Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Me?  I'm passing by the computer on my way to the fridge.  :cheers:

Awwwww...bite me..........at work until morn. :crybaby:

 

[Haggis]

Awwwww...bite me..........at work until morn. :crybaby:

Don't hate the player, Bruce.  Hate the game.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I was playing the game last night.. and I closed the bars.. it was amusing.. guess we'll just have to chat to pass the time.. so how's about them Montreal Canadiens???

 

[Haggis]

Last time I "played the game" was the final night of the DP4 Infantry that I taught in May.  Gotta love Atlantic hospitality (and beer).  I went back to NDHQ to dry out... ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Valcartier2007 - Thanks for posting.  Interesting exchange here....

Point 1:

If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally. We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason.

There's a difference between "someone does x" and "someone says they do x" - based on the section I've highlighted, all one can say is that an individual says they did something for a certain reason.  There are accounts here from those who say they were there, so there's at least reasonable doubt as to motive.

General Andrew Leslie gave a speech in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Let's break down the general's logic:

1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.

These snippets seem to be based on Toronto Star coverage of the speech in question in August 2005 at the Couchiching Conference in Orillia - even Canadian Press used the TorStar material (check out the coverage I could find here).  Also, I notice neither of these snippets are contained in the article presented by Major General Leslie at the conference.  We'll assume the quotes are correct.

Yours is one assessment of these fragments - there are other interpretations to the same fragments, though.

Let's look at another snippet, then, from the same coverage - mentioned right after the "There are things worth killing for" quote:

"Patterns of behaviour and beliefs about sovereignty, economics, national interests, national values, social development, the willingness to help others, a drive towards democratic institutions and representational government, the rule of law, quality of life, human rights and national culture are all parts of the larger equation of security requirements and potential solutions."  (This part, by the way, is contained in General Leslie's article.)

So, with that extra bit of information, these are equally legitimate reads of the points in the media:

1.  Making Afghanistan a better place to live could take 20 years.
2.  Canadian troops are fighting, and dying, to make Afghanistan a better place to live.
3.  It takes more than guns and shooting to make Afghanistan a better place to live.
4.  That said, it sometimes takes guns and shooting to deal with those who don't want to make Afghanistan a better place to live.

Point 2:

Canada's role in Afghanistan, under a NATO mandate, can't be divorced from the broader US-led role in the Middle East.

Actually, ISAF is under a United Nations mandate.  Check out the applicable Security Council resolutions here.  Anti-war groups (not just yours) consistently ignore or downplay how the UN has OK'ed the ISAF mission.  ISAF is a UN-mandated operation according to eight United Nations Security Council Resolutions -- 1386,  1413,  1444,  1510,  1563,  1623  1659  and  1707.

Point 3:

No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"

It can be shown that reconstruction and development are, indeed, happening - check here.  Could more be done?  Yes.  Does this mean what's been done is bad?  No.  I've shown some evidence here of work being done - where is your evidence supporting your claim?

Point 4:

no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East.

Again, your evidence?

Point 5:
I won't go as far as some who say those opposing the UN sanctioned mission in Afghanistan are siding with the Taliban, or want them to win.  That said, I'd be interested to hear your organization's feelings about the Taliban's approach to:
- gender issues and education;
- small business development and culture; and
- the use of child soldiers.

I believe if the UN-sanctioned mission in Afghanistan were to pack up and leave tomorrow, the people who do what has been described in these examples will do the same to Afghans - again.

Point 6
Finally, I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?

Looking forward to hearing more.

 

[Meridian]

-they have chosen, for reasons best known only to themselves (but which they might want to reconsider) a "poster boy" who can be politely described as having a "situationally flexible memory", and rudely described as a number of other things. His apparently shameless misrepresentation of facts does not seem to trouble the group. Perhaps they persist in trotting him out because they actually have nobody else?;

Of course they have no one else.  This is the precise object of the "targeted" mailings... to attempt to "drum up" a better poster boy.

Again, as others have stated, I think the issue here is that Valcartier 2007 isn't so interested in actually defending their arguments as they are in plying Sophist arguments and plucking at the socialist heartstrings of Canada's most left province and Taliban-Jack supporters.

The arrogance of main stream media and general lack of credibility that it and the government have with the general populace only furthers a climate of confusion amongst regular Canadians.  As a democratic nation with open access to mutliple media sources  - there is /so much/ "information" available via so many "sources" that it gets awfully messy trying to figure out the smoke from the chaff... The result is that people just give up on believing in anything, and cynically disagree to agree on anything.

It reminds me of a discussion I attempted to have with a colleague at work the other day who is a former Moroccan citizen now living here.  He was trying to convince me of many of the arguments Valcartier has put forward, with much of his conviction seemingly rooted in the belief that I must be somehow brainwashed by George W or MSM if I support the mission in Afghanistan.

