Hey Troops, Shut Up

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CP) - Canadian soldiers stationed in Kandahar say recent arrests that may have foiled massive terrorist attacks in southern Ontario underscore the importance of their mission in Afghanistan - and should wake up Canadians to the fact that their country isn't isolated from problems elsewhere in the world.

I'm sick and tired of hearing political policy statements from soldiers.

Shut up already.

- B

appreciated.

It makes me even more skeptical about the arrests instead of less.

It's obvious that under Harper, the military -- from generals on down to grunts -- has been encouraged to speak out in favour of governemnt policy. Personally, I'm not interested in hearing the political views of people in the military. In fact, I think it is completely inappropriate for the military to get involved in political debates.

- B

But, what gets me is how the Afghan mission has NOTHING To do with what happened in Canada. THese guys were all "Homegrown."
So, maybe that particular soldier is an ass, but I'm not gonna tell him to shut up.

In a democratic country, the role of the military is to follow the policies and orders of civilian authorities. Their role is not to become engaged in political debate on these policies. When the military gets political, democracy gets jeopardized.

What is happening right now in Canada is that Hillier and the top brass are overtly pro-Harper, which is highly inappropriate (which not a single member of the media has seen fit to point out.)

Because it is obvious that top brass support the Conservatives, rank and file soldiers who support the government position now feel quite free to promote the government's policies whenever media give them an opportunity to do so.

However, soldiers who oppose the government's policies -- and yes, there are many -- know that they are supposed to shut up.

And that's what is happening. The only soldiers that will talk to media are pro-Harper, so that's who gets reported, and the result will be the continued politicization of our military in support of the neocons.

Needless to say, I find all this to be quite disturbing. As Harper moves to take maximum political advantage of the fear associated with the terror plot, we can no doubt look forward to hearing much more from pro-Harper troops, while troops opposed to our useless and dangerous Afghan mission will continue to remain silent.

And so it goes, as the neocon takeover of Canada proceeds nicely apace.

- B

where you get to speak your mind even if you did sign up for a job getting shot at.
I don't see how you can have it both ways. I don't think they should be able to speak BECAUSE they are military, rather that no one should be stopped from speaking military or not.

As private individuals, soldiers have a right to speak their mind. Once they put on the uniform, however, and identify themselves as military, then they should not get involved in political debate or partisan activity.

In the present circumstances, what we have is the government using soldiers to sell its foreign policies to voters. I think this is wrong.

- B

"However, soldiers who oppose the government's policies -- and yes, there are many -- know that they are supposed to shut up." - Or did it just tag along with your last fart?

If you think soldiers are free to publicly criticize the mission they are deployed on, then you don't know much about the military.

Similarly, if you think every Canadian soldier thinks the Afghan mission is a good idea, then you also don't know much about the military.

- B

Good point...

It's not really free speech because the troops that are pressed into this 'imported' troop outreach (like writing letters to the editor that turn out to be form letters), or do so out of conviction, will have a full airing, while troops that speak freely that it's a 'clusterfuck' and a waste of tax dollars will fear retribution or worst--the 'embedded' media will ordered to excise the comments at the editorial level anyway to protect 'troop morale' and poor political and military decision-making.

Yeah the troops should keep their comments 'operational'--getting into politics and by way, campaigning for the Tories, is not appropriate...as is when 'tax-free' Bishops use their tax-free pulpits to threat to excommunicate politicians that don't tow the Roman line on homophobia, sexism, condom use, choice, etc etc.

Also--the 'support the freedom of speech' troop faction are disingenious. They are really not arguing that any infighting or 'tactics' be discussed publicly as it would put the troops at risk--so there are lots of reasons why the military should keep quiet--but they want to defend the right of military propaganda and oddly enough.

More evidence that the Left is dead...

You say that there are many soldiers opposed to the government's policies. Yet, you complain they have shut up and won't talk about that. So, if they aren't talking about that, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW?

that you're not going to have unanimity. It's can be easily extrapolated that some soldiers would be either opposed or less in favour of the current military action.

that probably opposed to the goubbermint's policies...


