off your writings as informed, thoughtful and well reasoned ideas and possibilities.  Fact is, they are not and I think that what good will you had built up here in your initial posts while we waited for your action plan is drying up very quickly.  Put bluntly, your action plan sounds nice but would rapidly fall apart in the real world.  



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> The alternatives (interrelated and non-exhaustive) are:
> 
> - Stop allying with warlords, who are also fundamentalist and anti-women (a key demand of RAWA, an Afghan women’s group whose views members of this forum have so far refused to engage, despite previous citations in our posts).
> 
> - Stop propping up a US-imposed puppet (Hamid Karzai). Canadian civilian and military officials currently serve as his advisor.



What is it going to take to get you to realize and admit that we work with the Government of Afghanistan because it is the democratically elected Government?  Unfortunately, like Canada, we do not get to pick and choose which members of the Government we work with/for, we work with those who have been chosen by the people.  Of course, you might be arguing in a round-about way that the elections were flawed.  If so, please support this with reports from the election monitors you had on the ground.



> - Spend money to pay genuine reparations to Afghan civilians – who have been killed in the thousands – by Western armed forces (predominantly killed by US forces, but also by Canadian Forces). Provide not token and condescending funds, but substantial funds to repair the damage that Western policy has caused in Afghanistan for decades.



And what exactly is "genuine reparations"?  Give us a dollar figure and keep in mind that the amount needs to be relative to the economic conditions in the country, doing otherwise sets up the possiblity that desperate individuals will resort to desperate measures in order to provide a monetary windfall for their family.  This last point is based on fact as it became common practice in the Balkans to instigate traffic accidents in order to receive monetary compensation, much like happens in North America where traffic accidents are staged to defraud insurance companies.



> - Provide substantial funds to grassroots Afghan groups, and their allies, who determine their own needs, and not have those needs decided for them by NATO officers or Western bureaucrats. Stop making “aid” contingent on collaboration with NATO/US-led counterinsurgency. Stop pretending that PRT efforts are a substitute for genuine development as led and determined by Afghans themselves.



And then you'd be complaining about how all the aid money was squandered lining the pockets of corrupt individuals and nothing was spent on actual projects.  Let's not forget that providing "substantial funds" also places those grassroots groups at risk of being targeted for those same funds...



> - Listen to the voices of progressive Afghans themselves (not puppets who worked as consultants for Western corporations), who refuse to choose between one set of fundamentalists (the Taliban and their allies) or other fundamentalists (Bush, Karzai and their chosen warlords).



And do these "progessive Afghans" actually speak for the people themselves or simply for their own narrow, self serving interests as happens so much here in Canada?



> - Recognize that Canada is ultimately losing the war (which O’Connor refuses to even call a “war”). 2500 troops in a vast area like southern Afghanistan is symbolic, not a real attempt to fight a counter-insurgency. Civilian deaths are rising, and the rules of engagement alienate Afghan civilians. As insurgents are killed, more are created (as General Leslie has acknowledged), so you can never win (which General Leslie illogically will never acknowledge).



Actually, I think the war in Afghanistan is not our war to win or lose, ultimately it is Afghanistan's, we are assisting the democratically elected government at their invitation.  What I do know however, is if NATO pulled out at this point, the war would indeed be lost, even without the Taliban, as the Government fragmented along tribal lines as has happened in the past.



> (For the sake of argument: Imagine if a foreign force, no matter the pretext for their presence, killed a 10 year-old boy, an old man, a taxi driver and other civilians in southern Alberta, or the Okanagan, or Eastern Ontario or the Saguenay. Would the people in those areas have any sympathy whatsoever for the “mission” of that foreign force? Why would we assume any less a reaction by Afghans?)



Inane argument but if that "force" were in place in order to provide safety, security and stability and that message was clearly understood, progress was being seen to be made and the populace knew their own government did not have the wherewithall to provide that, I think most of the population would be supportive of that force while acknowledging the tragedy of the mistakes.  Of course, you would also need to examine the context as to why that taxi driver, old man or 10 year old boy were killed.  If that force were simply driving around gunning people down at whim that would be another matter, and I certainly hope you're not implying that this is what NATO is doing...



