A Protesters Response To "The Ex Charging Bison" Thread

[kgerrard]

Okay, so I'm violating my ordered response, but this was irresistable.

Sorry, son, but this one is just stupid. What does Haiti possibly have that a "greedy corporation" would want?

Cheap labour for sweatshops. For a Canadian example, look up Gildan.

 

[kgerrard]

To make that one a little clearer; can we ask you if you think that people in any profession should not train to do their jobs proficiently and safely? Would you want to be treated by a Paramedic whose only training was to put on his/her uniform, and have no medical training at all?  Would you want your local Fire Department to come and rescue you in a multi-story building, after only training to put out grass fires?  Would you feel safe in the proximity of a Police officer who had never trained on the use of his/her firearm?  Would you feel safe under the knife of a surgeon who had left Medical School in the 1940's and had never bothered to upgrade his surgical skills? 

To maintain a Professional Military, they have to train.  They have to train for any eventuality.  That way should the need arise, they will be able to deal with it effectively and with as little loss of life as possible.

Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training rapists to be most effective.

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote,
I agree that less privileged nations deserve our aid, especially when we helped destroy them.

Now I'm getting a bit steamed, I hate this stupid old throw-in arguement.
Sorry sunshine, I have not destroyed anything/anyone............Who the $@^& is "WE"?
Maybe you and your friends somehow tour the globe "destroying them" but sorry, me, well I look after what I can so save the standard "guilt throw-ins" for some wah-wah class.

Cheap friggin" labour?.......makin" what?    Oh. I forgot the huge Haiti industrial basin. Pleeease, there are lots of places more stable/cheaper than there.....

 

[William Webb Ellis]

(1) Have you actually been outside North America?

Well, this is more for the other person.  However, most of the information that our opinions is based on comes from people who have.  Personally, I have a few friends who have travelled to Palestine, South America etc working with the international solidarity movement who share their experience.  Also, I think a pretty reasonable picture can be obtained by simply reading government and related documents with a critical perspective.  What I think you're alluding to is that since you, or your co-workers have been in these places you have a better picture of the situation.  This is true to an extent, but remember your going into the situation with years of training geared specifically towards giving you the mindset to accept these missions as just, so you can act accordingly.

You should be careful, while honesty is the best policy, you are dealing with many people, that have left the country and "been there done that".  While your information is second hand theirs is firsthand, and is often gain through hard work.

Cheers

 

[kgerrard]

Your argument is rather disingenious, no?  On one hand, you maintain that military bodies are evil (a valid point of view for a pacifist, considering what we do), yet on another you'll say that "a defensive body" is necessary.  Unfortunately, there is little room for such relativism in the armed forces.  There is very little difference between "offensive" and "defensive" training - virtually none in most instances - yet we'll hear the uninformed constantly trying to distinguish between an "offensive" and a "defensive" weapons system or exercise.

Perhaps to you, but you seem to see the argument as Military vs. No military. I believe we need a debate on what sort of military we have. I would favour one more interested in working alongside citizens of countries that need help instead of the paternalistic techniques we currently employ.

Furthermore, concerning the exercise you're about to protest, who is to say that it isn't in preparation for a humanitarian or a "defensive" mission?  As I pointed out in my original post, we have very little idea of what international affairs will look like in 2008.  The government could well launch the Army on a mission in Africa, for the precise objectives you'd indicate you'd support, yet here you are attempting to deny soldiers the opportunity to prepare, simply because you've decided that you disagree with one particular operation.

It's true, but when else do I have a chance to voice opposition to things like the mission in Afghanistan? Were the media interested in a more in-depth analysis instead of soundbites, it would be clear that I (and some others) support humanitarian missions when our presence is requested.

I'm running out of steam, but I realllly want to respond to the Gustafsen Lake stuff.

 

[Kirkhill]

kgerrard:  I think you may be starting to push things a bit here when your rhetoric takes you to equate training soldiers with training rapists.  Up until now it has been a fairly civil debate and I appreciate how wearing it must be to be one against many defending your principles.

That aside I wonder if you could think about this question, it is one that I have posed to some of my more progressive acquaintances in the past:  I have little trouble believing that a courageous individual could sacrifice themselves for their beliefs, but if you were confronted with a woman with a gun at the head of your child and you had a gun in your hand could you stand by and sacrifice your child for your beliefs?  Or would you expect somebody else to do the killing?

