Soldiers And Their Critics et al.
Comments
Yikes. I wondr what disbanning the military and all the thousands of civilians working for them will do to the economy when 200000 people plus become unemployed. Maybe my idea of getting the homeless to work for the Olympics isn't that hair brained after all.
Good point about people stealing our fish. Okay before you say their not ours I mean other countries pushing into our territorial waters and fishing there.
Isn't there some actual national law that states if a country regardless of size doesn't have a military they can be legeally annexed by another country or something? I thought I heard that in a lecture once.
Hey Webgear what's going on in Africa after February?
Stargazer, get rid of half the police? Do you also think we should make cuts to frefighters, paramedics and such? Or just police?
Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons?.....Khandahar base is the size of a small city.....There are buisnesses here like Green Bean ( the US's version of starbucks i think) pizza hut, subway, there is a dutch restraunt, an italian and thai one opening. A store kinda like walmart where you can get clothes or cards or sap or food. How come you never hear people harping on Pizza hut or subway? Why is it that mentioning Tim Hortons is suposed to be some kind of sleight?? I just don't make the connection.
Here's a set of dots to connect with your pizza hut story... Food Crisis Competes for Afghan "Hearts and Minds"
Maybe my idea of getting the homeless to work for the Olympics isn't that hair brained after all.
lol, okay I will concede on that one - those homeless would probably do well with those jobs!
Isn't there some actual national law that states if a country regardless of size doesn't have a military they can be legeally annexed by another country or something? I thought I heard that in a lecture once.
Nope there are actually 21 countries that are demilitirized. Some have agreements but some have no military.
That sounds like an excuse the Chinese used to invade Tibet. The Dali Lama has a policy of pacifism but he may not be having to exercise that if Tibet would have had an agreement for defense to provide a deterrent.
Soldiers and their critics and their supporters would be more inclusive than er al, Slumberjack.
Just an idea.
“The others" cover supporters and the indifferent alike.
On the topic of name changes, I've been considering changing mine for awhile now, because I get a sense from time to time that some may feel it is intended as a slight against the current NDP leader, when in fact it goes way back before I knew Jack Layton existed. But if I go with my real name, then there's undoubtedly the risk that I'll be seen as a con supporter, so I'm stuck with what I have until I can think of something creative, which is somewhat of a laborious task in itself.
Sorry Slumberjack I don't see you post this (thanks for starting a new thread)
Could a mod kindly delete my old post?
Sorry SJ I didn't mean to imply you were a guy (if you're a girl). When I say guys I'm used to addressing it to a group, not specifically just males. I'll try and be more PC about it here.
With regard to your reply, I agree. It seems that protests while popular, don't seem to accomplish anything. Thats why I asked what all of you whom I metioned are doing to get Canada out of Afghanistan. Have you actually wrote your local MP?
Can you do me a favor and please explain how the poll you posted works?
It says Canadians dissaprove of military action (between strongly and somewhat) for a total of 56%. But then it goes onto say this
Is that the previous approval rating from 2002? So now the Approval of military action is 44% compared to 82% of the past? If that's accurate (and I explained that right) it's a huge drop.
Tommy, great post. I'm in agreement with a lot of what you're saying/feeling. Especially the part about supporting an alliance.
One thing you mentioned,
I don't think you realiz just how true that is. From a military point of view, I personally think the mission to Afghanistan saved the Canadian Military. Cutbacks, problems with equipment, prolems with personal and leaders, problems with old tactics. Many many problems were addressed.
Some examples. Physical fitness. Canada was probably the "fattest" army in NATO. I kid you not. We had MAJOR issue with overweight soldiers. Not nessairily combat arms but soldiers in general. "Who cares" seemed to be one of the responses. With Afghanistan being a combat zone that didn't have front lines, everyone had to sort themselves out. General Hilliar also inacted a rule along the lines that if you can't pass a physical fitness test y can't get promoted. There were also other penalties, I think including eventually being released from the forces. Tax payers pay money to ensure their army is physically fit and prepared.
Equipment problems such as the lack of Tanks and transport helicopters which have been or are being addressed.
Training. We're not fighting the Russians anymore. Lots of old dinosaurs refused to get out o the cold war mindset, that qas quickly changed once they hit the ground in Afghanistan.
As far as your Dr Stranglove personal goes, I think you hit the nail on the head.
Thanks for your post Tommy. Like George's and others its given me some key things to consider and think about while I'm here.
Protests often take awhile to obtain the desired effect. Depending on the cause, the more people that take to the streets, the more of an impact it will have on the opinions of others that may not normally go out for such a thing. The spectacle of motivated citizens regularly gathering together to protest the actions of government has a cumulative effect on overall public opinion, and the more people that do protest, the cause takes on more legitimacy in the minds of the general public, simply because the reason must have merit if so many people are willing to personally involve themselves to confront the authorities.
