- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ruxted's Take On Francisco Juarez
- Thread starter ruxted
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
I see that Francisco Juarez has found the Ruxted Group's site and has responded, bending the truth a little. He claims that the media has not quoted him exactly and bent what he said a little. He, however, overlooks the fact that the media has also shown him making those same claims live on television (Canada AM) and also live at rallies across Canada.
Reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Francisco-Juarez.html
Reproduced here under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Francisco-Juarez.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Mr. Juarez should, and probably will be a politician. Consider the following statement:
What does this mean? What is Canada's "place in the world community"? How is our current mission "out of step with it"? This is the sort of content-light statement that politicians often make, because it fits the needs of the sound-bite on legislature steps. If one is going to make this sort of statement, one should also define their view of "our place in the world community", and be prepared to defend it.
Again...a broad, but unsupported statement. NATO partners appear to be willing to prosecute an ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan--certainly, this is true for the US, Canada, the UK and the Netherlands. And, even if countries like Germany and France are comfortably nestled in less risky parts of the country, they are still there, doing a job. Mr. Juarez really is making himself into a rebroadcaster of political statements, which really does nothing to improve his credibility. Perhaps it is time for him to move on to other things and accept that an Officer Cadet who has not completed his training is not an authority on strategic policy. He is a citizen, like everyone else, entitled to an opinion--like everyone else.
What does this mean? What is Canada's "place in the world community"? How is our current mission "out of step with it"? This is the sort of content-light statement that politicians often make, because it fits the needs of the sound-bite on legislature steps. If one is going to make this sort of statement, one should also define their view of "our place in the world community", and be prepared to defend it.
Again...a broad, but unsupported statement. NATO partners appear to be willing to prosecute an ongoing military campaign in Afghanistan--certainly, this is true for the US, Canada, the UK and the Netherlands. And, even if countries like Germany and France are comfortably nestled in less risky parts of the country, they are still there, doing a job. Mr. Juarez really is making himself into a rebroadcaster of political statements, which really does nothing to improve his credibility. Perhaps it is time for him to move on to other things and accept that an Officer Cadet who has not completed his training is not an authority on strategic policy. He is a citizen, like everyone else, entitled to an opinion--like everyone else.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Maybe someone should also remind him that it was actually the Liberals who initially committed the troops to this mission.... :
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Mr. Juarez is not a war resistor. He was not drafted, press ganged or conscripted. He joined the Navy and then (*requested*) a transfer to the Army. Once there, he made the somewhat lengthy jump from completing a daily fitness regime to opposing Canada's foreign policy goals, and I submit, furthering his own.
He was not in danger of being deployed to Afghanistan, requiring in excess of a years additional training to become eligible to enter into competition to do so.
Make no mistake - we as Canadians must compete with each other to be deployed. Should you not wish to go overseas, there are scores of other enlisted men and officers who will take your place, many even volunteering to accept a lower rank (and associated pay) to gain the opportunity to do so.
It is my personal opinion that Mr. Juarez is attempting to launch a public life in the same manner as James Loney, portraying himself as a victim, whose actions are commendable, instead of a shameless opportunist, building his own name at the expense of the CF, the credibility of media and our deployed soldiers.
I'm sure he will find good company with James Loney, Stephen Staples, and a host of other make - believe experts in their respective fields who cherish every opportunity to slander the CF and the war in Afghanistan.
He was not in danger of being deployed to Afghanistan, requiring in excess of a years additional training to become eligible to enter into competition to do so.
Make no mistake - we as Canadians must compete with each other to be deployed. Should you not wish to go overseas, there are scores of other enlisted men and officers who will take your place, many even volunteering to accept a lower rank (and associated pay) to gain the opportunity to do so.
It is my personal opinion that Mr. Juarez is attempting to launch a public life in the same manner as James Loney, portraying himself as a victim, whose actions are commendable, instead of a shameless opportunist, building his own name at the expense of the CF, the credibility of media and our deployed soldiers.
I'm sure he will find good company with James Loney, Stephen Staples, and a host of other make - believe experts in their respective fields who cherish every opportunity to slander the CF and the war in Afghanistan.
Trinity
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Ok... it is my perception that Mr. Juarez is saying that the media
has twisted his words to suit the media's agenda.
My question to him... is he has been labeled as a war resistor for
months now.. and even interviewed on tv live (which I watched). There
have been plenty of opportunities to speak freely on the topic and correct
the term war resistor and to set the record straight, yet he failed to do so.
