Alta4ever Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Posts like the one above make me wonder how much some people think we should spend. There aren't very many countries that can project force around the world. We are one of only a few. As for an earthquake in Vancouver, that wouldn't be only a military response: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/usar/index-eng.aspx The US doesn't have 2.5 million active military personnel. They have a pile of national guard units. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) They have a pile of national guard units. They do, but those aren't available to every state unless the state allows them to be used elsewhere....even when you add those, without adding the total reserves, you don't get to a number of 2.5 million. Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Posts like the one above make me wonder how much some people think we should spend. There aren't very many countries that can project force around the world. We are one of only a few. As for an earthquake in Vancouver, that wouldn't be only a military response: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/em/usar/index-eng.aspx The US doesn't have 2.5 million active military personnel. Most of the outside support BC would get in the event of an earthquake in Vancouver would come from south of the border, provided Seattle wasn't hit hard as well. The US military has more assets in the Seattle, Tacoma area than Canada has period. National Guard troops are used primarily for civil emergencies. We have no such equivalent organization. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 ....But what are we really doing here...A group of privite Canadians have set up a scholarship, with funding raised to give back something to families that have had a loved one killed in the service of our country....It ends there, no policitcal meaning, no other motives...This scholarship is no different than the dozens already out there for policemen, fire fighters, EMS techs, or for that matter any other private group willing to donate funding for education for any other cause....we really need to shake our heads...with the dozens of major problems effecting our country on a daily basis they have chose to campion this cause, a cause that won't even effect thier little lives or kingdoms and to make they're statement...once again on our dead soldiers backs.... I don't read any raised concerns for scholarships being provided by private Canadians/corporations - that's exactly what exists with Canada Company (as I linked to previously). The raised concern I read, the raised concern from the UofR professors, is that a public institution should not be involved in providing scholarships (per their alignment with "Project Hero").Waldo i don't think i'm following your thought process...From what i understand, is the public institution is not providing the scholarship, the scholarship and all it's funding is being approved and funded through a private source...All that is at stake here for the unversity is placing it's name on the program....This is no different than accepting any other student with a private scholarship, such as those provided from fallen policemen or fire fighters etc...or if the student themselfs had paid for thier education via cash payouts made from life insurance or DND compasation packages in event of death...Do they ask everyone where does the cash come from because we don't want in thier minds dirty money.... no, your understanding is not correct. Universities/Colleges do not receive funding from private sources to support costs related to scholarships/living expenses they may choose to offer through "Project Hero" participation... related costs are paid solely by the Universities/Colleges. A sample press release from UOIT - UOIT honours fallen soldiers with Project Hero scholarship: In recognition of the heroism and personal sacrifices of fallen Canadian Forces personnel, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) is waiving tuition and residence fees for the dependents of the men and women killed while serving in an active military mission. The scholarships are part of Project Hero, an initiative aimed to help children of deceased Canadian soldiers obtain a post-secondary education free of financial constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 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. Would you define Afghanistan as a "budding democrcy" or a "developing economy" prior to the US invasion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 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 ? No, what I want is for university professors to not e permitted to grandstand their radical political opinions as "professor so and so, University of Imbeciles", without consequences from their employers - just like everyone else. If I sign a public letter of this sort and identify myself with my employer's name you can bet there'd be consequences for me. The same would go for almost anyone, union or non union, public or private employer. Why do university profs get to embarress their employer indescriminately? These individuals have greatly embarrassed their employer and caused it needless trouble for something which has NOTHING whatever to do with their jobs. Not only have they taken an embarrassingly radical political stance but have publicly criticised their employer in a public letter sent to media. I don't know who you work for but I'm betting you would get into trouble if you did the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 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... I'm guessing it's more likely because you're questions are stupid and fatuous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Posts like the one above make me wonder how much some people think we should spend. There aren't very many countries that can project force around the world. We are one of only a few. As for an earthquake in Vancouver, that wouldn't be only a military response: http://www.publicsaf.../index-eng.aspx Smallc we've had this conversation many times in the past, your of the opinion