Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[armyvern]

Back on for a minute --

Please refer to this post when you come back on. Again, no need to do so as a guest, we are actually pretty receptive to one being openly active around here.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579016.html#msg579016

 

[armyvern]

Valcartier2007,

Please. You are at it again.

It would only be honest of you to log in as yourself to view the responses that you are receiving vice reading as a guest. This is you:

Guest (216.144.removed again)  12:28:55 Viewing the topic Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG.

Really, what is your concern with being visible here?

 

[The Bread Guy]

In a nutshell: your comment is very unfair. We wrote clearly saying we don't intend to jeer average soldiers, but focus our protest on the politicians and senior officers.

If this is the case, how many politicians and officers senior enough for your message do you expect to be in attendance?  In proportion to how many "average soldiers" being there?

 

[midget-boyd91]

Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization,

Opposed to war and militarization.
Militarization- Is that only within developed nations and established governments? I seem to recall that the Taliban are a militant force. They are attempting to gain power, thus equals militarization.

Opposed to war- If you are opposed to Canada fighting a war, fine. But if you are opposed to war in any way shope or form, then your statement ceases to have any logical sense. NATO (including Canada) leaving Afghanistan would do only one thing. Create more war. The Afghan National Army and Police are in no way strong enough to face the Taliban on their own. If we leave, the Taliban is going to continue fighting. They will slowly creep back into the major cities and into the rural districts. If you want the least amount of fighting possible, we need to stay and continue.

We don't plan to jeer at individual soldiers or their families.

Mailing notes to soldiers and their families is quite individual. Even if more than one soldier and their family receives said letter, there is still a note being delivered to their homes.

Time for myself to ask some questions from you, as a group.

Many of us believe that you often must fight for your principles, and for what you believe.

Ahem. You claim that members of the Canadian Forces are committing acts that are "tantamount to war crimes." Have you anything to say about the treatment of Afghan civilians under the Taliban regime, or the treatment of Afghan civilians if NATO leaves and the Taliban gain ground. Or.. what do you have to say to the following: The a unit of the Afghan National Army has been captured by a large force of the Taliban, because the ANA was fighting alone because NATO left. The Taliban are sure to commit acts far worse than a beating to the captured. Now, this is a grim question but, would you prefer a handful of Taliban militants to be beaten and possibly tortured, or hundreds of civilians (including women and children) to suffer the same fate?

Canada’s complicity in George Bush’s “War on Terror.”

I always find it offending when I hear that term. Are you forgetting that 9/11 was an attack on all of the west, and that two dozen Canadians were among the killed?

You might disagree with our premise, but it does give you an idea of where we're coming from.

Please, for the love of God, your premise as pointed out by many here over the last few days, is full of holes.  You would gain much more respect among the people of Canada if you would research and use full facts, not half truths. You would gain respect if you paid more attention to something that needs more attention. The money and time you are spending protesting a mission that is giving human rights to millions, could have been much better spend providing food and water to a small African child. It would make more sense to spend your money and time on something that will have a effect.

Thats about all I have of this long-winded speel. Take care.

 

[Biggoals2bdone]

well i've been reading this thread now for a couple of days im still not done all of the 14 pages, but there are a few things i feel i NEED to say that i feel cannot wait.

1. Being that I am indeed a francophone, and furthermore Quebecois by birth and culture, I absolutely abhore the fact that it seems like everyone is blaming all of this on Quebec...when in fact this group is just a minute percentage...so don't just lump up everyone in Quebec in this category...i certainly do not think like these people, i 100% support the mission and the troops involved, and everyone must also remember that the majority of the soldiers in Quebec are indeed Quebecois (not all because there are some non-quebecois francophones in canada as we all know)...and those soldiers are just the same as all the other soldiers around the country.

2. I strongly wish that the people going under the user name Valcartier2007, change there username, because i am appalled that they would use the name of a pretty good historic quebec city to tarnish the reputation of our armed forces, and they should be ashamed to use the name of that city and base...

Now i don't need to point out all the fallacies in your arguments i think we all know them, whether you (the anti-war hippies) would like to admit them or not.

