babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
How nice for you all. BTW, I don't give a flying fuck about "allied" lives. The US Marines aren't my allies. They're the shock troops of white supremecy. But getting back to your first point, your "allies" are the ones who pose the greatest danger to our peace and security.
You're right, Slumberjack. Unfortunately, I think the time will come when we will need a military. However, our military is so closely integrated with the only country that can and will threaten us that their loyalty to this country is suspect (For example, Generals who command US military units in genocidal wars of aggression against defenseless populations and are then well rewarded for their service).
When the US disintegrates into a mess of millennialist theocracies and racial ethnic cleansing in the not-to-distant future, you can bet that our military will be there to respond....under the command of USNORTHCOM.
I'll say it again: With the growing integration with, and the absolute dependency on the US military for its continuation in the Afghan mission, the Canadian Military's loyalty and dedication to the interests of the people of Canada is questionable. They may wear a flag on the sleeve and watch Hockey, but when the shit comes down, who's orders will they obey?
Funny example. In 1995, when Spain was flouting international fishing conventions, Canada had to board a Spanish trawler and arrest the crew.
Our defensive action was carried out by Coast Guard (a non-military branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans) and the RCMP.
Not Realigned, Webgear, et al.
Of course Canada needs the capability to defend itself. That capability does not include the Canadian Forces as currently structured.
Their oaths compel them to dutifully obey corporate minions and white hegemony. As for integration, the only thing left to change is the national flags that are worn on the uniforms.
DFO is the lead department for fishery patrol action, it is the mandate of that organization. Canadian Naval activity in support of DFO operations is only provided when requested by DFO, and it is always subordinate to the on-scene Coast Guard commander.
That's right, Slumberjack - and my point to Tommy was that defending Canada's interests and sovereignty may or may not require a traditional military force, but he picked a poor example.
I wonder if Tommy can think up a real historical example of where the Canadian Forces defended Canada... And I'm not referring to the October Crisis.
Anyone?
First I ever heard of that. Tell me more.
Perhaps this is what you were thinking of:
Don't need a military force to do that, any more than we needed military help in boarding the Spanish trawler and arresting its crew. These are patrol and police operations.
I say disband now however it needs to be done February, and I want my full pension, relocation and new occupational training.
Was it offensive or defensives actions taken by the coast guard?
The military was involved in the fishing dispute.
Unionist
I think you have your military actions, mission verbs and terminology mixed up.
The Battle of the Windmill of 1838, the Fenian raids of the late 1860s?
What difference does it make? Spain was violating Canadian rights and international fishing conventions. We actually boarded 'em in international waters, if memory serves. They wouldn't listen to diplomacy, so we treated them to a little good ol' fashioned Canuck law enforcement. It worked.
Not directly, surely. Maybe some navy vessel was hanging around in case things got ugly. But the military was "involved", if at all, only because it exists.
We don't need a military to police and patrol, nor for civil emergencies, nor for peacekeeping. The other functions served by our military in the past 60 years have been aggressive. I'm not 100% convinced we don't need a military. I just haven't heard a single scenario yet, historical or plausibly hypothetical, where that need is demonstrated.
Boarding a vessel is a very offensive action, and you are applying the statement to defensive application in your scenario.
You are very incorrect about the military support in the Spanish/Canadian fishing dispute.
You may be right - but instead of just repeating it, how about some proof??
Reports of the time are silent on "military support".
Maclean's, March 20, 1995:
What military? Coast Guard are civilian.
Or maybe this speculation is what you had in mind:
The JTF2 were foiled by the weather, but the civilians saved the day?
LOL!
At first this upset me but ultimately I think I feel sorry for you Jingles. I'm sorry you have such a hate filled view of things military.I can't say much to you beyond that, cheers.
Webgear, wanna buy some desert equipment for Africa? I'll give you a good deal =p
Pretty funny that the JTF guys got tumped by the coast guard.
What's a heave-hos and hear hears?
Okay okay you got me. This is a part of operation rebel round up (The general is a starwars fan, go figure). He tasked us with canvasing message boards like this to try and gain popular support for the war. Talk about epic-fail.
I'm gonna go ahead and take your name of the list of possible recruits.
Also canceled, next weeks bake sale.
Quote the whole thing, then select and delete the parts you don't want. If you want to insert a comment, put in a [ /quote ] (without the spaces), write your comment, then go back to quoting the text with a [ quote ], etc.