Military says Chand had basic training

Military officials said yesterday that personnel records show accused terror suspect Steven Vikash Chand, a former army reservist, completed basic infantry training during the summer of 2000.

Chand, 25, joined the Royal Regiment of Canada, a reservist unit that meets in Toronto, in June 2000 and soon after began his initial training.

....

However, while Chand was in the reserve unit for four years, military officials say he was absent for much of that time and completed few of the qualifications required for infantry soldiers.

North Star

No mention of whether he was trained with a machete, large butcher knife or other big blades suitable for cutting off 'heads' of State --get it 'head of state' yuk yuk yuk

LOL... ;-)

I think another poster dealt with HeyHey's silly demand for "sources" to prove an obvious fact (that there are some Canadian troops who do not agree with the Afghan deployment) but have you ever noticed how demanding "sources" to back up statements of obvious truths is a popular rhetorical tactic among freepers?

I've noticed that if anyone ever succumbs to this tactic, and goes hunting for and reports back on "sources" to back up the obvious facts stated earlier, what usually happens next is the freepers then attack the sources as not being credible ("liberal media, blah, blah, blah").

Next thing you know, the whole debate is derailed into an ideological arument over whose "sources" are most credible, when in fact, the original assertion being attacked was just a statement of the obvious.

To be clear, I'm not saying that the person who intervened here demanding "sources" to prove the obvious is a freeper. However, if HeyHey wants to be taken seriously in debate, then I'd suggest dropping the "where's the sources" ruse in cases where an assertion is obviously true.

Alternately, of course, if HeyHey has some credible "sources" that would show that there aren't any Canadian soldiers opposed to this deployment, then please, do enlighten us.

(I predict vast silence from HeyHey on the this latter point.)

- B

Lots of DUers ask for sources all the time, and yours is the first time on DU that I can recall where the request is treated as beneath the person making the unsupported claim.

As for your last "challenge" to HEyHEY--to show credible sources that there aren't any Canadian soldiers opposed to this deplyoment...Well, do you really need it spelled out? Okay...

A n-e-g-a-t-i-v-e c-a-n-n-o-t b-e p-r-o-v-e-n.

(Now THAT is an assertion that is obviously true.)

1) DU ask for sources all the time and IF you looked you could find lots examples of folks saying 'go google'--nobody is obliged to research their opinions, only express them.

2)Why defend Hey Hey's stupid comments?
Of course there are folks in the Canadian military that signed up for the peacekeeping and aren't particularly happy with an operational combat role. Of course if 54% of the public is opposed, that is going to be reflective of the military--and shit if it ain't Mr Progressive and ALL the people in the military support this 'friendly hamlet' BS as HeyHey would have us believe, --THEN going BACK to the original topic--the troops probably should be barred from making 'political' statements coz they aren't particularly reflective of the Canadian public.

So what is HeyHey or you saying: The Canadian military is reflective of the public or the public reflective of the military? Is the CanMil that radically different than the rest of us?

3)Why play rhetorical games? Double negatives have nothing to do with it--it isn't a double negative to demand proof of something that CAN be proven...one can poll the military and produce stats for both sides--not likely to happen, but that would provide some proof, no? Ergo it can be falsified and ergo can be proven...

4)Why ignore the thoughtful comments of whether in a democracy it is appropriate for the military to be engaging in politics--big subject with lots and lots of material (and NO I would bother to cite it because I don't have to do your research for you)-- but then a consistent failure to answer that simple, but important, question that is solidly Progressive bedrock, "Does the military have a role in democracy?"

Progressives say no generally--Conservatives like the military and at times want society to function just like one. The Left generally has problems with people wearing military uniforms and making forceful comments meant to undermine civillian control and rights. It is believed that people in uniforms have a unfair advantage in a process that is meant to be a process 'among equals'...

Any of these concepts from the days of the Patrician Guard and the Caesar-Papalist traditions of the west unknown to you? Nazis and their uniformed thugs? The sorry tradition of "caudillismo"? The tendency of the ruling classes to promote the 'man on the white horse' tactic throughout democracy?