Why is that Mr. Juarez? Canada AM gave you the opportunity to correct
the fact you left the military of your own accord for personal reasons, not
for being a war resistor.
I would be very interested to know to what manner did you try to clear your name?
No doubt if he found Ruxted... he has found this site as well.
has twisted his words to suit the media's agenda.
My question to him... is he has been labeled as a war resistor for
months now.. and even interviewed on tv live (which I watched). There
have been plenty of opportunities to speak freely on the topic and correct
the term war resistor and to set the record straight, yet he failed to do so.
Why is that Mr. Juarez? Canada AM gave you the opportunity to correct
the fact you left the military of your own accord for personal reasons, not
for being a war resistor.
I would be very interested to know to what manner did you try to clear your name?
No doubt if he found Ruxted... he has found this site as well.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Here, I'll predict the future.
Mr. Juarez writes a book about the big bad Conservatives and their mission to support the "G.W. Bush oil agenda"
Mr. Juarez profits as thousands of Canadians buy into his mindless NDP tripe.
Mr. Juarez runs for MP of random constituency as an NDP.
Mr. Juarez and Taliban Jack become "BFFs" (Best Friends Forever) awwww, how cute.
Cheap shot? Sure, but I'm just pissed. It's bad enough that you were caught riding on the backs of our soldiers for your rise in popularity, but then you try and deny it. Sorry not this time...you're not fooling anyone here. As Trinity pointed out...you have had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight...instead you continue to push your political agenda based on misinfomation given to the public. Shame.
Is that wrong? I challenge you to prove it. Set the record straight.
Mr. Juarez writes a book about the big bad Conservatives and their mission to support the "G.W. Bush oil agenda"
Mr. Juarez profits as thousands of Canadians buy into his mindless NDP tripe.
Mr. Juarez runs for MP of random constituency as an NDP.
Mr. Juarez and Taliban Jack become "BFFs" (Best Friends Forever) awwww, how cute.
Cheap shot? Sure, but I'm just pissed. It's bad enough that you were caught riding on the backs of our soldiers for your rise in popularity, but then you try and deny it. Sorry not this time...you're not fooling anyone here. As Trinity pointed out...you have had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight...instead you continue to push your political agenda based on misinfomation given to the public. Shame.
Is that wrong? I challenge you to prove it. Set the record straight.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
His speech at a Unitarian Church gathering:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdsdekQU1pc&NR
Sounds like a personal publicity stunt to me. He was in the Navy 3 1/2 years and it took him a couple months of Basic Officer Training to determine that he was against Afghanistan? He was only in the military for a free education. He says he joined as an Infantry Officer to help by using his mediation and conflict resolution skills to advance the humanitarian aspect of the mission..... WTF? He should have went into Public Affairs, or CIMIC, no?
Seems like he was looking for a more dramatic self serving way of getting out. Who knows maybe he planned this from the beginning. I have no problem with him disagreeing with Afghan, and wanting out of the military, but I think his motives are self-serving. I think he used the military for what he needed (education) and then left, leaving a stinking pile of turd as he left.
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdsdekQU1pc&NR
Sounds like a personal publicity stunt to me. He was in the Navy 3 1/2 years and it took him a couple months of Basic Officer Training to determine that he was against Afghanistan? He was only in the military for a free education. He says he joined as an Infantry Officer to help by using his mediation and conflict resolution skills to advance the humanitarian aspect of the mission..... WTF? He should have went into Public Affairs, or CIMIC, no?
Seems like he was looking for a more dramatic self serving way of getting out. Who knows maybe he planned this from the beginning. I have no problem with him disagreeing with Afghan, and wanting out of the military, but I think his motives are self-serving. I think he used the military for what he needed (education) and then left, leaving a stinking pile of turd as he left.
- Reaction score
- 1,309
- Points
- 1,040
Well, let's see. Platoon Battle Drills:Dunderhead said:
Reaction to point section coming under effective enemy fire
Platoon Hasty Attack
Consolidation
Hrrrmmmm.....Wait, there is a fourth: (actually, it's the second pl battle drill)
"Conflict Resolution"
So, point section comes under fire
Pl comd scurries forward and says "Stop! We are all God's Children"
Pl Comd dies in a flurry of bullets (the Royal Commision determines that they are enemy bullets, in spite of the fact that they all enter from the rear)
Pl WO Takes over and issues orders following a very quick estimate
The Pl destroys the enemy
The Pl Consolidates.