Valcartier 2007: as a fellow Canadian, Montrealer, et étudiant, I ask you to:

• Rebut the counterarguments you have been offered with factual arguments, or concede none exist
• Provide counterarguments to your statements, or perhaps even host open debate, via the software provided by http://www.koumbit.net on your own website
• Foster open, un-biased and multi-sided debate on the topic, rather than pigeon-holing yourselves into one mindset

I could go on, but I suppose what I'm getting at is perhaps if you approached the issue with standard principles of open, frank discourse and diplomacy, perhaps the world would be more interested in your viewpoint, and perhaps you would actually be fostering the type of communication we need more of in international politics. 


[Edited because I wasn't making sense]


i

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Hi everyone – We’re back!

Sorry for the delay, but yes, we do work. And yes, it was Friday evening/Saturday morning in Montreal. But still, we’re here, early Saturday morning, and ready to respond to your various arguments and questions. Thanks to everyone who has engaged us on our arguments.

Who are “we”?: We are members of Block the Empire-Montreal and Guerre à la Guerre-Quebec City, two anti-war groups.

We have a public website for our mailout campaign: www.valcartier2007.ca with a public e-mail address and phone number. So, we are not really hiding anything at all, as one contributor has claimed. For example, our media spokespersons are publicly identified. We are here to defend our position, in a spirit of debate and dialogue.

We appreciate that despite the various threats to close this thread, or ban us, that the moderators of this forum are allowing us to dialogue with you. And we appreciate those folks who've spoken up on this thread asking that we not be banned.

A few other points:

We are not university students. A few members of our groups are, but others are just plain in the workforce in different kinds of jobs and McJobs. We’re all also social justice, anti-war activists.

As far as we know, none of our groups members are in the military, or have served in the military. But, we do have family and personal connections the military. For example, our sisters, uncles and cousins (to name a few connections) are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Importantly, we would like to reply to this comment by pbi:

“ they work from the assumption that Canadian soldiers apparently not only know nothing about their mission, nor about world politics, but are vulnerable to poorly thought out propaganda. They obviously work from the premise that they are morally superior to us and that if only we turn to the light we will be saved. A historically typical view of the professional military from their camp;”

Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you. That comes from a basis of respect, not from moral superiority.

There’s been a lot of comment since we were last online, so we’ll do our best to respond. Our responses are forthcoming.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059


PS: Would like to ask “George Wallace” again, is that a pseudonym, or a real name? You probably can guess why we’re asking: is your name an homage to the famous George Wallace?

 

[Valcartier 2007]

RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR RECCESOLDIER --

Many people have cited Professor Reccesoldier’s response as a rebuttal to our Open Letter. With all due respect, the so-called Professor’s response is shoddy. We encourage the folks on this forum who are reading closely, to re-read our open letter (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm), the professor’s supposed rebuttal (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578515.html#msg578515), and our reply below, and then make up your own mind.


1) The Professor takes issue with our examples of Canadian troops killing Afghan civilians.

Here is what we write in our original letter: “Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes.”

We also write: “Canadian troops too have been involved in civilian deaths."

We go on to provide examples with specific references that we cite. Here are the examples again, with the actual links to the news references, so the readers on this forum can decide for themselves whether we’ve made any misleading claims:

“- in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol”
REFERENCE: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/03/15/afghanistan_taxi060315.html

“- in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed”
REFERENCE: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2792d7a4-39d1-4901-943e-added0ff883c

“- in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed”
[REFERENCE: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061213/afghan_civilian_061213/]

“- in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar”
REFERENCES:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070219/kandahar_ambush_070219/20070219?hub=World
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/27/accidental-shooting-070227.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/02/17/3640893-cp.html

[NOTE: The Professor’s rebuttal is confused on the February 2007 example; there are clearly two separate incidents involving Canadian soldiers, as the references cited show; there is also a third incident involving other NATO soldiers.]


Again, there’s no misleading facts or errors; each of our claims about civilian deaths above is backed up with clear references. Judge for yourself.

Interestingly, the Professor has pointedly ignored the examples of US soldiers killing Afghan civilians. We provide two examples in our letter, not even mentioning the widely cited figure of upwards of 3000 civilian deaths as a result of US air strikes in 2001 and 2002.

Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan. Canada would not be in Afghanistan if the US were not in Afghanistan. And Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.

Our point is not that Canadian soldiers deliberately kill civilians, but that the misguided Afghan mission puts on-the-ground soldiers in the position that they kill and injure innocent civilians. Many members of the Canadian Armed Forces don’t want to be in that position, and they have the right to refuse to be in that position, and to be supported if they resist being put in such an intolerable situation.


