- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If your not pissed off at the media, it is probably very biased towards your views already 
Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
"The MSM doesn't bother representing what normal, everyday Canadians think. They sensationalize everything and encourage the weirdo extremists out on the Left and Right by giving them an audience. They just confuse and alienate us guys in the Centre."
We have a winner! ;D
We have a winner! ;D
- Reaction score
- 6,482
- Points
- 1,360
Valcartier 2007,
Much as this debate has been good, it is getting very close to the time for your group to come up with some answers or this thread, and others like it, will come to a close.
Without an answer to this question your group is nothing but a fart in a windstorm,
WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN?
Much as this debate has been good, it is getting very close to the time for your group to come up with some answers or this thread, and others like it, will come to a close.
Without an answer to this question your group is nothing but a fart in a windstorm,
WHAT IS YOUR PLAN FOR THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN?
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Valcartier 2007 said:
Can you clarify my bold please?? With the tremendous emphasis that your org has on the current CF mission in Afghanistan, are you saying that you actually have boots-on-the-ground working in this situation in Afghanistan right now?? Actual direct factual knowledge of the situation on ground?? If so, why are you forgetting and not talking about the progress that those very Canadian soldiers who you want pulled out are making?? That progress is obvious to anyone who has been on the ground.
Or do you mean "working on" vice "working in??" And speaking of "working on," many of us are still awaiting that answer to the BIG question that you have still failed to provide. Valcartier2007, what exactly is your plan of action for dealing with the situation in Afghanistan should coalition forces leave as you wish them to do? What will you then do about it to ensure that your "peaceful" hopes become a reality??
We've waited long enough. A debate isn't a debate without the details. Let's have them soon please, because for a group that seems to think you have all the answers to solve all the world's problems, you have no answer to the big questions. Just more talk of lesser important things than actual realities. You are falling far short here in providing anything signifcant to any sort of debate. We've heard your spin already, now we want the details and it's about time you provided them.
- Reaction score
- 1,724
- Points
- 1,140
Valcartier 2007 said:
Just so you know and don't "pick" your facts, once again, not only the Als invited uniformed members in "Support the Troops" night events. Blue Bombers in Winnipeg did the same thing SEVERAL times last year and I'm sure many other sport teams did the same.
Max
I actually think there is a place in society for these sorts of protest groups. War is the State-sanctioned killing of people by agents of the State, and so it behooves the State to ensure that this is only done against legitimate targets for the best of reasons.
Furthermore, in a representative democracy, the ultimate overseers of the State are the citizens of the State, so there is a responsibility, if not outright duty, for citizens to examine the conduct of their agents and the reasons for employing them.
Should the reasons for going to war be substandard or poorly justified, or if the conduct of the agents of the State not measure up to the moral standards required of legally-employed agents of the State, then there is a moral obligation for the citizens of the State to protest. It is both right and good for citizens to watchdog our mission and our conduct while employed on that mission.
However, that assumes that the protesters are properly informed on the mission and on the conduct of the mission, and are either reacting to shortfalls in the mission itself or in mission conduct. A protest group that is merely pushing a "war bad!" agenda brings nothing to the debate, offers no value to the citizenry, and is failing its moral duty to the State, its citizens, and its agents.
By that standard then, let's examine Valcartier's Open Letter and see how they measure up:
So far, so good - except for the phrase "reconsider your participation". To open such a letter and state right in the opening paragraph that the aim is to get soldiers to attempt to "opt out" of a deployment (as if such a thing were even possible) is to display an utter lack of understanding of the military ethos, military ethics, and the sense of military duty. This is a profound lack of understanding of the target audience and defeats the purpose right here - you might as well try and sell pork chops in Saudi Arabia.
This paragraph shows lack of understanding about the mission - we are not conducting operations against the Afghan people, we are conducting operations against the destabilizing, terrorist agencies operation within Afghanistan, namely the remnants of Al Quada and the Taliban.
Al Quada DID, in fact, attack a Canadian ally (in a horrific manner that deliberately targeted civilians and incorporated them into their weapon systems) and have repeatedly stated that they intend to attack Canada. The Taliban provided them with support and an area to run their training camps; the two groups are allied. To this day, they attack innocent Afghan civilians in an attempt to terrorize them, with the ultimate goal of reasserting their control over the country. They are a legitimate threat to Canada and Canadian interests, and are thus legitimate targets. That they happen to be brutal, repressive barbarians just serves to ice the cake.