Two up, one back, bags of smoke, hot tea and medals on the objective
Trinity said:
Personally I think that he wasn't prepared enough or briefed enough and is now benefitting from some advice in the speech writing department; frankly I don't believe he is intelligent enough to formulate these thoughts let alone express them in a coherent or convincing manner.
Corner him without his briefing notes, speech's or an advisor see how well he does.
potato
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 6,727
- Points
- 1,160
Note to officer cadets on army.ca
Don't be this guy
Seriously you gotta feel bad for this guy.
He probably thought he'd join up, spend a little time in, get promoted to captian then leave and begin his public career. This fellow hardly got out of the gate. He's like a private who didn't complete basic training then tries to tell people "well back when I was a soldier"
Ya sure
Don't be this guy
Seriously you gotta feel bad for this guy.
He probably thought he'd join up, spend a little time in, get promoted to captian then leave and begin his public career. This fellow hardly got out of the gate. He's like a private who didn't complete basic training then tries to tell people "well back when I was a soldier"
Ya sure
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,040
I tried to post this at the Ruxted thread but the comment was blocked:
"But that raises the question of whether you admit to irresponsible or dishourable behaviour. Do you suppose all of your public conduct in this matter to have been responsible and honourable, or not?
For someone who set out to be an officer, you have a curious sense of what is irresponsible and dishonourable, and what is not. I've personally known plenty of people who quit the CF (mostly reservists) on good or bad terms, a few of whom may have had legitimate grievances. I can't recall offhand any that permitted themselves to be poster boys - whether as willing associates or as indifferent or unwilling pawns - for political parties and media. I suppose you could look across the entire set of people released from the CF over decades and find a handful. Of how many people do you know who made a Return To Unit (RTU) from course or a release - voluntary or otherwise - a public affair?
This isn't about Canadian foreign and defence policy. This is about you, and whether you deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented conditions of service or circumstances of your release, or whether you permitted media to do so, and when or whether you objected to any misrepresentations that were not your own.
Fortunately, you have the power to lay all such questions to rest. Since Big Media don't control Ruxted, you can lay out all the facts as you know them right here and settle all the questions of what you said and what you meant, what you did and what was done, and what the media interpreted wrongly."
To which I add: Big Media don't control army.ca, either. Double the power of information.
"But that raises the question of whether you admit to irresponsible or dishourable behaviour. Do you suppose all of your public conduct in this matter to have been responsible and honourable, or not?
For someone who set out to be an officer, you have a curious sense of what is irresponsible and dishonourable, and what is not. I've personally known plenty of people who quit the CF (mostly reservists) on good or bad terms, a few of whom may have had legitimate grievances. I can't recall offhand any that permitted themselves to be poster boys - whether as willing associates or as indifferent or unwilling pawns - for political parties and media. I suppose you could look across the entire set of people released from the CF over decades and find a handful. Of how many people do you know who made a Return To Unit (RTU) from course or a release - voluntary or otherwise - a public affair?
This isn't about Canadian foreign and defence policy. This is about you, and whether you deliberately or ignorantly misrepresented conditions of service or circumstances of your release, or whether you permitted media to do so, and when or whether you objected to any misrepresentations that were not your own.
Fortunately, you have the power to lay all such questions to rest. Since Big Media don't control Ruxted, you can lay out all the facts as you know them right here and settle all the questions of what you said and what you meant, what you did and what was done, and what the media interpreted wrongly."
To which I add: Big Media don't control army.ca, either. Double the power of information.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Ok now maybe it's because I’m an old broke down former Infanteer who went to higher reading and writing school in Newfoundland and therefore stunned, but something don’t make sense here.
Mr Juarez comes on here (well Ruxted actually) and states that he has been slandered (or is it libeled? I always get those two mixed up) and misrepresented by the main stream media and others who put words in his mouth re why or why not he left the military and that we’re a bunch of meanies for not understanding and sympathizing with one of our own who has been callously duped by others for their own presumed nefarious purposes. He never once deliberately or accidentally misrepresented himself in word though or deed.
That basically is the jist of your rebuttal to the Rutxted editorial unless I’m misreading it isn’t it there Francisco?
Ok I can buy that, I mean that would be like those pesky TV people to pull that kind of stunt.
Then I go and watch those two video clips posted earlier in this thread of your lovely little speech to what appears to be some congregation in Vancouver. Thanks by the way to whoever posted them, that’s twenty minutes of my life I ain’t getting back.