> - Recognize that any genuine reconstruction or development effort must be led and determined by Afghan civilians. You don’t win “hearts and minds” out of a tank or APC, in fatigues, with a rifle, not even speaking the local language, while shooting at civilians and insisting that anyone that attacks you is “Taliban” and deserves to be killed.



How did we go from reconstruction or development to someone deserving to be killed?  But since you brought it up, you might want to look up the inherent right of self-defence.  If someone attacks someone else without provocation, the victim is permitted to respond with force sufficient to save themself from death or serious bodily harm.  In most instances in Afghanistan this means deadly force as I haven't heard of too many fist-fights breaking out between ordinary Afghans and NATO forces.



> Certainly not if support by funds and arms from Pakistan and allies in Saudi Arabia was removed. With the withdrawal of NATO troops, one of the main sources of grievance exploited by the Taliban would be eliminated. As argued by Sonali Kolhatkar (co-author of Bleeding Afghanistan), the Taliban today is stronger than in 2001, not geographically, but in popularity amongst a Pashtun base. NATO troops, and their actions, correlates directly with Taliban popularity. Get rid of those troops, and you remove a huge basis for Taliban popularity. That doesn’t mean the Taliban disappears, but it creates a political situation that deprives the Taliban of their oxygen.



Agreed but kindly explain how you plan to cut the Taliban off from that funding and support without having forces on the ground to interdict it?



> There is currently a civil war, with multiple fronts (including the gender front, with not just the Taliban but warlords defended by NATO attacking the rights and dignity of women). NATO has chosen a side in this civil war (and Western powers, particularly the US, perpetuated the civil war, with money and arms, throughout the 1980s). Canada’s presence does not help this situation.



Again with the affronts to the rights and dignity of women.  When will you recognize that, although not perfect in comparison to your idealized standard, the life being led by women and girls in Afghanistan today is leaps and bounds beyond what it was not so long ago.  If Afghanistan as a society wishes to move to a point more in line with Western values, well and good.  If, on the other hand, that society wishes to contine to embrace a more traditional value system in accordance with their past, who are we (or you) to impose a western value system on them?



> 1) is a cover for US-led counterinsurgency and long-term US presence in the Middle East and Central Asia;



You have yet to prove this assertion with documented fact.



> 2) kills civilians, and undertakes rules of engagement that allows for shooting at civilians;



Ahh...so you've actually seen a copy of our ROE and are a legal expert on the Laws of Armed Conflict?



> 3) hands over prisoners to forces – whether Afghan or US – that do not respect Geneva Convention protections);



Newsflash, criminals aren't afforded the protections of the Geneva conventions.  Additionally, if we refused to hand detainees over to the legal authorities of Afghanistan we are assuming the role of an occupying force, something you demand we not do, and which, of course, we aren't.



> Putting into practice these alternatives (not in isolation, but with other radical shifts in worldwide geopolitics – regionally and globally), can begin to create space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms.



Unfortunately, most of your "solutions" are predisposed to someone imposing a western liberal democratic value system on a culture which does not share those same values, by doing so you are certainly not creating "space for Afghans to self-determine their future and their development, on their terms", you are trying to dictate to Afghans how you want it done to meet your view of what is socially just.


----------



## BLEM

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> With all due respect, a group of Afghan women, who are the targets and survivors of warlord/Taliban attacks, have a bit more credibility about Afghanistan than a foreign military officer who advises a US puppet
> 
> Thats it, screw it,........you can appeal to Mr. Bobbitt but thats it as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> Bye.
> 
> EDIT: For those curious it wasn't his[their] politics but I am tired of them mocking the efforts that our brave men and women have accomplished there. We have many who have been BTDT who deserve more than " we have some who were born there, etc". Twenty years ago was 20 years ago..............this has come full circle.
> Bruce



Hi folks. This is one member of the Valcartier2007 English team that's just been banned.

