Canadian Recruitment Reaches Record Levels!

[WritingANovel]

Originally Posted by hellisforheroes

Me, owing to the fact that Canada is there. Were it true that Canada ought not to involve itself it foreign affairs, Canada would not be there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you of the opinion that just because Canada IS there, that means it SHOULD be there? That is a naturalistic fallacy. For example, just because I am a rapist, does that mean I SHOULD be a rapist? Same thing. Just because Canada IS there, it doesn't necessarily mean it should. For all we know, it could be there for all the wrong reasons (which you personally agree with, but not me). Like I said, I am of the opinion that Canada SHOULDN'T be there, despite its being there.

Like what? Whether they're a threat to us? They are.

Japan is a threat to us too, why aren't we attacking it?

Whether they have expressed hostility towards us? They have.

My neighbor expressed hotility towards me the other day; does this mean I get to attack him?

Whether they have attacked the citizens whom you claim are the only people the military should defend? They did.

But the citizens shouldn't even be in their country in the first place. It's not like they came into Canada to kill our people here.

Whether they deserve an asskicking for being a blight on humanity is subjective, but they do.

But your thinking that they do deserve an asskicking for being a blight on humanity is in itself subjective. I am of the opinion that one shouldn't have one's country invaded just because one is supposedly "blight on humanity". Who determines what a blight on humanity constitutes? You? Me? The government of Canada? The Taliban?

That is what interpreters are for.

Interpreters could lie to you, both intentionally (such as instructed by the government to lie to the soldiers in order to increase morale), or unintentionally.

I'm pretty sure that everybody regardless of culture objects to being murdered, having their home burnt down, and being terrorized for no crime other than existing.

A lot of dictators in Africa are doing the same thing to their people too; why aren't we there to invade their countries?

I'd appreciate it if you'd quit trying to parse this in terms that mitigate the evil (yes, evil) these people have suffered.

But I wasn't trying to mitigate evil. I in fact agree with you that these do indeed appear to be genuinely evil people; however, my point is, does this justify in our going to war with them? Should Canada's troops be the world's police, ready to invade any country that's "evil".

Canada isn't at war with the entire country, just the people who trained and directed the terrorists.

But Canada IS invading the country, isn't it?

So what you're saying is that if you ever leave the country you're on your own? That the government can just kiss you off until you manage to make it back inside the borders? Not much value in being a citizen then, is there?

That is not what I meant. I meant to say that they in fact did not come into our country to kill our citizens. The citizen that did go there and got killed could have been seen as a military threat to them, and hence why they got killed. I am not trying to justify their being killed, I am just saying that the death of citizens should not always be seen as reason for war. There could be other factors involved.

Yes, it was, and no that wasn't, in that order.

How exactly is it any of Canada's business that the Taliban wass killing people who were not them? As long as they are not Canadian citizens, we shouldn't care whether the Taliban are killing innocent people.

It was good enough for my grandfathers, it's good enough for me.

I hope that you will come to see the truth that genocide in a foreign country is no reason for a country to go to war with another country. Just because your grandfather did, it doesn't mean you have to do it too. Times change, and circumstances change.

Nope. Been there, remember? All the Taliban did was blow stuff up that they disagreed with. Didn't build much of anything. Were pretty much trying to take the country back to the middle ages, as a matter of fact.

Like I said, the Taliban could be shoving ALL of their people into a giant oven and I would still say it's none of our business, as long as they are not burning Canadians.

The government thinks so, and they're the ones the military listens to.

But it could be the case that the government is giving out immoral orders. In this case, the military is obligated to disregard such an order and refuse to mobilize.

And only our military alliances, NATO being the most notable, and a history full of going to war to protect and liberate people outside our own borders proves that statement a complete lie.

Just because Canada did do those things, it doesn't mean it should have. Let's say I did kill someone. Does that mean I should have?

As long as you speak only for you, that's fine.

It is not just me with this sentiment; even if I were the only one, it would be my aim to change people's minds.