I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers. Acquiring greater access to public coffers for purchasing the latest war fighting equipment is an immoral reason to justify human suffering. I once worked with an 8CH officer, back when it was a Reg force regiment, who stated that his greatest career goal was to lead soldiers into combat. It didn’t dawn on him that some of his soldiers would have to die in order for him to realize his aspirations. He eventually achieved his goal. The Canadian officer corps sees this conflict as a tremendous career opportunity, and without a doubt, many of them will advance far within their respective fields for having been involved in circumstances which have caused the deaths of their soldiers and innocent civilians.
I think a lot of people overlook some issues of morality in addressing our presence in Afghanistan. Initially, before the invasion, I was against the whole ordeal, I didn't think we had the right invade their country, but we did. And the longer we stayed the more entrenched our presence became. We've been there for almost eight, nine years now? We're pretty deep in the situation. How I see it, if we pull out of Afghanistan, there is going to be serious state collapse.
Now I'm not the most pragmatic individual, I prefer to keep an positivist perspective on things, but I think our endevour in the Afghani country can be successful and that we should remain there until we are. I also think it is our responsibility to stay there and not leave this country in a disastrous state. I am aware that in order to succeed we need to change our approach...militaristically and infrastructually, and that we also need solid support from the rest of the involved NATO countries. If we can harness these then there is definitely a light at the end of the tunnel. (Of course if we don't change/recieve more support from "supporting" nations, well at this point I really don't know what to tell you.)
I also understand the brutality that this mission has on our soldiers, I know the percentages of those who come back with serious traumatic disorders and physical injuries. But it comes back to what I was arguing earlier, we as a nation sent our military out there, and each and everyone of us has to take some responsibility for those actions.
Anyway...at the end of the day it would be nice to see that these eight years of war there that something came out of it.
"I don’t support the concept that saving the Canadian military is worth the lives of innocent foreigners or soldiers."
And niether do I. I'm just saying it is a practicle consideration.
It's a rock that has to be lifted and looked under.
It's easy to approach this subject, or military ones from a perfect world point of view. But if we on the left are to seriously contemplate taking office, we have to realize that electing an NDP government in Canada isn't going to change Canada overnight, let alone the rest of the world.
Until we achieve the perfect world where Webgear and Realigned and others have to look for a job on civy street, we have to play in the existing one.
Our security not only depends on a functional military, it also depends on alliances. Which means doing shit, sometimes, that you really wouldn't do in a perfect world.
I'm sure the people of Afghanistan are more than happy to help out in alleviating the Canadian Forces' existentialist angst. Huzzah.
But if Tommy's postulation were true, and you seem to believe it is, than logically it would follow that to have the best combat trained military, that military must take on militaries that are as strong or stronger. Otherwise, it's just mass murder for magnet ribbons. Pro athletes need to train and compete against athletes of comparable skill. You don't train for the Olympics by attending the local elementary school track meet.
So, if you really believe that Canada needs a combat experienced military, then they should be taking on the US military for practice.
What the Afghan mission has done is atrophe any combat skill by relying on American air support, body armour, tanks, artillery, and night vision or thermal imaging equipment, Tim Hortons and Don fucking Cherry. If you want combat, get out of your Grizzlys, stip off your gear, grab an AK and fight the resistance like they fight you. I'm guessing all the big talk about the righteousness of the "mission" would evaporate faster than urine-soaked CADPATs.
Personally, the Canadian Army didn't need to be "saved", it needed to be disbanded.
You've convinced me, Jingles.
Now, just go out and convince 6869163150 or so other people, and we're all happy.
So do you believe that Canada shouldn't have any military?
That we should disband Canada's military. I agree.
We just have to convince everyone else in the world to disband their militarys, and it's a done deal for me.
Great argument, Tommy. And we'd better get ourselves some nuclear weapons, too, unless we can convince those peaceloving nations (U.S., Russia, China, Pakistan, India, ...) to trash theirs. Right?
I don't think he was going there unionist.
I'm all in favour of abolishing the military, and for getting rid of at least 1/2 of the police force which is currently sucking up large chunks of public money.
Okay, we disband our military,and Spain decides to push it's "historical right" to say, take all our remaining few fish from the Grand Banks.
Whatcha gonna do? Ask them not to? That approach might work for Canadians, but I don't think it will work for the Spanish. Or a number of other countries who might decide they have an "historical right" to, well, everything else.
I'm not in favour of disbanding the military. Every country has a right to legitimate self-defence against aggression, and history has shown us that unfortunately, there are some types of hostility that make war inescapably necessary. We can point to examples in which nations that were technologically unprepared to confront violent ideologies became overrun, and the ensuring occupation bought great suffering upon the occupied populations. Military capabilities and expertise do not grow on trees in times of dire circumstances, therefore they must be properly maintained and equipped at an adequate level, for defence only, when no other diplomatic option is available.
As a result of our system of political and military alliances, we became engaged in two optional offensive wars during the past twenty years. NATO and NORAD are of no use to us anymore, and it’s debatable if they ever were. We should become a non-aligned nation and remove ourselves from having to succumb to the peer pressure that exists within formal alliances to ante up to the war trough.