The military was heavily involved in all aspects of this operation. All environments provided assets to assist the lead department. Spain deployed three minor warships in support of their fishing fleet. As it turned out, the warships became a liability for DND and not so much of a threat, due to the excessive ice-buildup on their decks which made them top heavy and prone to capsizing in the heavy seas. They were monitored for the safety of their crews more than any other consideration. Reports of DND involvement in the affair were purposefully kept to a minimum, in order to give the appearance that it was more of a legal disagreement between two NATO allies than a military engagement.
The OK Corral
"Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons? "
I think because it's Canada's most iconic corporate "brand", so it's up for grabs as an icon of both supporters and detractors. BTW, "Starbucks" is the American version of "Starbucks".
I think all these pizza joints and coffee places are there because the corporations think it's good for the brand, because the public-- no matter what it thinks about the mission-- care that CF personel don't feel anymore alone than what they have to be. Not saying it works or doesn't work, I have no idea, obviously, just my observation.
I do remember a kid isolated in a slit trench outside the town of Ortona, some years ago, as a result of a German counter offensive. About this time of year, it was too. He and his buddy had nothing but a can of beans and tears to get them through what they thought was their last night. I'm not sure how many people realize just how isolated and abandoned by their country some CF personel felt, in conflicts previous.
I think about that kid alot, these days.
Webgear beat me to he Feinian raids, Unionist. But more importantly, in order for Canada to negotiate internationally, there has to be a stick.
I don't often venture into international affairs threads, even though I follow international affairs. The world's a pretty fucked up place, with a lot of nasty fucked up people. And, yes, we and our colonial/ Imperial allies have done much to create this very mess.
And, if I had my way, believe me it would be different. And maybe there'd be no need for anyone to have a military as such.
(part of my campaign speech for President Dictator of Earth for Life)
I don't think anyone takes the time, prefering to get pissed off instead, that there's a nasty reality to deal with before we move to my utopia.
The reality of current situations makes it hard not to say horrible, horrible things. For example, when things get so fucked up as they are in Darfur, or the Congo, it's pretty much too late for any practicle intervention. In fact, the chances are pretty good that one can end up causing more deaths than one prevents. It's a crap shoot, at best.
We need a strong military so we can tell our allies, like France and Belgium, for example, to hit the road when they imagine they can interfere with Tutsi's and Hutu's because Miterand's son owns a plantation there.
And, if the U.S. insists on dragging us along with them to places like Afghanistan, we have to be able to tell them not to keep causing Afghanistans.
Unfortunately, one doesn't get that kind of infuence through reason. One has to have a military good enough make the other guy pay a high price for messing with you. And a military other nations see value in having as part of an alliance.
This way, we can accomplish what is large, while it is still small.
I probably wouldn't have a huge problem with the police size as it is now if they were a product of something other than a grade 12 education and 6 months in training how to become assholes to the people you are supposed to protect."
It's hard, but not impossible, to argue why we need to maintain a large police force when crime stats are so consistently dropping. I would think the only arguement Police Chiefs have is that the crime stats are dropping because we have such a large police force, and to lay off cops would create crime.
I think there might be a mote of truth to that, but having the baby boomer males move out of the 18-35 year old demographic seems to have played a larger part in crime reduction. Boomers have grown up, calmed down, and are working for the clampdown. As Joe Strummer might say.
So, you're assesment, Stargazer, is not conflicting with mine, certainly.
Tommy that was a great post thank you. While we may not like it you're right. In orer for Canada to sit at the grown up table we need to bring something TO the table. If you don't mind I would like to save it and reference it in the future.
Stargazer, Ive had my fair share of run-ins with asshole cops. From 22 year old guys walking around like they are gun fighters from the wild west with invisible jerry cans under their arms to jerkoffs stopping my wife for trumped up infractions "I could give you a ticket but I Wont today since I'm a nice guy... Wanna go out sometime?"
Still, get rid of half of the police force? Would you be willing to accept the increased amount of crime that causes?
Would it perhaps be more safer to have police services held more accountable for their actions? Complaints are investigated more agressively and punishments handed out for abuse of power/authority increased. Or are you saying that you fel police as a whole is just used as a weapon by the government and cutting the police strength in half means the gov't has a reduced amount of ability to impose their will or something?? I can be a double edged sword too though
One example I can think of is if you have a peaceful protest about aborgional rights and there is no police officers there to keep the peace and keep touble makers away. Further more a group of people show up with the intention of disrupting your peaceful protest and causing both mischief and harm.You call the police department and they say sorry our numbers were just cut in half, all of our on duty officers are busy, you're on your own.
Just popping in to add my support to Stargazer's position re the cops.
