• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

Valcartier 2007 said:
Yes, fully aware of that. That's why we referred to "US ROE or Canadian ROE". That would imply two rules, no?
It does imply two rules and that is why it is wrong or irrelevant (red herring).  There is only one set which applies to Canadian soldiers; Canadian soldiers do not use US ROE.

Your prisoner debate is also a red herring.  If you are following the issue as closely as you claim, you will be aware that Canada has fixed the prisoner protection issues.  We do not hand prisoners to the US and we have not done so for a very long time.  This is also obfuscating the present issue.
 
Valcartier 2007 said:
Before going, wanted to draw your attention to an opinion piece in the Ottawa Citizen that makes some useful points, in our view, about the Afghan mission. It's titled "Afghan tragedy and farce" and it's linked at:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=cc309ac0-4571-40e9-9856-06da0089030b
The counter view was already posted here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63190/post-577833.html#msg577833
 
MCG said:
Your prisoner debate is also a red herring.  If you are following the issue as closely as you claim, you will be aware that Canada has fixed the prisoner protection issues.  We do not hand prisoners to the US and we have not done so for a very long time.  This is also obfuscating the present issue.

Hey MCG, let's agree to disagree. You believe the prisoner debate is a red herring, and that the prisoner protection issues have been fixed. We believe the opposite. Moreover, has anyone been brought to justice -- military or otherwise -- for handing over prisoners to the US, or to Afghan forces that torture? If not, then the issue is still alive.

Good night (again).
 
MONTREAL — Anti-war protesters will confront Afghanistan-bound troops on Friday in Quebec City as a sign of the tension in Canada's most anti-war province.

Organizers of the protest plan a counter-march to oppose what is intended to be a high-profile send-off parade by the Royal 22nd Regiment at Canadian Forces Base Valcartier.

More than 2,000 uniformed soldiers of the Vandoos and other regiments are scheduled to take part in a support-the-troops parade as part of a public-relations offensive by the Armed Forces to try to win the hearts of Quebeckers, who consistently show the lowest level of support for the Afghan mission in Canada.

But not everyone has been persuaded. Last week, anti-war protesters sent 3,000 letters to Valcartier military families, urging soldiers to reject their deployment and resist becoming “cannon fodder” for the war. On Friday, the demonstrators will protest along a parallel route to the soldiers.

“We are not aiming for confrontation, but you can't predict what every individual will do,” said Mathilde Forest-Rivière, a spokeswoman for the War on War Coalition.

For some, the conflict is personal. Francis Dupuis-Déri, a political science professor at the University of Quebec in Montreal, will be on the protesters' side of the barricades. His younger sister, Capt. Catherine Déri, will be marching with her regiment on the other side.

“I love my sister, so I'm very troubled and worried that she's being deployed to Afghanistan, even if it's her personal choice,” Prof. Dupuis-Déri said in an interview yesterday. “My sister will be on the other side of the police line on Friday.”

The professor calls the Afghan mission an “unjust war” and says he believes Canada is doing the bidding of the White House by sending troops. He wrote an open letter to his sister in Quebec newspapers last week, asking her – and other Canadian soldiers – how many would return home in coffins.

The Friday event “is to make the soldiers look like family men and sympathetic people, while they're going over to make the situation worse. Their presence will cause deaths and support a corrupt regime. We want to counter the army's marketing operation,” he said.

Capt. Déri, for her part, says she respects her brother's viewpoint but supports the Canadian mission's goals.

“I'm all for difference of opinion and my brother sharing his views. It's very democratic, and Canadians are flying around the world so that others have the same freedom,” Capt. Déri said in an interview.

Friday's march is part of a blitz by the Armed Forces to boost troop morale and bolster support for the mission on the eve of the Quebec regiments' departure.

On Thursday, 1,700 soldiers in their desert-coloured uniforms will attend a CFL pre-season game between the Montreal Alouettes and Toronto Argonauts at Montreal's Molson Stadium.

Soldiers are also heading to 18 cities and towns across Quebec to hand out flags representing the Afghan mission, as part of a “goodwill” gesture, said Lieutenant-Commander Hubert Genest.

“We often have to explain the work we're doing,” he said, calling the mission “noble” and saying it coincides with Quebeckers' priorities of peace and stability.

“We're trying to engage people so they understand there's a difference between the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Afghanistan is for a good cause,” he said.

The $125,000 send-off on Friday is the final public event for the troops before they deploy at the end of next month. It begins with a gathering for soldiers and their families at the Quebec City Convention Centre.

Original plans called for the parading troops, under the eye of politicians and dignitaries, to file down Quebec City's Grande Allée and past the Quebec National Assembly. But the Armed Forces are in talks with police about possibly changing the route, another army spokesman said.

Quebec-based soldiers are to land in Kandahar at a time when opposition to the mission in the province remains high. A poll published in the current issue of Policy Options, a Canadian public-policy magazine, found that only 38 per cent of Quebeckers thought the Afghan mission enhanced Canada's reputation, 10 points below the national average.

Un-Fu..ing believable. Where does he get off on asking his own sister how many of her fellow soldiers will return in coffins.
 
MCG said:
... still waiting on answers to these questions too.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579438.html#msg579438

Haven't forgotten. Will answer as soon as we can ...

MCG said:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-579717.html#msg579717

That reply is here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635
 
Valcartier 2007 said:
That reply is here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/63128/post-580635.html#msg580635
No.  That does not address any of his three questions.
 
Valcartier 2007 said:
Hey MCG, let's agree to disagree. You believe the prisoner debate is a red herring, and that the prisoner protection issues have been fixed. We believe the opposite.
Then we may as well just give up  debate.  This is one of your central premises.  If the prisoner issue is resolved, then what leg do you have to stand on?

Valcartier 2007 said:
Moreover, has anyone been brought to justice -- military or otherwise -- for handing over prisoners to the US, or to Afghan forces that torture? If not, then the issue is still alive.
More red herring.  The system is fixed and the mission is now being conducted with better protections in place.  Witch hunts for past corrected faults will have no impact on the conduct or merit of the mission today.

If you think a criminal investigation is required (and I don't think one is), that is another subject for another thread:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/57191.0.html
 
I've stayed quiet, and not commented because I've had nothing constructive to add, but I've monitored this thread daily.

BootStrap - that professor's question to his sister: "where does he get off" wouldn't even begin to apply if my brother said something like that to me. There'd be one unholy war erupt between us, and I'd be a long time forgiving him, if I ever spoke to him again.

Keep up the debate. The silent listeners are enjoying this, learning much, and look forward with anticipation to the next installment.

All the best and Godspeed to the Vandoos

:cdn:
Hawk
 
Hey,

first off, I have to establish that I'm also a member of Block the Empire. It is hard for us all to consult each other for each reply on this forum. But since we are not completely and dogmatically communistic about everything all the time (we're anarchists after all!), I figured I'd chime in from my own part of cyberspace. We'll keep replying as Valcartier2007, but I hope other members of BLEM, and other comrads from QC can register as themselves and chime in if they feel like it. Don't be surprised to find that my writing style is different from that you got used to from Valcarier2007. I just was not typing before - I stand a 100% by what we've posted so far.

Another thing is, I'm a franco, so please bare with me if my grammar or spelling is flawed. I'll do my best, but some sentences are probably going to come out a little wicked.

And thirdly, I do want to insist that that my interventions will reflect my own interpretation of this issue, and will not necessarily be shared by everyone in BLEM-Montreal, and/or Guerre à la guerre-QC (and even less so between us and the various pacifist groupings in Quebec, with whom we don't always see eye to eye, but  genuinely respect and often work with).

First, I'd like to say that, in my opinion, this thread is very interesting on many levels. In terms of what's being said - arguments and counterarguments -  and also from an anthropological stand point - the way things are being expressed, people's various attitudes and the evolution of the debate itself.

One can appreciate the varying degrees of civility of individuals throughout the thread. Some folks had very epidermic (can you say that in English?) reactions last Monday and Tuesday (J11 and J12) when they learned that we had sent letters to the soldiers in Valcartier. It ranged from the disgusted to the enraged to the extremely hostile (didn't someone make a thinly veiled death threat at some point?).

Initially, we were thought to serve the Taleban and other assorted "terrorists" by sending letters to soldier's home addresses. Then it was revealed that we had made a mass mailing, and did not actually know the soldiers' addresses. Then most entries were about whether or not it'd be a good idea to file a legal action against us. Then this gave way to passive-aggressive comments about how all "us people" smoke pot and don't wash, or what have you.

And we started to reply as Valcartier2007. And suddenly it turned from a peacenick bash-fest to a somewhat civilised debate.

One can see how people are conditioned to think of "the other" as some kind of cliché, an amalgam of stereotypical ideas that we cultivate in our own minds.

We went from terrorists (or terrorists lovers) to criminals, to useless hippies to intelligent people you can actually exchange ideas with and maybe even learn a thing or two from.

We are not exempt from this reflex. We also do tend to have a pretty caricatural picture of the military men and women. But we don't think soldiers are stupid, as some people have implied on this forum. As we mentioned elsewhere, we do respect soldiers as human beings capable of individual reflection, critical judgement and ethical action, and this is the actual premise of our action.

We were conscious that soldiers would not immediately respond to our call and defect en masse. We're not stupid either. But we did, and still do, hope that down the road, Canadian soldiers will start questioning Canada's role in Afghanistan, Canada's posture as a great humanitarian country and, eventually, their own involvement in the centuries old colonialist/imperialist imposture that is Canada.

We hope that our endeavor will generate doubt and debate. In the media, yes, but we're not counting on the mass media to start questioning the legitimacy of the Canadian State, or that of it's foreign policy, or even that of it's subservience to the White House mandarins (and the shady cabal of Global Rule financiers, let's not forget these fu***rs!), for that matter, any time soon. The media complex is one cog wheel in the imperialist machine.

No, we hope that this, and the demonstrations that we intend to hold, and continue to organize, will start a movement from the base up. We hope that the doubt and debate will propagate like a virus through the public, within families, among coworkers, at grocery stores and doughnut shops across this great territory. The country is already divided right down the middle on the issue of Afghanistan. That means that  A LOT OF PEOPLE already agree, at least to some extent, with what we are thinking and saying, and writing on this forum

The "Support Our Troops" rhetoric is but another tactic of the State to garner support for their own agenda. That of global domination by Western elites, the same elites which have been putting the rest of us down for centuries.

And people are not buying it. Buying it less and less. What we are attempting, with our daily work, with these initiatives, is to build this skepticism into a tidal wave, a movement that they will not be able to ignore any more.

At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!

Why don't you say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children.

Canada must get out of Afghanistan. Because we don't belong there any more than we belong in any other sovereign state. Us being there is us taking our moral superiority for granted. It's racist and it's wrong. We're there on false pretexts, and we're being lied to, day after day after day.

I guess what I'm getting at is a beginning of an inkling of an answer to "THE BIG QUESTION": what will happen in Afghanistan after we leave? What's our solution, if we're so smart, hey?

We don't have one convenient prepackaged answer to this question. And no one does. It takes time and, to be blunt, the Afghans need to figure out what the hell they want to do with their country. Not us.

Our role would be not to interfere with their evolution. Not to train and arm fundamentalist bastards that'we'll later use as an excuse to invade. Not to install puppet regimes that serve our elites' interests. Not to protect the war criminals and murderers who are on this government. Not to brutally occupy their ancestral territory. Not to pretend helping them by building a road in the North while shooting farmers in the South. Not to fight a ludicrous "war on drugs" while almost all of the drugs production pours into our markets and boosts our twisted economies. Not to indulge in this maniacal fantasy that is the "War on Terror". Not to plunge head first in this vicious circle of violence and terrorism (we are the terrorists!), and create generations after generations of young people willing to die because we killed their parents and their parents' parents. Not to kill these kids' parents.

Not to follow the US Empire, like the pathetic poodles that our politicians make us to be.

Not to buy that second car, that third TV, that fifth cell phone, that razor with 14 blades and 3 speed vibrate mode, that GI Joe action figure for little Timmy: all that goddam crap that we fill our empty lives with.

Not to keep up this unsustainable addiction to oil, that is the one fundamental reason for these wars we wage everywhere; because it's OUR crap, and we want to keep it, and have more of it.

Not to bury our heads in the sand, like we've been doing for to long.

By realizing that our comfort and privilege is their pain and suffering; that our unsustainable wealth is their unlivable misery!

You know?

So yeah, I don't know what to tell you about Afghans and their lives after we get the hell out of it. But I can tell you that we should never have been there in the first place. And we did go there because, our world is fucked up, excuse my french.

And it is in this sad state because we have let the global hamburglar Capitalists make it in their own image.

I hope my comrads will take me up on this and add their own two cents. Once again, our attempts at a solution is SOLIDARITY.

I've ranted for way too long, never thought in my life that I would write on an army forum (!!), I'm tired, working in a few hours, and have a lot more to do because, yes, we will be marching in Quebec City on Friday and we will be loud cause, folks, that is the only thing we can do.

I won't give my real name here, cause I am not too fond of goons sending death threats to me and my loved ones.

I'll go by Not In My Name. You can call me whatever you want, I'm sure there will be coloured epithets... (please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame)

Peace out.


P.-S. I invite you to visit our media section at http://www.valcartier2007.ca/media_eng.htm where we have gathered a lot of articles and analyses pieces on Canada's role in US Imperialism, on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, on the trick that's being played on Canadians with "hearts and minds" operations, and the so-called "4th block", which is PR and propaganda by another name, to ease this bullshit War down Canadians' throats.

Also, to know more about what we - and millions more ragers around the world - are about, please visit the People's Global Action http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/en/.

Cheers.




 
I was taking the time to craft a thoughtful response until I harkened back to this:

"At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!

Why don't you say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children."

How patronizing and insulting! Trancelike conformity? That is utter bullsh*t.  Just because soldiers disagree with you they are unthinking automotons???  Sorry but you have just wasted more of my time than I care to admit. 


 
Moreover, our original letter – yes, the letter that started this whole thread (http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm) – clearly provided examples of civilians killed by Canadian soldiers. Those examples stand unrefuted on this forum (despite RecceProfessor's attempt).

I said I wasn't going to do this but here I go anyway.

Your spin on the deaths of those civilians does not take into account the circumstances under which each and every one of those deaths occurred.  Your dismissal of those circumstances is purposefully fraudulent and disingenuous.  This might wash with the willfully uninformed and ideologically opposed (who have never made a habit out of examining facts) but it won't work here.

Your political and ideological agenda has twisted the reality of these situations out of phase with fact and common sense. 

Using your flawed interpretation of these events (ie. discounting all cause and effect relationships) I could rationally come to the conclusion that each and every one of these Afghans were not killed by anyone but died due to acute lead poisoning.  ::)
 
Olga Chekhova said:
I was taking the time to craft a thoughtful response until I harkened back to this:

"At some point, soldiers are also going to break with this transe-like conformity, and they will start to say: NO MORE! Enough of this crap! Ya Basta!

Why don't you say it too! It feels good, I assure you. And then we can start building together a better world for all our children."

How patronizing and insulting! Trancelike conformity? That is utter bullsh*t.  Just because soldiers disagree with you they are unthinking automotons???  Sorry but you have just wasted more of my time than I care to admit. 

Olga, it's worse than that.  "Ya Basta" is a direct reference to the plight of Mexico's indigenous people and their "leader" Sub-commandante Marcos.  In other words V2007 is saying that our (soldiers) plight is so bad that we must rise up and strike out at the government for oppressing us. ::) 

Further illustration that V2007's ideals and thoughts have no basis in reality or fact. 

Hello? McFly... We're all volunteers
 
Edit to add: The below quotes are all from Not In My Name

The "Support Our Troops" rhetoric is but another tactic of the State to garner support for their own agenda. That of global domination by Western elites, the same elites which have been putting the rest of us down for centuries.

What is your rhetoric, what is your agenda. Be honest with yourself and look inn the mirror.

Canada must get out of Afghanistan. Because we don't belong there any more than we belong in any other sovereign state. Us being there is us taking our moral superiority for granted. It's racist and it's wrong. We're there on false pretexts, and we're being lied to, day after day after day.

So you think Canada should never interfere in the affairs of a sovereign state, wow. So every sovereign state has the right to do whatever it wants to its people and we are the bad people if we do anything. This is less of a slippery slope than a cliff. What about Rwanda and the Nazis?

Not to plunge head first in this vicious circle of violence and terrorism (we are the terrorists!)

Wow, this is some messed up thinking. While I agree that anyone can commit war crimes, if your going to call us (I am not sure who you mean by we) terrorist then could I ask you a question. What are the Taliban? Democrats?

Not to follow the US Empire, like the pathetic poodles that our politicians make us to be.

Yeah just like we did in WW1, 2, Vietnam, Iraq, your right, Canada rubber stamps whatever America does, we have no independent foreign policy, its nice being the 51st state.

Not to buy that second car, that third TV, that fifth cell phone, that razor with 14 blades and 3 speed vibrate mode, that GI Joe action figure for little Timmy: all that goddam crap that we fill our empty lives with.

What does this have to do with the mission? We get it, you don’t like capitalism and conspicuous consumption, that’s great, how does this relate to the mission?

Not to keep up this unsustainable addiction to oil, that is the one fundamental reason for these wars we wage everywhere; because it's OUR crap, and we want to keep it, and have more of it.
If you really think oil is the reason for these wars I really don’t know what to tell you. I don’t think the GWOT has brought down oil prices one bit. I guess it is cheaper for us to fight these wars use that money to buy oil….. ::)

Not to bury our heads in the sand, like we've been doing for to long.
Yeah this whole war, def nothing in the media or the radio or anywhere. Its scary how we can be in a war and no one is talking about it...... ::)
that darn MSM never trying to give us any info....

So yeah, I don't know what to tell you about Afghans and their lives after we get the hell out of it. But I can tell you that we should never have been there in the first place. And we did go there because, our world is ****ed up, excuse my french.

That’s great, we shouldn’t have gone there so now we shouldn’t deal with the situation. Great logic there….. Why deal with the present situation?

Now explain exactly how the mission is capitalist or imperialist.

Oh and COIN is not always about killing insurgents, theres enemy based and population based strats. You should check out http://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php for the best information. As well you should check out the successful COIN opts, but I am sure you would think these are war crimes.
 
I'll go by Not In My Name. You can call me whatever you want, I'm sure there will be coloured epithets... (please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame)

Hiding behind anonymity.  Why is that, do you think?  Perhaps because the conformist hive-mind collective we know as Valcartier2007 and "Not In My Name" all realize that there are very few old anarchists.  Eventually they realize that they cannot sustain their own hate-based idealism and that it doesn't put food on the table.  And the alternative, of course, is growing up and joining the real world.  One day they just fade into that hated 'establishment' and become one more citizen more worried about having a safe neighborhood for their own kids to go to school than raving about Imperialistic oppression in countries they've never visited.  There have been a few mentions of them having to "go to work in a few hours" in wee hours posts; how many do you think are proudly wearing their V2007 Anarchy t-shirts at these jobs and showing off the bandannas they plan to wear over their faces if any of their ilk decide to do more than chant on Friday?  And, I suppose down deep they know it's tough to get a real job someday if your potential employers can Google you up as an anarchist demonstrator.  So please, hide away, that way we know that your commitment is only as deep and long-lived as the affected thrill of "standing up to the man" in a crowd.

 
Can you people please link at least once to the people you are quoting or mention their name in your response??


It'd help some of us from flipping back and forth between 10 screens if we wish to respond to a statement trying to confirm who exactly said what.

Thanks

Vern
The Milnet.ca Staff
 
Michael O'Leary said:
Hiding behind anonymity.  Why is that, do you think?  Perhaps because the conformist hive-mind collective we know as Valcartier2007 and "Not In My Name" all realize that there are very few old anarchists.  Eventually they realize that they cannot sustain their own hate-based idealism and that it doesn't put food on the table.  And the alternative, of course, is growing up and joining the real world.  One day they just fade into that hated 'establishment' and become one more citizen more worried about having a safe neighborhood for their own kids to go to school than raving about Imperialistic oppression in countries they've never visited.  There have been a few mentions of them having to "go to work in a few hours" "to their MacJob?" in wee hours posts; how many do you think are proudly wearing their V2007 Anarchy t-shirts at these jobs and showing off the bandannas they plan to wear over their faces if any of their ilk decide to do more than chant on Friday?  And, I suppose down deep they know it's tough to get a real job someday if your potential employers can Google you up as an anarchist demonstrator.  So please, hide away, that way we know that your commitment is only as deep and long-lived as the affected thrill of "standing up to the man" in a crowd.
 
Reccesoldier said:
Olga, it's worse than that.  "Ya Basta" is a direct reference to the plight of Mexico's indigenous people and their "leader" Sub-commandante Marcos.  In other words V2007 is saying that our (soldiers) plight is so bad that we must rise up and strike out at the government for oppressing us. ::) 

Further illustration that V2007's ideals and thoughts have no basis in reality or fact. 

Hello? McFly... We're all volunteers

Oh I got it, reccesoldier.  I just wasn't going to delve into any further analysis of his/her comments after the 'trance' comments.
 
Wow, i'm on the other side of the world and i'm insulted. So you think we've all got our heads buried in the sand? Totally ridiculous. Totally. Most of us here have lost friends over there. My count is at 3 so far. And you lecture us on how we're not looking at the bigger picture? How we dont know whats going on? Have you been to Afghanistan? Because your telling a whole lot of Canadian soldiers who've been over there about a country that you've never been too. You think we can learn something from you? Any respect we had has quickly evaporated!

I'm very upset with the tone you've used and the assumptions you've got.
 
Not In My Name

At last,  some one over there has taken a step out if only briefly from the collective hive mind and spoken as an individual!

For Anarchists they certainly like to remain tightly grouped.
 
noname guy,
I can't wait for reality to hit you and your "comrades" like a freight train.

I don't even think anything you said was worth debating. You just ramble off into a pile of garbage. At least Valcartier2007 could hammer out some replies that weren't stereotypical (i want to say idealist, but you said that was too lame)
(please be more imaginative than "idealist", that is lame)
anarchist fool responses.

Let's blame capitalism for everything (including the computer you typed out your "reply" on) and not intervene anywhere. You accuse soldiers of sticking their heads in the sand when you want Canada to the same as a nation. Your rubbish arguments go on and on...
 
Back
Top