- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
:warstory:
Paracowboy, My previous posting was extremely rough. Rougher than I like to be. I accused him basically of being a liar, a waste of rations and a cowardly oath breaker who blames others for his own failings. I wanted to also imply that he is receiving allot of positive attention by impugning the integrity and dignity of men who are better than himself and that he is simply doing harm for his own benefit. But I couldn't find a way to do it with grace and dignity. I also couldn't find a gracious way of saying that if he disapproves of the lack of aid in comparison to military efforts that he should have a bake sale and donate the proceeds to a charity that helps with reconstruction. (hopefully one of the few that don't give a percentage to the Taliban to buy weapons) So I didn't.
I am glad that I didn't. Having just watched his speech, I think he stated his case of how he came to question our actions in Afghanistan quite clearly also he put forward a clear and logical argument against not just Afghanistan but Iraq and other conflicts. I disagree with much of what he said, however he did raise some very valid points and took great pains to never say bad things about the people in the CF - attacking the Conservatives insted. If he honestly believes what he is saying - which I now think he does, then I think he did the right thing by resigning. If you feel we are in an illegal war of aggression, it is your duty to not support it.
With that said, a few comments/question on the speech I put them in order as much as I could - this will only really make sense if you watch the clips:
Introduction -
When were we told that we were going to Afghanistan exclusively for reconstruction? When did reconstruction become possible when there are people who gleefully blow up what you build?
The accusation that we have lost the ability to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan is actually true, we can't negotiate with the Taliban, they wont come to the table. The accusation that this is an illgal war however is false. Not only have we followed international law we have the backing of the UN for this mission. Please don't confuse Iraq with Afghanistan.
We still are involved in many UN operations, wearing blue helmets and we are actively involved in many UN backed reconstruction efforts - including Afghanistan.
We are not occupying Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan, yes. But we have no designs to subjugate the Afghan people. Are we not there because there was a threat that was posed to us and we are staying there because it is in our intrest to see that that doesn't return?
Him -
Officer cadet or officer candidate? (were you an Oct or another rank receiving training to go officer)
A very sly way of implying that not enough effort has been put into reconstruction and aid. Also a subtle jab at the values of those who make the decision as wanting a fight more than they want results. Phrased very delicately, it was said in a way that it can't be challenged as a falsehood. I hate to say it be that was well played.
If I'm not mistaken, you specifically requested to go to Afghanistan and was scheduled to be placed within the regular force as they are trained up for a tour. Then while on that training you decided to back out of your request. (I think this is what happened from his speech - if I am wrong please someone steer me right)
I think he descended into baseless name calling without properly backing up why he thinks that. How is Afghanistan an illegal war, how is it America's battel alone *and standard things*
Support the brutal history of America in Iraq and middle east .... I respectfully would like to point out Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I don't think it qualifies as middle east - I could be wrong though, it does border a country that borders Iraq. But It also borders a country that borders Norway and almost borders America. Just thinking if that makes it European or close to North American.... but I digress.
The members of the CF that I have spoken to almost without fail do not support military aggression, by any country. Canadians have been raised to view jingoism as counterproductive. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? I think you have presumed a direct military link between the two when there is a clear distinction.
You mentioned how you see the CF as using Military enforce mandates by the united nations - as a good thing. What do you think Afghanistan is?
708 from 340 you're right that is more that doubling in fact it is 108.23594% increase. Not 125% increase. If 765 people went AWOL then you'd be right. (But rounding errors don't take away from your point that the army had charged allot more people with AWOL charges)
Video 2
We are not in the middle east, we are in Afghanistan. Please if you have a valid assertion to link the two, please make it.
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, yes it is a Muslim dictatorship. Yes we are nice to them. What is your point, other than racist fear mongering?
We did not unilaterally choose sides in an internal Afghan conflict. We were attacked by one of the sides so we went to the other who was quite happy to give us assistance as we struck back. I can not disagree with you that the Northern alliance has a spotty record on human rights. I have to agree with you that it has complicated things for certain regions - however since the alternative was having no allies and allowing a group to attack us with impunity, this was an unfortunate tradeoff we made at the time. I think there is a new nationally elected government that calls the shots now, but sometimes function and form vary in these situations.
What do you mean by the requirements that the commanders of Canada's armed forces confront today not being those that were faces by those in WWII? Are you talking about how they are under stricter rules about talking about the mission in public?
Now wasn't it our elected government that committed us into Afghanistan? Followed by another elected government?
Now your point on the skirmish between Israel and Lebanon and how we took sides is valid being a departure from our traditional role, fair enough, but I don't see a link between our role in Afghanistan and that position except that both pleased the Americans.
I thought there was a debate in the house of commons - I remember watching it. I thought we had two, one when we first went in and the second when we extended our commitment and changed our role.... I know I've fallen asleep watching cpac, but really I don't think I dreamt it.
that old 90% 10% split. I can't argue that point, if you think we need More aid $$ please hold a bake sale or fun run. Also our role is to provide security so that NGOPs can deliver their aid - they apparently are better at it. Especially if we don't confine them to areas that we have secured.
Also I can't argue your point on how we have tried to only allow aid to those who support us -there by removing the neutrality of NGOs and removing much ability to do their work. I remember the Americans apologising for it and a change of tactics was made.
And that last attack on Stephen Harper allowing one of our Soldiers to be killed while on a UN mission without even an objection... I can't argue the sentiment, (I try not to take issue with feelings) but I don't see a link between it and your objection to our role in Afghanistan.
( Sorry for the long post.)
Paracowboy, My previous posting was extremely rough. Rougher than I like to be. I accused him basically of being a liar, a waste of rations and a cowardly oath breaker who blames others for his own failings. I wanted to also imply that he is receiving allot of positive attention by impugning the integrity and dignity of men who are better than himself and that he is simply doing harm for his own benefit. But I couldn't find a way to do it with grace and dignity. I also couldn't find a gracious way of saying that if he disapproves of the lack of aid in comparison to military efforts that he should have a bake sale and donate the proceeds to a charity that helps with reconstruction. (hopefully one of the few that don't give a percentage to the Taliban to buy weapons) So I didn't.
I am glad that I didn't. Having just watched his speech, I think he stated his case of how he came to question our actions in Afghanistan quite clearly also he put forward a clear and logical argument against not just Afghanistan but Iraq and other conflicts. I disagree with much of what he said, however he did raise some very valid points and took great pains to never say bad things about the people in the CF - attacking the Conservatives insted. If he honestly believes what he is saying - which I now think he does, then I think he did the right thing by resigning. If you feel we are in an illegal war of aggression, it is your duty to not support it.
With that said, a few comments/question on the speech I put them in order as much as I could - this will only really make sense if you watch the clips:
Introduction -
When were we told that we were going to Afghanistan exclusively for reconstruction? When did reconstruction become possible when there are people who gleefully blow up what you build?
The accusation that we have lost the ability to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan is actually true, we can't negotiate with the Taliban, they wont come to the table. The accusation that this is an illgal war however is false. Not only have we followed international law we have the backing of the UN for this mission. Please don't confuse Iraq with Afghanistan.
We still are involved in many UN operations, wearing blue helmets and we are actively involved in many UN backed reconstruction efforts - including Afghanistan.
We are not occupying Afghanistan. We are in Afghanistan, yes. But we have no designs to subjugate the Afghan people. Are we not there because there was a threat that was posed to us and we are staying there because it is in our intrest to see that that doesn't return?
Him -
Officer cadet or officer candidate? (were you an Oct or another rank receiving training to go officer)
A very sly way of implying that not enough effort has been put into reconstruction and aid. Also a subtle jab at the values of those who make the decision as wanting a fight more than they want results. Phrased very delicately, it was said in a way that it can't be challenged as a falsehood. I hate to say it be that was well played.
If I'm not mistaken, you specifically requested to go to Afghanistan and was scheduled to be placed within the regular force as they are trained up for a tour. Then while on that training you decided to back out of your request. (I think this is what happened from his speech - if I am wrong please someone steer me right)
I think he descended into baseless name calling without properly backing up why he thinks that. How is Afghanistan an illegal war, how is it America's battel alone *and standard things*
Support the brutal history of America in Iraq and middle east .... I respectfully would like to point out Afghanistan is not Iraq. And I don't think it qualifies as middle east - I could be wrong though, it does border a country that borders Iraq. But It also borders a country that borders Norway and almost borders America. Just thinking if that makes it European or close to North American.... but I digress.
The members of the CF that I have spoken to almost without fail do not support military aggression, by any country. Canadians have been raised to view jingoism as counterproductive. What does that have to do with Afghanistan? I think you have presumed a direct military link between the two when there is a clear distinction.
You mentioned how you see the CF as using Military enforce mandates by the united nations - as a good thing. What do you think Afghanistan is?
708 from 340 you're right that is more that doubling in fact it is 108.23594% increase. Not 125% increase. If 765 people went AWOL then you'd be right. (But rounding errors don't take away from your point that the army had charged allot more people with AWOL charges)
Video 2
We are not in the middle east, we are in Afghanistan. Please if you have a valid assertion to link the two, please make it.
Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, yes it is a Muslim dictatorship. Yes we are nice to them. What is your point, other than racist fear mongering?
We did not unilaterally choose sides in an internal Afghan conflict. We were attacked by one of the sides so we went to the other who was quite happy to give us assistance as we struck back. I can not disagree with you that the Northern alliance has a spotty record on human rights. I have to agree with you that it has complicated things for certain regions - however since the alternative was having no allies and allowing a group to attack us with impunity, this was an unfortunate tradeoff we made at the time. I think there is a new nationally elected government that calls the shots now, but sometimes function and form vary in these situations.
What do you mean by the requirements that the commanders of Canada's armed forces confront today not being those that were faces by those in WWII? Are you talking about how they are under stricter rules about talking about the mission in public?
Now wasn't it our elected government that committed us into Afghanistan? Followed by another elected government?
Now your point on the skirmish between Israel and Lebanon and how we took sides is valid being a departure from our traditional role, fair enough, but I don't see a link between our role in Afghanistan and that position except that both pleased the Americans.
I thought there was a debate in the house of commons - I remember watching it. I thought we had two, one when we first went in and the second when we extended our commitment and changed our role.... I know I've fallen asleep watching cpac, but really I don't think I dreamt it.
that old 90% 10% split. I can't argue that point, if you think we need More aid $$ please hold a bake sale or fun run. Also our role is to provide security so that NGOPs can deliver their aid - they apparently are better at it. Especially if we don't confine them to areas that we have secured.
Also I can't argue your point on how we have tried to only allow aid to those who support us -there by removing the neutrality of NGOs and removing much ability to do their work. I remember the Americans apologising for it and a change of tactics was made.
And that last attack on Stephen Harper allowing one of our Soldiers to be killed while on a UN mission without even an objection... I can't argue the sentiment, (I try not to take issue with feelings) but I don't see a link between it and your objection to our role in Afghanistan.
( Sorry for the long post.)
