Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[McG]

Now that NIMN's I hate Western Society distraction is over, would V2007 mind please answering the many questions posted?

My single question to the perpetrators of this sad and pointless mailing is if you claim to "care" about the average Afghan then what alternative course of action do you offer to ending the Taliban's campaign of targetting civilians, keeping in mind that this has been going on for over a decade before NATO and US led forces arrived?  Would you just leave them to fend for themselves against the Taliban?

2. What should be done in Afghanistan?  Who should do it?

3. What should be done in Iraq?  Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq.  Here I give you the opportunity)

4. What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up?  Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living?  If yes, how?

5. Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence?

6. Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?

7. Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?

So.  Now instead of just leaving it at that, I give you three questions to which I would like to hear your responses:

1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there?  And why did you start now?

2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?

3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately.  How will this improve the country?  What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?

Val2007,
If you will not get to answering these, you are wasting our time.  So far, you've stuck to issues on the periphery and ignored what you've found difficult to stand behind.

 

[McG]

I'd also be interested in your thoughts on this: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63566.0.html

 

[Jungle]

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?

We will not be getting an answer. They have no plan, just like there is no debate here; a debate is two-way. The people representing Valc 2007 here are writing, but not reading.
As has been mentionned before, 70% of the population of Québec are opposed to the mission (75% if you ask Valc 2007... is that like the 1000 protesters Friday night, vs the 500 that were reported ??) then why do they feel such a need to convince them ??
They have no intention of answering our questions, they simply want to repeat the same thing over and over, as it makes them feel important, like they are "contributing" something to something... leave them to their dreams. We all know who really makes a difference:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust, sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion and spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold, timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)

People like those represented by Valc 2007 arenot taking any risks; they cannot make mistakes, because they are not doing anything; and they expect perfection from govt organisations and the CF, a perfection they cannot even dream to achieve. We know we make mistakes, and we hate it when they happen. But we learn the lessons from those mistakes, and carry on. SOLDIER ON. This is something these people cannot do: they cannot "carry on" in the face of adversity.
We know, as Winston Churchill said, that "If you're going through hell, keep going" !!
I'm done reading these people.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Ok, we're all beating around the bush, a first I believe for the denizens of this site, so I'll be the first to come out and say it.

Valcartier2007 is a hit and run troll.

His unwillingness inability to respond to the most basic question anyone advocating a pullout from Afghanistan should have formulated an answer to immediately after, if not while, they were contemplating their preferred course of action is a complete and utter crock.  Stringing the members of this site along with tales of long weekends and complaints about work are crap.  Most if not all of us here work, yet apparently only V2007 is busy enough not to answer a simple question.

I am asking the moderators to finally kick this troll to the curb, in spite of what some here believe, he is no better than NIMN, just a more polite version of the same troll.

 

[armyvern]

Ok, we're all beating around the bush, a first I believe for the denizens of this site, so I'll be the first to come out and say it.

I am asking the moderators to finally kick this troll to the curb, in spite of what some here believe, he is no better than NIMN, just a more polite version of the same troll.

No need for you to ask ...

He's already been given his fair warning by the mod staff here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-582425.html#msg582425

It is time that he put up ... or shut up and his next login will determine the outcome. He either answers the questions posed to him as he has promised to do; or he is gone. End of the non-debate.

 

[DG-41]

No, that's way too agressive and paints us in a horrible light. It makes us look like intolerant assholes who punt anybody who doesn't conform to groupthink.

This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.

There is plenty of room for opposing ideas and debate, and it isn't fair to impose any sort of artifical deadline on his answers to questions. Even protestors have lives outside of the Internet.

As long as he remains polite, let him stay.

DG

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

Well considering i've had my fair share of run-ins on this site, and what not, I still agree, that THEY should answer the question, instead of just "spouting off" with the rhetoric.

We indulged them early on, and countered they're points, with valid facts and arguments, while they have done nothing but use catch phrases and snappy words like COIN and ROE.  I don't believe that saying "okay, we understand what you are saying about us being there, you want the soldiers out, but, we can all agree that there is a problem over there, and by taking us out of there you're stopping that course of action, what do you suggest we do to help A-stan, so as to not let the Taliban and Al-queda take power again, and enable them to stand on they're own 2 feet".

I posed the question that way, because if their answer is just "SOLIDARITY, and to leave them to figure out they're own crap, its not our problem", well that is not a very progressive course of action.

 

[Pikache]

If these guys fail to produce anything of substance, they'll just fizzle out as more members realize that they are all talk and nothing else.

So, if V2007 and his folks don't produce, well, life keeps going

 

[zipperhead_cop]

As long as he remains polite, let him stay.

As much as I hate hippies, I have to agree. 
There is always the odd chance that Val2007 bragged off to his (her, their?