2) The Professor takes issue with our view on the treatment of women in Afghanistan. Our source is RAWA (The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) which is anti-fundamentalist. RAWA has denounced the Afghan government that Canadian troops currently defend. In the words of RAWA:

“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai and its international guardians, are playing shamelessly with the intolerable suffering of Afghan women and misuse it as their propaganda tool for deceiving the people of the world. ... The main cause of the catastrophe in our country is the fact that traitors like Rabbani, Sayyaf, Qanoni, Muhaqiq, Dostum, Khalili, Ismail, Fahim and the like are in power, who have a dark history full of tyranny and barbarism. ... The US government and its allies have committed an unforgivable betrayal to our people by mounting the Jehadi mafias in the power. They have left no doubt for our people and the world that they are after their own global and regional interests and that they have no use for stability, freedom and democracy in Afghanistan.” [SOURCE: http://www.rawa.org/events/march8-07_e.htm ]

Again, Canadian soldiers have the right to refuse to be cannon fodder for generals and politicians who are self-servingly protecting warlords and the “mafia government of Mr. Karzai.”


3) The Professor claims we’ve made an error by claiming that “Canada’s military role in Afghanistan – which began in 2002 – is directly linked to George Bush’s “War on Terror””.

The Professor states: “Canada’s commitment to the mission was signaled by PM Cretien on Oct 7 2001”.

Fair enough. Actually, JTF2 was immediately deployed by the Defence Minister Art Eggleton after September 11, 2001, before October 7, 2001.

However, our claim is not wrong. Regular Canadian forces were on-the-ground in January 2002, not before.


4) After his so-called rebuttal, the Professor writes:

“Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle.

Really, you people put your name to this piece of tripe?  I’d be freaking embarrassed to have my name associated with such a piss-poor product. Are you failing out of university?”


We stand by our letter, and the facts in the letter, and will let readers judge for themselves whether our letter is “riddled with inaccuracy” or “willfully ignorant of the facts.” There is nothing that the Professor has really refuted. Our letter stands his test.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

RESPONSE TO MCG
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578461.html#msg578461

MCG writes: This one is called poisoning the well: "who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war"

Reply: We think it’s very relevant to point out that the current Defence Minister, who is a former General, has personally profited from working for military companies and PR firms. He profited from the connections he made while in the Canadian Armed Forces as a senior officer. We take the view that politicians like O’Connor, and other Generals, have a completely different self-interest than average soldiers. And of course, like with every war, it’s the on-the-ground grunt soldier who dies in carrying out the policies of greedy politicians and generals.


MCG writes: “The issue about Iraq is a redherring.  Iraq has not been our war; Afghanistan was.”

Reply: Iraq is not a red herring. US-led involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan is part of a self-declared  -- and ill-conceived -- “War on Terror”.  Does anyone seriously believe, more than 5 years after 9-11, that the Bush-led “War on Terror’” has made the world safer? For the people of the Middle East and Central Asia, US-led Western involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is linked.

Our contribution to the so-called “War on Terror” is upwards of 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Our point is that 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan means 2500 more American troops in Iraq. The Canadian Armed Forces works closely with the US. And, we would not be in Afghanistan if not for the presence of US troops. It’s fair comment for us to link the two, and it’s valid if on-the-ground Canadian soldiers don’t want to be complicit in such a war, whether directly or indirectly.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

RESPONSE TO ST MICHEALS MEDICAL TEAM
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578493.html#msg578493


ST MICHEALS MEDICAL TEAM writes:
“What you fail to realize is that serving members of the Canadian forces are professionals. Do you believe you would have any luck writing a letter to a professional hockey player telling them not to play, or a RCMP officer telling them not to investigate a crime in thier jurastiction?

This is what we do, this is what the people of Canada pay us to do. If you have a problem with what the soldiers of YOUR Canadian Forces are doing, write your MP...

Atleast they will pretend to listen to you.”


Our reply:

Good line about politicians who “pretend to listen”. So true.

But, about your other point, our view is that soldiers are not unthinking. We respect that, and that’s why we want to reach them (you) directly with our point of view. It’s generals and senior officers who seem to think that soldiers should just do the job they’re paid to do, which is to accept orders.

Incidentally, there is a rich history of soldiers refusing their officers, sometimes on a mass scale. Check out this promo video about Vietnam war resisters called “Sir, No Sir!”: http://notyoursoldier.org/article.php?list=type&type=14

We can both target politicians (and we have), while also trying to dialogue with soldiers.

In Montreal, we have protested both Harper and Gordon O’Connor. Here’s the text of a pamphlet we passed out at the protest against O’Connor, fyi:

[size=10pt]Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld
[/size]
WHY WE'RE PROTESTING ... AND DISRUPTING!

