A Protesters Response To "The Ex Charging Bison" Thread

[kgerrard]

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

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

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

kgerrard:

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

kgerrard,

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

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

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

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

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

Please, enjoy your stay with army.ca!

 

[kgerrard]

Welcome to this forum.

Thank you.

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

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

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

What about the 2001 invasion?

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

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

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

And who gets the rebuilding contracts?

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Not by me!

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

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

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

I discussed one above.

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

I only know about the last few years.

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

Haha, thanks.

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

And who gets the rebuilding contracts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

TR

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[Wookilar]

kgerrard,

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ArmyRick]

kgerrard,

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

 

[AmmoTech90]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

D

 

[paracowboy]

hippie-boy, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[scotty884]

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

 

[George Wallace]

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

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

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

 

[kgerrard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

 

[ArmyRick]

Would mind answering my six simple questions?

 

[sober_ruski]

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

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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

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

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

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

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

kgerrard:

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

TR

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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

Cheers.