Cheers.

 

[kgerrard]

I just read the article and then "googled" the lady.......quite the woman!!

However after reading a few of her interviews it sounds like she would like more security/soldiers to properly train the local Police forces that they are supposed to be the "good guys".

That and a little military jaunt into Pakistan might not hurt either.....I don't see where she supports your arguement at all.

Who is behind these attacks?
Quote from Sarah Chayes,

This is not an indigenous, spontaneous uprising. All of these attacks originate in Pakistan; top Taliban leaders live and organize their activities openly in the Pakistani city of Quetta; the border is for all intents and purposes open. The problem of terrorism in Afghanistan is intimately linked to the regional strategy of Pakistan. The U.S. military fights Taliban members when they can be found in concentrated groups inside Afghanistan. But once they cross the border, they are beyond reach. The U.S. government, by not holding Pakistan accountable for its open support of the Taliban, is in fact contributing to the problem.

This is what I'm saying. Our presence in Afghanistan is ineffective. The governments directing the continuing struggle are blind to some of its causes. Until we are prepared to take direction from affected parties instead of carrying out our own ideas of how things should work, I can't support these deployments.

 

[kgerrard]

So whats the answer protester? Lets pull out of everywhere- and cut ALL aid off to these countires since their governments are corrupt and just let the chips fall where they will. The stronger will enslave the weaker but thats fine because we wont DIRECTLY have the blood on our hands.

No. If we are to provide aid to deserving nations, we should work with people at a grassroots level to help them build institutions that are responsive to them and not corporate interests.

 

[kgerrard]

kg, my friend, you really have to talk to the people writing some of that tripe. And get them to take off their hats, our mind altering lazers we borrowed from the Russians obviously are being amplified by all the tinfoil.

Case in point, Gustafsen Lake. No landmines, no .50 cal's. Know what we did? Drove the Mounties around in armoured wheeled vehicles (Bison's, 2 of them). That's it. That's all. The RCMP was in charge of the entire operation and only requested a vehicle to protect them while they were doing patrols.

The Globe and Mail reported on October 8, 1996, that land mines were used. Explain.

Like I said earlier (and echoed by many others), most of your compadres cannot put two coherent sentences together. All you have to do is ASK THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE!!!!! We might even answer politely.

I value the input of people who were there, but they're not always fully informed or trustworthy. On any side.

 

[scoutfinch]

kgerrard:

How about instead of your constant critique you present a realistic, implementable solution to the horrors that are happening on a daily basis around the world.  I would be genuinely interested in your comments in this regard. 

That being said, I suspect that the requirements of *realistic* and *implementable* might hamper your efforts somewhat. 

I have worked in refugee camps for NGOs.  I know first hand the ugliness that humans can perpetrate against one another.  I also know that the worst of this can be done by UNPROFESSIONAL militaries, those that are not constrained by the democratic institutions of civil society.

I also know that the only mechanism to arrest the barbarism of these forces is the application of force by PROFESSIONAL militaries.  I am prepared to listen to your arguments to the contrary but only if you can support it with fact. 

scoutfinch

 

[scoutfinch]

The *land mines* to which you refer are buried in the ground, designed to go off under the weight of a vehicle and are intended to provide warning to police of encroaching vehicles.  They disable vehicles but do not injure occupants.

They are referred to as in ground explosive devices or early warning devices.  They are a far cry from *land mines* used in a military context. 

If this is what you are relying on as fact, I suggest that you place your arguments in proper context so that they carry some weight.  Like many within protest movements, your hyperbole and exaggeration simply weakens your arguments, makes you appear hysterical and you lose credibility.  You may have something important to say, but you mihgt as well be screaming into the wind if no one will listen to you because they don't trust you to tell the truth and place it in context.

 

[Peacenik]

Quote of the week: "I am fascinated by the concept of anarchists planning anything.  Who decides and how do you enforce the consensus?"

KGerrard
I am interested to know whether or not you think we should go to Darfur or even if we should have sent the Grizzlies? 

As an aside:
I've found that most of my protester-type friends and relatives (hippie family) are so anti-establishment that they don't even vote.  I really only vote to represent my demographic, so I'm not a vote-or-die type, but the strange thing is that they don't vote or write their MP's or even letters to the editor and they are the ones out protesting the new wal-mart, globalization or western hypocrisy in general... 