This paragraph is ineffective.
This paragraph reveals a common problem with protest literature - a marked propensity to see all issues in terms of black and white, with no shades of grey allowed.
Sadly, the real world does not work that way. The ideologies of a society do not turn on a dime; it takes time to effect change.
If the start state is the brutal repression of women made State policy under the Taliban, and the desired end state is for Afghan women to enjoy the same level of freedom that they do in Canada, then the current state is somewhere along that continuum. No soldier or true student of Afghan history will deny that there is much more work to be done, but it is also undeniably true that a lot of good has already been accomplished.
Furthermore, the complaint against "working with warlords" also reveals a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground and an ignorance of history. It may serve you well to read up on the problem of "de-Nazification" during the reconstruction of West Germany after WW2 - how do your rehabilitate a State where all the people in charge were members of a criminally and morally corrupt regime? It turns out that you cannot attempt to weed them all out - do some reading.
So this paragraph is ineffective.
This paragraph talks about the killing of civilians by our side, and I think this talking point is spot-on. Yes, we HAVE killed civilians. Not on purpose, and certainly we are doing everything we can to avoid further incidents (as the target audience is well aware) but every time we kill an innocent Afghan civilian, we do the mission harm. It is in everybody's best interests to not kill civilians, and this is an area where I think we could stand improvement.
(as a quick aside, it is worth pointing out that the bad guys are very much aware that the mission is harmed when civilians die, and so they do everything in their power to put civilians in harm's way during their operations - an utterly reprehensible policy.)
But these are NOT "tantamount to war crimes". By the laws of armed conflict, soldiers are allowed to defend themselves, and a civilian killed in legitimate error (usually because he did something threatening, like attempt to run a checkpoint - which in a conflict where the other side does not wear uniforms and actively masquerades as civilians, needs to be taken seriously) is NOT a criminal act. So to tell a soldier that defending himself is criminal is to lie to him.
And the target audience knows that.
So this paragraph is ineffective.
Canadians are not responsible for American foreign policy. That the Americans might leverage Canadian good deeds to further their own "evil" agenda does not invalidate the good being done by Canadians.
This paragraph is also ineffective.
Germany, defeated in WW1, was back again a few years later for WW2. An initial defeat does not mean your enemies will not regroup, rearm, and try again.
If anything, this serves to underscore the need for an armed security presence in Afghanistan - because the Taliban have proven that they can and will regroup and rearm, and unless someone is there to oppose them, any attempt at reconstruction will ultimately be torn down once they return.
Again, ineffective.
Several problems here:
The first is that everybody knows that Reservists cannot be compelled to serve overseas, so a Reservist "refusing to serve" is like a hooker refusing to go to church.
Secondly, everybody knows the "Reservist" you are talking about - it's a small Army, we all know each other to some degree. The individual in question failed all his training courses and, once it was obvious that he was unable to serve in any meaningful capacity, made himself out to be a conscientious objector instead. He is a failed human being and a piss-poor example of a soldier.
Thirdly, Iraq Is Not Afghanistan, and we are not Americans. What the Americans do in response to Iraq has nothing to do with us our our mission.
So, once again, ineffective.
So to sum up, your "Open Letter" displays a complete lack of understanding of your target audience, the goals of the mission, how the mission is being conducted, or the political realities of the situation. It had not a snowball's hope in hell of ever succeeding, which categorizes you and your group as being either good intentioned but hopelessly incompetent, or jingoistic "War Bad!" types fundamentally (and I use that word on purpose) incapable of participating in rational debate.
Allow me to reiterate - I think there is a place for Anti-War groups, anti-war protests, and legitimate critical analysis of the mission and its conduct. Indeed, I feel that there is a duty for citizens who are not inclined to serve in the Forces themselves to perform this analysis and watchdog role. But that being the case, your own attempt is an utter failure, given the gaping flaws in both your analysis and your delivery strategy.
DG
Furthermore, in a representative democracy, the ultimate overseers of the State are the citizens of the State, so there is a responsibility, if not outright duty, for citizens to examine the conduct of their agents and the reasons for employing them.
Should the reasons for going to war be substandard or poorly justified, or if the conduct of the agents of the State not measure up to the moral standards required of legally-employed agents of the State, then there is a moral obligation for the citizens of the State to protest. It is both right and good for citizens to watchdog our mission and our conduct while employed on that mission.