Conservative Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor, is speaking today (April 3, 2007) at the posh Queen Elizabeth Hotel, sponsored by Montreal's Council on Foreign Relations (CORIM).

O'Connor is in Montreal as part of an ongoing Conservative public relations campaign to sell the Afghan mission to the Canadian public. O'Connor himself used to work for multi-national public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, the same firm that fabricated atrocities in the lead-up to the attack on Iraq in 1990.

O'Connor recently described Canada's presence in Afghanistan as "retribution" for the death of Canadians at the World Trade Center on 9-11. He misled the public about the treatment of Afghan prisoners who face torture and death. He is a former General who prior to joining cabinet in 2006 spent eight years as a paid lobbyist for the military industry.

Canadian troops are in Afghanistan to allow more American troops to be in Iraq. Gordon O'Connor, along with Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Peter Mackay, Michael Fortier and others in the Conservative cabinet, are the main Canadian apologists for George Bush's "War on Terror". They hide their true agenda behind the language of "development" and "democracy" (and strategically exploit compliant government-funded "NGOs").

A Minister of Defence who justifies Canada's role in Afghanistan in the language of revenge, who is in the pay of military contractors, and who speaks to an audience of war-profiteering businessmen and politicians at a pretentious hotel, deserves to be actively protested and disrupted.


WHO IS SPONSORING TODAY'S SPEECH?

The main sponsors of today's $90/plate lunch are several companies that profit from war; they include the following Quebec-based companies (all citations are from their public documents and websites):

-- SNC-Lavalin (455 René-Lévesque Blvd. West), who until 2006 sold bullets to the American military for use in Iraq, and who maintain many military contracts thru various subsidiaries. For example, SNC-Lavalin PAE Inc. "provides a range of logistics support services to the Canadian military on deployed international operations," including in Afghanistan.

-- Bombardier (800 René-Lévesque Blvd. West), whose military division helps to train NATO pilots, the same pilots who go on to bomb in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

-- CAE (8585 Côte de Liesse), a company that "develops, designs and manufactures aviation training systems for civil and military applications." Military contracts account for 50% of CAE's business, again, to help pilots and soldiers to kill.

-- Oerlikon (Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec), who openly brag that 50% of their business is for the Canadian Department of Defence. In their words: "we are one of the largest providers of land defence systems and battle management systems to the federal government. Our business also comprises sales to international defence customers and commercial sales in the homeland security sector."

Other chief sponsors today include L-3 Communications, who are the sixth largest defense company in the United States, as well as Quebec-based companies such as CMC Electronics (active in military aviation), Consoltex and Logistik Unicorp.

The link between O'Connor -- a former military industry lobbyist and PR hack -- and the military-industrial complex, couldn't be clearer and more direct. Today's luncheon is a celebration of war-profiteers, hiding behind the camouflage of "development" and "security" (as well as various police and hotel security). We are here to protest the war-profiteering companies just as much as Minister O'Connor. In collaboration, the Canadian government and Quebecois capitalists are profiting from the so-called "War on Terror".


THE "LOGIC" OF MAJOR-GENERAL ANDREW LESLIE

Major-General Andrew Leslie is Canada's military commander in Afghanistan. Commenting in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie publicly stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Let's break down the general's logic:
1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time Canadian troops kill people more people will want to kill Canadians.

If you add Defence Minister (and former Brigadier-General) Gordon O'Connor's call for "retribution," Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Valcartier 2007]

RESPONSE TO OLGA CHEKHOVA
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578516.html#msg578516


Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences. We cite him too as a tangible example of how soldiers can refuse to be complicit in what they regard as an unjust war.

Of course the Canadian Armed Forces brass would never admit they expelled Juarez because of his opposition to the Afghan mission. Juarez refusing orders in training was his way of showing that opposition, and refusing orders became the pretext to get rid of him. Maybe Juarez could have chosen other ways to show his opposition, but we certainly respect the stance he took (it certainly didn’t win him any friends on this forum).

Question: If Juarez was not expelled for his opposition to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, then why didn’t the Armed Forces allow him to openly express his opposition to the Afghan mission instead of fining and discharging him?

Again, folks are encouraged to listen to Juarez explain himself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroLoPn-d4M

We understand the distinction between reservist and full-time soldier. But are folks on this forum seriously claiming that soldiers -- whether reservists or not -- can openly speak out against Canada's role in Afghanistan and still be able to stay in the military without any consequences?

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[armyvern]

Welcome back Valcartier2007,

You can probably see that many members of this site await your responses, as do I. I will stress, once again, that you/your consortium will not be banned nor this thread locked as long as site guidelines continue to be followed.

Based upon your post below, I'll also reiterate to you that the membership of this site is made up of a wide variety of people with very diverse backgrounds, age groups, education and employment.