I too would rather we didn't have troops deployed anywhere.  Keep them home with their families, and only "break glass in case of emergency."  But if we have to be there, I'm glad we've sent our best, and I'm glad they were well prepared. 

I sharpened all my kitchen knives yesterday.  Even the ones I might not use for a month... just in case. 

 

[Michael OLeary]

I've found that most of my protester-type friends and relatives (hippie family) are so anti-establishment that they don't even vote.  I really only vote to represent my demographic, so I'm not a vote-or-die type, but the strange thing is that they don't vote or write their MP's or even letters to the editor and they are the ones out protesting the new wal-mart, globalization or western hypocrisy in general... 

Refusing to use the system to change the system  ... does that approach to protesting not define "western hypocrisy" in its purest sense.  Perhaps you should also consider participating in the democratic process as another viable method, although that may require individual dedication and commitment to task, which is somewhat less fun than throwing rocks and chanting at young soldiers.

I too would rather we didn't have troops deployed anywhere.  Keep them home with their families, and only "break glass in case of emergency."  But if we have to be there, I'm glad we've sent our best, and I'm glad they were well prepared. 

Please define what you feel constitutes an "emergency" and explain exactly how these sheltered troops should be trained and prepared for it if it happens.

 

[Wookilar]

Maybe I'm picking nits, but do not trust anything the press says regarding military equipment.

Case in point, our buds killed by the IED on the weekend were riding in a light armoured vehicle, according to the press. All of the major outlets are calling it a "light armoured vehicle" and the "alternative" media feed of that. If they were riding in a LAV, there would have been a flat tire, some bent plating, not the result that we had.

I do agree with you that starting with grass roots organizations for distribution of foreign aid would be more equitable and effective in stabilizing developing nations. However, for that to be effective, there has to exist a safe and stable environment for those agencies to operate in. Pick any food relief effort in the last 15 years that was not hampered by the interference of irregulars/warlords/courrupt officials, etc. You need a proffesional military force to provide that environment. If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

We also seem to agree on some of the root causes of some of the current situation in Afghanistan (i.e. Pakistan). However, I disagree that we should do nothing until we get consensus on the ground. You say that our involvement in 'Astan is "ineffective." My question is, by what standard? Women's rights, children's rights, supporting efforts to minimize the world's opium production, overall security, a better form of government that they had (by any standard), etc., etc. Tell me how we, as in the Canadian effort, are not being as effective as possible given the current geopolitical situation.

You do not seem to be taking on the "realistic" alternatives.

 

[Kat Stevens]

"Please define what you feel constitutes an "emergency" and explain exactly how these sheltered troops should be trained and prepared for it if it happens."


I kind of read his last para as saying that being prepared is a good thing.

 

[Peacenik]

What I'd rather and what is realistic are two different things...

Currently with such a small military, interoperability is extremely important, so training has to consist of everything
up to and including validation of said training.  IE deployment, and deployment with our allies.  I'm not so bold as to
suggest that we change what we are doing... do you see four leafs on my shoulder?  All I'm saying is that I would rather
we weren't in harms way as I think everyone's families would rather.

I guess my post wasn't soldier proof... 

 

[S McKee]

My last post on this, because we're obviously not going to convince our Birkenstock wearing friends that we don't live in an evil society controlled by faceless industrialists, who use the military as an agent of oppression for their nefarious purposes. Hey we're all entitled to live in our own fantasy world. I would like to point out that if they were in a country like China, Iran, or North Korea and if they expressed any views contrary to the government they would have their feet beaten and be shot. Yet you utter not a peep about these countries..I don't get it. Anyway, enjoy your freedom my naive friends and when your out there sticking it to "The Man" remember your right to make an a$$ of yourself in public was paid for with the blood and lives of members belonging to "unethical" profession of arms.

PS. No members of the Professional Rapists Association were harmed protecting  your rights.

 

[FGH_Recce_DJ]

Wow......nice to know that all the men and women in green and blue, risking there lives everyday to keep this country safe. have the support of people like you. How about you read this, it may change your opinion, it may not, either way. I'm happy to be part of the Forces and like everyone else here I'm happy to do my job and keep this country safe so people like you have the RIGHT to criticize what we do and how we do it without even having been in our shoes. Cheers!