However, that assumes that the protesters are properly informed on the mission and on the conduct of the mission, and are either reacting to shortfalls in the mission itself or in mission conduct. A protest group that is merely pushing a "war bad!" agenda brings nothing to the debate, offers no value to the citizenry, and is failing its moral duty to the State, its citizens, and its agents.
By that standard then, let's examine Valcartier's Open Letter and see how they measure up:
So far, so good - except for the phrase "reconsider your participation". To open such a letter and state right in the opening paragraph that the aim is to get soldiers to attempt to "opt out" of a deployment (as if such a thing were even possible) is to display an utter lack of understanding of the military ethos, military ethics, and the sense of military duty. This is a profound lack of understanding of the target audience and defeats the purpose right here - you might as well try and sell pork chops in Saudi Arabia.
This paragraph shows lack of understanding about the mission - we are not conducting operations against the Afghan people, we are conducting operations against the destabilizing, terrorist agencies operation within Afghanistan, namely the remnants of Al Quada and the Taliban.
Al Quada DID, in fact, attack a Canadian ally (in a horrific manner that deliberately targeted civilians and incorporated them into their weapon systems) and have repeatedly stated that they intend to attack Canada. The Taliban provided them with support and an area to run their training camps; the two groups are allied. To this day, they attack innocent Afghan civilians in an attempt to terrorize them, with the ultimate goal of reasserting their control over the country. They are a legitimate threat to Canada and Canadian interests, and are thus legitimate targets. That they happen to be brutal, repressive barbarians just serves to ice the cake.
This paragraph is ineffective.
This paragraph reveals a common problem with protest literature - a marked propensity to see all issues in terms of black and white, with no shades of grey allowed.
Sadly, the real world does not work that way. The ideologies of a society do not turn on a dime; it takes time to effect change.
If the start state is the brutal repression of women made State policy under the Taliban, and the desired end state is for Afghan women to enjoy the same level of freedom that they do in Canada, then the current state is somewhere along that continuum. No soldier or true student of Afghan history will deny that there is much more work to be done, but it is also undeniably true that a lot of good has already been accomplished.
Furthermore, the complaint against "working with warlords" also reveals a lack of understanding of the situation on the ground and an ignorance of history. It may serve you well to read up on the problem of "de-Nazification" during the reconstruction of West Germany after WW2 - how do your rehabilitate a State where all the people in charge were members of a criminally and morally corrupt regime? It turns out that you cannot attempt to weed them all out - do some reading.
So this paragraph is ineffective.
This paragraph talks about the killing of civilians by our side, and I think this talking point is spot-on. Yes, we HAVE killed civilians. Not on purpose, and certainly we are doing everything we can to avoid further incidents (as the target audience is well aware) but every time we kill an innocent Afghan civilian, we do the mission harm. It is in everybody's best interests to not kill civilians, and this is an area where I think we could stand improvement.
(as a quick aside, it is worth pointing out that the bad guys are very much aware that the mission is harmed when civilians die, and so they do everything in their power to put civilians in harm's way during their operations - an utterly reprehensible policy.)
But these are NOT "tantamount to war crimes". By the laws of armed conflict, soldiers are allowed to defend themselves, and a civilian killed in legitimate error (usually because he did something threatening, like attempt to run a checkpoint - which in a conflict where the other side does not wear uniforms and actively masquerades as civilians, needs to be taken seriously) is NOT a criminal act. So to tell a soldier that defending himself is criminal is to lie to him.
And the target audience knows that.
So this paragraph is ineffective.
Canadians are not responsible for American foreign policy. That the Americans might leverage Canadian good deeds to further their own "evil" agenda does not invalidate the good being done by Canadians.
This paragraph is also ineffective.
Germany, defeated in WW1, was back again a few years later for WW2. An initial defeat does not mean your enemies will not regroup, rearm, and try again.
If anything, this serves to underscore the need for an armed security presence in Afghanistan - because the Taliban have proven that they can and will regroup and rearm, and unless someone is there to oppose them, any attempt at reconstruction will ultimately be torn down once they return.
Again, ineffective.
Several problems here:
The first is that everybody knows that Reservists cannot be compelled to serve overseas, so a Reservist "refusing to serve" is like a hooker refusing to go to church.
Secondly, everybody knows the "Reservist" you are talking about - it's a small Army, we all know each other to some degree. The individual in question failed all his training courses and, once it was obvious that he was unable to serve in any meaningful capacity, made himself out to be a conscientious objector instead. He is a failed human being and a piss-poor example of a soldier.