Not really, our business there is our purpose there.

Beg to differ. Our business there is NOT our purpose there. Our business is for our troops to come back and stop attacking countries that are not at war with us.

[eikmun]

5char

[stormshadowftb]

canada currently has 600 troops in total in afganistan rising to 1000 in the summer, so that is precisely 0.0015444015444 reccuring canadian troops per square mile of afgan territory.

if i was a member of the taliban i wouldn't be shitting my pants.

there are also 6 million men of fighting age in the pashtun area + foreign fighters from pakistan, which means the taliban outnumber canadian troops 6000 to 1

and that's just MEN! women children and the elderly will also try to defend themselves.

[hellisforheroes]

Originally Posted by stormshadowftb

there are also 6 million men of fighting age in the pashtun area + foreign fighters from pakistan, which means the taliban outnumber canadian troops 6000 to 1

and that's just MEN! women children and the elderly will also try to defend themselves.

And yet they still refuse to engage in a standup fight whenever they can possibly avoid one, despite having such overwhelming numerical superiority. Certainly says something about these brave, proud warriors...

[Spiphel Rike]

I've heard the Canadian army is one of the best paid ones around.

Stormshadow, you're an idiot.

[hellisforheroes]

Originally Posted by WritingANovel

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you of the opinion that just because Canada IS there, that means it SHOULD be there?[/i]

Quite the opposite, I believe that Canada should be there, and in fact it is.

Just because Canada IS there, it doesn't necessarily mean it should.

The Queen (and her government in Canada) disagrees with you. She wanted me to go kick some terrorist ass. Who am I to argue with the Queen?

For all we know, it could be there for all the wrong reasons (which you personally agree with, but not me). Like I said, I am of the opinion that Canada SHOULDN'T be there, despite its being there.

It's your right to disagree with the policies of your government. I've spent four years overseas trying to help give others who aren't so fortunate the same rights. I'd say that's a pretty good reason.

Japan is a threat to us too, why aren't we attacking it?

And how is Japan a threat, exactly?

My neighbor expressed hotility towards me the other day; does this mean I get to attack him?

If you honestly believe that he imminently intends to do you bodily harm or kill you, then yes, you do. Or you can engage in what is known as a "consensual brawl", a fight which both parties agree to.

But the citizens shouldn't even be in their country in the first place. It's not like they came into Canada to kill our people here.

That doesn't matter. A country should be willing to defend or avenge its citizens location notwithstanding, so long as said citizens did not intentionally forfeit their right to protection through criminal acts. What good is a country that does not look after its people?

But your thinking that they do deserve an asskicking for being a blight on humanity is in itself subjective.

Perhaps, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a member of the military who wouldn't like to see them all dead or imprisoned.

I am of the opinion that one shouldn't have one's country invaded just because one is supposedly "blight on humanity". Who determines what a blight on humanity constitutes? You? Me? The government of Canada? The Taliban?

A matter of general consensus, or even just the opinions of those in power made manifest through foreign policy. Like it or not, that's the way it happens.

Interpreters could lie to you, both intentionally (such as instructed by the government to lie to the soldiers in order to increase morale), or unintentionally.

Any number of variables can affect communication. Interpreters are vetted and security checks done on them, and their language skills and honesty in interpreting randomly and periodically assessed. Short of making all the locals learn English, that's about as good as it's going to get.

Besides, the interpreters I've worked with tend to heavily identify with the troops they serve with, being drawn from factions or groups friendly to Canadian interests. Being an interpreter for Canada automatically means being better paid, better fed, and better treated than most of your countrymen.

A lot of dictators in Africa are doing the same thing to their people too; why aren't we there to invade their countries?

Only so many troops to go round.

Canada has been involved in Somalia, the Congo, Zaire, Rwanda, Liberia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and the Central African Republic, among others. I imagine that before too long I'll be getting a background briefing on Zimbabwe, too.

But I wasn't trying to mitigate evil. I in fact agree with you that these do indeed appear to be genuinely evil people; however, my point is, does this justify in our going to war with them? Should Canada's troops be the world's police, ready to invade any country that's "evil".

Yes.

But Canada IS invading the country, isn't it?

Liberating would be the term.

The citizen that did go there and got killed could have been seen as a military threat to them, and hence why they got killed.

How does trying to ensure that starving civilians get adequate food and medical care constitute a viable military threat?

I am not trying to justify their being killed, I am just saying that the death of citizens should not always be seen as reason for war.

You've never read Starship Troopers, have you? It explains the whole concept much better than I am able to.

How exactly is it any of Canada's business that the Taliban wass killing people who were not them? As long as they are not Canadian citizens, we shouldn't care whether the Taliban are killing innocent people.

The measure of a nation is not how large it is, nor how rich. It's whether it is willing to defend those who are incapable of defending themselves against injustice and tyranny.

Just because your grandfather did, it doesn't mean you have to do it too. Times change, and circumstances change.

Both my grandfathers were good and honourable men, and were sickened by what they saw happening to their fellow human beings in Europe, and so they made the conscious decision to do what they could to put an end to it.

Times may change and circumstances may change, but evil men will always be wrong, and should be fought against wherever they may appear.

Like I said, the Taliban could be shoving ALL of their people into a giant oven and I would still say it's none of our business, as long as they are not burning Canadians.

Their stated goal is the annihilation of the West. Do you seriously believe they'll just leave us alone forever as long as we allow them to do whatever they want?

You see a rabid dog, you shoot it. You don't reason with it, you don't ignore it and hope it goes away, you don't placate it and hope it decides not to bite you.

But it could be the case that the government is giving out immoral orders. In this case, the military is obligated to disregard such an order and refuse to mobilize.

We've been down this road before. Nobody I know decided it was an immoral order. I've not yet heard of anyone in this military refusing to deploy on the basis of "ethics". In fact, the general feeling was one of "it's about damned time".

Now, either the entire military is amoral, or you might be wrong on this one. Which is the more likely possibility?

Just because Canada did do those things, it doesn't mean it should have. Let's say I did kill someone. Does that mean I should have?

That would depend on the circumstances surrounding it.

It is not just me with this sentiment; even if I were the only one, it would be my aim to change people's minds.

I seriously doubt you're going to reach many service members. The set of values and beliefs that leads one to join the military very rarely includes any of the things you're promoting.

Beg to differ. Our business there is NOT our purpose there.

Oh, but it is. Our purpose there was to throw the Taliban out of power, kill or capture as many of them as possible, rebuild the country, institute a democratic government, and maintain the peace. Those things have either been done or are in the process of being done. Our business is our purpose.

[CreamOfWarholSoup]

Hellisforheroes, while I am glad that I didn't enter this debate I commend your efforts against writinganovel once again.

[hellisforheroes]

Originally Posted by CreamOfWarholSoup

Hellisforheroes, while I am glad that I didn't enter this debate I commend your efforts against writinganovel once again.

Well, thanks. He'll never be convinced that there are other ways than his own, but in a backhanded sort of way that's encouraging.

His freedom to badmouth whatever he wants without fear of me or someone like me kicking in his bedroom door and "sanctioning" him twice in the back of the head for being a political dissident means the system works and I'm doing my job properly.

Ironic, isn't it?

[CreamOfWarholSoup]

Originally Posted by hellisforheroes

Well, thanks. He'll never be convinced that there are other ways than his own, but in a backhanded sort of way that's encouraging.

His freedom to badmouth whatever he wants without fear of me or someone like me kicking in his bedroom door and "sanctioning" him twice in the back of the head for being a political dissident means the system works and I'm doing my job properly.

Ironic, isn't it?

I can sympathize with him. I had somewhat similar views when I was 16 but in the years that followed I balanced out. Now it's more of a "I don't give a damn but I'll try and grok it" perspective.

[Cboys]

Sweet merciful jesus, the quotes!