Does our Canadian Government Need to do More for Its Soldiers?

[wyly]

First of all, where are you getting those statistics?

Secondly, and more obviously, it's clear that if those statistics are accurate, that the casualties are virtually all preventable accidents. If a roofer dies on the job, it's because safety regulations weren't being adhered to. If an iron or steel worker dies on the job, it is again because safety regulations weren't being adhered to. These are all controlled environments. How can not realize that those professions are entirely different than soldiers going into combat against enemies who intend to kill them? The roof isn't trying to kill the roofers, the iron and steel factories aren't trying to kill the factory workers. The accidents are virtually all preventable.

I'll make it very simple for you - there is a world of difference between a job that is dangerous if you behave irresponsibly and a job that REMAINS dangerous even when you adhere to all reasonable (and beyond) safety precautions. Please stop suggesting that steel workers are in a more dangerous job than soldiers in combat simply because they make many more mistakes and injure/kill themselves.

let us know when fisherman can control the weather, shit happens everywhere despite safety precautions Canada has 133 military deaths in the last 8yrs (22 were non combat preventable by your logic but so are combat deaths) so the military death rate would around 13 per 100,000 and even much lower when not at war...

your problem is that you're so arrogant about education that anyone who does not have an engineering degree is stupid, fisherman are stupid, iron workers are stupid, loggers are stupid everyone is stupid that's why they get killed...the fact the job they've has a high rate of risk isn't a factor because they're all stupid and careless...I guess those 22 military non combat deaths resulted because they were stupid and careless as well...

[Gabriel]

Here are the same numbers;

My link

Thanks for the link. Let's now use our brains. How many American troops have been deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq since the war began? About 500K? And the casualties so far are just over 5K? That translates to a casualty rate of 1000 per 100K workers - about 10 times higher than the two top careers on that list (logging workers and aircraft pilots). Looks like that information isn't taking into consideration military casualties (or injuries) in recent years. Granted, that's divided over the course of the war. One must also remember that Iraq's never had more than about 250K American troops at any one time.

Let's check this site. You can track the number of casualties on a year by year basis. Let's analyze 2008, the year with the lowest number of casualties - 314. I imagine 2008 also had a lower number of deployed troops, as well. Anyways, assuming there were about 150K American troops in Iraq in 2008 (on average), that leaves us with a casualty rate of slightly over 100 casualties per 100K soldiers - still higher than the most dangerous jobs according to your CNN link.

Anyways, I don't want to waste any more time on this. It's obvious that wyly, as usual, is wrong. Since the military operations were launched in Afghanistan and Iraq, soldiering for any country that is involved in combat is significantly more dangerous than the "dangerous" careers listed by wyly. I'm certain this isn't surprising to anyone with a brain.

[Gabriel]

let us know when fisherman can control the weather, shit happens everywhere despite safety precautions Canada has 133 military deaths in the last 8yrs (22 were non combat preventable by your logic but so are combat deaths) so the military death rate would around 13 per 100,000 and even much lower when not at war...

your problem is that you're so arrogant about education that anyone who does not have an engineering degree is stupid, fisherman are stupid, iron workers are stupid, loggers are stupid everyone is stupid that's why they get killed...the fact the job they've has a high rate of risk isn't a factor because they're all stupid and careless...I guess those 22 military non combat deaths resulted because they were stupid and careless as well...

I didn't mean to suggest that all deaths in all of the occupations you listed were the result of stupidity or carelessness. Of course deaths can occur in certain occupations even when reasonable measures have been taken to ensure safety. That being said, the vast majority of deaths in most of the occupations you listed can be attributed to negligence. I am aware that fishermen cannot control the weather, but they can certainly watch the weather channel and avoid high risk areas and weather patterns.

Either way, you're wrong in suggesting that military service, during war (specifically the most recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq) isn't significantly more dangerous than all other professions. This is undebatable. The statistics also verify this. Feel free to check the casualty rates in the Afghanistan and Iraq theatres and compare these numbers to the total deployments. The rates of casualties (and of course injuries) will eclipse the rates of casualties (and injuries) in all of the "dangerous" occupations you listed originally.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Gabriel

[Army Guy]

I just wanted to shead some more light on this whole argument on dangerous jobs....

Lets keep in mind that in 2002 we were engaged in combat, with US forces suffered 4 deaths not sure if we are counting wounded, but 32 is the count.

From 2003 to 2005 we were in Kabul, basically doing what the germans and french are doing now, patrols etc...little combat per say....in those years we suffer another 4 deaths, approx 57 wounded...

We then transfer to the south in late 2005 until present...

2006,34 deaths, 300 plus wounded.

2007 28 deaths 300 plus wounded

2008,27 deaths 300 plus wounded

2009 27 deaths 300 plus wounded

It should be noted that the number serving through that year was only 5500 troops up until 2008 when that number climbed to 6000, and in 2009 it climbed to 6400 troops....so to get a true look into the stats those are the numbers you have to work with....I guess you'd have to ask yourself would you rather be fishing or going out on patrol.

Now my math is bad and i'm sure you guys will sort me out but with 34 deaths out of 5000 would equate into 680 deaths out of every 100,000

[Gabriel]

I just wanted to shead some more light on this whole argument on dangerous jobs....