In 50+ years of more than a passing interest in geomilitary affairs, I've yet to discern any realistic or recognizable threat to this Country that couldn't have been dealt with expeditiously by the Saskatoon Fire Dep't., with two possible exceptions:
1. The Borg, who are presently engaged in MRC 1138-262, the Spiderweb Galaxy, which is 10.6 billion light years away. Even if they move at Warp 9, we have over one billion years to prepare a meaningful response, and
2. Mud-Men from Borneo, who will generally leave you alone provided you don't go there and do something that pisses them off, like murdering them and their families in their homes. Calling this type of thing "reconstruction" does not impress them in any way; they don't deal much with bullshit, they will simply kill you in response.
If you moved the scale back a little, say to 60+ years, then you might recognize an example that is worth bearing in mind when deciding if the retention of some residual defensive capability is useful. That is the problem though, one never knows when or where the next lunatic will surface.
With this disbanding of the military I have a few questions?
1. Will soldiers be given severance packages?
2. Will there be relocation packages?
3. Will there be new occupation training?
4. Can this happen before the end of February? Because I know of a really interesting job that is becoming available in Africa.
Keep the navy.
They're never hard on native populations anymore, now that their gunboats can't navigate the rivers. No chance of gunboat diplomacy.
60+ years presumably means Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan, neither of whom had the slightest capability of invading/occupying Canada. Hitler did not have the means to cross the English Channel, Japan was only able to lob a few rounds from a submarine deck gun into a backwoods area of BC.
I concur with some residual defensive capability being useful, but not one that requires the expenditure of $40,000,000.00 daily to deal with one or two rust-bucket Spanish fishing trawlers or their ilk. In this particular instance I would have sent out the Halifax Fire Dep't in a couple of Zodiacs, armed with billy clubs.
Well, I believe there are provisions within the existing fringe benefits to cover the top 3. As for the 4th, my own adventure earlier this year convinced me that location is everything. Choose wisely.
Just kidding about the navy (I thought).
And much as I admire the work of the municipal fire departments of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, I'd like to keep the bad guys farther offshore, thanks, (Only billy clubs for the boarding parties? Not even cutlasses?
Cutlasses? Good Heavens no, man. Someone could be seriously injured. Farther offshore? Nuke 'em 'til they glow.
Neither do I, not in the least. I don't think anyone here thinks thats a good idea. What I (Tommy as well it appears) am saying is that a produce of the war has been that the Canadian military identified glaring shortcomings and moved towards fixing them with a view to creating a moreprofessional proficient and functional army.
Much of the lessons learned can carry over into, say, disaster relief such as different nations using different types of radios and how we can get ours to talk to theirs. One time we called in a 9liner medivac and we couldnt even talk to the helicopter 500 feet above our head, not cool. Things like that.
You find the same concept anywhere in the work place really. Some saftey things start out small, its never big to start with but they get over looked. They get worse andworse but no one addresses them. Finally someone gets seriously injured or dies and eveyone sys whoa it was only a matter of time before those poorly wired wall units electrcuted someone!
No one is going to say it's a good thing that a coworker died because now the work place is safer, it's a sad byproduct of it.
See above.
Interesting way of putting it. I think there is some merit in it. In order for the combat experience gained to be of a significant level the both combatents must be of the same level.
I thought we agreed that going out looking for a fight JUST to get combat experience was wrong.
If you want combat, get out of your Grizzlys, stip off your gear, grab an AK and fight the resistance like they fight you. I'm guessing all the big talk about the righteousness of the "mission" would evaporate faster than urine-soaked CADPATs.
This isn't dungerons and dragons where you get experience points for having your knight go into an enemy camp and challange the orc chief to a duel of honour. Is that what some of you think? There should be honour fights with people wacking t each other with swords? This along the usual mantra that snipers or pilots or artillery are "cowards". People critisize soldiers here and there about the whole 'you think you're a hero' thing, fair enough. But then they goon to talk about cowardice and suggest how they SHOULD fight??
Were you being sarcastic? If so sorry, it went over my head. Using body amor, soldiers being proficient with night vision and calling in air support is a good thing. It's part of being a modern army not to mention working with other allied countries. It saves allied lives too.When you hear the murder rate is at it's lowest since the 60's or whatever it;s not becase of less murders, attempted mrders are up. It's modern medical technology that's keep the murder statistic so low.
Man the grizzlies were so 10 years ago I think you're dating yourself
LOL yes I was thinking the exact same thing.
Tommy can I ask you a question?
Why when someone is critisizing Canadians in Afghanistan do they always always bring up Tim Hortons? Personally if you can believe it I have never drank a coffee in my life. Hate the smell of it. I don't do their Tea or even donuts. Khandahar base is the size of a small city. There is probably 20 thousand to 30 thousand soldiers stationed there, many who don't leave the wire. Talk about captive audience. There are buisnesses here like Green Bean ( the US's version of starbucks i think) pizza hut, subway, there is a dutch restraunt, an italian and thai one opening. A store kinda like walmart where you can get clothes or cards or sap or food.
How come you never hear people harping on Pizza hut or subway? Why is it that mentioning Tim Hortons is suposed to be some kind of sleight?? I just don't make the connection.