A Protesters Response To "The Ex Charging Bison" Thread

[Fiji]

Fiji has just painted a picture of the "left" Strawman that so many far-right individuals use to disparage all who are seen as having opposing views.  In my experience that term itself should be avoided as it is used to brand a group of people with wildy differing viewpoints. For instance, I agree that Canada should be in Afghanistan, and I agree with the rationale for going there in the first place. I also believe in a strong military, and think that military spending should be a much larger component of our budget. In the non- military sphere, I believe in small government and low taxes. Nevertheless, because I disagree with some of the current Canadian Government's non-military initiatives, I'm branded as a birkentock wearing hippie by members of this board. I am a former CAF infantry soldier and no one who knows me would EVER mistake me for a hippie (trust me I have bumper stickers) yet this is what happens. The "right' like to paint everyone who disagrees with them on ANY issue as being part of some grand left agenda (michael moore loving blah blah blah).  I don't think Military =  American- I don't think Soldiers = War Mongers and I certainly don't think that the existence of the military is the reason for war itself. I DO, however, believe in the essential goodness of human beings- something which Fiji seems to be saying is non-existent. For Fiji, a world without military is a world without order and, thus, chaos. If you really believe that humans are essentially evil, then what are you fighting for Fiji? I see humans as being decendants of tribes, which worked together for the "common good". Mabye that's the  difference between the left and the right then. The "left" believes man is basically good, while the "right" believes man must be told to be good.

For me if we're not inherantly "good" then there's nothing to fight for



My Response to Canuck Troop

I think you truly misunderstood the purpose of my statement.

Yes my statement was a generalization. You are completely right. I was trying to enlighten many of the readers on this site of why mainly socialist minded people have such resentment for the armed forces. My peers, professors and roommates fit into this category. The generalizations work both ways as well. Several soldiers that have trained with me joined for reasons that I did not describe in my description above. Assumptions area enivitable part of conforming ideas, and thoughts that make us who we are.

  This is not a left vs right argument, for there is no one that is fits only into one category. When I walk to class everyday, I pass many homeless people, and it hurts me to see people living in such dire poverty on our streets, regardless of how they got there. So in that respect, I disagree with many conservative policies. So there is no such thing as being completely conservative or very liberal. Although given that, you can make some very basic generalizations about the view points of people. You being in the Infantry and supporting mainly socialist values is a rare breed with belonging in the category with the Sasquach. So my comment does not apply to yourself. Although it does apply to my friends here at University, and the majority of the academics view points that is supported in my course material. The vague generalization was not for you,  Kergaard or anyone else supporting similar viewpoints. Rather for all the troops and supporters that live in areas where this school of thought is not predominant, or even prevalent at all. I am making an effort to explain through my own personal experiences why people hate the Canadian Armed forces, for reasons that are not apparent.

My message was also misconstrued with believing in good an evil. There is good in all of us. As someone like myself that believes solely in Science to explain our existence, there is this thing called conscience that is unexplainable. There is a moral right and wrong that we are born with. Unfortunately though, they way societies are developed, that morality is often lost in translation. To also say that I believe a world without military is a world without order exemplifies my point of people making assumptions further (especially a comment like that). For Canada to have a military, is not to “achieve or order in Canada” or to solely defend our sovereignty, but rather for the greater benefit of the international community.

This comment was for all the troops overseas or on base. I hope my simple explanation helps you better understand why you hear such negativity in the media. 

But what do I know, I’m only some 19 cockey student reservist from Toronto that believes all people are evil right? Come on, where Canadians, and Canadians look for the best in people. You seem to have forgotten that.

Cheers

 

[George Wallace]

Just playing a little catchup after being away for a few days and was becoming amused with kgerrard's misconstrued answers to some of the posts.  To me they have no substance.  She doesn't really have a decent answer to any posts, only a twisted naive answer to most of the questions.  For example, I posted the following:

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.

To this she answered with this silliness:

Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training rapists to be most effective.

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.