We feel the ban is heavy-handed and amounts to censorship. We (Valcartier2007) have not mocked anyone, but rather argued our point of view. Not sure what guideline on this forum we've abused. Can't help but think that we've been banned to shut down genuine debate. After all, we were compared to "child molesters" but that wasn't grounds to ban that poster (nor would we argue such).

The comment cited by Bruce above is fair comment. You might not agree, you might even be annoyed by it, but it's certainly fair comment in a debate. We even began the comment with the phrase, "With all due respect". Moreover, the comment is within a longer reply (which was going to be in two parts until we were banned!). Our reply constituted respect for the point of view being offered.

We appeal to the folks on this forum who have previously argued for open civil debate to ask that we be unbanned, so we can continue this discussion and debate. There are certainly many replies we'd like to make to recent arguments and posts, and we do appreciate the many thoughtful comments by some of you. We can't even read your comments anymore from our usual public terminal because of the ban.

"Banning" a dissenting voice on a flimsy pretext does not present a very open-minded view of the people administrating this site. We hope you reconsider.

-- BLEM, for Valcartier2007.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I said that he/you/they can appeal to the site owner, Mr. Bobbitt.

He is my boss, and I answer to him, not the masses.

Here is his e-mail,
Mike@Milnet.ca


----------



## PMedMoe

BLEM said:
			
		

> We feel the ban is heavy-handed and amounts to censorship. We (Valcartier2007) have not mocked anyone, but rather argued our point of view. -- BLEM, for Valcartier2007.



Can't see that you've argued anything since you don't respond to direct questions but merely skew quotes, poll results, etc to support your opinion.  Oh, that and put in a link to your "open letter" on just about every post.  Talk about free advertising.  :


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

This is locked and done.

I think everyone can proudly say the site has been more than fair with the 'airtime' we gave to a group that essentially thinks we are puppets, murderers, etc.
I don't think most of us would get the same at a typical anti-everything website.

Valcartier,  seriously, thanks for coming out, but if I may offer a solution, start your own forum and maybe some will debate there.
Bruce


----------



## armyvern

BLEM said:
			
		

> Hi folks. This is one member of the Valcartier2007 English team that's just been banned.
> 
> We feel the ban is heavy-handed and amounts to censorship. We (Valcartier2007) have not mocked anyone, but rather argued our point of view. Not sure what guideline on this forum we've abused. Can't help but think that we've been banned to shut down genuine debate. After all, we were compared to "child molesters" but that wasn't grounds to ban that poster (nor would we argue such).
> 
> "Banning" a dissenting voice on a flimsy pretext does not present a very open-minded view of the people administrating this site. We hope you reconsider.
> 
> -- BLEM, for Valcartier2007.



Well of course you feel it's censorship. It has nothing at all to do with the fact that you have no problem continually making personal insults (and that's what calling us puppets and war criminals is) which is against site policy. You see there are many warnings posted in this thread by mods (including myself) telling people to keep the personal attacks out of the discussion. Those who did it once, then didn't do it again. Valcartier2007, on the other hand, apparently didn't feel those warnings were applicable to him/you, and, in virtually every post he has made, has had some insulting comment included about we members serving in the CF.

He, like you, would have got those rules upon activating your accounts. They ARE applicable to you as well. Valcartier2007 got his free-ride long enough. And because he chose to ignore warnings posted, and repeatedly refer to forum members as war criminals, puppets, automatons ...does NOT make us guilty of censorship. It makes him guilty of sheer ignorance.

And apparently, our view is a little more open than you give us credit for ... but the debate was over long ago. Your "facts" were debunked, your "plan" was debunked, and your view of the troops as occupiers and war criminals is debunked. Debate's over when you can't post anything new except for the same tired insults and links to previous "debunked" statements that you have posted numerous times previously.