Someone made a good point earlier, if we leave A-stan now with the job half done at best...in 5 years everyone will be up in arms about how we didn't do jack sh!t then and how we need to help and go peacekeep.  I also add to that that Canada is very lucky that we did not get attacked by the Taliban, because we were on their list...and i think we can thank all those soldiers who were and will be deployed to A-stan for not having been attacked, because in sending our troops there, we are fighting the terrorists before they cause massive destruction and harm to our people...Going by your (peaceniks) we shouldnt have gone, and should have just let the taliban bomb the crap out of canada or commit some ghastly terrorist act killing thousands of our....YOUR people...and then try to talk it out with them...To me that means you turn your back on your own people you don't even care enough to protect they're lives, you'd rather let terrorists kill un-armed, innocent non-combatants ON PURPOSE then to send in our troops, to defend ourselves from an enemy who is fanatical, in their hate for Westerners and our way of life...

Something you have to understand about soldiers, we aren't war mongers....we don't sit at a desk polishing/cleaning our rifles/guns/etc waiting for the Prime Minister to say I want you to go kill people.  Combat soldiers learn to fight, in the hopes that they won't have to, but that if they do, they will be able to carry out their duty to their utmost capabilities to defend Canada and Canadians from harm...do you really think that Private Bloggins loves getting orders that he is being deployed half way around the world away from home, loved ones etc, to be somewhere that half the people like him while the other half don't know how they feel about him yet, and being shot at daily...do you TRULY think that combat soldiers spend their days waiting for this to happen...

Lastly, our mission's main goal is the reconstruction of a stable democratic government with military and police capabilities, thats why we have MPs and RCMPs overseas teaching the afghans how to soldier and how to be police officers because they do not have those capabilities, and without those the Taliban would easily just come back and take power and kill all who supported the change...we aren't over there seeing how many people we can kill, the media is the one that makes it out to be that way...a Col. or Gen. said it really well in an issue of the Maple Leaf a while back...the media covers our casualties, civilian casualties and enemy casualties as well as any destruction but it doesnt say that i spent a few millions building roads, schools, clinics, etc.


Yes you are entitled to your opinion Valcartier2007....but don't pretend to speak for all Quebecois, because you make me ashamed to be it, because you are giving all Quebecois people false information and making us look like cowards who would rather bury our head in the earth and let things "work themselves out"

Also writing soldiers letters trying to incite mutiny, you clearly don't know the worth of a Canadian Soldier, Aircrew, Sailor...upon entrance into the service we swear an Oath, and i think i can speak for everyone when i say that, that oath, is something very dear to us, and we don't take our being in the Canadian Forces lightly...but i guess you wouldn't know about that kind of thing.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Biggoals2bdone, I don't think anyone here is judging Les Quebecois by Valcartier2007's example.

Having read Valcartier2007's responses to the arguments of the membership here, including mine, I can only say that those responses are the internet equivalent of a childish "Oh yeah?  Are too!" retort.

Folks, the pig (and the rest of us) are truly dirty. Whats more, the pig is still a pig and that is the only thing that has or will happen here.  Unfortunately we all should have known better.  You can now count me among the "ignore them and they will go away" group.

:deadhorse:

 

[Flip]

In my own quest for "truth" I discovered ARMY.ca about a year ago.

As a relative newby and a civvie at that I have a slightly different perspective.

First and most important - this discussion will be here for others to read long after
V2007 has moved on. That's the real value of this board.  People we don't
even know about will learn and decide what believe based in part on what's here.

What V2007 has probably never realized is that the good people who serve our
country in uniform (include cops and firefighters) are not objects of curiosity
derision or scorn.  They are not something to tamper with for amusement
or political gain.  They are people. - with real life consequences for their own choices
and the choices and actions of others.  Thus I find the direct mailout to be
despicable.  Would police officer be urged not to enforce inconvenient laws?
Would a firefighter be harassed?  Political views are one thing.  This direct
approach fails the smell test.

Back to political views,
If a bunch of friends are sitting around one day and decide that tobacco
companies are evil ( for example ).  It's an easy sell.
There is no tobacco execs in the room to show another side.
No one in the room will point out that there are smokers present.
The coke dealer in the room will agree.
The meth pusher will too.

It's easy to say "war is bad" without considering the possibility
that there are worse things.

It's easy to say "America is bad" without considering how the Chinese
would exert a similar level of influence.

It's also very easy to gloss over the distinction between the people
of Afghanistan and the Taliban.

It's very easy to criticize our governments actions without considering
the cost of inaction.