Editor's note: The following letter, from a Canadian soldier stationed in
> >Kandahar, was sent to us by his mother, Sandra Doak of Whitby, who asked
> >that we share it with readers:
> >
> >We have heard news that more Canadians would rather see us come home
> >because
> >too many soldiers have been killed. They believe we are not needed here.
> >
> >These people obviously haven't got a clue about what is really going on
> >here
> >and if they are going to make a decision as to what is right or wrong in
> >this situation, they had better do some research.
> >
> >I could not sleep at all after hearing some of the recent news and I can
> >not
> >explain to you the anger and shame I feel at what our fellow Canadians
are
> >thinking.
> >
> >We are more than willing to die in order to give the people of
Afghanistan
> >peace. Are Canadians so greedy that they want us pulled out of
Afghanistan
> >so that we cannot accomplish this great and necessary task?
> >
> >I believe Canada has lost what it really means to be a Canadian. Our
> >military is not just for our own protection but for the protection and
> >well-being of everyone in this world that may need our help.
> >
> >What kind of people are we who would back down from this obligation?
> >
> >We have lived in peace for a long time. Every good person in this world
> >deserves what we have and I will not, as a Canadian, stand idly by and
not
> >at least make an attempt to give these poor people what we have.
> >
> >If we were to pull out now, then our soldiers who have died will have
died
> >in vain and I cannot accept this.
> >
> >If you know of anyone who does not think we should be here please do your
> >best to explain to them why.
> >
> >

 

[Wookilar]

I think that makes some excellent points that many have simply forgotten to make, they are so basic to what we believe in.

Peacenik,

I am prepared to put my life on the line to help others. Wherever and whoever they may be. I guess you think we here in Canada are more valuable human beings than others not lucky enough to be born here.

I do not really care why someone is starving/scared/cold. Why not? Because to change much of that around the world will necessitate a change in western civilization and our world view that is held by the vast majority. I do care that they are. I choose to do something real, that will have a positive effect on those people that are suffering. I leave the larger sociological/political questions to those that are better able to influence others and stir them to action. Me, I'll help save the lives that I can while the rest of you figure out just how to do the rest.

I know, for a fact, that there are people in this world that are alive because of my work. I also know that there are people in this world, that have been hurt or killed, also because of my work. I accept that.

In order to save as many lives as possible, we must put our selves in harms way. As has been said before, and no one has denied, there is evil in the world. Whether you believe Nike and Pepsi to be the true evil or the power hungry megalomaniacs in the world (the ones in control of the weapons, of any country) is where it comes down to personal values. I am willing to risk my life to at least give some one else the same opportunities that we enjoy in this country. As it stands now, too many do not have any choice, in anything.

My life is as important as anybody else's. Any body else's life is, therefore, as important as mine. Difference between you peace types and me, I am willing to die and kill to support my views.

What is the difference between myself and a terrorist then? Well, depends on how much validity you put onto international/domestic law. I do not go out and target innocent civilians (despite what others say) nor will I willingly associate myself with those that would. I do not believe that our Canadian government (of any political affiliation) is controlled by evil transnational corporations (or the US, pick your devil you feel more in tune with). I do not believe that I have been manipulated by: Reebok, Starbucks, Bush, WalMart, Christian right-wing fundamentalists, BP ( NOT the pizza joint), Gulf, or anyother "evil" you care to mention.
My deeds and actions may have been influenced by my care and concern for the rest of humanity, liberal democratic ideals and my Mom (but you can't prove a thing!).

 

[ArmyRick]

Kgerrard said
"Of course I believe people should be trained in their professions, but it presupposes that their professions are ethical. By the same argument, one could defend training rapists to be most effective.

I don't believe the military in its current form is effective or desirable."

Comparing us to rapist? HOW DARE YOU!!! YOU thought my remarks to you on PM were rude, they would be alot worse if I see you in person.

I am a Canadian Soldier. A man of honour, Duty, Integrity and Discipline (The army ethoes that you would know nothing about).

I choose this proffession and I am very proud of it.

Their is no debate or hippie smoke up discussions about it. Freedom is not free and must be defended. Sometimes by lethal force. Accept it or get over it.

As far as you comparing us to rapist, pal, I would say somethings about how I feel about that remark unfortunately its not my own web site and I will abide by the rules.
:threat: