Cover me, I'm going in

[mtnbikes]

I'm looking for a little bit of advice, and perhaps some guidance.  Having being in the 'Stan twice, and waiting for another opportunity to have another go at it, I still need to do my part to support the guys that are over there (in addition with sharing my experience with the ones that have not been there yet).  That being said, I cannot help than notice that there is an awful lot of uninformed opinions (NDP out-of-Afghanistan, various leftist groups and anti-war movements to name a few) that continue to spew forth with rhetoric asking for our departure from what I truly believe is a worthy cause.  My daughter is starting her first year of University (U of O), and when I went to pick her up over the week end for Thanksgiving, I noticed a few posters plastered on walls and lightpoles inviting the students to an NDP supported rally to get our troops out of Afghanistan.  It even had a camo background !  While driving back home, I asked my daughter what is the feeling about our presence in Afghanistan amongst the students she knew.  She told me that the feeling ware rather negative, especially in her department (arts), and that she has been invited to attend one of the anti-war meeting to be held in the coming weeks.  I am very proud of my daughter, and she is very proud of me also.  Before I dropped her back at her residence, I gave her a support the troops wristband, which she told me she will wear proudly.  I also told her that she should attend the anti-war rally, in order to present the position of a military daughter, which understands (thanks to long conversations with her old man) what is really at stake over there and also what sacrifices have to be undertaken (by both soldiers and their families) in order to make all of us safe and free to express our ideas.  In addition, I would like to know if there are some advocacy sites that I could portray my views in a constructive and "grown up" athmostphere ?  As the number of casualties continue to mount, I think it is important that we take the cause to the ones trying to stop our deployment, with inaccurate facts, biased perceptions and spurious assumptions.  Some of the sites I perused seem to be be unlikely to give me the light of day.  I have not seen a lot of anti-war or individuals questioning our deployment on this site, although there has been a few brave ones.  I was also very proud of the amount of constructive and logical responses to their queries from the military and regular forum members.

Thanks for anyone's input.

 

[McG]

In addition, I would like to know if there are some advocacy sites that I could portray my views in a constructive and "grown up" athmostphere ? 

Just share this address: Ruxted.ca

 

[mtnbikes]

Thanks MCG.  However, Ruxted seems to be on our side.  What I'm looking for (sorry if I was not clear) would be sites that have both sides of the issue and input from both groups.

 

[Rice0031]

Yes, it is quite unfortunate that a large majority of students seem to be very uninformed about such topics. However, giving up isn't a solution. I hope your daughter can perhaps enlighten a few misguided people.

 

[a_majoor]

This is something that needs to be addressed at every level, from Prime Minister Harper on down.

As a serving member, you (and a lot of us) are constrained in what, where and when we can speak, but your unit should be able to get you the services of a PAO, access to a speaker's bureau and perhaps other help that I am unaware of. As well, there are organizations like the CFLC, which can speak in general terms about the benefits of employers hiring and retaining members of the CF; if there is one thing students with even half their neuron's firing will understand it is the need to find employment. Seeing and hearing from potential employers the desired qualities include kicking a** and taking names should be quite the wake up call for some.

As for the rest, Darwinian selection still operates, they will be deselected in the employment and thus "desirable mates" market, solving the problem in about two generations.

 

[McG]

What I'm looking for (sorry if I was not clear) would be sites that have both sides of the issue and input from both groups.

You might try some of the online news sites which offer readers the option of leaving comments.

Try the Globe & Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061010.wlibafghan1010/CommentStory/National/home

 

[xmarcx]

University is a tough place to be pro-military these days, best of luck to your daughter with standing her ground - I'm sure she won't be afraid to tell people what she truly believes. Sadly Piper is right that there isn't much hope of convincing anyone that the military is providing a critical service and ensuring the basis for a stable society and creating a structure suitable to the realization of basic human rights at home and abroad - the damn kids are so hard-wired to hate America and fear Imperialism that they don't even bother to actually critically examine  the issue. 

Here's a trick though - remind them that security of the person is the core of any codification or conception of human rights ever put into place across the world, then ask them how they propose to secure a safe and prosperous existence for the average citizen of Afghanistan or the Sudan where people are suffering violence at the hands of religious extremists who believe they are conducting the will of God, without a military. It's always funny to see the gears grinding!

 

[Shamrock]

If I have to hear one more time about that goddamn trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline, I'm going to start selling shares.

Why is it that centres of education harbour some of the stupidest people on Earth? Shut it.

I don't think it's the majority of students who hold certain opinions as fact.  I find that some people in expanding their minds and shrugging off preconceived (and often unfounded) notions and bigotry fail, and instead redirect their narrow focus elsewhere.  I've heard of this phenomenon referred to as the "Idiot Vortex" -- that is, get enough idiots in a tight enough concentration, they'll eventually suck all the intelligence out of the area.

 

[career_radio-checker]

Hello Mtnbikes;

I am a student at the U of O and also lived in residence there for first year.
I find it's really only among first-years that the idea of "Imperialism" is drilled into their heads. But as they progress through the years they start looking at the other side of Politics. I'm actually taking International relations and deal with a lot of politically charged classes. I don't advertise I'm military but I do advocate our position. Surprisingly, there are a lot of 'realists' in my class who know the importance of security in the world, rarely do we have someone arguing about the pull out of troops. I too have seen the posters in the hallways and am curious to see who will attend that rally on Oct 28. I used to hate protesters but recently came to peace with the simple fact that they have their beliefs and I have mine and are allowed to express them if they want. Of course I understand that this might be a different view for you since you've actually been there... twice (I hope to go within the next 2 years). Just take comfort knowing that MAWO in Vancouver can only muster about 30 protesters for a demonstration outside the Vancouver recruiting office, while we can muster 10 000 supporters for the Red Fridays campaign on Parliament Hill.

In response to your question I can only think of one left-wing forum and that is rabble.ca

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Retreat is generally the natural reaction for most people when they see our people getting killed.  Fight or flight.  I would venture that the highly educated types, the ones that cry foul whenever a soldier is killed and demand our troops pull out, are the type of individuals who would rarely stand up and fight for a cause, and would be more inclined to run away and live another day so to speak.  Which is all fine and good, there's nothing wrong with that at all---only it is completely contrary to the whole concept of fighting a pro-active war.  You can't win a war by pulling everyone in and defending your own infrastructure (particularily in this war, given that Canada is not under any direct threat of attack---although that point I'm sure is debatable among some.  But not under threat of conventional attack).  People I think don't really understand this point- or they do understand, they just refuse to accept it.  These are the same people I wager are the types that believe Canada's military is only good for peacekeeping roles, or at least that's all it should ever commit itself to doing.  They simply cannot accept the idea of their supposedly peaceloving country fighting in a pro-active sense.

Honestly, I shake my head at some of these individuals.  Peace has never come without a cost.  That seems to be the concept that the anti-war types fail to recognize.

 

[scoutfinch]

Pte Pukepail:

Afghanistan is not a pro-active war.  NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11; hence, it is a reactive war.

Iraq (from which we expressly absented ourselves) is a pro-active war.  Your notion of pro-active war is reminiscent of the Bush doctrine's first corollary of pre-emptive war.  Please note that this is NOT an element of Canadian foreign policy nor are Canadian troops engaged in a *pro-active* conflict , as you call it.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Hmmm, I agree and disagree with your statement on pro-active, reactive war.  The thing is, I would whole-heartedly agree with you that it was a reactionary war IF allied countries had been attacked by Afghanistan as a state.  But we weren't.  We were attacked by terrorist factions existing within the state.  We declared war on Afghanistan as part of an overall war on terror.  Afghanistan (as a country again) didn't attack us.  Lets forget NATO articles and doctrine for the moment, and look at it for what is actually is, not for what it is on paper.  Technically, yes, the reactionary.  How it has been executed however has been pro-active.  US and NATO allies were the ones to declare war first...yes, you could argue that the terrorists declared it on 9/11, but that's not a state we're talking about here, it's individuals, but Afghanistan never made a declaration- nor did they as a country attack anyone.

