Battle over soldiers scholarship

[msj]

Really doesn't help at all when university professors don't know what imperialism is, or what militarization is for that matter. They also want the government to pay for all students university costs. Which is unfesible.

Strange way to defend other people's ignorance when responding to this issue.

It's like you're saying something like: "Sure I don't know the entire context of the letter but I can make a fair comment on it because I have read 2% of the content through a media report and those professors don't know how to use imperialism properly in a full sentence..."

No, you can't make a fair comment on it until after reading the entire letter.

Hence the to you and your ilk of knee-jerk posters (whatever side they may stake on this issue).

Raise the bar of discussion on this forum, TrueMetis, rather than join the likes of Shady and Mr. Canada.... that's all I'm saying.

[Argus]

Yes, I had a professor like that. He went out of his way to disparage union workers at the university and to indoctrinate us about how lazy they were. No one complained back then.

You don't agree with them, and that seems to colour your views on what they're doing, but that's normal

Whether I agree with them or not is beside the point. These are employees hired to do a specific job - teach English lit to students, for example. How precisely would that task be endangered if they were not permitted the free and unfettered right to use their position to advance some political agenda - be it left or right? The only job I can think of which the lack of freedom to advance political views would be difficult would be a political science professor or similar. How exactly is a Geology teacher's job made impossible if he can't quote Marx and sneer at capitalism? Honestly, do respond. What is the point of this "academic freedom" all the universities have long embraced? I can see the value of it applying to students - but it DOESN'T. Students are hemmed in with all sorts of rules of behaviour and can be prosecuted for offensive words, language and ideas.

So why not eliminate the entire thing?

[Argus]

We shouldn't reward or celebrate the willing participation in a venture that is imperialist in nearly every conventional way but name.

Well, and the fact it isn't imperalist at all, of course, and that no one wants to rule that territory. But don't let that get in your way.

[eyeball]

Well, and the fact it isn't imperalist at all, of course, and that no one wants to rule that territory. But don't let that get in your way.

The war in Afghanistan is just one consequence of years of western meddling and interfering - read imperialism - in the region surrounding it. There's little if anything that's honorable about Canada's role in this. If it was really being true to our nation's principles our government should have been speaking out against this decades ago.

[Argus]

The war in Afghanistan is just one consequence of years of western meddling and interfering - read imperialism - in the region surrounding it. There's little if anything that's honorable about Canada's role in this. If it was really being true to our nation's principles our government should have been speaking out against this decades ago.

If we were imperialist, with all that entails, we would simply carpet bomb the place and kill anyone and everyone who dares to question us. It wouldn't be very difficult at all.

[msj]

If we were imperialist, with all that entails, we would simply carpet bomb the place and kill anyone and everyone who dares to question us. It wouldn't be very difficult at all.

If you wanted to rule over the territory and people then carpet bombing is not necessarily the best way to go about it.

"Softer" measures to entice the population to join one's side and the use of tactical force would be the preferred policy depending on the situation, of course.

[eyeball]

If we were imperialist, with all that entails, we would simply carpet bomb the place and kill anyone and everyone who dares to question us. It wouldn't be very difficult at all.

Want to bet? Police would be battling protesters on the steps of Parliament if we did that. That's why we've used covert means to undermine and overthrow budding democracies and developing economies to ensure our side stays on top of things. Our's is a sneaky underhanded candy-coated imperialism that is all the more malicious and amoral than the conventional imperialism you'd like to imagine I'm referring to. We've evolved so have our methods of imperialism.

The ultimate goal of imperialism remains the same which is the the control of wealth. Controlling the territory is now best left to the proxy regimes we install aid and abet - they get the crumbs and we get the cake.

[Wilber]

No, but I wouldn't reward them either. I'd stop wasting money on our overseas military adventures and extend free tuition to everyone.

You said you would reward conscripts but not volunteers. Do you feel that our military should exist entirely of conscripts as you don't approve of volunteers, or do you feel we should have no military at all?

[Michael Hardner]

So why not eliminate the entire thing?

