Why do so many Canadians think our military is ...

[Hicksey]

It was something said by Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun during an interview on the radio last night.

Do you agree that this is how our military is viewed by a majority of Canadians?

Is this how you view it? Why?

I thought it was an interesting characteriztion and I'm curious of the different viewpoints.

[politika]

It was something said by Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun during an interview on the radio last night.

Do you agree that this is how our military is viewed by a majority of Canadians?

Is this how you view it? Why?

I thought it was an interesting characteriztion and I'm curious of the different viewpoints.

I definalty think our military is better than that. And no I do not think the majority of Canadiangs believe this I think it is a minority of ignorant Canadians who do not have respect fo their country they live in.

Lorrie Goldstein is ignorant and should not be a reporter, if she is bias.

[Black Dog]

I definalty think our military is better than that. And no I do not think the majority of Canadiangs believe this I think it is a minority of ignorant Canadians who do not have respect fo their country they live in.

Lorrie Goldstein is ignorant and should not be a reporter, if she is bias.

Uh...Goldstein is a he not a she. And secondly, I don't a see how making a statement about a common belief is indicative of bias. Do some homework.

And yeah, that does seem to be the belief many Canadians have, based on the happy image of the Canadian peacekeeper. That image is far more palatable than the reality of Canada's armed forces as the water carrier for the empire du jour.

[Army Guy]

And yeah, that does seem to be the belief many Canadians have, based on the happy image of the Canadian peacekeeper. That image is far more palatable than the reality of Canada's armed forces as the water carrier for the empire du jour.

I'm afraid BD is right, most Canadians do have happy images of Canadian peacekeepers. Why because it is more palatable perhaps. It is the line that past governments has feed the tax payer. be it to justify spending some money on military equipment which never seems to arrive "unless it can be directly tied to peacekeeping" or to justify the occasional dead soldier.

I would attribute all this, to a majority of Canadians not being versed in our own Military history. In a world where most of us take for granted the freedoms and rights that we have today. Most of which are tied to that very history. But somewhere, some time we as a country have decided that having a military is bad, arming them for WAR even worse, going as far as removing it from school history programs.

Canadian soldiers primary mission is not peacekeeping, never has been, But rather a polictical instrument of our government to solve problems that they can not solve verbally, but require the use of force, and violence. Of which Canada has used force and violence to solve peacekeeping issues, but these things are not so widely made public are they "god forbid we destroy the image our government has painted" Canadian soldiers have been living this lie for more than 40 or more years. You don't get a good reputation for peacekeeping just for handing out teddy bears and candy, you get it because we can get the job done thru the use of military presence and if required the use of force.

Below are some interesting news articles on this very topic.

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

My Webpage

[politika]

I definalty think our military is better than that. And no I do not think the majority of Canadiangs believe this I think it is a minority of ignorant Canadians who do not have respect fo their country they live in.

Lorrie Goldstein is ignorant and should not be a reporter, if she is bias.

Uh...Goldstein is a he not a she. And secondly, I don't a see how making a statement about a common belief is indicative of bias. Do some homework.

And yeah, that does seem to be the belief many Canadians have, based on the happy image of the Canadian peacekeeper. That image is far more palatable than the reality of Canada's armed forces as the water carrier for the empire du jour.

My bad I meant he, I do not know how I got the "s" in their.

Um well considering reporters are supposed to be neutral in matters and not taking sides, than yes I am afraid he is bias, reporters are supposed to give facts not their own oppinions or else it is bias and is meant to represent the real story not hi spoint of view.

But again I do not think the majority of Canadians believe this, I still stand on my point of the ignorant few who do believe our military is basicly crap. Or they could very well be un informed as we are not really peace keeping in Afganistan but hunting down insurgents.

[Black Dog]

Um well considering reporters are supposed to be neutral in matters and not taking sides, than yes I am afraid he is bias, reporters are supposed to give facts not their own oppinions or else it is bias and is meant to represent his point of view not the real story.

Well, not to defend Goldstein (of whom I know little, but the fact that he's a Sun employee says plenty), he's not a reporter, but a columnist. In other words, he's paid to be biased.

But again I do not think the majority of Canadians believe this, I still stand on my point of the ignorant few who do believe our military is basicly crap. Or they could very well be un informed as we are not really peace keeping in Afganistan but hunting down insurgents.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that "social workers with guns" would be considered a perjorative term by Canadians. On the contrary: I think that's what most Canadians want the military to be.

[politika]

Um well considering reporters are supposed to be neutral in matters and not taking sides, than yes I am afraid he is bias, reporters are supposed to give facts not their own oppinions or else it is bias and is meant to represent his point of view not the real story.

Well, not to defend Goldstein (of whom I know little, but the fact that he's a Sun employee says plenty), he's not a reporter, but a columnist. In other words, he's paid to be biased.

But again I do not think the majority of Canadians believe this, I still stand on my point of the ignorant few who do believe our military is basicly crap. Or they could very well be un informed as we are not really peace keeping in Afganistan but hunting down insurgents.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that "social workers with guns" would be considered a perjorative term by Canadians. On the contrary: I think that's what most Canadians want the military to be.

I agree that that is what most Canadians want to think and with a little help from the media who hasn't really talked about are over 2000 troops fighting insurgents in Afganistan but is more focussing on the very few Canadian soldiers who actually arn't fighting but helping re-build the ravaged country. With a little research and straight facts though I am sure people would understand what is really going on in Afganistan and our military is turning more into a smaller version of the United States military. (not that I think that is bad, by the way, I think it is good.)

[Black Dog]

I agree that that is what most Canadians want to think and with a little help from the media who hasn't really talked about are over 2000 troops fighting insurgents in Afganistan but is more focussing on the very few Canadian soldiers who actually arn't fighting but helping re-build the ravaged country. With a little research and straight facts though I am sure people would understand what is really going on in Afganistan and our military is turning more into a smaller version of the United States military. (not that I think that is bad, by the way, I think it is good.)

Has it occurred to you that this version of muscular war-making is why Canadian's are uncertain about the Afghan mission. They like the image of the happy peacekeeper. They don't like the idea of a U.S. style war machine.

[Wilber]

It's because successive governments have fed Canadians the line Canada is the only country in the world that is so fundamentally nice it doesn't need a military that might actually have to fight someone. It has worked with too many.

[Hicksey]

But again I do not think the majority of Canadians believe this, I still stand on my point of the ignorant few who do believe our military is basicly crap. Or they could very well be un informed as we are not really peace keeping in Afganistan but hunting down insurgents.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that "social workers with guns" would be considered a perjorative term by Canadians. On the contrary: I think that's what most Canadians want the military to be.

It's because successive governments have fed Canadians the line Canada is the only country in the world that is so fundamentally nice it doesn't need a military that might actually have to fight someone. It has worked with too many.

I think you two are accurate, and as such I think that Canadians have a rather naive view of what a military is for.

New question: At what point in history did we transform from a country proud of its significant military after WW2, to sending social workers with guns around the world now? And what precipitated that change.

[scribblet]

It's because successive governments have fed Canadians the line Canada is the only country in the world that is so fundamentally nice it doesn't need a military that might actually have to fight someone. It has worked with too many.

I agree, guess they have to hide the fact that our military isn't shooting flowers out of their guns, they really do use actual bullets. (well, when they have enough funds for them - )

[Black Dog]

New question: At what point in history did we transform from a country proud of its significant military after WW2, to sending social workers with guns around the world now? And what precipitated that change.

Well, early peacekeeping efforts were muscular afairs. It seems as Canada's participation in peacekeeping efforts has declined, public perception of how important and significant those efforts are has increased. I can't imagine having a military that is totally rudderless and top-heavy helps.

[politika]

I agree that that is what most Canadians want to think and with a little help from the media who hasn't really talked about are over 2000 troops fighting insurgents in Afganistan but is more focussing on the very few Canadian soldiers who actually arn't fighting but helping re-build the ravaged country. With a little research and straight facts though I am sure people would understand what is really going on in Afganistan and our military is turning more into a smaller version of the United States military. (not that I think that is bad, by the way, I think it is good.)

Has it occurred to you that this version of muscular war-making is why Canadian's are uncertain about the Afghan mission. They like the image of the happy peacekeeper. They don't like the idea of a U.S. style war machine.

I know Canadians are uncertain now, but if they actually new what was happaning and the government actually informed these people on what was actually really going on they would be more on easy with the force in Afganistan. People are only edgy because the government is not feeding them facts.

I want to make it clear that I have no problem with our forces in Afganistan and what we are doing.

[Black Dog]

I know Canadians are uncertain now, but if they actually new what was happaning and the government actually informed these people on what was actually really going on they would be more on easy with the force in Afganistan. People are only edgy because the government is not feeding them facts.

Well, the government's version of the facts, anyway. Is there any doubt that we're seeing a full-scale propaganda campaign designed to boost the public's opinion of the Afghan mission?

[politika]

I know Canadians are uncertain now, but if they actually new what was happaning and the government actually informed these people on what was actually really going on they would be more on easy with the force in Afganistan. People are only edgy because the government is not feeding them facts.

Well, the government's version of the facts, anyway. Is there any doubt that we're seeing a full-scale propaganda campaign designed to boost the public's opinion of the Afghan mission?

No I have no doubt their is a propaganda campaign going. The nation saw it when Harper went to Afganistan and delivered an American style "whoo rah, we are going to win this war" type speech.

But it is neccessary to get the Canadian people backing our forces.

I am proud of Harper's speech and I am glad he cares for out military enough to go visit them, somthing Martin or Cretien would never have done.

[Leafless]

The real problem is Canada's military was totally ignored to the point it could carry on no other duties other than peacekeeping.

The Liberals ruined our military and left it a shattered image of it's previous self while spending ton's of money to create the perfect multi-cultural image and support it's ludicrous social policies no other country in the world can afford to do.

We now have no completley functional air-force, army, navy or modern weaponery and are military still peacekeepers with permission to shoot with what weaponery we have under the guise of combat troups.

[Army Guy]

Canadians don't know about thier military because they choose not to. As for the Afgan mission, this mission has recieve more media coverage than any other, a soldier can't even fart over there without reading about it in all the national papers. In the last month or more it has been debated in every media outlet in Canada. If Canadians don't know the facts now it's because they again choose not to.

So my question is what facts do the Canadian people need That they don't already have access to ?

[politika]

Canadians don't know about thier military because they choose not to. As for the Afgan mission, this mission has recieve more media coverage than any other, a soldier can't even fart over there without reading about it in all the national papers. In the last month or more it has been debated in every media outlet in Canada. If Canadians don't know the facts now it's because they again choose not to.

So my question is what facts do the Canadian people need That they don't already have access to ?

Well on contrary to Leafless's belief, I believe our forces in Afganistan are doing a damn fine job and are well more equippe than people think.

Well as for Canadians needing to know stuff, we have probably killed more Taliban than the government is leting the media report on. So far they say we killed the axeman and a few Taliban, but I think we have killed hundreds more and it is being covered up.

This may sound rediculus but people don't want to think we are over their killing people right?

[Black Dog]

So my question is what facts do the Canadian people need That they don't already have access to ?

How about a idea about how long we are planning on maintaining a prescence in Afghanistan and how much we plan on spending.

[Army Guy]

Leafless:

The real problem is Canada's military was totally ignored to the point it could carry on no other duties other than peacekeeping.

Not true, Canadian military had a full mech inf Brigade group along with a complete fighter air wing in germany up until 1992, plus the military is responsable for a majority of the SAR (search and rescue), it provides Naval ves to US carrier battle groups, carries out any major NATO naval exericises. the list goes on and on and on, and when the got 5 mins they go to floods and ice storms etc etc...

The Liberals ruined our military and left it a shattered image of it's previous self while spending ton's of money to create the perfect multi-cultural image and support it's ludicrous social policies no other country in the world can afford to do.

As much as i dislike the liberals, we can't blame all this on them, the conservatives can take thier share as well, disbandment of the airbourne regt, Cutting military funding, etc etc....

We now have no completley functional air-force, army, navy or modern weaponery and are military still peacekeepers with permission to shoot with what weaponery we have under the guise of combat troups.

I think it is alittle unfair to say that we have no functional army, air, or navy forces when we have completed any mission Canada has given to us. It's unfair in the sense that you may be judging those that serve our country. After all it is the government and the people of Canada that truely decide how large we are , how we are equiped, etc etc....perhaps you should direct your frustrations towards them.

I'd also like to piont out that we do have some of the best equipment in the world, OK only in limited numbers most of which is in Afgan now, ..My piont is that that equipment has been purchased because Canadian soldiers have died using the old ,cheapest bidder stuff...not because the Canadian tax payer decided to educate themselfs on the plight of thier military and demanded from our government they purchase something...Because the military proved over and over again that it was unsafe....it is a sad day when a nation places the lives of it's soldiers over a dollar.

My piont is this the Canadian taxpayer is the guy grumbling about the state of our military and yet "they" and the government of thier choosing are the ones responsable for that condition. If everyone grab thier balls and squezed and demanded from our goverment to just finish off equiping the forces we have now, i'm sure hell would freeze over, and toronto would finally win the cup.

[Army Guy]

politika:

Well as for Canadians needing to know stuff, we have probably killed more Taliban than the government is leting the media report on. So far they say we killed the axeman and a few Taliban, but I think we have killed hundreds more and it is being covered up.

There is not many operations that are carried out with out a media tail. and they report est numbers. Such as those that were reported last week. My question is why do we need to know the exact numbers killed ? are we keeping score is it not enough to know that the Taliban are paying the same price we are.

This may sound rediculus but people don't want to think we are over their killing people right?

The military has been very clear about our mission, the CDS has made numerous speachs and comments on "why" we are over there. It's time the Canadian people start listening "we are not handing out teddy bears and candy, as the CDS said we are hunting down these scumbags. The mission has not changed since the liberals left. We were sent over there to bring peace to this nation, and in order to do that we have to use force.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

How about a idea about how long we are planning on maintaining a prescence in Afghanistan and how much we plan on spending.

Harper has already commented on this, he predicts a long term mission, however he can not comment on Canada's role past our mandate in 07.

Harper has already commented on this as well, there are no commitments past the 07 year. and Aid will vary year to year. If you mean how much are we going to spend on the military MY answer is not enough, the Canadian answer as little as possiable.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

How about a idea about how long we are planning on maintaining a prescence in Afghanistan and how much we plan on spending.

Harper has already commented on this, he predicts a long term mission, however he can not comment on Canada's role past our mandate in 07.

Harper has already commented on this as well, there are no commitments past the 07 year. and Aid will vary year to year. If you mean how much are we going to spend on the military MY answer is not enough, the Canadian answer as little as possiable.

[Black Dog]

Harper has already commented on this, he predicts a long term mission, however he can not comment on Canada's role past our mandate in 07.

Harper has already commented on this as well, there are no commitments past the 07 year. and Aid will vary year to year. If you mean how much are we going to spend on the military MY answer is not enough, the Canadian answer as little as possiable.

I think those are pretty big questions. What is a "long-term" commitment? 10 years? 25? I read the other day that the U.S. military is finally considering turning over combat command of the South Korean armed forces to the South Koreans, some 55 years after hostilities ceased with the North. Something to think about.

While I understand that making predictions can be a mug's game (look at all the predictions about Iraq that never materialized), open-ended timelines and budgets make me nervous.

[Army Guy]

Black dog:

Canada just pulled out of Sryia after more than 30 years there, what about Cyprus. This country is no stranger to long term commitments. i personal don't see things changing in afgan for awhile yet...Peace needs a generation to take hold, those people need to see what could be lost if they take back up an armed struggle. right now they now nothing of peace. so they think they have nothing to lose.

It makes you nervous, I'm going back for my second tour in August, along with my wife who is also in the military. that makes me nervous...But i would'nt have asked to go back if i did not think it was all worth something.