Our soldiers suffer while caught in the middle.

[Army Guy]

This is not a new problem, it dates back as far as i can remember, they fact that our soldiers are caught in the middle between the Military and minister, and the VAC and it's minister is telling....and this has made headlines over and over again.....But it still has not left a mark on it's citizens....another telling point on where our Military stands with everyone.....Stories like being losing homes, going bankrupt......or not receiving any compensation for any wounds received while on duty....a fact now that 75% of those released from the military have not identified with any wounds.....How can that be ?.....

Quote

Currently, of ALL the veterans under the care of Veterans Affairs, only 25% of them are identified at release. Understanding that a number of these individuals will late manifest, especially if they suffer from an Operational Stress Injury, I believe that that number should be and could be higher.

OK i get it, our members are not very popular amoung'st the rest of the citizens, that we don't place very high on the priority list of things to do.....i also get it that their voice is not heard in the great scheme of things....So who are these people, they are Canadian citizens like you and me, they are our sons and daughters, they come in all races, colors, creeds, and religions, they are the people that we have gone to school with, shared a beer with, we have even called them best friends. They have paid taxes, and still do,....what makes them different is they signed the dotted line to serve our government , our nation what ever that entails, night or day they answer a higher calling, so that we as ordinary citizens can rest assured we are under they protection night and day....and for this service....they ask you for nothing except to have their back.....to which we say...ya, ya....and slap them in the face with this.....

Losing there homes.....  suffering with mental and physical wounds suffered while on duty for us....what is sad, is we are good with that......we are not embarrassed, we do not hang our head in shame.....we read about their plight and move on to the next story........maybe we should take 5 minutes write our MP a small paragraph about why this is wrong.....one day this may be our sons and daughters we are talking about....we need to make this right....we need to tell our government Hey listen to us....

[Rue]

100% agreement

[GostHacked]

The government uses the Military as a tool. However, they have no idea on how to properly use the tool. And unless you are ranked high, you will be left behind upon returning home. Meaning the medical help many of the soldiers need when arriving back home is not anywhere near adequacy.

[Army Guy]

your right we were cast aside because we did not rate ....it pissed a lot of soldiers off when Omar khadr  thing was going on.....how a terrorist was going to be treated better by our government than our very own soldiers....His family was well looked after.....while our soldiers had to beg for medical help....our VAC treating us like beggars in the streets....offering ridiculously low pay outs....I remember one of my comrades , who had been blown up by a IED on a donkey, and lost his testicle, it had been removed by a piece of donkey bone.....the VAC offered him 1200.00 because some bean counter had said that is what one testy is worth....he redress it.....resubmitted it for a another review....on the second review they offered him 1600.00 that was their final offer.....( review panels are made up of various members of the Vac staff, and a medical officer, it is set up like a court proceeding , a lawyer is present, you and your lawyer is present....the entire time no one has a clue what it is like to serve or be in combat.....kind of hard to explain to them what it is like when they have no clue.....It was never the same review board they only sat for that one day....never to come back....

If you got them in the morning it was pay day sort of ...late in the afternoon, it was nothing but head bobing and yawns).....he told the review panel to stick their 1600 up their asses....of course they phone our commanding officer to complain he then charged him with behavior unbecoming a soldier, they charged him 800. 00....so today he lives with that constant memory and pain of having gone to afghanistan 4 times and paid the government for the honor of getting one of his nuts blown off for 800.00 dollars. and while all this was going on their was talk of our government going to pay out omar a huge multi million dollar pay out....for being on the other side....all of this was pumped over seas for our viewing pleasure....kind of hard to keep moral up when our own citizens are demanding huge pay outs for terrorists, and nothing for our own troops.... 

I can remember the running dark humoured joke at the time was to ask around camp how we could get a job working for the taliban because they paid more....the Canadian government paid out more....or when the politicians would have a dog and pony show, and a soldier would ask when are we getting new equipment ....and the politicians would come back with there is no more funding for that....(That was code for not enough soldiers have died yet).and wonder why they would get heckled there is no more money because your paying out terrorist, or giving it out to Canada's number one family the Khadrs.....ya those guys were very popular with our troops.....  

[-1=e^ipi]

Long term solution is to slash military expenditure, stop hiring so many soldiers and stop sending them to fight in pointless warzones. Then you will have less veterans with PTSD. Also, leave NATO.

Edited March 19, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

If Canada's soldiers had been conscripted to help perpetrate the West's depredations around the planet instead of volunteering this appeal for sympathy would certainly get my support.

The people who willfully supported paying for this should be the one's paying for the consequences. Those of us who've had our hard-earned tax dollars conscripted to squander on one useless military adventure after another have invested enough.

 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

...it pissed a lot of soldiers off when Omar khadr  thing was going on... 

 

 

...I can remember the running dark humoured joke at the time was to ask around camp how we could get a job working for the taliban because they paid more....the Canadian government paid out more....or when the politicians would have a dog and pony show, and a soldier would ask when are we getting new equipment ....and the politicians would come back with there is no more funding for that....(That was code for not enough soldiers have died yet).and wonder why they would get heckled there is no more money because your paying out terrorist, or giving it out to Canada's number one family the Khadrs.....ya those guys were very popular with our troops...

And yet you volunteer for more of the same over and over again and again.

You people really need to give your heads a shake and take more responsibility for the consequences of your own free choice. 

[-1=e^ipi]

We should also get rid of the current hiring preference for veterens and citizens in the public service. Hire the best person for the job instead.

[-1=e^ipi]

Future wars will be fought with drones instead of humans anyway. Better to spend money on programmers to develop military ai than waste it training soldiers.

 

Man, trashing the military is fun.

[-1=e^ipi]

Interesting fact about the military:

 

"Allegiance and loyalty to the monarch, and the manner in which they are expressed, are specifically outlined in the Canadian Armed Forces regulations and subordinate orders. Within the Queen's Regulations and Orders, it is stipulated that all Canadian citizens or British subjects who enroll in the forces must take the Oath of Allegiance before either a commissioned officer or a justice of the peace. Those who are not Canadian citizens or British subjects must recite a longer oath: "I, [name], do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors according to law, in the Canadian Forces until lawfully released, that I will resist Her Majesty's enemies and cause Her Majesty's peace to be kept and maintained and that I will, in all matters pertaining to my service, faithfully discharge my duty. So help me God." The words so help me God are omitted if a solemn affirmation is taken."

 

The military's allegiance is to the monarch, not to Canada. If we want Canada to become a republic, the military might be an obstacle. I say defund these monarchists and save public money rather than waste it so some people can parade around in really expensive toys.

[-1=e^ipi]

Here's an interesting scenario. Let's say that 60% of Canadian public vote in a referendum to become a republic. The current monarch says no. The Canadian government, due to having no alternative routes to become a republic, unilaterally declares one (and therefore breaks the law in the same way that other republics such as the USA and France had to do to become republics). What happens then? The military performs a coup d'etat? I think we know where the military's loyalty lies.

Edited March 19, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

Hey don't get me wrong. I support helping disabled people and people with mental illness. I just don't see why it should matter if they were a veteran or not with regard to this. Why should a person who lost an arm due to fighting in Afghanistan get more help than a person who lost an arm to a tractor while harvesting wheat is Saskatchewan?

[Wilber]

10 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Hey don't get me wrong. I support helping disabled people and people with mental illness. I just don't see why it should matter if they were a veteran or not with regard to this. Why should a person who lost an arm due to fighting in Afghanistan get more help than a person who lost an arm to a tractor while harvesting wheat is Saskatchewan?

You in favour employers having no obligation toward employees injured on the job?  Injured on he job? Too bad, so sad, got what I wanted from you now go away. Farmers are self employed but their employees are entitled to workers compensation and rehab if injured on the job.

[dre]

12 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Hey don't get me wrong. I support helping disabled people and people with mental illness. I just don't see why it should matter if they were a veteran or not with regard to this. Why should a person who lost an arm due to fighting in Afghanistan get more help than a person who lost an arm to a tractor while harvesting wheat is Saskatchewan?

Both should get help. But the tractor driver should get help from the farm or corporation that hes working for. Soldiers or other civil servants should get help from the Government.

But you are right. Soldiers should not get any more "help" than anyone else. However government workers should get excellent compensation if they are injured on the job, whether its mental or physical.  One nice thing about treating veterans very well, is that it will make elective wars less affordable, and discourage the government from engaging in un-necessary and ill conceived adventures. 

In any case I hope we can all agree that its pretty damn sad that so many veterans are in such a poor state. Homeless, sick, destitute. That should not be the case.

