Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I think I was clear in my warning to them what we expect.
I'm here until 0630 tomorrow morning, they cross the line during that time, they go away.

They stay within what I [we] expect from civilized adults, then they can speak their piece.

EDIT TO ADD: and we will act like civilizd adults also.

 

[pbi]

I'm also very much against banning Valcartier from posting here. If there is one place in the cyberspace where these people will meet with factual, logical arguments from professionals and people who have "been there, done that", it's right here. IMHO we complain so often and so loudly that neither the Govt nor the CF will engage these disinformers in the public forum: well-here's our chance to do it. I for one welcome the  debate.

Just look at how poorly they've started out:

-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;

they use quotations that are either out of context or largely irrelevant because they come from other missions or from other militaries, but even in their best case only represent the opinions of a tiny fraction of the US military, most of whom carry out their duties effectively and bravely every day. If this were not so the US missions in Iraq and Afghanistan would have collapsed long ago. Interesting IIRC that the highest reenlistment rate in the US Army is in combat arms units engaged in operations;

-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?;

-they indulge in arguments that apart from being counterfactual are morally reprehensible. Abandoning the people of Afghanistan (to satisfy what/who, tell me again...?);

-they have either cunningly or stupidly quoted Gen Leslie out of context, and no doubt with no real understanding of the man himself, the Canadian Army, the philosophies behind successful counterinsurgency, or current understanding by us of how complex our mission is, and how facile and superficial a time limit is.

So, let's engage. If we don't who will?

Cheers

 

[McG]

I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.

I'm also very much against banning Valcartier from posting here.
...
So, let's engage. ...

I support both your positions.  This is healthy discussion so long as there are no enticements made toward violation of Canadian law.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I never suggested banning, I merely suggested that we not encourage them to propogate their falsehoods.  As the mods have said, that will not be taking place so I am just as interested as others now to see what they'll come up with this evening.

Game on!!!

 

[Danjanou]

As already noted valcartier and his colleagues have yet to cross the line re site guidelines and therefore can’t be banned.  We have a set system in place to here and as always it will be followed if needed to. Unlike some web sites we play by the rules. Our new friends like anyone else who posts here must have read the site  guidelines and are subject to them at all times. That will include any statment or intent to violate any of the laws of the land.

Valcartier do not misinterpret what may seem a “heavy mod” presence here as an attempt to stifle or censor you. Quite the ooposite in fact , we welcome an informed debate on this topic and hope you and your colleagues are up to.

As with any other topical threads here attention is quickly drawn to it and sometimes emotion overrules logic on one or all sides. Our presence here is to ensure that the discussion stays on track. Besides the staff here are also first and foremost members and some or all of us may wish to join in too. Others will stay out of the debate to allow them to continue to impartially observe and moderate.

 

[Wookilar]

Agreed, the facts have to come from somewhere. As I do not expect that we will change any minds here, I will still be a part of the attempt. I'm just sick of so much crap being put out there.

Valcartier2007,

I have read your letter and your supporting documents. I am a long time serving member with operational experience and I am currently a  university student (where I've learned all that critical thinking stuff and how to apply it).

One: your letter is full of holes. You are actually asking people to break the law, but you yourself are not willing to take risks accordingly. I noticed you asked Mr Wallace if that was his real name or not, but I see you are not using your "real" name, but an assumed one. Way to go to stand up for your convictions. It goes to show how much you are willing to risk for your beliefs.

Two: maybe that's why you seem to instinctively react and agree with the American service members quoted on your site. Unfortunately, they are not (with the exception of Mr O'Brien) standing up for what they believe in, they are afraid and are cowards. Strong words, yes, but the naked truth. The US forces have a long standing and well established Conscientious Objector process, if you hold strong enough convictions, you can be honourably discharged as such and there is no black mark on your record (as Mr O'Brien did). These "resisters" often end up charged (and discharged) because they simply broke the law and ran away from their (volunteered for) duties and did not even try and bother with Conscientious Objector status. As for Mr Brobeck (the Marine you then say is in the Army, which is it, very different, sloppy research), there are always people that come out of a war zone and have a different world view. To say he is a Resister due to those views, however, is false. He is not resisting, he came to the realization that he no longer agreed with his oath and did the honorable thing and got out instead of running away and apply for refugee status illegally.

Three: The use of Mr Juarez shows just how much research you have put into this. He is a liar and has been outed as such (repeatedly). His arguments and statements do not, and have never been, supported by the facts. There are thousands of Reservists in this country that have no desire to serve in Afghanistan (or anywhere else for that matter). There are thousands that do. Until this country is in a state of declared war (does WW I or II ring a bell?), those Reservists have a choice whether they serve overseas or not. That simple fact refutes every thing Juarez has ever said.