These are all things that inform real Progressives--what's informing you? Rhetoric? Or are you waiting for the latest party scripts so you know what to say?

Bragi is right of center for sure, but at least Bragi is thinking, which is more than I can say for a few of the posters here. Hell I EVEN notice Bragi wasn't jumping up and down like the fake Left cheerleaders last week when the bogus terrah shit was being pissed out by the media...decapitation! oh my...and people fall for this?

And not very well, I might add.

For starters, I haven't weighed in one bit about the military on this thread. So I skipped over that tangent of your reply to my post.

You're confusing double-negatives with proving a negative.

And as for "researching an opinion"...I have no earthly idea how one can do that. Maybe you mean researching facts that support an opinion, but I can't tell and I don't feel like trying to read minds. Doesn't matter, anyway; HEyHEY was asking for proof of something that Bragi claimed was a fact.

I never assert anything I can't back up, no matter how "obvious" it might be, and I expect no less from anyone else when asked. If you have a different opinion on that, fine, and let's just agree to disagree.

Just cause you happen to agree with Bragi, doesn't mean you need to rigth some friggin essay trying to make more out of what I posted.

and they SHOULD be required to post sources when they state fact and someone wants some evidence of such a fact. Anyone that is too lazy to back up their own opinions (or STATEMENTS OF FACT) isn't worth debating, and doesn't deserve the credibility afforded them by argument.

So let us just say that I state something that in my opinion is a fact, like this: "The war in Iraq is a foreign policy disaster for the US and the world." Imagine after I say that, a debating opponent -- from the right or centre or the left or from wherever -- stands and demands I provide "sources" for my assertion.

Truth is, in response, I'm not up for listing and describing key articles and events that may have contributed to forming my opinion on the demerits of the Iraq war. Nor do I think I have an obligation to respond in debate to evidentiary fishing expeditions.

On the other hand, if a debating opponent wants to raise a specific fact or event or relevant matter that they feel negates my conclusion about the Iraq war, then I may respond. This is different than a blanket and unexplained demand for "sources".

- B

You claim that HEyHEY is ignorant of military matters, and that military aren't allowed to criticize their mission. Clearly, he doesn't know what you know. So he asks you for a source. And you refuse to provide it.

The same as you've claimed things to me, such as saying that public opinion polls show that canadians who vote for the NDP and the Liberals have the same core values. I ask for that study, and I'm still waiting. I looked for it myself, I couldn't find it. The burden of proof for your statements lies in you. If you expect anyone to take you seriously, you should be able to back up what you say.

I can back up my statements of fact with data, you should be able to as well. And if you refuse to, and people don't take you seriously, that is your own fault.

What you're talking about in this post is not the same as your dispute with HEyHEY. You claimed he was ignorant but could bring nothing to the table to enlighten him. In cases like the one you are describing (Iraq war) it is a statement of opinion based on facts. A statement of a single fact in such a discussion, such as "It's a disaster because 80% of people polled in 6 European nations say x about the US due to this war" and someone says "Source, please?" That's legitimate.

You can state all the opinions you want to. That doesn't make them fact, and if you are going to call others ignorant for not agreeing with you, expect them to ask for proof. You are the one trying to convince someone of something, so the burden of proof is on you, the stater. I'm not sure what you expect, that you can run around a discussion board saying whatever you want and never have to back up anything you say in argument? It doesn't work that way. You may not feel 'up' to searching around for things to prove your own case, but I don't feel like searching around for things to back up your case either. So I won't take it seriously.

They're being told to shut up. ANd while you may say they are in the military, they are still allowed to speak their minds if they wish, unless a specific order comes out foridding troops to comment.

But you said there were a bunch that weren't allowed to speak. Based on what?

You refuse to back up things you state AS FACT with ANYTHING, and then you play the switcharoo game and accuse people of saying things they never did. You twist their words and never back up a single statement of fact that you make.

It's unacceptable.

let 'em say what they like. its called freedom of speech.

How about you read the Charter? You don't get to pick and choose who it applies to any more than Harper does. I suggest you cope.