Valcartier2007 - Can you propose an alternative?
How would you right the world's wrongs?
What do you suppose is in Canada's best interest?

 

[Trogdor]

Reccesoldier welcome to the club.

Although using logical reasoning supported by overwhelming facts may not sway the average passive-agressive anarchist goon from their deeply flawed and contradicting ideas; we can all take comfort in one thing.  That is that when we fight it has the effect of providing security for good people doing good work for their country and the removal of truely dangerous and abhorent individuals.  Whereas when the anarchist fights it has the effect of providing the viewers of the world with footage of misguided individuals in black t-shirts having their backsides handed to them by riot police.

 

[the 48th regulator]

No Mike, you're not.

I mentioned it in an earlier post of mine as the point where "their" and "our" philosophies take separate paths.

I, for one, am willing to fight and die so that others (in this case the people of Afghanistan) can move forward into a brighter and more promising future. Sometimes, dying is the cost that must be paid so that others can prosper in a free society. There are many of us out here who believe that cost is worth it, and have seen the improvements made for the Afghan people and their society at cost of soldier's lives.

I, for one, am willing to fight and die,

I will have to refute part of this statement from my colleague.

I was always willing to fight for the mission my country sent me.  I was never willing to die.  I do not want to sound crass, or belittle the statement, but this is my take on this.  I accepted the fact in doing the job my country asked of me.  If I was sent to fight, then I would do this.  My job would be to kill the enemy, however, if I were injured or I died, I accepted the fact that it was part and parcel of my job.  I was not doing my job for some belief or cause, my job is as that of a soldier, and I do the bidding of my country.

Those that are willing to die are ideologist, and are there for selfish purposes.  The Taliban, used the help of the western democracies to gain control of Afghanistan, for this type of reasoning.  They oppressed the people there, tortured, murdered, and destroyed a populace for a degenerate means of power.  For their own means.

As a soldier, if my leaders hail the call of help, well then, I am a tool to be used to help liberate those that are oppressed.  I do not go there to judge, it is not my job.  Maybe you should have targeted the MPs', that make the decisions, as opposed to the Canadians that have decided to take up the call and serve their nation.  Oh wait that is right, your beliefs do not entail a Hierarchy of leadership, unless approved by your clique.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

No one wants to die Tess, and certainly most are not willing to die unnecessarily; of course we'd prefer that none of us die in that process of fighting. However, as soldiers, that is a risk we take if our government deems us to do so, and it was most certainly clearly explained to me and understood by me when I signed on that line.

That does not make me an ideologist, and on that point you and I will have to disagree.

 

[the 48th regulator]

No one wants to die Tess, and certainly most are not willing to die unnecessarily; of course we'd prefer that none of us die in that process of fighting. However, as soldiers, that is a risk we take if our government deems us to do so, and it was most certainly clearly explained to me and understood by me when I signed on that line.

That does not make me an ideologist, and on that point you and I will have to disagree.

I was not criticizing you Vern, m'dear, just clarifying for or resident ideologist.

Sorry if I had to use your quote.

Hugs and loves?  I have cooked up some coffee in my trench here, and there is some hot soup being made.

Don't mind the fuel tabes, I ran out of naptha for my wee stove.

p.s, I will save the crackers and candy for you.

dileas

tess

 

[armyvern]

No group hug required (I hate those things!!).

Dileas Gu Brath.

 

[Kat Stevens]

" "Importantly, some of the people in networks like Block the Empire come directly from these zones of conflict, or our parents do. We are not simply armchair critics of war. We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naive, pampered “Canadians” either; some of us migrated to Canada. Our website includes an appeal made directly by an Afghan living in Canada (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/qaderi_eng.htm) We try to root our analysis in the progressive anti-imperialist movements of the Third World. We also are active in social struggles in our own communities (against poverty, homelessness, ecocide, deportations and more)." "



So, you, or your ancestors, have fled from these conflict zones.  You came to Canada, I assume, because of its stability and freedoms.  Stability and freedoms that were provided, and are still provided, by the spilling of countless gallons of Canadian soldier's blood, on countless battlefields from Kapyong to Normandy, from Vimy to Sha-e-kot.  You would now deny the people of Afghanistan the same security in their own homeland?  Rather hypocritical, isn't it?  This is all from me, carry on.