Much like you state that you are a cross section of Canadian society, so are we a reflection of that same broad society. The largest difference between 'you' and 'us' is that, as is probably quite obvious by now, most of us do not belong to the antiwar lobby.

Social justice is quite another matter. One does not need to belong to any social justice group to believe that people should be treated fairly in life. However, I temper my personal beliefs in that 'social justice' with a belief that, at the same time, no-one should be given a free-ride on the back of the hard work of others.

You will find here that most members are also quite abhor the inequities experienced in life by some members of worldwide society, who do work hard and who deserve better. In fact, that abhorrence of those inequities experienced, and quite often the atrocities experienced by them, is exactly why many of us volunteer in this Country's uniform.

Most importantly, you will find that many of us here have vast 'boots on the ground' experience in aiding those members of society less fortunate than we here in Canada. That's right, Canadians have it pretty damned good. Most Canadians, in fact, would find it a huge wake-up call if they were required to spend just one week overseas seeing with their own eyes what we see, and realizing that there are people in this world who actually do have a reason to bitch and complain about their lowly lot in life.

It is at this point then, that our philosophies will begin to take different paths. Direct experience having 'boots on the ground' makes one realize that war, although not pretty by any means, is necessary. The vast improvements in Afghanistan are witness to this, as are the children who are now out playing (and laughing); the music you can hear playing; the women you can see working, laughing, smiling; the majority of citizens who will still shake that soldier's hand; and that soccer stadiums are used once again for soccer vice executions.

Most importantly it is seen in that democratically elected government to which women was elected, and did the electing. The Taliban would have none of that. I believe in a social justice where society advances, not regresses. Therefore I stand beside my fellow soldiers in volunteering to go back to Afghanistan for further service to continue that advancement in their society that our PRT affords them, or to provide security/fighting forces so that the PRT/CIDA et al can proceed, albeit slowly, with those advances. I volunteer to do this so that the democratically elected government of Afghanistan has a chance to flourish, becoming capable of protecting and defending its citizens and itself against any threat from persons who would wish to see them once again a society of non-rights and public executions without fair right to trial or any form of social justice, a place where children could not play.

Most of all you will find many members of this site with that direct 'boots on the ground' experience who know we are winning this war because they have lived it, and seen it with their own eyes.

I look forward to hearing your arguments.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

First let me thank your team for the responses.  It is nice to see it in writing.  Now I know the regulars around here are a little rough around the edges - caddy quips are the norm around here - please don't take it overly seriously.  I ask that you do like me and argue substance rather than form...

I've read the thread, I believe I've read all of your postings.  However, I don't recall you mentioning why you believe that sending letters off to soldiers encouraging them to refuse their duties isn't a violation of the criminal code of Canada.  http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/C-46/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_49//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_61

Reply: We think it’s very relevant to point out that the current Defence Minister, who is a former General, has personally profited from working for military companies and PR firms. He profited from the connections he made while in the Canadian Armed Forces as a senior officer. We take the view that politicians like O’Connor, and other Generals, have a completely different self-interest than average soldiers. And of course, like with every war, it’s the on-the-ground grunt soldier who dies in carrying out the policies of greedy politicians and generals.

This is one of the issues I haven't had to discuss in a long time.  Firstly,  yes on the surface having a former lobbyist in that position would look like putting a fox in charge of the chicken-coop. And bluntly many people believe there is more than enough contracts to throw around with not enough oversite that he could toss a few to his buddies and collect the kickbacks later.

I think that as a Civi looking in, yes there is cause for concern. However, please bring up examples of decisions he has made that were more in his own interest than the interest of the CF. Inside the CF we have a behaviour/code of conduct, and If O'Connor allowed one single Canadian soldier to suffer out of his own selfish reasons he would be called a blade. (I'm told the reference comes from stabbing someone in the back)

I have a rather creative imagination,  however I can not picture any scenario where O'Connor would knowingly put Canadian soldiers in harms way for personal profit.  If you have evidence to the contrary I implore you to bring it forward - otherwise please respect that you are implying that someone is doing something that is beyond vulgar and beyond obscene.  You are simply implying a very serious breach of ethical conduct by a group of people.  Please show us the evidence of misconduct, or discontinue implying/accusing.

He is defence minister because he knows what the CF needs,  how it works.  (well one could argue those points, but lets just put that he has allot of experience and he was the best person for the job Harper had at the time.)  Now I know you're going to get quite a few responses,  that is why I took only one issue I think others would just let slide.  I'm not going to be back at the computer for a few weeks - I wish everyone here a good debate.  Remember substance over form. 

edited for a rather AMUSING typo :warstory:

 

[armyvern]

Valcartier2007,

A point for you to correct in your posts, we are the Canadian Forces (CF), not the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). It's been that way for many a few years now.