that we spend enough perhaps to much on our security Depts which include RCMP, Coast Gaurd, CSIS, DND, Customs, ETC.... I'm of the opinion that we don't, shit most Canmadians will agree we don't spend enough...It still does not deter from the fact that our military forces and rest of our security depts are well under manned and equiped to perform the basic jobs that are required....And if that is a fact then we are not properly funding these depts .... Projecting power....If you think those x 4 C-17 majically give us power projection your wrong....other than that what equipment do we have that projects Canada on a foreign shore or inland... And for a major earth Quake your right the military is not going to be the only responders , that being said just how many extra do you think this example you provided are going to provide, 1000, 2 5 10,000 what is the number you think this major event is going to actract....During the Winnipeg floods volunteers poured into winnipeg to help free of charge....thousands of them...all with good intentions , but most without training needed to operate equipment, as a result they where a burden onthe limited resources in place....such as shelter, food, the basics.... The US doesn't have 2.5 million active military personnel. Your right it's not 2.5 they have downsized the number is 2.3 mil which does include national guard units and in a event such as a major earth quake I'm sure a state would agree to mobilze it's national gaurd...such as they have for Iraq and Afghan or Katrina.... But my orginal piont was even with 2.3 million troops to pull from and all the vast amounts of equipment they have they failed to arrive on time and when needed .....with 1000 times more capability and all the problems the US faced in Katrina....do you honestly think our Military has the resources to handle not only the wounded, but also the flow of people leaving the area, or getting food water, and supplies into the area.....Or would you say the military would bust it's nuts getting there but would be quickly over whelmed and in fact useless in many cases.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 I'm guessing it's more likely because you're questions are stupid and fatuous. apparently they are questions that neither Wilber... or Simple will touch. Since you're now stepping up: do you feel it is the role of public Universities/Colleges to provide scholarships to family members of police, firefighters, physicians, nurses or paramedics that have died in response to, as was stated, "putting themselves in harms way for their fellow citizens?" Equally, as the government provides direct benefits assistance to the families of military killed and as there is a corporate/private citizen fund for scholarships to military family members of deceased military personnel, what role are public institutions (Universities/Colleges) providing... that isn't already being met through alternate funding avenues/means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted March 30, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 no, your understanding is not correct. Universities/Colleges do not receive funding from private sources to support costs related to scholarships/living expenses they may choose to offer through "Project Hero" participation... related costs are paid solely by the Universities/Colleges. A sample press release from UOIT - UOIT honours fallen soldiers with Project Hero scholarship: Thanks for sorting me out Waldo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 According to this article: Janice Summerby, spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Canada, said the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act uses federal government funding to pay up to $5,000 per academic year to cover tuition and course fees, plus a $372.44 per month living allowance. Last year, 95 students across the country were covered under the Act, costing taxpayers roughly $500,000. Summerby added that funding provided by other scholarships such as Project Hero are applied against the amount covered by the Act, meaning government funds are withheld and Project Hero funds — which comes out of university pockets — are used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 No, what I want is for university professors to not e permitted to grandstand their radical political opinions as "professor so and so, University of Imbeciles", without consequences from their employers - just like everyone else. If I sign a public letter of this sort and identify myself with my employer's name you can bet there'd be consequences for me. The same would go for almost anyone, union or non union, public or private employer. Why do university profs get to embarress their employer indescriminately? These individuals have greatly embarrassed their employer and caused it needless trouble for something which has NOTHING whatever to do with their jobs. Not only have they taken an embarrassingly radical political stance but have publicly criticised their employer in a public letter sent to media. I don't know who you work for but I'm betting you would get into trouble if you did the same. is this the same person who was demanding free speech for anne coluter and now wants someone who doesn't agree with him to be shut up??