Why not eliminate what entire thing ? Freedom of speech ? Lawyers, writers, doctors associate in groups representing all or part of their profession - advancing ideas that they believe would better society if adopted.

You want them to shut up (and I think it's because you don't agree with them but whatever) so how do you want to achieve that ?

[eyeball]

You said you would reward conscripts but not volunteers.

I said I would compensate conscripts, I'd view them as victims.

Do you feel that our military should exist entirely of conscripts as you don't approve of volunteers, or do you feel we should have no military at all?

I think they should be volunteers, but I also think the decision to ask them to go into battle should be put to a referendum.

I don't approve of Canada wading into unjust wars that our allies start.

Edited March 27, 2010 by eyeball

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yeah and a real quality debate it's been too. Just about all I've heard from the hawks is a near constant denigration of anyone who deigned to question the wisdom of wading into this quagmire.

Maybe the debates you've seen. I've seen some excellent debates on the War in Afghanistan.

Strange way to defend other people's ignorance when responding to this issue.

It's like you're saying something like: "Sure I don't know the entire context of the letter but I can make a fair comment on it because I have read 2% of the content through a media report and those professors don't know how to use imperialism properly in a full sentence..."

No, you can't make a fair comment on it until after reading the entire letter.

Hence the to you and your ilk of knee-jerk posters (whatever side they may stake on this issue).

Raise the bar of discussion on this forum, TrueMetis, rather than join the likes of Shady and Mr. Canada.... that's all I'm saying.

Except I did read the letter you're just ignorantly assuming I didn't. How about responding to the points I've made instead of trying to ignore what I said by moronically assuming I didn't read the letter?

Raise the bar of discussion on this forum, msj, rather than trying to discredit something someone else said without actually responding to it, which is something Shady and Mr.Canada would do.

Edited March 27, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Wilber]

I said I would compensate conscripts, I'd view them as victims.

I think they should be volunteers, but I also think the decision to ask them to go into battle should be put to a referendum.

I don't approve of Canada wading into unjust wars that our allies start.

So you think people should volunteer to defend you but should not be rewarded or compensated for their sacrifices on your behalf. People who would defend you against their will are victims and therefore should be compensated. You just sit back and let someone else do it regardless. I don't have a problem with you not agreeing with this war, I have my questions as well about being there but don't you think you are picking on the wrong people?

Perhaps if foreign fishing fleets turn up at the mouths of all BC rivers and start taking all the salmon that are left, we should have a national referendum as to whether we will ask our volunteers to stop them. After all, why should someone from Saskatchewan risk his neck to save your livelihood? Or perhaps we should just conscript a bunch of people to do it so they can be compensated for their sacrifices.

[Muddy]

I said I would compensate conscripts, I'd view them as victims.

I think they should be volunteers, but I also think the decision to ask them to go into battle should be put to a referendum.

I don't approve of Canada wading into unjust wars that our allies start.

Gosh ,Have I ever been fooled. Must be meds. If I remmber correctly this was a UN sanctioned war,and the UN asked NATO to prosecute the war. Why are we there? Because it wa a regime that was giving sanctuary and training grounds to terrorists that were responsible for 9/11 of which a lot of Canadians died along side our American cousins. Thank goodness that canada under both Mr. Martin and Mr. Harper have given our forces the resources to be a full partner. There are some here I think who regret the destruction of the Soviet led Warsaw pact.

As for Professor Hunter! What the heck was he on about? He never made an iota of sence and not once clearly answer a question. At least my drugs are from prescription.

[eyeball]

So you think people should volunteer to defend you but should not be rewarded or compensated for their sacrifices on your behalf.

That's not what I said Wilber.

People who would defend you against their will are victims and therefore should be compensated.

People who are conscripted against their will into an unjust war.

You just sit back and let someone else do it regardless.

No, what I did, what we all did, is sit back and let Ottawa drag us into someone else's war.

I don't have a problem with you not agreeing with this war, I have my questions as well about being there but don't you think you are picking on the wrong people?

I'm picking on a specific scholarship that I think is a clear attempt to put a moral shine on our involvement in an unjust war.