Seems to me that everything Ruxted alluded to in their editorial there is present in the speech. You publicly stated that you were all a raging to go to Afghanistan and right away, not in three or four years maybe, if you asked and told you could, but right then and there. Then you decided nope not doing it for moral reasons and upped and quit. Nothing there about not wanting to do the obstacle course in Gagetown (can’t blame ya by the way it is a bit of a ***** as far as obstacle courses go, but trust me there are worse ones).
Of course we are also treated to such tidbits as how you only joined up so the good taxpayer would pay for your higher education, which does provide us a wonderful insight into your personality although I do admire your honesty on that.
Seems to me in between bouts of self righteously patting yourself on the back there for taking such a moral stand and the requisite bashing of the present Government, you also said a few other things in that clip. What was it again? Oh yeah that little bit about how serving Canadian soldiers had some sort of moral obligation to disobey lawful commands re service in Afghanistan. Now I’ve been out of uniform a bit but seems to me there used to be something in QROs and /or the NDA that covered that sort of thing and it was a no no.
I’m sure however Fransisco that you will soon offer a plausible explanation for your recorded rant. I mean lip-synching, dubbing oh I know it wasn’t you on that podium, it was a pod person.
Anyway I’m looking forward to your inevitable upcoming nomination as a NDP candidate in some Vancouver area riding for the next Federal Election. A bit of fashion advice if I may, nice suit but it needs a tie, maybe Jack will loan you one.
Mr Juarez comes on here (well Ruxted actually) and states that he has been slandered (or is it libeled? I always get those two mixed up) and misrepresented by the main stream media and others who put words in his mouth re why or why not he left the military and that we’re a bunch of meanies for not understanding and sympathizing with one of our own who has been callously duped by others for their own presumed nefarious purposes. He never once deliberately or accidentally misrepresented himself in word though or deed.
That basically is the jist of your rebuttal to the Rutxted editorial unless I’m misreading it isn’t it there Francisco?
Ok I can buy that, I mean that would be like those pesky TV people to pull that kind of stunt.
Then I go and watch those two video clips posted earlier in this thread of your lovely little speech to what appears to be some congregation in Vancouver. Thanks by the way to whoever posted them, that’s twenty minutes of my life I ain’t getting back.
Seems to me that everything Ruxted alluded to in their editorial there is present in the speech. You publicly stated that you were all a raging to go to Afghanistan and right away, not in three or four years maybe, if you asked and told you could, but right then and there. Then you decided nope not doing it for moral reasons and upped and quit. Nothing there about not wanting to do the obstacle course in Gagetown (can’t blame ya by the way it is a bit of a ***** as far as obstacle courses go, but trust me there are worse ones).
Of course we are also treated to such tidbits as how you only joined up so the good taxpayer would pay for your higher education, which does provide us a wonderful insight into your personality although I do admire your honesty on that.
Seems to me in between bouts of self righteously patting yourself on the back there for taking such a moral stand and the requisite bashing of the present Government, you also said a few other things in that clip. What was it again? Oh yeah that little bit about how serving Canadian soldiers had some sort of moral obligation to disobey lawful commands re service in Afghanistan. Now I’ve been out of uniform a bit but seems to me there used to be something in QROs and /or the NDA that covered that sort of thing and it was a no no.
I’m sure however Fransisco that you will soon offer a plausible explanation for your recorded rant. I mean lip-synching, dubbing oh I know it wasn’t you on that podium, it was a pod person.
Anyway I’m looking forward to your inevitable upcoming nomination as a NDP candidate in some Vancouver area riding for the next Federal Election. A bit of fashion advice if I may, nice suit but it needs a tie, maybe Jack will loan you one.
- Reaction score
- 2,811
- Points
- 940
Well, in the current Maclean's magazine: "I try to make that very, very clear" he says. "I haven't been obfuscatory about that at all." :spud said:
But he has followed Bill Clinton's "what is 'is'?" spiel. "What is a war resister?" he asks. "How do you define a war resister?"1
1. Michael Friscolanti, "A Resister without a War. Is he a conscientious objector if he was never bound for combat?" Maclean's, 27 Nov '06, p. 22.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,255
- Points
- 1,160
Calling him a conscientious objector is an insult to my grandfather who was one, yet served as a Stretcher-bearer in WWI. 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Colin P said:Calling him a conscientious objector is an insult to my grandfather who was one, yet served as a Stretcher-bearer in WWI.
That's an interesting example.
Others have pointed out that, while anyone can be in resistance or have an objection to a conflict, only those who have actually been called on to serve can then be a resister or an objector (in this context).
