wyly Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 You are assuming that you need something other than a high degree of organizational skill to run a ministry. Corporations often hire executives who have no experiance in what the corporation does...for instance Media often hires senior people who do not have media experiance....but the do have corporate adminsitration experiance. Like I said, we had a General as Minister of Defense and he was a flop. Peter Mckay has done far better. it takes more than organizational skills, insight is required there are lives at stake...if I was serving in the military I want the guy who is about to send me into a situation that could get me killed to know what he is doing...going into a war with no exit plan, ill equiped for that mission, no goal, no idea how to achieve a goal if there is one is not something that inspires confidence...you only have to look at Viet Nam to see how it can all go wrong very quickly...from day one the Afghan mission had Viet Nam II written all over it any student of military history would recognize it... those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it, politicians suck at history whereas military people in general are very good at history they learn from past mistakes, not doing so will cost them their lives... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 ...if I was serving in the military I want the guy who is about to send me into a situation that could get me killed to know what he is doing... There's a name for that guy. He's called the regimental sergent major. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 ...you only have to look at Viet Nam to see how it can all go wrong very quickly... Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 Vietnam wasn't lost on the battlefield. it was, there was no possible way of winning a final victory regardless how many battles are won every US victory was a Pyrrhic one...the Vietnamse knew that, the USA like the French before them would not accept the constant loss of life and would tire and leave...even Robert MacNammra the main architect behind the war admitted that years later he did not understand that at the time...you cannot defeat an idea, taking sides in a civil war is beyond dumb...has N Korea been defeated? no, only N Korea can defeat itself...can the Taliban be defeated? no, this war as it is now will continue for decades the Taliban know Nato like the Russians before will tire and leave... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 it was, there was no possible way of winning a final victory regardless how many battles are won every US victory was a Pyrrhic one... I get the feeling you don't know the definition of Pyrrhic victory. The didn't just win every battle, they won them decisively. The battle was lost on the home front when the will to fight was lost. The battle was lost when the politicians decided that invading the north and effecting regime change there was not in the cards. At the current rate of attrition, it will take 350 years of NATO losses to equal the American sacrifice in Vietnam Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 I get the feeling you don't know the definition of Pyrrhic victory. The didn't just win every battle, they won them decisively. The battle was lost on the home front when the will to fight was lost. The battle was lost when the politicians decided that invading the north and effecting regime change there was not in the cards.lol your not understanding Pyrrhic victory is yours alone...size of victory is irrelavant, it's the cost, is the victorious side willing to endure the losses without eventually victory in sight...you can every battle but still lose the war as the USA did...At the current rate of attrition, it will take 350 years of NATO losses to equal the American sacrifice in Vietnamand the losses of viet nam pale in comparison to ww2 and those pale in comparison to what was normal in ww1... a death toll in ww1 that in seconds equaled our death toll in years now, was considered acceptable in ww1...what's acceptable changes with time, Canada will leave as will the Netherlands and then others will follow, Afghanistan is lost...only the Afghans can end this war of ideas... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
ToadBrother Posted September 30, 2009 Report Posted September 30, 2009 and that is one of the weaknesses of our electoral system...we can't elect experts for the job, we elect random people with random qualifications and the PM doles out jobs to those most capable even though they have no qualification for that particular job...the minister of defense should have expertise in military matters someone such as Gwyn Dyer, ex military, historian, political science....minister of health should be someone with a healthcare background...Finance, a least a degree in economics...Justice, a lawyer of course...what corporate sector would hire someone with no qualification to run a corporation? The problem is that those who generally do have such experience and qualifications seem to have little or no interest in running for office. I'd love to see more engineers, scientists, economists, accountants, technical experts and so forth running, but these are guys that tend to be used to be treating with respect and dignity, and not publicly called every name in the book by their peers and those they work for. They would also probably want pay commiserate with their knowledge and the amount of work they do, but everytime MPs get a raise, there's a big national seizure, and they get called even more names. Perhaps if we had offers like "We'll pay you what your career usually makes plus 25% plus living expenses, plus make sure that your professional accreditations are kept up to date so that when you decide to exit Parliament after 8 or 10 years, that you're not a guy who a decade ago was an engineer/researcher/doctor/whatever." If you want to attract professionals, that's the way to do it. Quote
wyly Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 The problem is that those who generally do have such experience and qualifications seem to have little or no interest in running for office. I'd love to see more engineers, scientists, economists, accountants, technical experts and so forth running, but these are guys that tend to be used to be treating with respect and dignity, and not publicly called every name in the book by their peers and those they work for. They would also probably want pay commiserate with their knowledge and the amount of work they do, but everytime MPs get a raise, there's a big national seizure, and they get called even more names.Perhaps if we had offers like "We'll pay you what your career usually makes plus 25% plus living expenses, plus make sure that your professional accreditations are kept up to date so that when you decide to exit Parliament after 8 or 10 years, that you're not a guy who a decade ago was an engineer/researcher/doctor/whatever." If you want to attract professionals, that's the way to do it. yup I agree, those who seek office are generally a different kind of person than what we want...if had a system where could elect a team instead of only individuals or if the parties named their canidates for the positions before the election and could decide if they were qualified based on their credentials and not the PM choice based on political favours... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wild Bill Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 ...the minister of defense should have expertise in military matters someone such as Gwyn Dyer, ex military, historian, political science....minister of health should be someone with a healthcare background...Finance, a least a degree in economics...Justice, a lawyer of course... Gwen Dyer? A bit too knee-jerk anti-American for my tastes. Sometimes after reading one of his columns I get the sense that he would support a Charles Manson if the issue could somehow be turned against some aspect of American foreign policy. Still, in principle you have a good idea. How about Peter Worthingon? He has a much more distinguished military record than Dyer! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
M.Dancer Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 Gwen Dyer? A bit too knee-jerk anti-American for my tastes. Sometimes after reading one of his columns I get the sense that he would support a Charles Manson if the issue could somehow be turned against some aspect of American foreign policy.Still, in principle you have a good idea. How about Peter Worthingon? He has a much more distinguished military record than Dyer! Dyer suggested that the US would fold in Iraq after 1000 dead.... He is a historian, and a good one. I don't see him as a policy maker. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 Gwen Dyer? A bit too knee-jerk anti-American for my tastes. Sometimes after reading one of his columns I get the sense that he would support a Charles Manson if the issue could somehow be turned against some aspect of American foreign policy.Still, in principle you have a good idea. How about Peter Worthingon? He has a much more distinguished military record than Dyer! Dyer was only an example the first name that came to mind...each party could find it's own canidate and present his/her credentials for the job and voters would decide... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 Dyer suggested that the US would fold in Iraq after 1000 dead....He is a historian, and a good one. I don't see him as a policy maker. a number of american generals were sacked for being wrong as well...as was Bush... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted October 1, 2009 Report Posted October 1, 2009 a number of american generals were sacked for being wrong as well...as was Bush... My history isn't as strong as yours...when was bush sacked? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
wyly Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) My history isn't as strong as yours...when was bush sacked? hmmm..you're right ...2nd term...he would've been sacked if could run a 3rd time... I was momentarily confused, I assumed every country had democratic system as good as ours... the REPUBLICANS WERE SACKED!!!! Edited October 2, 2009 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 hmmm..you're right ...2nd term...he would've been sacked if could run a 3rd time... I was momentarily confused, I assumed every country had democratic system as good as ours... the REPUBLICANS WERE SACKED!!!! ....just like the Liberals in Canada....and that's with no "term limits" at all. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) I think Harper has tried to score as many political points with this fight as he could by accusing the Opposition of supporting the Taliban. In effect, you are supporting the Taliban. Hell, they're probably funnelling money to you and saying "Way to go! Keep up the good work!" All Harper has been doing is supporting the mission you guys sent our troops on - and then turned against the moment you considered it politically expedient to do so. The problem is that the population of Canada has their doubts about this and he has had to climb down from that inflammatory stance. Yes, and your party has done its level best to raise those doubts - for political gain. Absolute gutter politics on your part. I can't say I'm surprised. Don't blame me if the actual, factual description of your party and its motivations is slimy. Your party IS slimy, after all. Edited October 2, 2009 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Like I said, we had a General as Minister of Defense and he was a flop. Peter Mckay has done far better. I think you're being unfair to O'Connor. First, his major failing was that, regardless of organizational experience, he was not seen as a good enough communicator in the rough and tumble world of the House, and media scrums. Second, he had been Hillier's subordinate. Then he was supposed to be his superior, and that relationship just never worked. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 In effect, you are supporting the Taliban. Hell, they're probably funnelling money to you and saying "Way to go! Keep up the good work!" Utter sleaze on your part but what should we expect it after all this time. All Harper has been doing is supporting the mission you guys sent our troops on - and then turned against the moment you considered it politically expedient to do so. What Harper did was use the mission as a hyperpartisan attack mechanism. Problem is that Canadians according to regular polling were not going to stand for an open ended mission that the Tories wishes to label top secret at every turn. Yes, and your party has done its level best to raise those doubts - for political gain. And your party tried to link everyone else to terrorism. Don't blame me if the actual, factual description of your party and its motivations is slimy. Don't blame me for thinking that bile is your singular motivation. Your party IS slimy, after all. You seem to fit that description all by yourself. Quote
Argus Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Utter sleaze on your part but what should we expect it after all this time. Don't blame me cause your party has no moral or ethical values. What Harper did was use the mission as a hyperpartisan attack mechanism. Really? How could he possibly do that? I mean, you guys started the mission, and he supported it. So just what is there for him to use to attack you guys on? Except that you decided that as an opposition party it would help you gain political favour to make the Tories seem like mlitarists and pro war, and your own party to seem like noble peacemakers. You figured that would play with left wing and centre left voters, and so you did your level best to exploit it. There's no point in even trying to deny this. You guys have fewer ethical standards than your average pimp. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Posted October 2, 2009 that's what I find to be true...some are well informed but generally Canadians don't have clue, they believe what the media tells them and the media tells them what they think Canadians want to hear...many of our political leaders are historically, militarily ignorant they themselves are not qualified to make informed decisions...shouldn't a defense minister actually have military expertise, what knowledge does a lawyer have in military matters? So that leaves me with this question, where do you find yourself in this conflict ? do you consider yourself well informed ?.....Personally i think most Canadians really do think they are informed , and they've made up thier minds that this is a shit mission.....and they don't want to hear anything else, i guess they are not as open minded as they think they are. A minister, or for that matter any CEO sucess or failure is dependent on the people below them....One person can not be expected to know everything about a Dept, or company....i agree they should have a good background knowledge but more importantly suround themselfs with people who's expert in one field within the dept...until you've covered the entire dept or companies forta so to speak....That minister must be able to lead and know how to dig out or use those experts to solve any problem that they may face....Does that make sense.... I know that is what we do in the military, thier is to many things to become a expert in, so what we do is build our sections/ Platoons with experts in certain fileds, IE drivers, gunners, Machine gunners, snipers, Anti Tank teams etc etc as a whole we are unbeatable ....individually we are sub par.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Posted October 2, 2009 Don't forget the many Canadians who can see the total picture in which Afghanistan is just another interlocking piece. There's no way anyone can say their opinions or comments about the mission are informed without that ability. I disagree , first you said MANY Canadians , if they don't have a clear picture or stay well informed on the Afghan mission i doubt they are taken the time to do that with the larger picture.... I will agree with you that some Canadians are well informed and do have the larger picture, and can put the Afghan mission into context.... I also disagree that some one with a clear picture and understanding of Afghan can not comment on the mission....while thier may be topics that may be over thier heads for the most part i think they have plenty to offer on the topic of Afghan... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
jdobbin Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Don't blame me cause your party has no moral or ethical values. I do blame you for sinking to depths that you accuse others of. Really? How could he possibly do that? I mean, you guys started the mission, and he supported it. So just what is there for him to use to attack you guys on? He did that by blocking any Parliamentarian from seeing things first hand by saying it was too dangerous and then he and other members of the cabinet showed up to hammer the Opposition from not seeing the progress in the country. Or have you forgotten that? Ultimately, Harper realized that people were not going to support the mission if the government did not communicate for months on the subject and when they did, use it to attack critics. It is why he had to ask a panel to look into the mission? Remember? Except that you decided that as an opposition party it would help you gain political favour to make the Tories seem like mlitarists and pro war, and your own party to seem like noble peacemakers. You figured that would play with left wing and centre left voters, and so you did your level best to exploit it. There's no point in even trying to deny this. There's no point in denying that Harper wanted to keep the whole mission under wraps except to use it as a weapon against others. You guys have fewer ethical standards than your average pimp. And you seem to have the standard's of a pimp's charge. Quote
Army Guy Posted October 2, 2009 Author Report Posted October 2, 2009 it was, there was no possible way of winning a final victory regardless how many battles are won every US victory was a Pyrrhic one...the Vietnamse knew that, the USA like the French before them would not accept the constant loss of life and would tire and leave...even Robert MacNammra the main architect behind the war admitted that years later he did not understand that at the time...you cannot defeat an idea, taking sides in a civil war is beyond dumb...has N Korea been defeated? no, only N Korea can defeat itself...can the Taliban be defeated? no, this war as it is now will continue for decades the Taliban know Nato like the Russians before will tire and leave... Every conflict or war has an ideal behind it, and while you quote some good examples of failures history is full of sucessful wars and conflicts that if properly planned and executed could over come any type of conflict or situation... Hence why NATO and most western nations now practice what is called the 3 block war for insurgency warfare....in which on one block your engaged in combat, the other block humanitarian missions, and the last block carrying out rebuilding , assisting governmental agencies etc etc all can be happening at the same time same city next door to each other.... The the US wrote the book on the 3 block war because it's hard to win the hearts and minds with bombs and bullets alone.... The taliban knows that the people in the western countries within NATO will grow tired of the conflict they also know they are winning on our home fronts....thats you and every other Canadian out there that has made up thier minds and considers this mission a failure....And yes it will go down in the history books as a Taliban victory it was not due to the soldiers actions but the actions of those that claim they support them.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
wyly Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 Every conflict or war has an ideal behind it, and while you quote some good examples of failures history is full of sucessful wars and conflicts that if properly planned and executed could over come any type of conflict or situation...Hence why NATO and most western nations now practice what is called the 3 block war for insurgency warfare....in which on one block your engaged in combat, the other block humanitarian missions, and the last block carrying out rebuilding , assisting governmental agencies etc etc all can be happening at the same time same city next door to each other.... The the US wrote the book on the 3 block war because it's hard to win the hearts and minds with bombs and bullets alone.... The taliban knows that the people in the western countries within NATO will grow tired of the conflict they also know they are winning on our home fronts....thats you and every other Canadian out there that has made up thier minds and considers this mission a failure....And yes it will go down in the history books as a Taliban victory it was not due to the soldiers actions but the actions of those that claim they support them.... as much as I dislike the Taliban I have never supported this mission (yes I was happy to see them out of power) unless the Afghans themselves remove the Taliban, it cannot be won by NATO troops no matter what method is used...this isn't a simple civil war for political control this a religious war an "idea"...when you're battling an "idea" only extermination or diplomacy will end it...with the primitive mindset that the Taliban have diplomacy isn't likely to work and we don't have the stomach to ethnically cleanse the Pashtun tribal areas...the Taliban know their own history well and are fully prepared to go the distance because they have no where else to go and we do... in the end they'll win unless the afghan people themselves turn on the Taliban... supporting troops with touchy feely endearments has nothing to do with winning or losing, it's a job...and it's job that can't be done I don't blame the military for the failure of the mission, the military is only doing what it has been told to do...I blame the politicians for not seeing what they were getting us into, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
M.Dancer Posted October 2, 2009 Report Posted October 2, 2009 "...when you're battling an "idea" only extermination or diplomacy will end it... Either or works The British Monarchy was an Idea....the US revolutionaires defeated it. Spanish Colonialism was an idea... European Facsism was an idea... Spanish Republicanism was an idea The Supremecy of rome was an idea... You aren't saying anything insightful. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.