Perhaps if foreign fishing fleets turn up at the mouths of all BC rivers and start taking all the salmon that are left, we should have a national referendum as to whether we will ask our volunteers to stop them. After all, why should someone from Saskatchewan risk his neck to save your livelihood? Or perhaps we should just conscript a bunch of people to do it so they can be compensated for their sacrifices.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink this analogy in light of the fact Ottawa just accepted $30 million from the U.S. to keep Canadian fishermen tied up so there's more fish for U.S. fishermen to catch. Canadian fishermen are now being forced to sue Ottawa to get the $30 million that was supposed to compensate them for the fishing opportunity Ottawa negotiated away.

It's difficult to tell friend from foe or who's putting who in harm's way sometimes.

[Muddy]

Eyeball, what people are being conscripted into this war? Who dragged Canada into this war? The UN? Nato? USA?

Chrieten? Martin? Harper? Joe at the gas station?

To help you with one question ,we have sent reguler troops that make their living being soldiers,but that is still volunteers. As for our terrific reserve guys ,they are very carefully chosen and are all volunteers.

[Wilber]

That's not what I said Wilber.

You've said conscripts should be compensated for their sacrifices and volunteers should not. I'm having difficulty understanding what you are saying.

People who are conscripted against their will into an unjust war.

Unjust according to who? You? We have only ever conscripted people during the two world wars. Were they unjust?

No, what I did, what we all did, is sit back and let Ottawa drag us into someone else's war.

Many would disagree with you on who's war it was.

I'm picking on a specific scholarship that I think is a clear attempt to put a moral shine on our involvement in an unjust war.

Gee, and I thought it was just a way of helping out someone who is minus one parent because they lost their life serving their country.

Perhaps you'd like to rethink this analogy in light of the fact Ottawa just accepted $30 million from the U.S. to keep Canadian fishermen tied up so there's more fish for U.S. fishermen to catch. Canadian fishermen are now being forced to sue Ottawa to get the $30 million that was supposed to compensate them for the fishing opportunity Ottawa negotiated away.

No, I won't rethink the analogy because it is a perfectly valid one.

It's difficult to tell friend from foe or who's putting who in harm's way sometimes.

I won't disagree with that but why pick on those who were put in harms way?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Wilber

[Guest TrueMetis]

Unjust according to who? You? We have only ever conscripted people during the two world wars. Were they unjust?

Considering they weren't even sent it isn't a great example either.

[Keepitsimple]

Simple, apparently this "Project Hero" program is in fact a duplicate of an existing government funding outlet available to families of military killed in active duty... or non-active duty. I believe the Project Hero spokesperson's comment when asked about that duplication, was a somewhat brief acknowledgment along the lines, "I believe that may be so".

Waldo.....you still haven't answered the question - do you agree with the general thrust of the letter or not? By the way - nowhere in the letter is there a mention of a duplicate source of funding. Over 75 educational institutions have signed up for the program with not a single objection. So - do you agree with these professors and their letter - or not? For the record, I think they are completely out to lunch. What do you think Waldo - or are you again too cowardly to actually take a stand?

[Gabriel]

Keepitsimple, at the risk of seeming like a suck-up, let me just say you're easily one of my favourite posters on this board. You stay true to your screen name - keep it simple!

[waldo]

since Wilber doesn't have the wherewithal to respond, perhaps you could take up for him and respond to questions concerning the role of universities in also providing awards to families of police, firefighters, physicians, nurses or paramedics killed while on the job?

yours is a partial answer... you indicate a like special status for police and firefighters... but you don't state whether or not it is the role of universities to award scholarships to families of police and firefighters killed on the job. Is it? And why stop with just military, police and firefighters? How about physicians, nurses, or paramedics that might die responding to medical emergencies? Any other job categories you'd like universities to also include... those you refer to as, "putting themselves in harms way for their fellow citizens"?

Waldo.....you still haven't answered the question - do you agree with the general thrust of the letter or not? By the way - nowhere in the letter is there a mention of a duplicate source of funding. Over 75 educational institutions have signed up for the program with not a single objection. So - do you agree with these professors and their letter - or not? For the record, I think they are completely out to lunch. What do you think Waldo - or are you again too cowardly to actually take a stand?