Lets keep in mind that in 2002 we were engaged in combat, with US forces suffered 4 deaths not sure if we are counting wounded, but 32 is the count.

From 2003 to 2005 we were in Kabul, basically doing what the germans and french are doing now, patrols etc...little combat per say....in those years we suffer another 4 deaths, approx 57 wounded...

We then transfer to the south in late 2005 until present...

2006,34 deaths, 300 plus wounded.

2007 28 deaths 300 plus wounded

2008,27 deaths 300 plus wounded

2009 27 deaths 300 plus wounded

It should be noted that the number serving through that year was only 5500 troops up until 2008 when that number climbed to 6000, and in 2009 it climbed to 6400 troops....so to get a true look into the stats those are the numbers you have to work with....I guess you'd have to ask yourself would you rather be fishing or going out on patrol.

Now my math is bad and i'm sure you guys will sort me out but with 34 deaths out of 5000 would equate into 680 deaths out of every 100,000

Your math is fine.

[waldo]

I just wanted to shead some more light on this whole argument on dangerous jobs....

......with 34 deaths out of 5000 would equate into 680 deaths out of every 100,000

obviously, while (voluntarily) deployed in a combat role, the military career is dangerous... consequently, pay increases accordingly - how much is "combat danger pay"? Alternatively, with a military of some 40K+ enlisted members (excluding admin/support) and 25K+ reservists... for what it's worth, numbers shape differently. In this particular discussion context, Afghanistan (combat deployment) is the anomaly within a military career that generally appears not to be a particularly dangerous job. As an aside, what time frame constitutes a career attachment... and how many current military personnel actually stay within the military to satisfy that "career" defining time frame?

[Army Guy]

obviously, while (voluntarily) deployed in a combat role, the military career is dangerous... consequently, pay increases accordingly - how much is "combat danger pay"?

Not much, but to be fair i'll explain all the bonues to put it into context.

Danger pay is computed into something call operational allowaneces. which are divided into 3 parts.

Operations Foreign Service Premium; it's a pionts based system for every month your spend on operations out of country you get 1 piont....the scale goes from 1 to 169 or more....it starts off at 701 cdn dollars and tops out at 1454 cdn dollars...please note to get the top rating one must have spent 169 months or more on operations within his carear...

Hardship Allowance; The intent of the Hardship Allowance (HA) is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post. it's based on a rating between 0 and 6 and is assigned by NDHQ, every 6 months....to give you an example out in the FOB's it was set at level 4 , and we where sleeping in trenches and bunkers at the time....and normally works out to around 2 to 500 Cdns dollars

Risk allowance The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post. It's based on a rating scale from 0 to 4....Out in the FOB's it was at risk level III

Works out to be around 3 to 400 dollars

So to answer your question while we are payed a risk allowance, and it is fairly low, on avg each soldier is paid on the low end of the scale approx 1200 dollars, to 2400 dollars for being on tour....

So yes your pay increases accordingly....

with a military of some 40K+ enlisted members (excluding admin/support) and 25K+ reservists... for what it's worth, numbers shape differently.

Actually if you where to exclude the admin and support trades, you'd find you be looking at on the army side about 10 to 11 k in the combat trades...for what it is worth it would shape the numbers drastically...

In this particular discussion context, Afghanistan (combat deployment) is the anomaly within a military career that generally appears not to be a particularly dangerous job. As an aside, what time frame constitutes a career attachment... and how many current military personnel actually stay within the military to satisfy that "career" defining time frame?

It maybe to some admin and support trades, however most combat trades will spend on a 20 to 25 year carear, appox 84 mths months away on operations or about 7 years...on avg thats 7 tours...i know guys with 12 to 15 tours, and some with less than 5 but those are very rare today.

is the anomaly within a military career that generally appears not to be a particularly dangerous job. As an aside, what time frame constitutes a career attachment.

Filing papers may not be dangerous, but lets compare a say live fire ex with over 500 tired , exhausted troops armed with automactic wpns..., or driving a 25 ton veh with no lights with no moon, at excessive speeds with night vision gear on...or being Danager close (only 300 meters from the objective,) with live arty and tank fire raining down on it....then comes the "DISMOUNT", DISMOUNT""DISMOUNT" and you come out of the back of your LAV praying that the Arty and tank boys have started to lift thier fire, or creep it to the back of the objective....Anything we would do in war time is exericised dozens of time before we do it on the enemy....and for combat trades thats dozens of times each year....I still rather go fishing , and you'd make alot more money doing it...

[Topaz]

Frankly, Army Guy, as a taxpayer, I rather the military guys would get what the politicans get paid, you are putting you life on the on line and what do these politicans do,send you over to a war that can't be won, and when it comes time for those soldiers to come home will they get the treatment they need? I rather see your $2400 go to the politicans and their 150,000 go to you guys! You can also have their $167,000 pensions! Politicans are overpaid,at least,these novice Conservatives!

[capricorn]

Politicans are overpaid,at least,these novice Conservatives!

Yeah. I'd rather have those fat paycheques and pensions going to experienced Liberals who are entitled to their entitlements.

[Army Guy]

Thanks topaz, i just wanted everyone to know that soldiers are not making big fat Danager pay bonuses, that we are comfortable with our pay as it is...besides i'd much rather keep my honor and intrgrity intact than recieve a politicians pension.