But has it been brought up that completion of his training would have allowed him to contribute to the many other missions the CF takes part in, and which he could have specifically volunteered for?
And what if the NDP got its way, and Canada invaded Sudan - what good would he be then? - Probably as much good as he is now.
In contrast, the MacLean's article was too soft on him.
- Reaction score
- 1,737
- Points
- 1,160
No surprise there, except that it further reveals the type of political and social company he attracts and retains, considering his personal defect as a pathological liar.
- Reaction score
- 1,309
- Points
- 1,040
For those too lazy to click the link:
November 9th, 2006
Why I refused to fight in Afghanistan
Speech given to the October 28 anti-war demonstration in Toronto.
Dateline: Monday, November 06, 2006
by Francisco Juarez
"I joined the Canadian Forces in 2002 and served my country proudly until this last summer. I transferred to the army in March of this year and applied for a commission as an infantry officer. I was full of desire to be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009.
After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East. The priority should be the assistance to the Afghan people.
We as Canadians are a compassionate and reasonable people, diverse and tolerant. We have compassion for all our serving members in the Canadian Forces, our American brothers and sisters, the Afghan people, and indeed the globe in its entirety. We have a long tradition of acting through our foreign policy with such a nature and acting as facilitators of peace and intermediaries in conflict.
This is our Canadian identity itself.
And without permission from the Canadian people, Harper and the conservatives have drastically altered the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
It is because of our compassionate nature that we were sold on use of force in Afghanistan as a means to provide humanitarian aid, and enabling of representative democracy in Afghanistan.
As the people of Southern Afghanistan starve for lack of food and shelter in the approaching winter… perhaps they optimistically hope that this time that Canadian tank coming down the road is in fact full of food instead of high explosive rounds.
Conservatives are changing the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
Armies — and our American brothers here today can attest to this — are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period.
And as the use of the military must be an expression of our “rights driven society” and of our national will, I feel compelled to say that the majority of Canadians do not support the use of our troops in direct military confrontation.
This is not in the best interest of Canadian security nor, and most importantly, is it in the long-term best interest of the Afghan people. So whose best interest then is the war in Afghanistan?
We should demand a fuller debate in the House of Commons and in our broader society about the reasons why conflict exists in Afghanistan, and what our role is to be there.
We are told that we must stay the course in some form of dubious nautical metaphor. But I would suggest that perhaps it is time to take the ship back and repair its faulty rudder, and leave those leaders whom we see as irresponsible and disconnected from the national will — rowing away in a small boat of their own.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME NOW!"
Now, if I may comment.
You applied to be an infantry officer in order to "...be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009." Later, you state: "Armies...are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period."
So, which is it Francisco? You joined the infantry, whose role is to "Close with and destroy the enemy", but you wanted to be part of a humanitarian mission. As I recall, sometimes armies ARE necessary to help in "enabling representative democracy", as our Canadian Army did in World War Two and later in The Federal Republic of Germany from Op PANDA in the 1950s until the stand down of CFE in Germany in the 1990s.
Strike One.
You also state: "I transferred to the army in March of this year ", and then you state "After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East."
NEWSFLASH:
The Conservative party won the last election in January of 2006. You transferred to the army in March of that same year, the same month in which Pte Costall was killled in action in a firefight with the enemy. You blame the conservatives for taking us to Khandahar. You are way off base. Check this out from the Mothercorp:
"Canada will increase its troop contribution to Afghanistan, sending as many as 1,250 soldiers to the southern part of the country.
Roughly 1,000 new troops will be sent to the southern city of Kandahar by February 2006, where they'll stay for up to a year, said Defence Minister Bill Graham on Monday.
As well, a 250-person Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) will arrive in the region in August 2005 and remain for about 18 months.
"This commitment is consistent with our new international and defence policies, which demonstrate Canada's emphasis on bringing stability and humanitarian relief to fragile states," said Graham in a news release." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/05/17/afghanistan-050517.html
This was posted to the CBC website on 17 May, 2005. Yes, a full EIGHT MONTHS before the conservatives won the election and TEN MONTHS before you transferred to the army.
Strike Two
Why are we in Afghanistan? According to you, we are there to "...support...US hegemony in the Middle East."
I refer to UN Security Council resolution S/RES/1707 (2006) which states in part:
"...welcoming the extension of ISAF into Southern Afghanistan, with effect from 31 July 2006, the planned further ISAF expansion into Eastern Afghanistan and the increased coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition..."
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement
Strike Three
You're out.
