Army Guy Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 Bullshit. The enormous issues of leadership and responsibility have been clearly known for decades. The bureaucrats back in Ottawa, both the civilians and the ones with crowns on their shoulders are far more concerned with their little empires and their personal careers than with the well-being of the military. Recruitment is an unmitigated disaster. Procurement is a joke. The tooth to tail ratio is far too long. We have too many bureaucrats and not enough spear carriers, and far too many senior officers. And that's been the case for decades. And NOTHING has been done to resolve or improve any of it. You sound like a bureaucrat making excuses. We have had good leadership , and it was i won't say pissed away, but any progress that Hillier made was soon forgotten.....I think it is alittle harsh to suggest that all the officers are in it for the power and empire building.....there is still alot of very good officers both comming up, or in positions now that can lead us into the future..... but like what has already been said there is no plan, we are wondering around in the desert trying to just keep DND head above water.....we need that direction, we need a plan, then we need the funding.....how do we get there i don't know....what i do know is until Canadians are educated on the current status of our military, what it is that we ask of them every day, and peak their interest we are going to wake up one morning without any of it....because Canadians don't give a rats ass... 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.
overthere Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States: Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support? We cannot afford to keep getting into the USA (Canada - me too) poorly planned wars. Interesting that there is no mention at all of treaty obligations for mutual defence. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 I agree that it is time that the USA and Canada both take a serious look at and review their foreign policies. No thanks....keep Canada's policies, or lack thereof.....in Canada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 No thanks....keep Canada's policies, or lack thereof.....in Canada. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I suggested that both Canada and the USA do not have coherent foreign affairs policies. The USA should review theirs (as has been suggested by the recent Obama " We do not have a strategy .." blooper) and Canada decide on our foreign policy. There is no reason for them to be the same. In fact, Canadian attitudes to war and conflict are quite different from those of the USA and the foreign policies should reflect that fact. While the USA seems to be "My country, right or wrong" I would like Canada's to be "My country, getting it right the first time." Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 ....I would like Canada's to be "My country, getting it right the first time." Well...how's that working out for 'ya ? Wanna buy some more Iltis jeeps ? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 Well...how's that working out for 'ya ? Wanna buy some more Iltis jeeps ? Getting there. I like how we do things here and have no plans to move South. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 Getting there. I like how we do things here and have no plans to move South. OK....I have no plans to move North, regardless of how we do things here. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 OK....I have no plans to move North, regardless of how we do things here. As is the way it should be. Americans should be proud of their country and what it does. If not, they should move. Canadians should be proud of their country and what it does. If not, they should move Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 As is the way it should be. Americans should be proud of their country and what it does. If not, they should move. Why should they move ? Over foreign policy ? "Right or wrong" means not moving. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Big Guy Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 Why should they move ? Over foreign policy ? "Right or wrong" means not moving. My bad. You are correct. "My country right or wrong" implies that it is OK to be wrong. So why should you move even if your country is wrong? No reason to. Now those young men who chose to move rather then be conscripted into fighting that dirty little war in Vietnam might have disagreed. We should thank the USA for those 50,000 odd young men who "moved" permanently to Canada when they got a letter that they won the lottery and were to report for duty in the USA. A whole bunch went on a quick vacation to other parts of the world. When people stopped volunteering then the government decided giving every young American citizen the opportunity to fight for the glory of the Stars and Stripes. Not every American chose "not to move"; " A total of 209,517 men were accused of violating draft laws, while another 360,000 were never formally charged." http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7974.html I think it is very patriotic and glorifying to declare "My country right or wrong" but I think it would also be nice to admit when you are wrong. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 ....I think it is very patriotic and glorifying to declare "My country right or wrong" but I think it would also be nice to admit when you are wrong. Nevertheless....even admitting "wrong" doesn't mean moving. Hell, many Canadians "moved" from Canada to fight in the "wrong" Vietnam War. Many U.S. draft dodgers returned home anyway....the TV in Canada sucked ! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Moonbox Posted September 5, 2014 Report Posted September 5, 2014 And the reason Harper has accomplished nothing is because he won't go near anything that might be controversial or complicated, like reforming health care or native affairs. His single-minded fixation is on retaining power at any cost - even if he hasn't got the balls to do anything with it. That was one of the best and well thought-out posts I've read here in forever. It's a huge problem in Canadian politics and it has been for probably 20 years now, showing no signs of improvement. Can we lay the blame squarely on the party's shoulders, however? Nope! Canadians, by and large, are centrists, and extremist vitriol spewed by people like you (or from the extreme left) will never be elected by a centrist populace……. This is a fluffy, exaggerated and essentially meaningless statement when you really look at it. It's a pervasive cliché in Canadian political discourse, but let's actually look at what