Four: your supporting documents from the main stream media and from other NGO's (such as RAWA) are, at best, taken out of context or, at worst, twisted beyond belief. Reccesoldier, MCG, FascistLibertarian and pbi (and others) have already covered that.

If you are willing to look at the actual facts, forget the diatribe, and do some independent research, you will get more respect here.

Oh, and please stop using the ridiculous argument that "2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means 2500 more US soldiers in Iraq." The Americans deal in numbers of tens of thousands, another 2500 freed up by our (or any one else's) actions is not even a consideration for their deployment plans. The Americans deal with a total force of 1.4 million (approximately), do you really think 2500 make a difference?

Wook
(not my real name, nor is it even close, but, like all good nick names, I was given it a long time ago and am quite attached to it)

 

[RatCatcher]

I think one thing that Valcartier needs to understand is that they are not preaching to mindless bison following the herd over the cliff. Indeed, unless things have changed in the past couple of years, the CF has the highest percentage of post secondary education in the non-officer ranks. I know that all of my friends are all well read and realize the risks when we agree to go.

As for their statement of being complacent to war crimes, I do take that personnally, as should any member. We are trained to follow the rules of engagement, receive countless briefings from our JAG sections in regards to the "the laws of armed conflict", GC and such.  Most would report infractions to the chain of command if they occur.

On top of that, would they also object to the fact that I kill bugs for a living....

 

[Bigmac]

        Valcartier 2007 group had to leave and research more as they were bombarded with factual information and references that they could not dispute so they obviously do not have the time to research properly?
       
        Be careful what you say to these people as I believe they are going to quote some of you. They may also try to use this forum as a source of information for their upcoming demonstration on 22 Jun in Quebec. I would almost guarantee that they will twist every word you say to make their cause seem justified.

        When Valcartier 2007 returns, debate them hard with clear facts and references but please keep emotions out of it. They are trying to get emotional responses.

       Show them what military discipline is all about! :cdnsalute:

 

[Flip]

Personally, I would rather have a moderated debate here
than have them stuffing mailboxes on any base.

Engage them! they might learn something.
Hell, maybe we'll learn something. :

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Bigmac, that is a good point.  After the initial quote of an Army.ca member by the media, I am sure there is great scrutiny by all sides (read media, CF and others) on this hot topic.

Ratcatcher, a good point you bring up about us knowing the rules of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and others.  I wonder how many briefings the Taliban (and such groups) sit through before they go into battle?  

 

[scoutfinch]

Ratcatcher, a good point you bring up about us knowing the rules of armed conflict, the Geneva convention and others.  I wonder how many briefings the Taliban (and such groups) sit through before they go into battle?  

That is a total red herring and unrelated to the debate. 

What we should address is the de facto argument that the Laws of Armed Conflict require a detaining power to ensure the proper treatment of prisoners before they turn them over to a third party.  That is the law.  Whatever the convoluted facts of the recent past, we are compliant with that law now and have taken steps to ensure that the treatment of detainees will be scrutinized according to a legal standard.  The fact that we took steps to ensure our compliance indicated the significance we placed on the situation.

That takes the wind out of their sails on that issue. 

Fight with facts.  Strawman arguments and red herrings only diminish the power of the facts in our favour.

 

[membrain]

I never suggested banning, I merely suggested that we not encourage them to propogate their falsehoods.  As the mods have said, that will not be taking place so I am just as interested as others now to see what they'll come up with this evening.

Game on!!!

As newbie forum member I agree that it will be interesting to see what they come up with. However past experience tells me that these types never let lttle thing such as the truth get in the way of their twisted thought processes. So I won't waste my breath. I am however more than a little annoyed that thes people are depicting our troops as "war criminals".

By the way. Nice place ya got here. I found out abou the site from an article in the National Post about the tragic loss of Trooper Darryl Caswell

 

[George Wallace]

Personally, I would rather have a moderated debate here
than have them stuffing mailboxes on any base.

Engage them! they might learn something.
Hell, maybe we'll learn something. :

That is our hopes and why I placed a warning about spamming the site a couple of pages earlier in this topic.

What I hoped and have yet to see, is our 'guest' to actually debate his/her/their points, not just give us their standard 'party line'.  Falsehoods and Propaganda put into leaflets and letters for mass mailings do not equal debate on an internet forum.  I am sure that the lack of discussion on one side or the other will then relegate this whole topic as worthless and not worthy of being kept for future perusal.