What kind of answer is that?  What does training rapists have to do with this?  What kind of logic is that?  Yeah!  I know it is flawed logic, and desperate at that.  What is really disturbing is her presumption that the Canadian Military, as professionals, are unethical as stated in her words "but it presupposes that their professions  are ethical".  She backs this up with her belief that the military, which we can take her to mean the CF, in its' current form is ineffective and undesirable.  Why do we waste our time on Education, when these people really can't put together a logical thought with substance?

kgerrard

In this crowd you need to have 'concrete' answers, not just twisted playing with words.  It is, however, amusing to have a glimpse at how narrow and illinformed your views are.  I hope as I read further, I will come across more of your witticisms. 

 

[a_majoor]

I am always a bit perturbed by the "killbot" mentality that some of the protesters and other opponents of the military love to paint us with.

Many of our opponents or potential opponents, such as the Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam and so on make a point of using IED and homicide bombers to deliver explosives into areas where civilians can be found in concentrated groups. They think nothing of detonating devices filled with ball bearings, nails or scrap metal (sometimes laced with poison as well) in city buses, restaurants, schools, employment line ups, crowds of children gathering to receive candy or small gifts from coalition soldiers, market places, commercial office buildings, holiday resorts etc. (you can google all kinds of examples, sorted by organization who did it, time/date/place, number of casualties etc.) Indeed the enemy are actively seeking out these targets in order to maximize the number of casualties, the vast majority who are random innocent civilians. You have to work hard to get more "killbot" than that. (A set of Warsaw Pact war plans were uncovered in the early 1990s in former East Germany which indicated the USSR and Warsaw Pact were going to initiate the hot phase of the Third World War with mass nuclear and chemical weapons strikes in Europe. This would have been the ultimate terrorist act by many orders of magnitude. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1154719/posts and http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051225/news_lz1e25nuclear.html)

Contrast this to the professional Western or Coalition soldier who by law, training and convention is rarely able to fire his or her weapon unless they have an identified target to fire at. The speed at which actions take place, the confused nature of combat and human error means that sometimes soldiers are shooting at the wrong things, but this can hardly be equated with the deliberate, random, mass murder which our opponents use as their primary means of engagement.

That the protestors make accusations which are so openly and obviously wrong and easily disproven (yet continue to do so) suggests there is a different motivation behind these protests and other related activites. Protesting is being done for the sake of protesting, a ritual to create a feeling of purpose and togetherness for the protesters, with only a passing reference to external reality. I thought this article was a good take on the subject, follow the link and see for yourself: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I

edit to add reference and link

 

[paracowboy]

That the protestors make accusations which are so openly and obviously wrong and easily disproven (yet continue to do so) suggests there is a different motivation behind these protests and other related activites.

what amuses/depresses me is the fact that so many of these misguided fools are carrying on "The Revolution" that began in the '60s, where it was deliberately fueled by (primarily Soviet) communist infiltration of the Universities and media.

I still recall the video footage from about a decade ago of two old former KGB agents, laughin' their arses off while being interviewed, at the success (I don't recall which news program it was. W5 or something). They honestly thought that there was no way it could succeed, when it began in the '40s and '50s. When it did, they were shocked that:

A. anybody would fall for it, especially highly educated Professors;
B. the governments of the West would allow it to continue;
C. it lasted for decades.

They especially found it hilarious that McCarthy was right, and has since become demonized. They looked like a pair of fun old rascals. I wish I could meet them and hear some stories.

 

[Kirkhill]

paracowboy:

Any chance you could remember anymore details about that TV programme?  Arguably Russia's propaganda machine was its most effective weapon - and one of its masters is now the President of Russia.

 

[paracowboy]

paracowboy:

Any chance you could remember anymore details about that TV programme?  Arguably Russia's propaganda machine was its most effective weapon - and one of its masters is now the President of Russia.

I've been trying, but it was 10 years ago, or more. I'll poke around the websites of the various news programs I used to watch then, and I'll ask Dad. I remember him laughing at the two old rogues.

 

[ArmyRick]

You know whats scarry? Is that some people have talent in placing a single thought or idea in the weak minded people with no resolve or desperate people looking for something to beleive in. These two ruskies sound like they were masters of manipulation...

 

[paracowboy]

You know whats scarry? Is that some people have talent in placing a single thought or idea in the weak minded people with no resolve or desperate people looking for something to beleive in. These two ruskies sound like they were masters of manipulation...

well, we have to remember that the Soviets were laying their groundwork for infiltration right from the time of Lenin and Trotsky. They recognized right from the start that they needed to work from inside to destabilize their enemies. To that end, they subverted some, blackmailed others, seduced others, and located Useful Idiots in every nation in the West, principally 'disaffected' youth who wanted to appear rebellious (*coughTrudeaucough*).

For an example of how efficient the Soviets were at this sort of thing, look into the West's attempts to create revolution/rebellion in Albania. The Soviets infiltrated it to such an extent that THEY were quickly the ones "running" the revolution, and accepted the West's funds before finally screwing up a bit, and the US and UK caught on. Or look into the Soviet's "Romeo" program. Or into how they infiltrated Hollywood and the printed media.

Sheer brilliance. Decades of patient work, and it paid off enormous dividends. I don't know if they ever read Sun Tzu, but they took his ideas to their ultimate. If the Communist system weren't so completely inherently flawed, and if it weren't for some US administrations, they would probably have won.

 

[Centurian1985]

And then look at our own brilliant infiltration of Hollywood... the Americans have no idea how far we have penetrated into their bureaucracy, some of our best people are now key supporters in BOTH key US political parties.  (Evil laugh, Mua-ha-ha-ha).

 

[Bobbyoreo]

I was at this exersice and talked to these protesters. Most of these people came with no info...they only came knowing war is wrong. They talked alot about things that made no sence at all. I had a guy tell me about how NGO's were the way to go another talked about us being in Philipines.
I've worked with NGO's in Bosnia...and the Canadian ones were the worst and the other groups didnt do to much unless NATO helped them out and as for the Philipines...I have no idea what he is talking about as I've looked all over the net for 2 days and never found anything.

I listen to these people "educated people" talk about things they thought were so true...but when confronted they had nothing....they sat back and studurd. We had our INT guy at the gate and he made them all look like tools.

Most of these people came and talked and left only a few caused problems...and very few...and those few got to see a cell for a day anyways.

 

[McG]

I’m a little late in getting to this one.  Sorry, it has been busy the last while.

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.

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

By “replete with morally bankrupt interventions” I assume you are referring to Afghanistan & Hati.  Are those the sum of your objections?  That’s hardly fitting with your phrase suggestive of rampant dubious deployments of the military.

... to me, the big missions on which members of Canadian military institutions are currently deployed are at best ineffective, and at worst highly damaging.

How are they damaging (to whom and in what ways?)?

I'm protesting because I'm against the military manifestation of Canada's foreign policy.

Why?

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.

You speak in generalities.  What is Canada doing that is unproductive?  What are the “negatives”?  As I see it, we are in Afghanistan doing exactly what you declare to support.

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.

Who are we trampling and how?

I agree that less privileged nations deserve our aid, especially when we helped destroy them. However, I feel our military interventions are generally part of the disease.

Why to you think this?  What do we do that contributes to the “disease”?

Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical.

Is soldiering unethical? Why?

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

Do you really believe that you can trivialize the functions of these organizations to just that?

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.

Why is the military not desirable in its current form?  What does it need to do to become effective and how do you measure this?

If we executed truly humanitarian and defensive missions, I would favour training!

Every social and moral positive, which Canadians pride themselves about for being “peacekeepers,” is being achieved by our deployment in Afghanistan.  We are helping the locals.  We are building capacity in all levels of government for the Afghan nation to look after its own affairs.  We are working to establish a secure environment for the citizens (ie: no more war & violence) where they can feel safe and free to go about their lives.  Most importantly, we are putting the Afghan leaders at the helm.

I agree that they need our help, as do many across the world. I don't believe the military is an effective support. Some of the acts in which soldiers engage are surely beneficial, but I think we need to radically rethink our tactics. There's no public debate about this: it's "Either we're in or we're out", not "How should we be conducting ourselves on humanitarian missions?"

If the military is not an effective tool, then what should we employ?  When other government departments remained noticeably absent from the country (out of fear), then who else will hear the needs of the citizens?  When the departments responsible for aid and reconstruction will not travel on the ground (or will only do so if in the most heavily of armoured vehicles available), then who will go in to the villages and meet with the locals?