In your rebuttal below:

Fair enough. Actually, JTF2 was immediately deployed by the Defence Minister Art Eggleton after September 11, 2001, before October 7, 2001.

However, our claim is not wrong. Regular Canadian forces were on-the-ground in January 2002, not before.

Would be accurate if you were speaking of "boots on the ground" in Afghanistan proper, but again, contextually it is incorrect. I can assure you, from my own personal experience, that there was at least one Regular Force Unit (not JTF2) who was deployed overseas in direct support of Op Apollo prior to 2002 (16 Nov 2001 actually). I'll let you research that a bit more.

 

[Edward Campbell]

…
This is one of the issues I haven't had to discuss in a long time.  Firstly,  yes on the surface having a former lobbyist in that position would look like putting a fox in charge of the chicken-coop. And bluntly many people believe there is more than enough contracts to throw around with not enough oversite that he could toss a few to his buddies and collect the kickbacks later.

I think that as a Civi looking in, yes there is cause for concern. However, please bring up examples of decisions he has made that were more in his own interest than the interest of the CF. Inside the CF we have a behaviour/code of conduct, and If O'Connor allowed one single Canadian soldier to suffer out of his own selfish reasons he would be called a blade. (I'm told the reference comes from stabbing someone in the back)
…

See Ruxted’s latest.  This canard is a product of the fervid imaginations of the Liberals and the NDP – the accusations are baseless mud slinging, used by people who think O’Connor is politically vulnerable.  If there was a single shred of evidence that O’Connor, in any way, misused his office he would have been hounded out of it a year ago.

…
He is defence minister because he knows what the CF needs,  how it works.  (well one could argue those points, but lets just put that he has allot of experience and he was the best person for the job Harper had at the time.)  Now I know you're going to get quite a few responses,  that is why I took only one issue I think others would just let slide.  I'm not going to be back at the computer for a few weeks - I wish everyone here a good debate.  Remember substance over form. 

I doubt any Canadian defence minister was ever put in charge because he knew what the military needed – maybe, just maybe Normal Rogers in 1940.  O’Connor is in the cabinet for a variety of reasons – all related to the fine art of Canadian political cabinet-making which requires regional, linguistic, gender, age and factional balances.  In addition, in O’Connor’s case, he was a loyal Harper ‘spear carrier’ for a long, long time.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

RESPONSE TO MILNEWSTBAY
original post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-578888.html#msg578888

You conveniently divided up your post in 6 points. We address them one-by-one:

Point 1:

We’ve addressed the issues around Franciso Juarez in two previous posts.

You also question our interpretation of General Leslie’s comments back in 2005. One of our references is the following:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/08/08/Canada-Afghanistan-050808.html

We are not misinterpreting Leslie. He honestly admits that the Afghan mission will mean killing.
(O’Connor does not even admit that the Afghan mission is a war: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/05/31/afghan-war-notwar.html )

Leslie honestly admits that to do the job, it’ll take at least 20 years. And, most importantly, he admits that for every person you kill, you create 15 more that will come after you (this is the key point, which your own re-stating of General Leslie’s views pointedly ignores). By making this admission, Leslie shows some understanding of the mentality of an insurgency.

Taking Leslie’s words at face value, he is describing a strategy of long-term disaster, for both Afghans and Canadians.

We’re curious: How do people on this forum feel about Leslie promising that the Afghan mission will take two decades, that we’ll be killing people, but that every time we kill an angry young man we create 15 more? That’s a disaster in the making! And you, on-the-ground soldiers, will be one of the victims of this disaster.


Point 2:

Yes, the mission is under ISAF, but ISAF is led by NATO. Check out the ISAF website -- http://www.nato.int/isaf/ --  its banner has the NATO logo.

Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.


Point 3:

No doubt that there are specific “reconstruction” or “development” projects ... all the better to sell the Afghan mission. Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine. There have been similar “hearts and minds” efforts in all wars, including in Iraq right now, and in Vietnam.


Point 4:

You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise? That’s the whole point of so-called “coalitions”. For a longer answer (about US imperialism in the Middle East since WW II), we'll have to defer to a future post (but many of you probably know this history really well). The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous policies.


Point 5:

You ask: “I'd be interested to hear your organization's feelings about the Taliban's approach to:
- gender issues and education;
- small business development and culture; and
- the use of child soldiers.”

We oppose the Taliban; moreover, like RAWA, we oppose all the fundamentalists and warlords, whether they’re Taliban, or in the Karzai government that Canadian troops are defending. We come from social movements that are feminist, anti-patriarchy and queer positive. Obviously, we have nothing in common with thte Taliban.

Here’s a quote from one of our pamphlets: “We reject the false choice between either the Taliban, or fundamentalists like Bush, Cheney and Rice.”


Point 6:

“Finally, I'm interested in hearing details on your organization's alternative - how do we make Afghanistan a better place to live?”

Great question. Important question. Long answer. We will answer that one shortly (ie. not today), because it can’t be answered quickly (and we’ve already posted a large amount for today!) Your question needs a “big picture” answer that we hope to provide on this forum really soon. That answer will also reply to similar questions posted by davetee, fascistlibertarian and others.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[SeaKingTacco]

We understand the distinction between reservist and full-time soldier. But are folks on this forum seriously claiming that soldiers -- whether reservists or not -- can openly speak out against Canada's role in Afghanistan and still be able to stay in the military without any consequences?

Unequivocally, Yes.  I have been part of discussions where aspects of the mission have been debated with quite senior officers with zero reprecussions.  That said, I think that you will find that the overwhelming majority of us in the Canadian Forces support the overall thrust of the mission in Afghanistan.  Even more interestingly, EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the CF that I have spoken to who has been to Afghanistan has told me that they would go back in a heart-beat because they believe in the Canadian approach in Afghanistan and they believe in the Afghan people.  Many soldiers in the CF are veterans of the bad-old days of "peacekeeping" (I use that term advisedly) in the Balkans in the 1990s where they were hamstrung by ridiculous Rules of Engagement, an unworkable mission, and political/public indifference from Canada as 80 or so dead soldiers were snuck back into Canada in the dead of the night over the course of a decade.  Trust me, we much prefer Afghanistan- and those people who don't tend to self-select themselves out of the CF, rather than be pushed by a monolithic leadership who "brainwashes" the troops.  Sorry to burst your bubble- we don't do that here. We are fighting against people who do believe in it.  If you think that it is hyperbole, there are actually people here on this board who have been face to face with actual Taliban and the results of their work against the people of Afghanistan.  You might be very interested to hear about the Taliban's sense of "fair play and social justice"...

You seem to have a great deal of dislike for both PM Harper and in particular Defence Minister O'Connor (free country- dislike away) and seem to imply that they are profiting politically and monetarily from the War.  I'm not sure which polls you have seen, but the ones I have show the Conservatives essentially getting killed over Afghanistan (for the wrong reasons,  I might add).  It seems to me that this government is taking a principled approach by remaining in Afghanistan, where good work is being done daily- maybe not at the speed you would like, or in the manner you would like, but it is getting done.  As for personnally profitting from the war, I suggest that, if you have real evidence of either profiteering or corruption that you share it, rather than making what (probably) amounts to slanderous and legally actionable claims.

I will close with a final thought:  I actually have no problem at all with your opposition (although I disagree with your opposition) to our mission in Afghanistan, per se, although I believe that you are not in possession of the facts and have strung together a bunch of recycled anti-Iraq war arguments.  Where you and I part company rather sharply is your group's method.  Your group's blanket mailing the PMQs in Valcartier is morally reprehensible and potentially violates portions of the criminal code.  Why is counciling soldiers to violate the will of Parliament (and make no mistake that, while you may disagree with the vote in Parliament, it, NOT the CF or it's soldiers who decide when and where we fight) illegal you might ask?  Consider the opposite (and hypothetical) scenario: we are a country at peace, but a war breaks out in a country with historic ties to Canada.  Parliament votes to not go to war.  This, however, does not sit well with a group of activists who want Canada to take a side, so they begin sending letters to individual soldiers counciling them to steal weapons, ammuntion and desert the CF to fight in this (hypothetical) war.  Just how happy would you be now?  The whole point of civilian control of the military in Canada is that only our ELECTED civilian masters get to control us- not anybody with a computer and a printer.  You don't like us in Afghanistan? Fine- campaign against the Conservative and Liberal Parties in the next election- but leave the individual soldier out of it!

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Precisions

We don’t feel it reveals any weakness to be more precise, or even make corrections, when warranted. Here are a few that we want to make, based on the comments by various people on this forum:

- Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan can be dated to 2001. JTF2 was there, and as ArmyVern has pointed out, CF were involved in Operation Apollo which is dated back to October 2001. The main Canadian presence began in early 2002, but it’s more accurate to talk about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan since 2001. As it happens, a previous flyer by Block the Empire also dates Canadian involvement to 2001.

- We should be referring to “Canadian Forces” and not “Canadian Armed Forces”.

- In our document “Soldiers in their own words” -- http://www.valcartier2007.ca/soldiers.htm -- we quote former US Marine Ivan Brobeck and then write: “Served in Iraq and then left the army in 2005.” That should read “left the Marines.”

Of course, we feel none of the above takes away from our substantive arguments, and we certainly have not misled anyone. But still, we send along these precisions, and will send along more when warranted.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Bigmac]

I have 2 questions for you Valcartier 2007:

1.    What is your political affiliation? (Be honest with us!)

2.    You are planning a protest on 22 Jun in an area where le Royal 22ème régiment is scheduled to parade the streets.  You chose this venue for obvious reasons. Is your group planning to jeer at these soldiers and or plan any other negative actions against these troops?

 

[pbi]

I'm on the run but I'll chime in on a few points. (Good debate so far!)

the Afghan mission will mean killing

Correct. Sadly, but truthfully, it is unlikely that the Taleban (or any other group of determined, hard-core xenophobic extremists) will ever give up without a fight. Some will surrender, some will get captured, but many will fight and die. The Taleban, in fighting, will kill others, including Canadian soldiers and Afghan civilians. It's an armed conflict. That's why we're there, just as we were in WWI, WWII, Korea, Gulf I and Kosovo. If you want to oppose powerful bad people, you often have to use force. And that's why, from time to time, we used deadly force on "peacekeeping" missions like Croatia (Medak Pocket) and, in my opinion, should have used a lot more of it in places like Rwanda. Killing is tragic, frightening and to be avoided if possible, but is not always automatically "wrong" in a moral or ethical sense.

Leslie honestly admits that to do the job, it’ll take at least 20 years.

We understand this completely. We spent 40 years in Germany, 30 years in Cyprus, over a decade in Yugo.  We're still in the middle east. Lots of people died in all those places, but all were eventually brought under control. The application of military force was part (but only part...) of the process. You simply can't assign an arbitrary time limit to these things: it has to be results-based.

And, most importantly, he admits that for every person you kill, you create 15 more that will come after you (this is the key point, which your own re-stating of General Leslie’s views pointedly ignores). By making this admission, Leslie shows some understanding of the mentality of an insurgency.

General Leslie is a highly educated man. In fact, many of our general officers (whom you seem to enjoy casting aspersions on) are outstanding combinations of a high degree of formal education (often from civilian universities) with extensive experience on operations overseas. They combine theoretical knowledge with practical experience: a very powerful combination. The General understands (as we all do) that while at the present time killing is very hard to avoid in Afghanistan, we ("we" including all the other players in the "3D and C" approach) have to keep working to gradually stabilize the country so that killing declines. How long will that take? How long has it taken in Malaya or Ireland or in the Basque Region, or in Haiti?  (The latter two not really being fixed yet).

In the Forces, in our educational system and our training system, we study insurgency: how it comes about, what sustains it, how it has been fought successfully and unsuccessfully, the dangers and pitfalls of a purely force-based approach, and the vital importance of an approach that includes trying to restore normalcy and quality of life, including addressing the underlying political problems. We have a far better appreciation of insurgency than many of the journalists, political figures and others who comment regularly about Afghanistan. It's our professional business.

Taking Leslie’s words at face value, he is describing a strategy of long-term disaster, for both Afghans and Canadians

No-he's describing the only practical route to long term success. There is no guarantee for success in Afghanistan, and nobody on this site nor serving in Afghanistan believes that there is one. But then, we've never deployed on any mission, any time, that there was a guarantee of success. But simply because success is not guaranteed, or poses high risks, are not valid reasons to give up ad run away. In the end this will be decided by the Afghan people. And we are trying to give them that opportunity. I am very proud to be able to say that during my time there (2004-2005) I was involved in the security operation that allowed Afghans to vote for the first time in decades: for many it was the first time in their lives. Despite the winter weather, the very long distances often on foot, and the deadly threats from the Taleban, those people turned out in the thousands to vote. It was very impressive, especially when you consider that many Canadians are too lazy to vote. We are making a difference.

Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.

Ha! You obviously have very little real idea how it works. The US might wish that it runs NATO, but it most assuredly does not. I was the Liaison Officer between ISAF and the US operational force HQ in Afghanistan,  2004-2005. ISAF was NOT "run by NATO" it was run at that time by the French, under General Py. ISAF took NO direction from the US: believe me. This statement borders on a conspiracy theory.

I've got to run (taking my wife out to Saturday breakfast) but I'll be back.

Cheers




Edited by Vern:  wading in here to correct Pbi's post for him. As he has done the proper thing and taken his wife out for Saturday brunch. I've bumped the part I've edited for form only down (pbi's response showed up as part of the quote he was answering to), and it can be seen here in it's original form:

[Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.
/quote]

Ha! You obviously have very little real idea how it works. The US might wish that it runs NATO, but it most assuredly does not. I was the Liaison Officer between ISAF and the US operational force HQ in Afghanistan,  2004-2005. ISAF was NOT "run by NATO" it was run at that time by the French, under General Py. ISAF took NO direction from the US: believe me. This statement borders on a conspiracy theory.

I've got to run (taking my wife out to Saturday breakfast) but I'll be back.

Cheers