A Protesters Response To "The Ex Charging Bison" Thread

[silentbutdeadly]

Hey Rick,

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

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

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

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

Please, do not insult my intelligence.

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

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

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

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

 

[S McKee]

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

 

[TMM]

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

+1.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[career_radio-checker]

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

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

 

[parkie]

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

Please don’t reply. Don’t want one.

                                  parkie

 

[J.J]

Parkie



Peacnik

:tsktsk:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

 

[ArmyRick]

Parkie, well said old timer 

 

[Screw]

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

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

Screw.

 

[kgerrard]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[scoutfinch]

kgerrard:

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

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

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

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

scoutfinch

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

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

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


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

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


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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

Specifically, you stated:

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

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

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Locked until tomorrow

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

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

 

[Peacenik]

Please, do not insult my intelligence.

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

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

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

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