If I had faith that the assistance necessary were the lone goal, I would be completely behind the deployment and recognise the necessity of training.

What do you believe our goals to be?  Which are the ones (or the one) that you do not agree with?

Perhaps to you, but you seem to see the argument as Military vs. No military. I believe we need a debate on what sort of military we have. I would favour one more interested in working alongside citizens of countries that need help instead of the paternalistic techniques we currently employ.

We do work along side the citizens of the country.  We push & encourage those citizens to take the lead wherever possible.

Were the media interested in a more in-depth analysis instead of soundbites, it would be clear that I (and some others) support humanitarian missions when our presence is requested.

The current Afghani government has expressed that it wants our presence.  If not the Afghani government, then from whom do you feel this request should come?

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.

Do you believe that corporate interests are guiding Canadian actions in Afghanistan?  We regularly sit down with the community leaders in the towns and villages to discuss their needs (It was one of these village engagements where Capt Greene caught himself an axe in the head).  We work to improve the lines of communication between the levels of Afghani government and encourage district leaders to become involved in solving the problems raised in the villages, and we follow-up those concerns to see that they are being addressed.  In this sense, we are looking after the issues at the grassroots level while building the capacity of the Afghan nation to eventually look after itself.

And who gets the rebuilding contracts?

You may be happy to hear of the Afghani first policy.  It was (believe it or not) initiated by the US military.  It says that where ever Afghanis can be hired to do a job, they will be hired. 

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, …

Good news.  This is within our capacity and it is exactly what we have been doing.

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

What methods should we use?

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

Nor is the history of any organization (nor any individual for that matter).

 

[sexymex]

anyone else see that sexy ecole st boniface student the night they were showing the movies? I don't think she was protesting, but there should be more of that outside our gates!

 

[Wookilar]

: Riiiight.

Anyways, it seems our peace loving friends have flown the coop. Any action anywhere from them?

And no practical solutions left in their wake. That is disappointing really. They could have discussed things such as: electoral reform to increase representation and accountability; UN reform; the various ideas floating around about a standing UN force; World Bank reform for the administration and payback of loans to developing countries; audits of various NGO's whose activities are sometimes suspect; etc. etc.

There are many areas that they could have touched on, but were stuck so narrow mindedly on their mesage of the Big Bad West tromping on the 3rd World, that it all got lost. Unfortunate.

 

[JasonH]

  Why the protest?



May 10 2006


editorial

There's nothing wrong with taking aim at questionable political goals, challenging ideologies and holding public figures and political policies accountable.
Unfortunately, some individuals within society take the rights of free speech, and the rights of fair criticism a little too far.
And then they look utterly ridiculous.
Take a cluster of Victoria-area anti-war protesters that organized outcry of an ongoing joint U.S.-Canada military exercise.
The main thrust of their argument - such as it was - rested on the assumption that some of the United States Air Force planes taking part in the exercise had the capability of carrying nuclear arms and that the U.S. military is akin to Satan incarnate.
Indeed, some of the more hysterical press releases - issued by individuals known to be less than accepting of the United States -- expressed fear that the Yankees would accidently drop the Big One on Victoria sometime this week or next.
Of course, there's little credence to the flight of fancy that U.S. bombers will lumber over Canadian soil ready-to-drop nuclear warheads and liberate good Capital Region citizens into particles of radioactive dust, but that slice of logic didn't deter protesters who tried to organize a few 1960s-style protests at local military installations, backed with specious references to the illegality of "pro-war" propaganda.
The protesters also decried the United States as a bastion of imperialistic war-makers.
That, at least, bears a nugget of validity.
One might argue that there is acute danger in allying too closely with the United States, for doing so puts Canada at risk of bearing the negative impact of bungled U.S. foreign policy that has proven so disastrous for so many decades.
Accepting that point as valid, reveals an interesting flaw in the argument put forward by the anti-war protesters.
Decades ago, Lester Pearson forged Canada's identity as a nation of peacekeepers. In those halcyon days, Canada was never so potent in global politics, despite our lack of population and military strength.
Gross mismanagement by both the recent federal Liberal and less recent Conservative regimes has weakened but not eradicated that reputation, but the less identity Canada bears on the international stage the weaker our nation becomes, and in turn, the weaker our ability to shape global politics.
If, as protesters suggest, the U.S. plans to broker more war in more theatres, who on the planet can stop them?
It doesn't take much to successfully present the view that our forces in Afghanistan are under specific attack because Canadian forces have successfully continued a legacy of effective peacekeeping and are currently doing something the Americans can't: form genuine constructive relationships with Afghani natives that demonstrate that some Westerners truly have Afghanistan's well-being in mind.
Our military is chock full of resourceful, dedicated and time-proven peacekeepers, and our military, if sufficiently supported, presents a sane and rational alternative to the long-standing U.S. tradition of mucking about with sovereign nations or simply blowing the inhabitants of said sovereign nations to little bits for no particular reason.
If the U.S. is an international bully, as the protesters decree, then is it not better for the U.S. to sense the potential Canada can - and should - play upon the world stage?
But to live up to the demands of that role, our armed forces must be viewed in their best light: as powerful agents for change in the globe, recognized arbiters and peacekeepers and - as needed, peacemakers.
Indeed, that is the legacy our forces must strive to uphold.
And Americans must respect our forces and their legacy in order for our international peacekeepers to be truly effective.
Had the promulgators of anti-war hysteria thought for a moment, they might have seen merit in that view - but extremism of any kind is ever unkind to rational thought.
The only way to move our forces towards their best placement is to participate in exercises that confirm our talents, in part so that U.S. military learns to respect our forces. Anti-war protesters missed the boat here: instead of decrying our role in military exercises, they should praise it.
After all, a strong Canadian military presence may perhaps be one of the surest agents for global peace there is.

http://www.esquimaltnews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=10&cat=48&id=645037&more=

 

[Kirkhill]

The protesters also decried the United States as a bastion of imperialistic war-makers.
That, at least, bears a nugget of validity.

  Crap.

....Canadian forces have successfully continued a legacy of effective peacekeeping and are currently doing something the Americans can't: form genuine constructive relationships with Afghani natives that demonstrate that some Westerners truly have Afghanistan's well-being in mind.

Crap

Our military is chock full of resourceful, dedicated and time-proven peacekeepers, and our military, if sufficiently supported, presents a sane and rational alternative to the long-standing U.S. tradition of mucking about with sovereign nations or simply blowing the inhabitants of said sovereign nations to little bits for no particular reason.

And Crap again.

I haven't heard such sanctimonious moralizing since I quit the United Church of Canada at age 14.  (Oh wait actually I have.  Every time that Jack or Maude or Svend or Gwyn or David.........Oh never mind).

 

[Korus]

..Canadian forces have successfully continued a legacy of effective peacekeeping and are currently doing something the Americans can't: form genuine constructive relationships  with Afghani natives that demonstrate that some Westerners truly have Afghanistan's well-being in mind.

I wonder if the writer of that editorial is speaking from experience, or from on top of his/her pedestal which has never left Canada... Everyone says the US doesn't care about the Afghan's, so it must be true.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Relax gang- that editorial was from the Esquimalt News.  They are a journalistic institution the likes of...  The Wetaskiwin Times-Advertiser.

Their forte is pizza ads, not international news.

 

[Kirkhill]

Its still crap SKT  ;D

But thanks for the advisory.

 

[pbi]

Bravo Kirkhill: you beat me to the punch on the tired old anti-US lines that the writer trotted out. Most of these people have never spent five minutes beside the US forces on operations and have no idea what the US troops can or can't do, what the US forces understand or don't understand, and whether they learn anything from their operational experiences or not. These writers just carry on happily tarring all US forces with the BS brush, while shouting from the top of the good old Canadian moral superiority pedestal.

Cheers

 

[career_radio-checker]

Well its been a month and thought I'd do some searching on the interweb and I actually found a protest video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0YAPSIWcJQ&search=bison

I found it quit.....uh well not educational...  but I will definately not do drugs when ever I edit any of my videos (nomination for worst soundtrack)