it tells us. When we say "centrist", what we really mean is mainstream politics. Mainstream politics win in Canada, sure, but they generally win everywhere else as well. Mainstream/Centrist politics dominate everywhere that democracy rules. What's mainstream here, however, is not necessarily mainstream in the USA or Japan. The mainstream changes from region to region and over time as well. This is where we actually get to what Derek's statement actually means. When he says Canada is centrist and averse to extremist vitriol, he is certainly correct, but perhaps not in the way he intended. While as nation we're certainly anti-extremism and anti-vitriol, we're also anti-change and anti-honest talk. In aggregate, we're a nation of conservatives, and by the proper definition of conservative rather than the 'right-wing' meaning of the term today. We're resistant to change, we don't like boat-rocking and we're shocked and appalled by candid dialogue. That's why little/nothing gets done over long periods of time, and that's why people like Harper/Chretien etc can spend 10 years in office with little to show for it. The parties that maintain the status quo and have the most boring platform are generally the ones who win. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
PIK Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 No thanks....keep Canada's policies, or lack thereof.....in Canada.You mean America's policies or lack of. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Argus Posted September 6, 2014 Author Report Posted September 6, 2014 You mean America's policies or lack of. Both have weak leaders and no real policy. Not a good combination, that. 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
eyeball Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 That was one of the best and well thought-out posts I've read here in forever. It's a huge problem in Canadian politics and it has been for probably 20 years now, showing no signs of improvement. Can we lay the blame squarely on the party's shoulders, however? Nope! It would be nice if the incrementalists could pick it up a notch or two. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Moonbox Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 Yes, it would. Even incremental change, however, is a struggle in Canada. The tendency for special interests (corporate, social or other) to cry/whine/advertise loudly about impending disaster are usually enough to get voters confused over the issues, ensuring the gravy trains remain unaffected. The issue never seems to be about how changes will positively and significantly affect the majority of Canadians, but instead how calamitous it will be for small special interest groups. The Dairy Board is a great example. This monstrously stupid institution ensures that a relatively small number of large (and wealthy) dairy farmers don't have to compete. In exchange, Canadian families (on average) pay something like $300 more on milk and cheese than they would otherwise, and export markets for OTHER farming markets remain closed to Canadians. Instead of actually learning what the Dairy Board actually does, the fabricated image of the struggling Mom & Pap dairy farmers gets imprinted in the mind of Canadians, making any discussion about dismantling it widely unpopular. It makes me want to puke. Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he does for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
PIK Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Both have weak leaders and no real policy. Not a good combination, that. We do not have a weak leader.Canadians after all these yrs would not know a strong leader. We had nothing but fence sitters, for many decades. Edited September 6, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
waldo Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 We do not have a week leader.Canadians after all these yrs would not know a strong leader. We had nothing but fence sitters, for many decades. ya, ya... when the going gets tough, Harper goes perogy dipping! Quote
PIK Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) ... Edited September 6, 2014 by PIK Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
PIK Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 ya, ya... when the going gets tough, Harper goes perogy dipping!You working today waldo? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
On Guard for Thee Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 We do not have a weak leader.Canadians after all these yrs would not know a strong leader. We had nothing but fence sitters, for many decades. Harper can't seem to get out of damage control mode long enough to actually do anything. Although with some of his policies, such as on science, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all. Quote
PIK Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 What damage control?? Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Big Guy Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 Nevertheless....even admitting "wrong" doesn't mean moving. Hell, many Canadians "moved" from Canada to fight in the "wrong" Vietnam War. Many U.S. draft dodgers returned home anyway....the TV in Canada sucked ! There were a few thousand who decided to join the American "liberation" and about 120 of them were killed - a few less than were killed in the American "liberation" of Afghanistan. There were 0 Americans (who decided to move to Canada) and were killed in that dirty little Vietnam "liberation". I wonder how many parents and other relatives of the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam later wished that they had "moved" from the USA. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted September 6, 2014 Author Report Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) We do not have a weak leader.Canadians after all these yrs would not know a strong leader. We had nothing but fence sitters, for many decades. The only strength of will Harper has demonstrated is his vindictive nature to anyone who crosses him or embarrasses his government, another point of character he shares with Chretien. What he doesn't have the strength for is taking on difficult, complex issues which might produce as much bad publicity as good. I'll give this to Mulroney, he implemented the GST, a highly unpopular move. What did Harper do? He grandly slashed the GST. Yayyy. That sure took courage... Edited September 6, 2014 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
On Guard for Thee Posted September 6, 2014 Report Posted September 6, 2014 What damage control?? You know, the scandal after scandal type damage control. Quote
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.