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Whether you take care of the rubber boot labourers that built the bank towers and their offspring..it does not matter much- a soldier dies or a brick layer falls/// it is the same..tell the professors to shut up and understand, that who ever dies to maintain this rotten status quo..is entitled to pass down an inheritance for duty served..pay the master of war and pay the children of that specialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 According to this article: Janice Summerby, spokeswoman for Veterans Affairs Canada, said the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act uses federal government funding to pay up to $5,000 per academic year to cover tuition and course fees, plus a $372.44 per month living allowance. Last year, 95 students across the country were covered under the Act, costing taxpayers roughly $500,000. Summerby added that funding provided by other scholarships such as Project Hero are applied against the amount covered by the Act, meaning government funds are withheld and Project Hero funds — which comes out of university pockets — are used. AW, for what it's worth... you may not be aware of the costs of a University education in Canada - relative to the U.S. I just did a quick check on my alma mater and that $5K per year figure adequately covers the full costs for every faculty (except Medicine and Dentistry). (army guy... on a personal note, I wouldn't want any family members of fallen soldiers to have difficulty in receiving a sponsored University education. As we see, there are (at least) 2 funding avenues available, other than "Project Hero"... those being, the government or 'Canada Company'.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 No, what I want is for university professors to not e permitted to grandstand their radical political opinions as "professor so and so, University of Imbeciles", without consequences from their employers - just like everyone else. You want "consequences" to be mandatory? Whether there are consequences or not is up to one's employer. If the University of Regina feels as if the professors have a right to speak their mind, why would there be "consequences?" They didn't say they were speaking for the university; in fact, their letter was addressed to the university. It was addressed to their employer. Surely you aren't saying that you think there should be "consequences" when one addresses their employer with concerns that they have? If I sign a public letter of this sort and identify myself with my employer's name you can bet there'd be consequences for me. The same would go for almost anyone, union or non union, public or private employer. Why do university profs get to embarress their employer indescriminately? Who says they were "embarrassed?" Furthermore, should one only be able to speak their mind if it doesn't "embarrass" anyone? These individuals have greatly embarrassed their employer and caused it needless trouble for something which has NOTHING whatever to do with their jobs. That's pure speculation on your part. The university has issued a statement saying they will remain a part of the program. That's it. Nothing at all about being embarrassed. Not only have they taken an embarrassingly radical political stance but have publicly criticised their employer in a public letter sent to media. I don't know who you work for but I'm betting you would get into trouble if you did the same. Again, it's your determination that their stance is "embarrassing." But that aside, where's the criticism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) AW, for what it's worth... you may not be aware of the costs of a University education in Canada - relative to the U.S. I just did a quick check on my alma mater and that $5K per year figure adequately covers the full costs for every faculty (except Medicine and Dentistry). According to this site, tuition for an engineering degree at the University of Toronto is $7,350.00 a year. Edited March 30, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Whether you take care of the rubber boot labourers that built the bank towers and their offspring..it does not matter much- a soldier dies or a brick layer falls/// it is the same..tell the professors to shut up and understand, that who ever dies to maintain this rotten status quo..is entitled to pass down an inheritance for duty served..pay the master of war and pay the children of that specialist. let's give a scholarship to everyone who loses a parent:rolleyes:, it's BS...the workers killed building our highways, the fishermen who drown catching our food, the lumberjacks killed cutting down the trees to build us shelter...why is one Canadian doing his JOB more deserving of another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) let's give a scholarship to everyone who loses a parent:rolleyes:, it's BS...the workers killed building our highways, the fishermen who drown catching our food, the lumberjacks killed cutting down the trees to build us shelter...why is one Canadian doing his JOB more deserving of another? Any one of those workers you mentioned can quit if they decide it's too dangerous, if they don't like it, or find out it's not what they thought it would be. They aren't required to fulfill a 'tour of duty.' They aren't required to stay on the job for x number of years when they apply/accept a job offer. Edited March 30, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Any one of those workers you mentioned can quit if they decide it's too dangerous, if they don't like it, or find out it's not what they thought it would be. They aren't required to fulfill a 'tour of duty.' They aren't required to stay on the job for x number of years when they apply/accept a job offer. they are all volunteers they know the risks of the job when they join...and yes like other jobs they have the option to turn down the mission...Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, commander of land forces- "I've probably asked that question to 25,000 soldiers and only had one bow out. His excuse was that his wife just found out his girlfriend was pregnant," he grinned. Gosh, I couldn't dream up a better excuse to flee for the relative safety of Kandahar battlefields if confronted by that scenario. Edited March 30, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) delete double post Edited March 30, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 they are all volunteers they know the risks of the job when they join...and yes like other jobs they have the option to turn down the mission... Really? Francisco Juarez bristles at being labelled Canada's first Afghanistan war resister. But the 35-year-old former army reserve member is proud to have turned his back on the military because he doesn't believe in the Afghan mission. During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., he refused to walk onto an obstacle course and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate." He