) hemp loving buddies and there is maybe a fence sitter that is just hanging out because they are just a social misfit and want someone to hang out with.  Someone might learn something by accident.  Stranger things have happened. 
Plus, I think it's kind of funny that we can crank out responses in a heart beat, since they come from the heart and from a basis of reality.  They need to assemble the collective, fight over the conch and then agree on a noncommittal fluff answer.  For me, it holds a morbid fascination.  Knowing that you are repeatedly being schooled, but still feeling as though you need to hang in there just to save some sort of face. 
C'mon.  You guys already pulled off the flys wings and one half of it's legs.  Watch it spin in circles now. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

zipperhead_cop: And then auger in ;D.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[zipperhead_cop]

zipperhead_cop: And then auger in ;D.

Shhhh...you're giving away the ending!

 

[Reccesoldier]

No, that's way too agressive and paints us in a horrible light. It makes us look like intolerant assholes who punt anybody who doesn't conform to groupthink.

This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.

There is plenty of room for opposing ideas and debate, and it isn't fair to impose any sort of artifical deadline on his answers to questions. Even protestors have lives outside of the Internet.

As long as he remains polite, let him stay.

DG

Obviously I disagree

32 pages of rebuttal does not an intolerant a$$hole make.  In fact in light of Val2007's refusal to answer any but the simplest of the points raised in opposition to his "beliefs" he fits the description, intent and modus operandi of the Troll to a "T".

We as a community have bent over backwards to ensure that Val2007's viewpoint was heard, and we debated his every point to no avail, not even an answer in most cases.  When he/they did answer there was a consistent lack of supporting evidence and fact, and facts that were presented were dismissed out of hand as "propaganda". Again, the hallmark of a Troll.

It is not the absence of "groupthink" it is the absence of any "think" on Val2007's part.  Except for mouthing leftist/anarchist platitudes and promising to come to the table next time, I promise pretty pretty please with his/their plan and course of action he/they has not even sustained the simplest of arguments.

I absolutely agree there is plenty of room for ideas and debate, too bad Val2007 has not been able to respond in any way to the former or contribute in any tangible way to the latter.  It's like a frustrating and humorless parody of the Monty Python Argument sketch, with Val2007 as John Cleese and the rest of us as Michael Palin.

 

[armyvern]

This place bans people way, WAY too quickly, and we run the danger of building an idea silo.

I do?? Gee, I've been doing most of the bans lately and I'll tell you what ... they all deserved them. 

I think V2007s been given plenty of fair opportunity to respond, in fact, much more than any of us mere mortal members would have been given prior to being banned for spamming and trolling the site.

He's been polite, I'll grant you that. But so have I, and being the redhead that I am ... I am very quickly growing tired of the repeated bullshit spammy posts from him that consist of nothing more than regurgitated twists of the truth, and absolutely ZERO of substance. He has not posted a single idea on what he would do to address the situation. He asked for the debate, and he has failed miserably to produce.

No one else would get away with it here, why the hell should he? There are many threads on this forum where opposing viewpoints and real debate of actual plans (not nonexistent and long-promised plans) occur, even from those on the left who are members of the civilian populace.

Look up "Tamouth" any time you want and his posts. He's my personal favourite and I actually miss him around here. He's not banned. But there is one big difference. Tamouth actually threw in some facts (and lots of opinion) to back up his posts instead of vitriol. And Tamouth had no problem when one of his points of fact was shown to be wrong. He was a big enough man to admit it instead of ignoring it. I have all the respect in the world for people like him even though he drove me batty.

Ideas and plans I have no problem with. Repeated spinny propaganda, I do. There's the difference. He's got his fair warning. 32 pages later, he's had enough time (they've had enough time is more like it) to come up with something .... anything. It's just not happening.

His thundering in will certainly not be the fault of anyone who actually contributed to the dialogue in this thread ... it will be due to his own lack of having even the common courtesy to answer the questions posed to him by members of this site, despite the fact that we were polite enough to address his points. Too bad for him because I think their plan would/could have been interesting to say the least. My sympathy clock ran out yesterday ... because today is Monday and I hate Mondays.

And here endeth MY rant.

 

[Trinity]

Valcartier2007

This is what I'm left to believe.

You want Canada out of Afghanistan NOW, don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars.

Yet with no alternative solution for Afghanistan the only conclusion that I can come
up with and I'm sure others might agree with is you just don't care about the people
of Afghanistan.  Your solution is "who cares" IMO (from your lack of response)

In fact, that answer would be beneficial because you can then protest about how America
and her allies invaded a country and then left it in shambles, thus, you could have
it both ways.