Thirdly, Iraq Is Not Afghanistan, and we are not Americans. What the Americans do in response to Iraq has nothing to do with us our our mission.
So, once again, ineffective.
So to sum up, your "Open Letter" displays a complete lack of understanding of your target audience, the goals of the mission, how the mission is being conducted, or the political realities of the situation. It had not a snowball's hope in hell of ever succeeding, which categorizes you and your group as being either good intentioned but hopelessly incompetent, or jingoistic "War Bad!" types fundamentally (and I use that word on purpose) incapable of participating in rational debate.
Allow me to reiterate - I think there is a place for Anti-War groups, anti-war protests, and legitimate critical analysis of the mission and its conduct. Indeed, I feel that there is a duty for citizens who are not inclined to serve in the Forces themselves to perform this analysis and watchdog role. But that being the case, your own attempt is an utter failure, given the gaping flaws in both your analysis and your delivery strategy.
DG
Bzzliteyr
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 430
Okay.. I am not so sure if I heard right.. but for the last week the media has been openly reporting that the Quebec people do NOT support the mission, 70% of them. Why does Val2007 seem to always bend facts for more impact? It has become 75% in his rebuttal. How am I supposed to take anything these characters say seriously if they can't avoid twisiting one simple little number??????
- Reaction score
- 4,267
- Points
- 1,260
Yrys said:
Got it in one guess, Yrys!
.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
So I guess Valcartier2007's group is going to continue to avoid the big question then?!
Here it is again.
Maybe their group just generally doesn't have any good alternatives, or perhaps they are okay with the idea of the Taliban coming back into power.
Here it is again.
Maybe their group just generally doesn't have any good alternatives, or perhaps they are okay with the idea of the Taliban coming back into power.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Wolfe117 said:
B-I-N-G-O!
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Haggis: Actually Quebec (along with what is now Ontario) was part of a single province called "Canada" from 1841, as a result of the Act of Union, 1840, until the British North America Act, 1867.
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006530
The two constituent elements, Canada East and Canada West, had equal representation in a single legislature (this favoured Canada West which had a smaller population in 1841).
In fact, when a larger "Canada" was formed in 1867 it united three (not four as most people think) provinces while at the same time dividing the existing province of Canada. From the BNA Act:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/loireg/p1t1-1.html
Mark
Ottawa
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006530
The two constituent elements, Canada East and Canada West, had equal representation in a single legislature (this favoured Canada West which had a smaller population in 1841).
In fact, when a larger "Canada" was formed in 1867 it united three (not four as most people think) provinces while at the same time dividing the existing province of Canada. From the BNA Act:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/loireg/p1t1-1.html
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
RecceDG, excellent analysis. The one point where I might challenge you is on your assumption that this was meant to affect soldiers, upon which you base your assessment that the letter was ineffective. IF that was the case, then you're right.
But what if the stated objective wasn't the true objective? What if mailing these letters was no more than a PR stunt, meant only to garner attention? What if the chance of reaching a disaffected soldier was nothing more than a long-shot potential side-benefit?
If it was a PR stunt, it was quite successful. And if the true audience wasn't the Canadian Forces, but rather the Canadian public, the errors in the text are far less easy to discern, since most Canadians aren't particularly well-informed about either the mission or the duty and ethic of soldiering.
I'd suggest that if you haven't considered this type of domestic political protest in terms of PSYOP, you should look at the situation again from that perspective. It may change your conclusions about the protesters' effectiveness, and consequentially about the level of effort that will be required to counter it.
But what if the stated objective wasn't the true objective? What if mailing these letters was no more than a PR stunt, meant only to garner attention? What if the chance of reaching a disaffected soldier was nothing more than a long-shot potential side-benefit?
If it was a PR stunt, it was quite successful. And if the true audience wasn't the Canadian Forces, but rather the Canadian public, the errors in the text are far less easy to discern, since most Canadians aren't particularly well-informed about either the mission or the duty and ethic of soldiering.
I'd suggest that if you haven't considered this type of domestic political protest in terms of PSYOP, you should look at the situation again from that perspective. It may change your conclusions about the protesters' effectiveness, and consequentially about the level of effort that will be required to counter it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Youve probably already noticed they use the term 'psyops' in their statments and claim to know how it is used. The next step, using it with their own materilas, is pretty obvious.
Similar threads