Simple, why do you refuse to answer the questions put to you? Are you too cowardly to actually take a stand? I've copied the previous posts you're refusing to answer...

thanks for highlighting that duplication of funding... the funding available from the government. Given that funding outlet exists, what role are universities filling when they align with the so-called "Project Hero"? They surely can't be filling a funding void... so what's the role universities are filling, hey Simple?

[waldo]

Keepitsimple, at the risk of seeming like a suck-up, let me just say you're easily one of my favourite posters on this board. You stay true to your screen name - keep it simple!

you do suck-up very well...

[Alta4ever]

As usual waldo has no opinion.

[waldo]

As usual waldo has no opinion.

lil pups like you and Simple need to exercise a bit more - obviously, when you come up against masterful technique, you're flustered to no end. Watching Simple's recent junkyard dog act was a real ribtickler.

by the way, I've taken the liberty of copying below, the single post you had in this thread prior to this, your latest drive-by... clearly, your opinion on this threads subject matter is well stated

Do you even understand what an imperialistic country is? Judging by the stupidity of your post you don't.

An imperialistic country is one that is in the process of territorial expansion. Have we gained any new provinces lately that I don't know about?

[Keepitsimple]

lil pups like you and Simple need to exercise a bit more - obviously, when you come up against masterful technique, you're flustered to no end. Watching Simple's recent junkyard dog act was a real ribtickler.

by the way, I've taken the liberty of copying below, the single post you had in this thread prior to this, your latest drive-by... clearly, your opinion on this threads subject matter is well stated

Waldo.....you have no opinions and you refuse to take a personal stand on anything. As a result, you have no credibility. Waldo, you're my pretty little flower.

The term narcissism refers to the personality trait of egotism, which includes the set of character traits concerned with self-image ego. The terms narcissism, narcissistic, and narcissist are often used as pejoratives, denoting vanity, conceit, egotism or simple selfishness. Applied to a social group, it is sometimes used to denote elitism or an indifference to the plight of others.

The name "narcissism" is derived from Greek mythology. Narcissus was a handsome Greek youth who rejected the desperate advances of the nymph Echo. As punishment, he was doomed to fall in love with his own reflection in a pool of water. Unable to consummate his love, Narcissus pined away and changed into the flower that bears his name, the narcissus.

[waldo]

since Wilber doesn't have the wherewithal to respond, perhaps you could take up for him and respond to questions concerning the role of universities in also providing awards to families of police, firefighters, physicians, nurses or paramedics killed while on the job?

yours is a partial answer... you indicate a like special status for police and firefighters... but you don't state whether or not it is the role of universities to award scholarships to families of police and firefighters killed on the job. Is it? And why stop with just military, police and firefighters? How about physicians, nurses, or paramedics that might die responding to medical emergencies? Any other job categories you'd like universities to also include... those you refer to as, "putting themselves in harms way for their fellow citizens"?

thanks for highlighting that duplication of funding... the funding available from the government. Given that funding outlet exists, what role are universities filling when they align with the so-called "Project Hero"? They surely can't be filling a funding void... so what's the role universities are filling, hey Simple?

Waldo.....you have no opinions and you refuse to take a personal stand on anything. As a result, you have no credibility. Waldo, you're my pretty little flower.

Simple, why are you avoiding the questions concerning the role of universities also funding scholarships for families of police, firefighters, physicians, nurses, paramedics, etc., killed while on the job... as they, "put themselves in harms way for their fellow citizens"? Why are you avoiding the question concerning the duplication of funding? Or is it a "triplication" of funding availability? Rather than take at face value the numerous article references that speak to "government scholarships" for the families of military killed, perhaps the OP could elaborate on that point more directly. What is absolute, is that scholarships are available from Canada Company... funded by a mix of 'heavy-hitter' corporate sponsorship. So, Simple... in the face of this apparent triplication (duplication?) of funding availability, is this a necessary role for public universities to be engaged in?

(note: it is heartening to realize your medical correspondence training is proving your time/effort has not been in vain )