 

[pbi]

Just back briefly. Wow! Well done thus far. And, to be fair, I have to give credit to Valcartier for sticking with it here in the lion's den. In reading Valcartier's posts, it's very interesting to see that we share some common points of view:

-there is evil in the world;

-good people need to oppose that evil, and that may mean using force including killing people;

-people have to be ready to stand up for what they believe in;

-there can be causes and objects greater than an individual;

-we shouldn't kill people if we don't have to;

-General Leslie is worth quoting; and

-the views and opinions of Canadian soldiers are worth thinking about.


Unfortunately, the choice of the Spanish Civil War as a "good war" from the left wing point of view is so classic and stereotypical that I couldn't believe Valcartier would actually resort to it. Deciding that the Republicans were somehow morally superior to the Royalists really takes some mental gymnastics. Both sides were guilty of hideous atrocities (the Republicans targeted priests and nuns in particular), and both sides enthusiastically accepted the support and advice of hideous totalitarian regimes. While Franco and friends were supported by the German Kondor Legion, Mussolini, etc. the Republicans were only too happy to accept weapons and other support from the equally murderous and blood-stained Stalin, whose support for "human rights" and "freedom" and "democracy" are of course well known.

However, it does point out that apparently Valcartier (or at least some of his confreres) believe that in some circumstances it is acceptable and understandable for Canadians to volunteer to go to serve in combat in far way places, to oppose an enemy who presents a threat to what we believe in, while helping others to achieve what they cannot achieve themselves. Well...so do we.

Cheers

 

[FascistLibertarian]

Note: Im a civ so what I say is in no way linked to the CF.
What makes me really angry about this whole thing is that before 9/11 some of the strongest people pushing for us to take on or take out the Taliban were socialists and the left. Its like they forget what side of the debate they were on as soon as people on the right and Bush started supporting their view. I bet if bush became an anarchist then you guys would change sides again. After all hes evil (no grey here, pure black and white) so you MUST oppose him.
These are the same people who are now saying we need to act in Sudan and who support involvement in Haiti......
I just hope that they would not turn their backs on those mission the second a CF or innocent got killed.

I asked you before what Canadian missions you supported. You did not reply but you did mention that you feel the Spanish Civil War was a just war (for the left). I am to take this to mean you do not think Canada should have been involved in WW1, 2, Korea, Balkans etc all?

The killing 1 makes 15 is not a math equation!

Lastly, innocents are sometimes killed by the police, the police sometimes act in a bad manner and enforce unfair laws. Using your logic I would assume that because of this policing is pointless, after all it only makes more criminals and crime will take a long time (if ever) to get rid of, sho why should we bother? Surely taking out those Crips at Jane and Finch is making 15 more gangstas for every one thrown in jail
would you agree that
1) we should eliminate policing?
2) Police should be able to choose for themselevs which laws to enforce?
3) I should mail a letter to police officers homes telling them which laws they should not enforce?

 

[George Wallace]

FascistLibertarian

I know it is very frustrating, but I think you overlooked on important point.  These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.

 

[Zell_Dietrich]

FascistLibertarian

I know it is very frustrating, but I think you overlooked on important point.  These people are anarchists.  It really doesn't matter who is in power or what the Government is doing.  They are against it.  If the Government keeps our Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  It the Government doesn't commit to having Troops in Afghanistan, they are against it.  Their very existance relies on their being 'against' the government.

With respect,  they (several people I spoke to as well as official NDP policy)  tried to have it both ways a while ago.  Insisting that we pull out of Afghanistan while demanding that we go into Darfur.  It was then I decided that that they are more interested in being "against the man" than actually examining the world.

 

[pbi]

Back again. Seems quiet.........


Are you still there Valcartier?


Is it over?


Cheers

 

[Bzzliteyr]

George, why weren't the protesting before we went to Afghanistan?

Why is this the first time we have heard of them as a group?  Is it because it's convenient that we are in their home province and it's easier?  What about the fact that Valcartier has had troops over in Afghan for at least 6 of the last months?

I'll say it again, these people are like a schoolyard bully or class clown looking for attention.  They're loving this!!

 

[a_majoor]

George, why weren't the protesting before we went to Afghanistan?

Like so many others, it is not mission related at all. The flap over Taliban captives being turned over to the GoA only happened when the Conservatives became the governing party; it was OK when Paul Martin was PM. The hypocrasy of the Left is astounding.