I agree with Army Guy on this. The difference though is I'm PRO troop,  and hes ANTI troop. He supports our military being used for non-defensive, elective wars, dreamed up by civilian leaders that know nothing about the regions subject to these "interventions" or the people that live there.

The very most "pro-troop" position any person can have is to come down against wasting our troops lives on adventures in stupidity and idiocy. Which is why during the last presidential election in the US Ron Paul won the military vote in a landslide campaigning on a non-interventionalist, defense military doctrine.

Edited March 19, 2017 by dre

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Hey don't get me wrong. I support helping disabled people and people with mental illness. I just don't see why it should matter if they were a veteran or not with regard to this. Why should a person who lost an arm due to fighting in Afghanistan get more help than a person who lost an arm to a tractor while harvesting wheat is Saskatchewan?

The farmer has a choice daily to do what he does. Accidents happen sure. Farming can be dangerous. The difference is that once a person signs up for the Military and is accepted has no choice into how they are used. Sending them overseas to fight a battle we never should have participated in from the start.  Those are not accidents. Since our government deliberately puts them in harms way, the government is obligated to help them after all that is over when they come back home.

[GostHacked]

I will also add the costs involved. Sending them into war costs way more than their long term care afterwards for those who really need it.

[-1=e^ipi]

2 hours ago, Wilber said:

You in favour employers having no obligation toward employees injured on the job?  Injured on he job? Too bad, so sad, got what I wanted from you now go away. Farmers are self employed but their employees are entitled to workers compensation and rehab if injured on the job.

 

I'm fine with there being insurance, either bought by individuals or provided by the employer. But generally it makes sense for insurance plans to be defined when people take the job so that they can make informed employment decisions. But the approach by some people seems to be that we need to constantly change such insurance plans long after someone has retired from the military because somehow a disabled military veteran is more important than a disabled farmer, because we can never do enough to 'support our troops'.

[Wilber]

26 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

I'm fine with there being insurance, either bought by individuals or provided by the employer. But generally it makes sense for insurance plans to be defined when people take the job so that they can make informed employment decisions. But the approach by some people seems to be that we need to constantly change such insurance plans long after someone has retired from the military because somehow a disabled military veteran is more important than a disabled farmer, because we can never do enough to 'support our troops'.

I have farmers in the family so I am pretty sympathetic to their plight but a farmer is working for himself, a soldier is working for you and I.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, dre said:

....The very most "pro-troop" position any person can have is to come down against wasting our troops lives on adventures in stupidity and idiocy. Which is why during the last presidential election in the US Ron Paul won the military vote in a landslide campaigning on a non-interventionalist, defense military doctrine.

 

Actually, in the 2012 U.S. election, President Obama overtook Ron Paul in campaign donations from active duty military and received more active and retired military votes in the election compared to Ron Paul.   Comparisons to Canadian Forces and interventionist policies are dubious at best.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/10/armed-forces-show-overwhelming-supp/

Edited March 19, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

9 minutes ago, Wilber said:

a soldier is working for you and I.

No, a soldier is working to serve the monarchy. I already pointed this out.

[Wilber]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

No, a soldier is working to serve the monarchy. I already pointed this out.

No, the people you and I elect tell our soldiers what to do, not the Monarch.

[-1=e^ipi]

15 minutes ago, Wilber said:

No, the people you and I elect tell our soldiers what to do, not the Monarch.

But their oath is to the Monarch.

Edited March 19, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[Wilber]

41 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

But their oath is to the Monarch.

So? The Queen has no part in sending our military anywhere and you know it.

[-1=e^ipi]

15 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So? The Queen has no part in sending our military anywhere and you know it.

Sure she does. She tells them to do what they Canadian government tells them to do. What would happen in the future if hypothetically the monarch took a position in opposition to the Canadian government?

 

I have an idea. How about we become a republic and get rid of all these nonsense oaths to the monarchy.

[Bonam]

4 hours ago, dre said:

One nice thing about treating veterans very well, is that it will make elective wars less affordable, and discourage the government from engaging in un-necessary and ill conceived adventures. 

I disagree. Give me one single example of a government deciding not to pursue a war because it considered the cost of later paying for veterans and decided not to pursue the war for that reason. Never happens. For one, politicians don't care about anything that happens more than 4-10 years later, ever. Second, every person who ever started a war thought it was be a quick and painless victory (and so there would be hardly any injured veterans to take care of). And third, of course, politicians don't give a rats ass about taxpayers' money.