November 9th, 2006
Why I refused to fight in Afghanistan
Speech given to the October 28 anti-war demonstration in Toronto.
Dateline: Monday, November 06, 2006
by Francisco Juarez
"I joined the Canadian Forces in 2002 and served my country proudly until this last summer. I transferred to the army in March of this year and applied for a commission as an infantry officer. I was full of desire to be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009.
After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East. The priority should be the assistance to the Afghan people.
We as Canadians are a compassionate and reasonable people, diverse and tolerant. We have compassion for all our serving members in the Canadian Forces, our American brothers and sisters, the Afghan people, and indeed the globe in its entirety. We have a long tradition of acting through our foreign policy with such a nature and acting as facilitators of peace and intermediaries in conflict.
This is our Canadian identity itself.
And without permission from the Canadian people, Harper and the conservatives have drastically altered the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
It is because of our compassionate nature that we were sold on use of force in Afghanistan as a means to provide humanitarian aid, and enabling of representative democracy in Afghanistan.
As the people of Southern Afghanistan starve for lack of food and shelter in the approaching winter… perhaps they optimistically hope that this time that Canadian tank coming down the road is in fact full of food instead of high explosive rounds.
Conservatives are changing the fundamental meaning of being Canadian.
Armies — and our American brothers here today can attest to this — are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period.
And as the use of the military must be an expression of our “rights driven society” and of our national will, I feel compelled to say that the majority of Canadians do not support the use of our troops in direct military confrontation.
This is not in the best interest of Canadian security nor, and most importantly, is it in the long-term best interest of the Afghan people. So whose best interest then is the war in Afghanistan?
We should demand a fuller debate in the House of Commons and in our broader society about the reasons why conflict exists in Afghanistan, and what our role is to be there.
We are told that we must stay the course in some form of dubious nautical metaphor. But I would suggest that perhaps it is time to take the ship back and repair its faulty rudder, and leave those leaders whom we see as irresponsible and disconnected from the national will — rowing away in a small boat of their own.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME NOW!"
Now, if I may comment.
You applied to be an infantry officer in order to "...be a part of the humanitarian mission to assist the Afghan people in 2009." Later, you state: "Armies...are by definition meant to close with and destroy the enemy. Armies are not designed to deliver aid and not to help in enabling representative democracy. They are mechanisms of death and destruction — period."
So, which is it Francisco? You joined the infantry, whose role is to "Close with and destroy the enemy", but you wanted to be part of a humanitarian mission. As I recall, sometimes armies ARE necessary to help in "enabling representative democracy", as our Canadian Army did in World War Two and later in The Federal Republic of Germany from Op PANDA in the 1950s until the stand down of CFE in Germany in the 1990s.
Strike One.
You also state: "I transferred to the army in March of this year ", and then you state "After the last election, however, when the Conservatives took a minority Parliament as a mandate to reconstruct the national identity, and change the way our country acts abroad, I decided I could no longer be supportive of a mission that has as its priority and chief objective the support of US hegemony in the Middle East."
NEWSFLASH:
The Conservative party won the last election in January of 2006. You transferred to the army in March of that same year, the same month in which Pte Costall was killled in action in a firefight with the enemy. You blame the conservatives for taking us to Khandahar. You are way off base. Check this out from the Mothercorp:
"Canada will increase its troop contribution to Afghanistan, sending as many as 1,250 soldiers to the southern part of the country.
Roughly 1,000 new troops will be sent to the southern city of Kandahar by February 2006, where they'll stay for up to a year, said Defence Minister Bill Graham on Monday.
As well, a 250-person Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) will arrive in the region in August 2005 and remain for about 18 months.
"This commitment is consistent with our new international and defence policies, which demonstrate Canada's emphasis on bringing stability and humanitarian relief to fragile states," said Graham in a news release." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/05/17/afghanistan-050517.html
This was posted to the CBC website on 17 May, 2005. Yes, a full EIGHT MONTHS before the conservatives won the election and TEN MONTHS before you transferred to the army.
Strike Two
Why are we in Afghanistan? According to you, we are there to "...support...US hegemony in the Middle East."
I refer to UN Security Council resolution S/RES/1707 (2006) which states in part:
"...welcoming the extension of ISAF into Southern Afghanistan, with effect from 31 July 2006, the planned further ISAF expansion into Eastern Afghanistan and the increased coordination between ISAF and the OEF coalition..."
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N06/517/70/PDF/N0651770.pdf?OpenElement
Strike Three
You're out.
Similar threads