If you bring nothing more to the debate ... then there ceases to be a debate and you had ample opportunity to correct that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Folks, much as I hate posting over a lock, Mortar Guy sent me the response he had typed up for Valcatier2007's post whilst I was locking/banning, and it was so good that I have to post it.
_
Quote
BLEM and Valcartier2007,

I think what you fail to realize is that people here are sick and tired of your slogans and flimsy logic. Massive holes are regularly punched in your theories (if they can be called that) and it has been pointed out on numerous occasions that your reliance on one group's opinion (RAWA), a few newspaper articles, selective quotes from one or two books, and blanket generalizations are getting old. 

I have read pretty much everything in print regarding Afghanistan, including many government documents that you will never see. I have dedicated my adult life to the study of armed conflict and am currently completing a Masters in War Studies with my thesis in COIN doctrine. I have been to Afghanistan twice and have met hundreds of Afghans in my 13 months there. I have many Afghan friends (Tajik, Pashtun, Hazara) that I am still in contact with who actually live there and I spend a considerable amount of time each month talking to people who have been there and who are similarly interested in that country.

You are, as far as I can tell, have read some articles and books and the depth of your research goes scarcely beyond what RAWA writes on their web page. You have never been there and your contact with Afghans is limited to refugees in Canada who have not been back to Afghanistan in god knows how long.

If this were truly a debate, you would be blown out of the water as most people here are posting first hand information, back by reliable, verifiable and credible sources while you reply with generalizations, broad brush accusations and rhetoric based on very narrow opinions.

But this isn't a debate. This is what happens when starry eyed idealism meets the real world. Its a shame you were banned but you just wouldn't listen.

MG_


EDIT: Just respelled a word because I had three things on th :-\..........alright I corrected it because I'm not too bright.


----------



## MidnightSun

This the same group of losers that were sending direct mail in Quebec?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/06/29/antiwar-activists.html?ref=rss



> Antiwar group protests support-our-troops billboards
> Last Updated: Friday, June 29, 2007 | 10:35 AM ET
> 
> Antiwar activists say two support-our-troops billboards may be sending the wrong message to residents of Côte-Saint-Luc, in west-end Montreal.
> 
> The city put up the billboards several months ago.
> 
> "This is a military intervention we do not want. So we do not want those young people to go there and make those sacrifices on our behalf," said Raymond Legault, spokesman for the antiwar group Échec à la guerre.
> 
> He said his group has nothing against the soldiers themselves. But, he said, the majority of Quebecers don't think the troops should be in Afghanistan.
> 
> City Coun. Glenn Nashen said the billboards do not carry a political message.
> 
> He said they are a constant reminder that, no matter how people feel about the war in Afghanistan, the soldiers need moral support at home.
> 
> "Some councillors were in support of the mission, and some councillors were not in support. But one thing we had unanimous consent on was that, no matter what, we all supported the troops."
> 
> Nashen said there are countless memorials for soldiers in past wars, and today's soldiers deserve the same respect.
> 
> Legault said people should think about the Afghan victims of the war, not just the Canadian troops.


----------



## McG

Val2007,
It is unfortunate that you never came round to providing your prescription for Afghanistan to resolve its problems (with or without our help).  You did provide an incomplete shopping list of ideas, but this fell short as far as vision from one so certain that our current approach is completely wrong.


			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> You do realize there’s a difference between “reparations” and “aid”, right?





			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> Our model is solidarity, which is the opposite of charity.


It would have been helpful if you clarified your language.  It appears you are against helping the Afghans.  You want them to sort things for themselves.  You only want us to throw money at them for casualties caused by the west.  It would have been nice had you clarified how you thought these differences in words should be played out on the ground.



			
				Valcartier 2007 said:
			
		

> We should listen to these progressive movements (like RAWA, or L'Observatoire de l'Asie centrale et du Moyen-Orient)


What are the steps perscribed by these progressive movements?  How would they implement and follow through on their plan?

Too bad.  Things started out well, but somewhere you lost your tact.  It looks like we will now never get to understand what is going on in your head.


----------