 

[GAP]

Afghanistan, under the Taliban, were served notice that they were responsible for the actions of the groups they sheltered and supported, therefore, they, as a country were responsible. That is why they were ousted.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Also, there may have been confusion of my usage of pro-active war.  What I was generally referring to was the fact that Canada as part of the greater NATO operation in Afghanistan are not simply on the defense, but are engaging the enemy offensively.  Operation Medusa for instance.

 

[scoutfinch]

Hmmm, I agree and disagree with your statement on pro-active, reactive war.  The thing is, I would whole-heartedly agree with you that it was a reactionary war IF allied countries had been attacked by Afghanistan as a state.  But we weren't.  We were attacked by terrorist factions existing within the state.  We declared war on Afghanistan as part of an overall war on terror.  Afghanistan (as a country again) didn't attack us.  Lets forget NATO articles and doctrine for the moment, and look at it for what is actually is, not for what it is on paper.  Technically, yes, the reactionary.  How it has been executed however has been pro-active.  US and NATO allies were the ones to declare war first...yes, you could argue that the terrorists declared it on 9/11, but that's not a state we're talking about here, it's individuals, but Afghanistan never made a declaration- nor did they as a country attack anyone.

You are wrong. 

(1)  NATO invoked Article 5 which provides that an attack on a member of the alliance is an attack on all members of the alliance. Hence, the attack on the US was interpreted as an attack on all NATO member states.   

(2) As per the Bush doctrine, states that harbour terrorists were determined to be acting with the terrorists; hence, Afghanistan (providing safe harbour for al-qaeda) were complicit in the attacks and became legal targets.

(3)  It is IMPOSSIBLE to *forget NATO articles and doctrine* to analyze the onset of the war in Afghanistan.  Unless, of course, you only want to look at half of the story so as to prove your own argument right.  :


I suggest you study a bit of tactics, doctrine, recent history AND international law before you start telling people here how it is.

 

[Donut]

+1 Sam.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Pte Pukepail....dude you are batting 1000 I suggest you read more and post less otherwise it might become enforced.

 

[warrickdll]

Keep in mind the unrecognized nature of the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan... So stating that Afghanistan, as a state, did not attack the US misses that all actions emanating from Afghanistan at the time could be considered as either from the state or not. In which case - the house always wins.

 

[Pvt. Pukepail]

Look, if you want everyone's opinions to be streamlined, then fine, I'll shut up and stop contributing my thoughts on subjects.  Personally, I'm not corrupted by articles and doctrine and all these other things which obviously are important, but I'm speaking purely from a independant standpoint.  Okay, maybe its wrong, maybe I'm in the dark, but an opinion is an opinion.  You can't expect EVERYONE to believe the exact same thing the rest of you guys do.  You say something is reactive, well maybe it is offcially, but maybe I as a bloody individual see it another way.  Maybe I think Bush was wrong about this or that, so I state my opinion based on that.  Guys, come on, you've got to be more forgiving when someone is stating little more than an opinion.  So it contradicts your own, or the 'general consensus'.  We weren't given free will without the ability to use it.

In any case, if all I can expect is a badgering for every single thing I post, I'll stick with the less relevant conversations then.

 

[scoutfinch]

Iterator:

I think that is a bit of a straw man.  Whether the Taliban was recognized as the government of Afghanistan  by other nations, it was the defacto governing body in Afghanistan.  It had been recognized by two Islamic regional governments and members of the Taliban were invited for discussion to the Whitehouse, all while the American government proclaimed that they weren't recognizing the Taliban as the government.  Even then, we all knew that the Whitehouse wasn't officially recognizing them for political expediency but intended to deal with them as if they were the government so as to pave the way for a possible later recognition.