Realigned, what you're looking at is the "need" for the cops from the position of someone who is supported and believed by the cops, ie a middle class (white) position (whether or not you are either or both of those things). In other words, your position is that the "bad" cops are simply "bad" cops, there's nothing inherently wrong with the police system itself.
Starazer's, and my, position is that the system of policing the citizenry on behalf of the state and the rich is unlawful, unjust, and biased heavily against anyone not from the middle class and not white. Men of colour and First nations men are treated extremely badly (for these men, class matters, as the further lower on the class scale the worse the treatment by the police, but police regularly harass middle- and upper middle-class MOC and FN men all the time). Don't get me started about how women of colour and First Nations women are treated by the cops.
In a so-called democracy, any system that infringes on the rights of the majority of its citizens is a corrupt system that needs to not receive millions and tens of millions of dollars in increases every year (in the Toronto context anyways).
The crime rate has been decreasing for decades (there are SO many studies to show this. GIYF), at the same time that police budgets increase annually and women's shelters go begging for money. Something's wrong with this picture, very wrong.
......
Maysie: the babbler formerly known as bigcitygal
Maysie, I admire your valour and patience, but you're talking to someone who believes that there's an inverse relationship between crime rates and numbers of police; that police protect aboriginal rights demonstrators; and that Canada needs a strong military so it can "bring something to the grown-up table".
Is this babble, or elbbab?
I don't believe for a second the line that less police = more crime. I have never seen evidence of this.
My stand is thus:
1) Enforce a complaint procedure that is run by citizens. Police should not be policing themselves. It doesn't work and it isn't democratic
2) Any person wishing to become an officer of the law should have actually studied the law. They should also have to take sociology, anti-racism and criminology classes. This way they may actually have a clue as to why things occur and why they target the people they do. More importantly, they will stop targeting people of colour and the homeless disproportionately.
3) Community Policing isn't working. The police won't admit to racism yet it is clear that the vast majority of them are racist.
4) Make it mandatory that the government implement the recommendations of the many many studies done on police and police abuse of force.
Police rarely, if ever, protect the rights of the minority. I have no fear of anyone showing up and disrupting a peaceful protest. The police are who I fear at protests.
If you study the history of policing you will see that the police were, from the beginning, used to defend the property rights of the elite, while the peasants were brutalized by the police.There is no equality in policing.
A visit to the Centre of Criminology library is recommended if you'd like to read about the history of policing and it's roots in defending the elite against the poor.
I posted at the same time as maysie and Unionist.
Realigned - exactly what maysie said.
And it's not just our police, but our courts too.
"Further more a group of people show up with the intention of disrupting your peaceful protest and causing both mischief and harm."
Um, Realigned, more often than not, those groups who show up with the intention of disrupting a peaceful protest are the police.
Lots of money for agent provocatuers, but none to go after Perdue industries for flooding our communities with oxycontin.
Umm, Tommy, I think Realigned understands whose side the uniformed armed guys are on when people are fighting for their sovereign rights.
Given that he's one of them.
Maysie you nailed it. Middle class white guy quickly approaching the big three zero with some undetectable first nations roots which I'm not only proud of but it gives me a wicked tan in the summer =)
Before I always thought "anti-police" talk like this was bullshit to be honest. People who just didnt like the police or getting tickets or being told they can't do drugs. I'm looking at it differently now trying to put myself in the shoes of the peoples you mentioned.
A statement like stargazer most cops are racist is pretty big. To me that means there is something about policing that either attracts racists fromt he onset OR something in their training turns men and women racist. To the latter point I would wonder how coloured police recruits react. Do they 'turn on their own and join the system' or do they quit police trainig or what? I have some friends who are cops (not all white either) and they never mentionedanything when we compad training.
Tommy I supose that's true that police can show up at a protest with the intentions of harassing them. Sometimes though tey get put in shitty spots. Imagine being a police officer and having to defend the saftey and security of a pedophile being released (against people protesting it) or protecting the 'God hates fags' protestors from people.
I dunno. Glad I'm not a police officer. Oops late for work more later
I see. Protesters are as bad as pedophiles and Phelps.
Police don't just show up at a protest with the intentions of harassment. They show up with the intent to violently disperse protesters. They show up to prevent people from exercising their rights, and to protect the wealthy and powerful from the inconvenience of the great unwashed. The police use excessive force, agent provocateurs, spys, and surveillance on the orders of their political masters (and their corporate sponsors) to disrupt and destroy people who make the mistake of thinking we are a democratic nation.
But really, you know that already. Your coy innocence isn't convincing. You've made your choice on whose side your on. Next, you'll try to convince us the the Ohio National Guard was firing in self-defense.