Prove me wrong. Out of all the outstanding questions and facts left untouched by you
and your group, answer this question.  What is the alternative plan to Canada not
being in Afghanistan?  That's what I believe the ENTIRE site is waiting to hear.  I think
a week is enough to have come up with a "plausible idea". No one is asking day by day
detailed plans, but a plausible idea. 

Otherwise, sadly, I'm left to believe you don't care about the people of Afghanistan and all your rhetoric
has been simply to bash the United States simply because you have a hatred for them.

 

[ClaytonD]

I think that it's important to ask yourself if you have actually learned anything from this 32 page argument. When I used to be in the 'anti-war no matter what' crowd, I began to realize that I wouldn't absorb any of the facts or beliefs that came from the other side, I would always just brush other arguments off as wrong, while not actually considering WHY I think they are wrong, just that they are because I am right. Once I realized this, I started to look at both sides of the argument, and started looking at facts and not just plain old leftist opinion pieces. I had quite the transition.

I think that VC2007 is smart, but he's fallen into the trap of not wanting to admit a flaw gigantic hole in his argument. The best thing in my mind for any debater who is caught with an argument he cant pull a good rebuttal to is to say  "Okay, I admit I don't know/can't argue that point JUST YET, please give me some time to consider it." Spewing different versions of the same thing you said 25 times ago just pisses people off.

All I have learned from VC2007 in his arguments is that he is against the war (For whatever reason), but he can not come up with a proper idea or course of action for when (if) the Canadian troops are pulled out early. His (or their) argument against the war so far is incomplete, which means that he is basically saying, as a representative of the people that are protesting the war, the whole gang of protesters have an incomplete argument against the war.

I'm babbling now. But that's my take on the debate so far.

 

[Trooper Hale]

ClaytonD, thats really, REALLY well said. My ex-girlfriend was the same in that she was "anti-war no matter what", "They dont want us there", "We're not helping anyone". One of the boys showed her photos of his trip (Canadian bloke, not Australian), she talked to people who'd been over there and one of the Dragoons she met got killed. She did what you said, she made an effort to learn and she came around to some extent. She doesnt support our war in Iraq, but she's very, very supportive of Australia's efforts in Afghanistan and has even gone so far as to say we should be doing more (which we definately should be).
Its all about education and understanding, she's still a left-wing hippy who goes to Greenpeace meeting and hangs out with people who have deckchairs hidden in their hair, but she now has a view point and an understanding that enables her to debate the mission. She's not ignorant. And i think thats whats wrong with a lot of folks out there.

 

[1feral1]

I PM'd V2007, and as predicted and suspected, I have not heard back a single word.

I had some fair dinkum questions, which were well pressented. Obviously ignored

Like I said hidden agendas here for sure.

He was not real, just an attention seeker who demanded an audience. Well he got that didn't he, adn he has made an arse not only of himself, but what he stands for.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Benny]

Being 'Anti war' is just another kind of extremism. Your mind is made up without ever even thinking about it.

 

[ClaytonD]

ClaytonD, thats really, REALLY well said. My ex-girlfriend was the same in that she was "anti-war no matter what", "They dont want us there", "We're not helping anyone". One of the boys showed her photos of his trip (Canadian bloke, not Australian), she talked to people who'd been over there and one of the Dragoons she met got killed. She did what you said, she made an effort to learn and she came around to some extent. She doesnt support our war in Iraq, but she's very, very supportive of Australia's efforts in Afghanistan and has even gone so far as to say we should be doing more (which we definately should be).
Its all about education and understanding, she's still a left-wing hippy who goes to Greenpeace meeting and hangs out with people who have deckchairs hidden in their hair, but she now has a view point and an understanding that enables her to debate the mission. She's not ignorant. And i think thats whats wrong with a lot of folks out there.

+1 to that. On the bold part, you could say that sometimes it almost isn't entirely the ignorant people's fault that they are ignorant due to conflicting media and people who SOUND convincing like VC2007, but really aren't making up a whole argument.

I PM'd V2007, and as predicted and suspected, I have not heard back a single word.

Like I said hidden agendas here for sure.

He was not real, just an attention seeker who demanded an audience. Well he got that didn't he, adn he has made an arse not only of himself, but what he stands for.

Cheers,

Wes

+1

He sure did get his audience, 32 pages of it. I think that he has discovered that the posters here have brains, and aren't 'trance-like' zombies, he should at least acknowledge the fact that he doesn't know quite yet the answer to the 'ultimate question' . And although he was polite, he can only ride on that for so long.

 

[Trooper Hale]

Australians unite! While they're all sleeping we should take over! In fact, we are taking over!
Both of you are right though, they follow in the same way that emo kids or punks all dress the same and say the same thing. They dont know what they're protesting, only that they think its cool to do so.