was dragged before several army captains, told he would feel like a failure for the rest of his life, and threatened with a court martial and possible jail time. The military relented somewhat. They fined the B.C. native $500 and discharged him without honour. link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Really? Francisco Juarez bristles at being labelled Canada's first Afghanistan war resister. But the 35-year-old former army reserve member is proud to have turned his back on the military because he doesn't believe in the Afghan mission. During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., he refused to walk onto an obstacle course and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate." He was dragged before several army captains, told he would feel like a failure for the rest of his life, and threatened with a court martial and possible jail time. The military relented somewhat. They fined the B.C. native $500 and discharged him without honour. link there you go, service like any other job is optional...their kids are no more deserving of a scholarship than any other Canadian... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) there you go, service like any other job is optional...their kids are no more deserving of a scholarship than any other Canadian... Which of those jobs you mentioned involve threats of jail time when one quits? Which of those employees are made to pay a fine for quitting? "Just like any other job." Riiiiiight. Edited March 30, 2010 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) I'm of the opinion that we don't, shit most Canmadians will agree we don't spend enough Most Canadian don't know what they're talking about much of the time. Many probably think we spend the same as in 2000....when in fact spending has pretty much doubled and continues to increase for the next two years faster than inflation. I'd complain if we weren't spending more than any time adjusted for inflation since the 50s and if the budget weren't steadily increasing...along with our capabilities. ...It still does not deter from the fact that our military forces and rest of our security depts are well under manned and equiped to perform the basic jobs that are required....And if that is a fact then we are not properly funding these depts .... How much funding should there be, and from where? We spend $21B on the military, billions on the RCMP and CSIS, and too little on the Coast Guard at about $250M a year. Despite our large size, we are a small country that can't afford to spend significantly more without raising taxes or cutting services. Projecting power....If you think those x 4 C-17 majically give us power projection your wrong....other than that what equipment do we have that projects Canada on a foreign shore or inland... Yes, those magically in fact do give us projection power, as does our green water oriented and blue water capable navy. We are able to sustain troops abroad in a real war, a very rare thing in this world, and it's something that the National Post made mention of. They said that we're one of a few elite forces that can project a small force and keep it there as long as the political will remains. That's a reality that we can see. We (Canada) were able to continue with Afghanistan, train troops in California, send 2000 people to Haiti quickly, police the waters off Somalia, be engaged in numerous other naval missions, take part in planning for the G8/20, and provide security for the Olympics....all at one time What do you consider projection power? What exactly are we supposed to have? How many countries have even the capability of the C-17?...not many. There's a reason that the US isn't happy to see us go. There aren't that many countries with our capabilities. I hear it in the media over and over and over. And for a major earth Quake your right the military is not going to be the only responders , that being said just how many extra do you think this example you provided are going to provide, 1000, 2 5 10,000 what is the number you think this major event is going to actract....During the Winnipeg floods volunteers poured into winnipeg to help free of charge....thousands of them...all with good intentions , but most without training needed to operate equipment, as a result they where a burden onthe limited resources in place....such as shelter, food, the basics.... And we learned a great deal from those things. There are now emergency plans in place throughout the country. I've seen them in action during flooding in my own small community. It in't all about the military when it comes to domestic disaster response. Your right it's not 2.5 they have downsized the number is 2.3 mil I don't see any evidence of that. I see evidence of 1.4M regular forces. Edited March 30, 2010 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted March 30, 2010 Report Share Posted March 30, 2010 Really? Francisco Juarez bristles at being labelled Canada's first Afghanistan war resister. But the 35-year-old former army reserve member is proud to have turned his back on the military because he doesn't believe in the Afghan mission. During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., he refused to walk onto an obstacle course and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate." He was dragged before several army captains, told he would feel like a failure for the rest of his life, and threatened with a court martial and possible jail time. The military relented somewhat. They fined the B.C. native $500 and discharged him without honour. link The thing is, he originally volunteered, otherwise he wouldn't have been in Gagetown. The army isn't keen on someone changing their mind after they have spent 10s of thousands of dollars on them to bring them up to speed. Now according to him, he was being groomed as a 2nd Lt. Maybe, maybe not...either way he was charged not for refusing to go to Afghanistan, but for being idle of parade, shirking his training and insubordination. For the record, everyone in the CF dployed in Afghanistan is a volunteer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.