It now falls on Valcartier2007 to actually take up the gauntlet and DEBATE, not just rhyme off a 'checklist' of statements which we can easily disprove.  If Valcartier2007 can not validate statements, then they are worthless.

We have already provided information and sources to discredit this Juarez character.  We have provided rebuttals to other points.  It is time for the Debate to begin in earnest, not just political posturing.

 

[medaid]

This is my last word on the subject and the only reason I wish to raise it is because it is not based on opinion but on an error of fact in their argument which I feel should be corrected.

The fact that your organization states things like "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." simply demonstrates your organizations inability to deal with facts.  Whether you like it or not, he was not expelled from the army for his objections to the conflict in Afghanistan.  He CHOSE  to leave because of his objections and took steps to ensure he was removed from training.  He was NOT expelled because of his beliefs. 


(1)  Juarez was an Officer Cadet in the Reserve Force.

(2)  As a Reservist, he was under NO obligation to go to Afghanistan.  In fact, he would have had to agreed to go to Afghanistan on more than one occasion prior to deployment in order to get to theatre.

(3)  He was removed from training for failing to follow an order -- an order to run the obstacle course!  He took steps to ensure his removal from course because he had made a personal decision to cease training.  I say again:  HE CHOSE TO CEASE TRAINING BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. This does not mean he was expelled from the Forces for his political belief.  HE CHOSE TO LEAVE AND TOOK STEPS TO ENSURE HE WAS REMOVED FROM TRAINING BECAUSE HIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT BEING REMOVED FROM TRAINING WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.

Your organization's credibilty is lessened when you ignore facts and play with words that suit your political purpose. 

I had to say this Olga... he didn't deserve to wear a uniform. He didn't deserve to have even held the rank of OCdt, no matter how lowly that is. It's a shame to every men and women who are of that rank, who have came from that rank, and who had worked hard to even get to that rank (RMC, PRes, RESO, ROTP etc etc). I don't think we should EVER refer to this... bag of..(insert expletive) by a rank that he had desecrated. We should just refer to him by his first name... or an expletive..

 

[Yrys]

Congratulations Reccesoldier on your long post and the research that went into it.

It would make a good canevas for an article by The Ruxted Group (hint, hint )!

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I wonder when they finish work?

 

[Remius]

While I'm not for banning Valcartier, I'm not convinced any type of real debate with facts is going to accomplish anything other than tooting our own horns that we disproved everything they have to say.  This group, and they are a group have come here and spouted their rhetoric under the guise of wanting to discuss the issues.  They are being careful about how they are saying it and will try hard to stay within the rules of the forum but they have a clear agenda and nothing we say, prove or show to them is going to change their minds.  Their recent actions with the Vandoos shows exactly how far they are willing to go.  How many views has this thread generated now?  Not bad considering they haven't paid a cent to get this message accross.  Oh they'll listen to us.  But it won't be the message they take with them.  It will be whatever  they can use to further their own agenda.  They've already distorted the truth and taken things out of context and they will do so willingly again with what they can garner from this forum and the discussion they claim to be eager to engage us in.  And although most of the membership here is reasonable, all it will take is one poster to ruin everyone's good intentions and informing them of their shortcomings.  They won't be convinced, no matter what we tell them so why bother?  My suggestion is to let the thread die.  Or just ignore them.  It isn't worth the bandwith.

 

[scoutfinch]

MedTech:

You will note that at no time did I mention my personal opinion of this individual.  I was addressing facts and only facts.  (It must be the lawyer coming out in me!)

I respect your passionately held feelings on the matter.  I just remind you that as firmly as you believe in yours, they believe in theirs.  And the more we try to defend opinions, the greater the risk that the thread will spiral into an unprincipled battle of 'my opinion is better than your opinion'.

So, I proposed to Valcartier 2007 that we address the facts.

In fact, I challenge Valcartier 2007 to explain to me -- in light of the facts I have presented -- if they will continue to maintain that Juarez was expelled because of his beliefs.  I don't think the argument is sustainable on the facts.  Let's see what they have to say.  

 

[medaid]

True I just had to say it... and I apologize if my post would likely cause a downward spiral... not the intention.

 

[Reccesoldier]

and I apologize if my post would likely cause a downward spiral...

Yeah,

I'm the one in charge of the downward spiral around here mister!

And don't you forget it. 

Seriously though, although I wish Valcartier2007 would honestly debate facts I have the feeling that this is going to end up a lot like this

:argument: