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

York U: Flower Power, Pray for Peace!

I got a reply.

"Hello Thank you very much for writing in: we always appreciate feedback.

I should let you know that the opinions expressed by Kendra Balingall in the editorial entitled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military" were those of the author alone, and not those of the Manitoban (also, Kendra's opinions aren't even necessarily shared by other members of the Manitoban's editorial board).

I will forward your response on to our comment editor, who coordinates letters to the editor. Currently, we have one person writing a comment piece in response to Ms. Balingall's editorial, and we have received at least one other letter.

Thanks again for getting involved and for writing in. Debates like this one are important, and it's good to know that readers care enough to write in.

Sincerely,
-Regan Sarmatiuk
Editor-in-Chief
The Manitoban
tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca"
 
"I should let you know that the opinions expressed by Kendra Balingall in the editorial entitled "Campuses and Canada's gentle military" were those of the author alone, and not those of the Manitoban (also, Kendra's opinions aren't even necessarily shared by other members of the Manitoban's editorial board)."

If this really IS the case, we eagerly await an editorial denouncing the ideas expressed in the article in question.   :)

But wait!   The article in question was posted IN the "Editorials" (at least when I checked it out today)....

http://umanitoba.ca/manitoban/

So, which is it, editorial board?   Or did this one just happen to slip by.... ;D  

Well done all who responded!

 
I say, take them to a Military Cemetary in Europe and ask, if they would fight for they freedom. I remember my oldest daught in Uof W. She had dumb dumbs, saying I was a baby killer, murder. She asked why. They said because we were Iraq. Being the hot head, she told them, that Canada was not in Iraq. And her Dad, is there to protect them. And oneday they will growup, or will have the Enemy at the Gate ( I more straight words, just  like her Dad).  She even straightened out some profs. But to go back, Look at who is the Student Union reps. Foreign NON CANADIANS, that have their own agendas.
 
Recce41 said:
. But to go back, Look at who is the Student Union reps. Foreign NON CANADIANS, that have their own agendas.

...Nail on th head!
 
Its interesting that these "students" are coming up with their own statistics and opinions of CF members based on no research whatsoever. To even suggest that the CF is an unworthy occupation worthy of being included in their on campus fair is absolutely ridiculouse. Lets look at the CF. We don't recruit drug users, those with a criminal background and have never forced anyone by draft or other means to put their lives on the line in the defence of this country or its people.

What if someone were to compile a list of these "centers of learning", that would cover every graduate that is a habitual drug user, went on to spend time in a federal institution, subscribes to terrorist ideals.

The type of people that protest CF recruiting stands are obviously very misinformed, are looking for a cause because they are too weak to sign up and fight for a cause, and sadly are attending these schools to advance their knowledge but are only showing just how stupid they really are.

How many people on this forum alone would welcome a face to face televised debate on any of their points? I doubt you could find one of these granola heads with the cohonas to even reply to the request.

We in the CF may do what we do so that people can have the right to protest but we dont serve so that people can be stupid.
 
Well, it's O dark hundred and I have just checked my e-mail to find the following response to my Letter to the Editor:

"Hello Veronica,

Thanks for your well argued letter. We are on a
publishing break, so it will run in the October 20th
issue. Anyway, a few things.

First when you state that the armed forces is not the
country's biggest employer, could you let me know who
is the biggest employer, so that I may include it in
your letter.

Second, out letters to the editor policy stipulates
that all letters be no more than 400 words, and the
Manitoban reserves the right to edit for lenght and
clarity.

Anyway, I removed your paragraph on the number of
personnel in Afghanistan, simply for length
restrictions. Anyway, I felt that because you were
taking issue with her use of facts here and not with
her argument in this particular point, I felt that was
the best part to remove. I will however pass on your
letter in full to Kendra. Thanks again,]

Cheers,


-----
Carson Jerema
Comment Editor, the Manitoban
cjerema@yahoo.ca
474-6770"


Hmm, for being an Editor of an on-line paper you'd think at least they could use spell check in their 3rd paragraph of this response wouldn't you?  >:D

:o I am currently searching the internet to find out who exactly is Canada's largest employer. I know of a couple larger, like the aforementionned TO Police Force, but am not sure which is actually the largest.


 
My response to the question regarding Canada's largest employer:

Good morning,

Canada's largest single employer is the Federal Public Service Sector. This includes employees of Canada Post, Customs Canada, Revenue Canada, and employees of the Department of National Defense among many others.

Canada's Armed Forces personnel are employed by the Canadian Forces vice the Department of National Defense, a common mis-conception.

The 3 largest employers in Canada?
1) Canadian Forestry Industry;
2) Federal Public Service; and
3) The Department of National Defense (part of the Public Service)

The Canadian Forces do not even fall into the top 3. The Hudson Bay Company currently employs 70, 000 personnel beating our Regular Force by 8500 personnel.

I thank you for your response to my letter.

Veronica Gibson


 
It is great that they have responded to your emails.  I doubt that mine made it through.  I keep getting Error Messages saying that "no email was sent".  We'll see with time.  Cyberspace, not only between their ears, but a reality.  ;D
 
George Wallace said:
It is great that they have responded to your emails.   I doubt that mine made it through.   I keep getting Error Messages saying that "no email was sent".   We'll see with time.   Cyberspace, not only between their ears, but a reality.    ;D

Mine kept doing the same thing George. Perhaps it's some kind of know-it-all-military-spam-blocker at work here??

The easy way around it? Send a Regular e-mail to the address below vice using their forum:

tobaneditor@umanitoba.ca

That's where I sent mine to.

Vern
 
The important thing to remember with regards to mouthy kids is just that. They are young and feel that they are being outspoken. They think that it is being rebellious in a relavant manner. These children have either never been overseas in such an environment or left one at a very young age. Very shortly after grad day if they make it they will join the ranks of the white collar work force and every time a region with economic impact becomes unstable they will demand military participation. As well I attended a remembrance day ceremony at York last year and not all of the students are this immature and naive. They are young and will tell the story a bunch of times and sleep secure in there parents house feeling that they made an impact and then borrow daddy's gas guzzling SUV to drive back to school to be superficial all over again tommarrow.

Cheers.
:cdn:
 
Do they have free food and drinks at these things? Protests and stuff.

I'd go and eat everything I could find and drink all their milk, coke and whiskey and then they would be all
"wow man, far out, where'd you learn to drink like that!"
and i'd be all
"In a little organization I like to call the army, baby!"
And they would want to join.

Mission accomplished
 
Ghost778 said:
"wow man, far out, where'd you learn to drink like that!"
and i'd be all
"In a little organization I like to call the army, baby!"
And they would want to join.

I dunno about that, but maybe. I partook in many a 'Century Club' party while at Mount Allison  ;D
 
SHELLDRAKE!! said:
...and have never forced anyone by draft or other means to put their lives on the line in the defence of this country or its people.

Not correct Shelldrake. Conscripts were sent to the Aleutians during WW2, and could well have been in combat if the Japanese had not withdrawn. And technically, if one wants to go back as far as 1812, the Militia Act virtually conscripted all males of military age.
 
Why ndo the hippies never protest what the Taliban and the A.Q. do to people?
 
Because they are obviously sympathetic to murdering scum like that viewed through their supposedly educated eyes, I use the educated term loosely.

The majority of these people have never visited a country recovering from an oppressed existence, if they had their views would be different I'm sure.

Saddam goes on trial this week, a murdering despot who seized power for some 30 years.    This man was responsible for the deaths of thousands (any one seen video of executions by explosive means, that is strapping explosives to terrified "opponents") heck he basically invented the suicide bomber but those victims had no choice.

I could go on but in the closeted world of these left wing students it is probably Saddam who has been wronged.

It's a pity the chance for peace has been hijacked in Iraq (by foreign fighters and the Iranians).   The ordinary people of Iraq deserve a future free from violence and oppression, hopefully one day they will get it.  
 
Slim said:
...
My thoughts (and questin) is where is this all coming from...is it so far fetched that there couldn't be members of the other sdide behind all this retoric?

Spr.Earl said:
Hmm after reading most of the post's what came to my mind were the words of Edward R. Murrow back in the Joe McCarthy era.
"Don't' mistake dissent with disloyalty"

Without wishing to resurrect Joseph McCarthy we might wish to note that in the '40s and '50s, especially, the Moscow party line was propagated throughout the West - especially in Britain and America, by "dupes and fellow travellers" rather than mainstream, active Communist Party members.  The latter were, of course, active but, being largely discredited and marginalized - even by the silk stocking socialists, their voice was weak and distorted.

The party line was passed 'down' through a fairly small handful of respectable and respected intellectuals who were, generally, regarded as sceptics - which has been, traditionally, and still is a highly respectable intellectual position.

I suspect that this fairly simple, effective form of propaganda, which has been used (in its current, modern form), over and over, since the 18th century is being used again.  I suspect that many of the Arab extremist/fundamentalist Islamic leaders are smart men - ready, willing and able to exploit our own legal, respectable, profitable propaganda machines (Hill and Knowlton, etc, - only as an example) to 'make' opinion and, insidiously, to pass 'messages' through the intellectual elites in the West - who are often eager to find ways and means to disagree with the establishment's positions.

The task of both the monolithic Soviet Union and the highly diffused Arab extremist/fundamentalist Islamic movements is made easier by a long standing distaste, throughout the capitalist West, for capitalism itself.  If, just for the sake of argument, we begin with Dickens then we can see that the rise of modern industrial capitalism was accompanied by a well founded, articulate anti-capitalist movement which spoke, forcefully, to some of our best human instincts.  Modern industrial capitalism will always be a 'red meat' system and there are, always, gentle, thoughtful herbivores amongst us who will be (or will be used by) active opponents of the liberal, democratic, secular, free-enterprise/capitalist West.

(I argue that Pierre Trudeau was one of that group - one who worked, actively, against his country and the West.)

I thing the herbivores are out in full force, again (maybe still).  They are not, for the most part, working for the Arab extremists and fundamentalist Islamics; they are, habitually, sceptical about the aims and methods of the liberal, democratic, secular, free-enterprise/capitalist West and they use their public positions to challenge those aims and methods.

We need to be careful: one of the main things we are defending from the extremists and fundamentalists is the absolute right to loud, public intellectual dissent.  If we stifle the "dupes and fellow travellers" then we will have become no better than bin Laden et cie.

Propaganda is a powerful and effective weapon - propagating 'dissent' is fairly easy in the West; in fact being able to propagate dissent is one of the reasons we are the West; allowing free people to do it is one of the reasons we have to win.


 
Propaganda is a powerful and effective weapon â “ propagating 'dissent' is fairly easy in the West; in fact being able to propagate dissent is one of the reasons we are the West; allowing free people to do it is one of the reasons we have to win

Still doesn't make it any easier...!
 
Because they are obviously sympathetic to murdering scum like that viewed through their supposedly educated eyes

That's way too simplistic and jingoistic. You're falling into the same trap of an anti-war protestor claiming that we're all just tools of the imperialist Americans and baby-killers to boot.

There is no black and white in the world. Everything is shades of grey. And the problems you see depend a lot on the direction you took as you approched the problem. It is entirely possible for two completely reasonable people to approach a situation from two different angles and come to entirely reasonable, but completely opposite, conclusions.

Take Iraq. Saddam Hussain was/is a bona fide asshole, who did horrible things to the people inside his own country - this is undisputed fact. I don't think you'll find a single reasonable person that would stand up and claim that Saddam was a good person.

So OK, I can come into this problem for the direction that "removing a government that abused its own citizens (really, a sub-population of its own citizens) to that degree is a Good act" and thus declare that the American invasion of Iraq was a Good thing. That's an entirely reasonable conclusion to arrive at, and more than a few people on this board have expressed it.

But you can also come into the problem from this angle: "Different cultures have different standards for what constitutes "abuse of its own citizens" and no country should be allowed to be able to invade any other and force it to adopt a different culture's standards against their will" or in other words "keep out of my bedroom, and I'll keep out of yours" or perhaps "what you do inside your own borders is none of my business". That too is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at.

Now with those two positions on the opposite ends of the scale, we can start looking at shades of grey:

One could generally support the idea that sovereign nations have control over what goes on inside their borders and what they do to their citizens, until some threshold is reached, upon which other nations would be called in to stop the abuses that have surpassed the threshold. Given that defining that threshold is both difficult and subject to culteral interpretation (define "pornography" for an example), one might inist that there be a world body formed where such cases could be discussed, voted on, and in the case of sufficient agreement on a particular case, an international, sanctioned military intervention could be staged to solve the problem - and that any military action that happened without this sanction would be considered illegal.

One could also have the opinion that "all fighting - except explicit self defence when invaded - is de facto wrong, that all problems can be solved without resort to military action, and thus any non-self-defence military operation is by its very existance immoral. (OK, this is less a shade of grey than an orthagonal extreme, but it is still a valid point of view. Not one that *I* share, personally, but I can see the point of view of someone who might hold it)

I could go on and on... the point being, there are lots of completely reasonable and valid ways to look at these situations that can wind up arriving at completely different conclusions than your own.

Here's how I see Afganistan and Iraq:

1) Sept 11 2001, an organization carried out attacks on the USA, a long-time ally of Canada

2) The people who carried out these attacks hit one military (and thus valid) target, and one civillian (and thus invalid) target, plus failed to hit a third target that is unspecified.

3) The attackers chose a method that was effctively the same as an airstrike, except that they strapped innocent civillians to their ordinance. That is barbaric, immoral, and wrong, and "cultural differences" be damned. No civillized society straps innocents to weapons.

4) By virtue of the attack itself, plus by virtue of both the fact that a civiliian target was (purposefully) hit and by virtue of point #3, the US was legally and morally entitled to retaliate.

5) By virtue of our being allied with the US, plus by virtue of point #3, it was right and good for Canada to assist the US in this retaliation.

6) The attackers themselves were not sanctioned by any state, nor were they the agents of any state. They were, however, at the least allowed to operate within the bounderies of a state, and perhaps were even supported by the ruling body of the state. That made that state a legitimate military target as wel.

7) That state ruling body also happened to be a regime that imposed some brutal conditions on its citizens, particularly women. "Cultural differences" starts to rear its head here... but given that point #6 opened the door, I wouldn't shed any tears at this regime being deposed.

8) This part of the world has been ravaged in the last 20 years, some of it in no small part due to being caught up as a pawn in the cold war struggles of years previous. That means we in the West bear some responsibility for Afganistan being the way it is. We didn't create the Taliban or Al-Quaida, but we did help create the conditions that let them take power. As such, we in the West owe a debt to the Afgan people.

9) The Marshall Plan after WW2 has demonstrated the wisdom of rebuilding your enemies' homelands after a war; that the best way to ultimately defeat an enemy is to make him your friend. So there is a strategic advantage to rebuilding Afganistan and attempting to make it into the garden spot of the middle east.

10) So from this, I conclude that the invasion of Afganistan, and the subsequent efforts to rebuild the nation and put it back on its feet is right, just, and good. It is right for Canada to be participating, and I at least intend to put my money where my mouth is by putting in a tour there myself once I am able to.

Is that a reasonable conclusion? I think it is.

Now Iraq:

1) No evidence has surfaced to show that Iraq had any part whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks, so there is no moral or legal justification for attacking Iraq in retaliation for 9/11, any more that there would be for invading (say) Sweden.

2) Given that Iraq had been contained (by UN decree) for over 10 years, it posed no threat to anyone outside its own borders.

3) Although it had both stockpiled and used them in the past, there was no evidence that Iraq posessed any weapons of mass destruction, and UN inspectors were on the ground enforcing this.

4) The actual employment of (in particular) chemical weapons without access to mass delivery systems is far more problematic than the lethality of the agents themselves would suggest. It takes tanker truck quantities of agent to carry out successful strikes, not milk carton quantities (the failed sarin attack in the Tokyo subway makes for a very instructive case study)

5) Iraq was a mostly secular country run by a secular dictator whose worldview was exactly the opposite of the worldview of the people who carried out the 9/11 attacks. This both made co-operation between the two groups unlikely at best, and given that this secular dictator was unlikely to reliquish power anytime soon, his presence denied the resources of his country to people alligned with those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

6) Iraq has large oil reserves.

7) There is personal history between Saddam and the American president, so an element of personal vendetta is present.

8) The US unilaterally invaded Iraq on false pretenses over the objections of the UN and most of the world, apparently because it could. This is more than a little disturbing, especially if one is a ciitizen of a country with a lot of oil, a solid financial footing, a penchant for asserting its own soverignty, and intent on following its own political path in the face of opposition from the US (legaizing gay marriage, moving towards the legaliation of pot, insisting that the US adhere to the court rulings on softwood lumber under NAFTA and threatening to restrict access to power, water, and oil if the US keeps cheating on the NAFTA terms)

9) By invading Iraq, the US has re-enforced the prevailing view in that part of the world of the US and the West in general as being imperialist bullies who trample on the rights of Arabs at will to get what they want, particularly oil, but also as a foe of their religion (shades of the Crusades - the fact that Bush is an evangelical Christian is NOT lost on them) This creates fertile ground for the creation of more organizations aligned with Al-Quaida, and overshadows the very good work being done in Afganistan.

10) So from this, I conclude that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, morally wrong, and produced results counter to the safety and security of the world as a whole - and I am happy and proud of my government in seeing the wisdom of staying out of it.

Which I also see as being an entirely reasonable position - one that is shared by a large number of my fellow citizens.

Now, one failing I see is that we (the governmental and CF "we") haven't done a very good job of getting the message on Afganistan out, especially as Iraq gets all the press. It would be very  easy for someone to assume that Afganistan was just like Iraq, and to draw the conclusion that our involvement in Afganistan was just American puppetry. WE all know that isn't the case, but THEY do not. This needs to be addressed.

I don't for a second think that student protests are the result of AQ fifth columnists. They ain't that organized or influential.

One final point - we, as memebers of the CF and as citizens of Canada, are allowed (and indeed EXPECTED) to speak our minds on political issues that affect the country. It is the duty of all citizens in a democracy to participate in government and to let our elected officials know how we feel. As such, I COMPLETELY and EMPHATICALLY agree with the statement that "opposition is not disloyalty". "Her Magesty's Loyal Opposition", right?

Where we DO need to be careful is that we do not confuse our duty as citizens with our duties as soldiers. None of use should be trying to put forward our personal opinions as the official policy of the CF, nor should we be seeking to stifle political discussion (especially where there is potential for that to me misinterpreted as CF policy) When the uniform goes on, we all become politically neuter. Politics is put aside, and we carry out the mission we are given

DG   

 
Slim said:
Why ndo the hippies never protest what the Taliban and the A.Q. do to people?

I have been asking myself this question for quite a while now. The left wing students oppose violence, racism, homophobia, sexism, and yet they support Castro, Hamas and the Talibans. Even if you support their causes, these people are violent and sexist so there should be some conflict in your mind. It's very hard to understand, the student seems to sincerely oppose violence and support the Palestinian suicide bombers. So here is my latest theory.

Those (radical) left wing students come mostly from the social sciences. Philosophy, history, sociology, etc. Not many law, engineering or business students among them. Social sciences students have a low social status. Not that many people will be impressed by your philosophy degree. (Trust me, I have one.) They will not get high paying corporate job after the university. They will not have money, they won't be celebrities, they won't be regarded as tough. They can't even see themself as smart because smart students are supposed to study real science like physics and engineering.

Basically, those student have a self esteem problem. I think they fix it with moral superiority. They take pleasures in exposing the moral flaws of people with high social status, in other to raise their own status above them. They will shot at politicians, business person, big corporations, beautiful person, etc. Especially the most successful of them, like Walmart, McDonald, The United States, sexy thin women, etc. SUVs pollute, Walmart use people in poor countries, the United States kill innocent people, the fashion industry fools young girl into unhealthy diets. While you would think that left wing student don't have SUVs because they are poor, in their mind they don't have SUVs because SUVs pollute. You have to admit that from a self esteem perspective their way of seeing it is much better. But while self esteem is nice social status is better and that's why the left wing students try to convince everyone of joining their side. They must convince you that they are right so that you see them as superior. Like you often see "larger" women saying that too thin is unhealthy while you don't see pretty thin women saying that their looks gives them power. They have the power, it's real and they don't want to share. The fat women are going for moral superiority and they need a lot of social support for it to really work.

So back to the Talibans. Well Talibans have low social status. Nobody in Canada likes them. You can't raise your social status by fighting them, or even supporting them. In Canada they are irrelevant. What is relevant in our society is money, celebrity, good look, etc. The left wing student, though they preach love, are really motivated by hatred. They despise what is higher then them and fight to replace it. Everyone wants a high social status, or at least some respect and regards. And this is their way of getting it. I think some religious persons follow the same logic.

I remember before Canada signed Kyoto how the left wing were ranting against the government. Then one day Chretien signs it. I log on to my favorite anarchist web site expecting to see dances of joy and satisfaction. There was nothing. Not a word. No one even mentioned it. I was stunned. Then later I understood. For a while they had moral superiority over the government. They were better than the leaders of the country, which is pretty good. When Canada signed Kyoto they lost that superiority and went back to a low social status. So they were not dancing.

That's my current theory. I think human beings are animals and we can figure out their behavior more by looking at how they feel than looking at how they think. But if you want to "cure" left wing students and bring them to your side then post your own theory because I have no idea how to do that. Maybe buying them a SUV...

And if you wonder why I'm not left wing in spite of my philosophy degree is because I also have a computer science degree, a high income and a decent social status. :)


 
Zarathustra, I'll keep this short and simplistic.  Nice post....

Old fart out....
 
Back
Top