# Steven Staples & Company



## toms3 (11 Dec 2002)

Read this one....whats next??

No need for military spending hike: Polaris
CTV News Staff

The Polaris Institute says it has completed a report that finds no reason to increase military spending in the next federal budget.

The report, called "Breaking Ranks: A Citizens' Review of Canada's Military Spending," says Canada already spends more than $12-billion a year on defence and should not increase that amount. Instead the Department of National Defence should spend defence dollars more wisely, the group says.

The group, which represents citizen groups, says that Canada?s military spending is already very high by international comparisons. The Defence Department's own figures show that Canada is the sixth largest military spender in NATO, and the 16th largest in the world when looking at actual dollars spent, Polaris says. 

The Institute's Steven Staples says defence spending is being driven by a small, well-organized and well-funded defence lobby in Canada and the United States, while average Canadians want the federal government to focus on social programs ? not military spending. 

Staples says any new money that may be earmarked for the military should be diverted to such programs as health care and education -- areas that a recent Compass poll found that most Canadians believe should be the government's top priority. 

"More military spending would be throwing good money after bad. It would militarize our economy and undermine the real source of Canadians' security: our social programs," Staples says.

The report says there is plenty of evidence that the Defence Department mismanages the money it already receives. The Auditor General revealed the military wasted $174 million on a satellite communications system that has never been taken out of the box. The used submarines the Navy bought from the UK for $800 million have turned out to be lemons, and now the repair costs are climbing. 

Parliamentary and Senate committees have stressed the need for more money to buy new military equipment and have recommended an additional $1.5 billion in funding per year over five years. The Romanow Commission on health care has recommended an infusion of $6.5 billion in extra funding per year. Polaris says the government's money would be best invested in health care.

"The government needs to keep the defence lobby's hands out of the cookie jar. Canadians know that our security comes through good social programs, a clean environment, and a positive role in the world - not through the barrel of a gun," Staples says.

The Polaris Institute is an organization that works with citizen activist groups "to unmask and challenge the corporate power that is the driving force behind governments concerning public policy making on economic, social and environmental issues."


----------



## FredDaHead (11 Dec 2002)

Oh yeah, like terrorists will come here and say "Oh, they got good healthcare, let‘s forget Islam and just be good law-abiding citizens!"

...Don‘t you hate that kinda crap? And they spend, what, a billion on the gun law thing? Am I missing something?

But anyway, no need to preach to the choir, right?


----------



## Korus (11 Dec 2002)

> The group, which represents citizen groups, says that Canada’s military spending is already very high by international comparisons. The Defence Department‘s own figures show that Canada is the sixth largest military spender in NATO, and the 16th largest in the world when looking at actual dollars spent, Polaris says.


Dang straight, we blow Luxenbourg out of the water!

I guess they forgot to realise that those coutries who spend less in total than us also have a much smaller landmass to protect.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2002)

"while average Canadians want the federal government to focus on social programs – not military spending."

i wonder if by average canadians they mean those of us who are patriotic, who have had relatives serve in WW1 and 2 or if they mean people who move here  from other countries and don‘t care 2 cents about the military as long as they have free health care.


----------



## Anti Matter (11 Dec 2002)

Sadly it seems that a large percentage of the people who decide what gets proper funding and what doesn‘t seem to have trouble walking and chewing gum at the same time.


----------



## SpinDoc (11 Dec 2002)

Careful there about the immigrants, because I happen to come from another country, plus I happen to like universal health care, AND I pay my taxes.  I don‘t necessarily value the military over health care and social spending -- I hope that doesn‘t make me a "non-patriot".

I am equally convinced that when "the majority" of Canadians prefer health care spending to military spending, it‘s "the majority" of ALL Canadians, whether they were born in another country or born here.

I‘m not going to take offense to the bit in question, but that comment bordered on racist in my books... which I hope the xenophobic view isn‘t tolerated (or shared) by this forum.


----------



## Korus (11 Dec 2002)

Lots of pure many generation Canadians take more for granted than immigrants. 

I was born here, but my parents were immigrants. My relatives didn‘t fight for Canada, they fought in the resistance. They always made a point of letting me know how good life is here in Canada, and that for damn sure is something I don‘t take for granted. It‘s one of the reasons I enlisted.

(And I‘ll add a little disclaimer, since the ‘net is often a poor way to convey emotions; I‘m not getting heated up or anything I‘m just pointing out my view)


----------



## bossi (11 Dec 2002)

Well, I don‘t mind getting heated up, on or off the Net.  If you wanna dance, then let‘s drop the gloves (oh, I forgot - not everybody will understand this obtuse reference to one of Canada‘s national sports ... so excuuuuuse me).

So, Spindoc - stay in your lane.  Enough said.

I actually agree with the point that many new Canadians appreciate things MORE than some long-time Canadians.  Basically, they‘ve come to Canada because it offers a better way of life than their homeland.  Thus, I get annoyed when long-time Canadians become complacent.

In fact, I‘ve felt huge amounts of national pride when I‘ve had the pleasure of talking to new recruits whose families were new to Canada - their pride in serving in the defence of their new country rubs off ...

I‘m not much of a historian, but it seems to me that Rome eventually fell when everybody was too fat and lazy to go defend Rome‘s frontiers ...

Thus, it‘s interesting that some countries eventually resorted to Foreign Legions to defend themselves.

Okay - gloves back on - let‘s get back to skating, shooting, and checking hard.  Shaibu!


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2002)

If someone who lives in canada born or other wise is willing to defend it then i would gladly fight beside them. I consider them canadain and i would defend them to the last.
that being said
Canadians born in canada  or moved here but too shiftless  or self centered to lift a finger in it‘s defense are not true canadians in my mind. Canada is a country born from conflict. In world war two what was it, 1 in 10 canadians were involved in the military? It‘s who we are and were losing who we are because people think "well the US will just defend us, to ****  with the military lets have more free "things"

I hope i don‘t sound too harsh when i say this but the big R word doesn‘t scare me one bit. Theres religions who think im a devil because im white or because my country borders the US.Because i don‘t think it‘s cool to bomb innocent people. I‘m not sure how you got racist out of what i said. My comment was about "canadians" and people comming from other countries (maybe even americans or english) i never made a comment about skin colour or culture which in my opinion is what defines beingracist..  If i unintentionally hurt your feelings, well, sorry guy. But good for you for joining the canadian forces brother.

Canadians SHOULD hold the state of our military over the bennifits of health care. With out the military we would not have the pleasure of health care and without a military to defend our soverenty (sp?) we would lose our health care.  A la american annexing canada because we can‘t defend our land and thus making us pay for health care.


----------



## SpinDoc (11 Dec 2002)

I didn‘t take offense (as I said) and I‘m sure it wasn‘t intentional.  I don‘t like freeloaders just like any other red-blooded person.  I just thought the bit about "other countries" was superflous (and a bit broad in its stroke) in regards to your point, that‘s all.

Just to make this message relevant to the subject... the swords vs plowshires debate has been going on for centuries.  Swords are of course more desirable if your neighbours aren‘t particularly friendly (or if you don‘t want to be particularly friendly to your neighbours...)  Universal health care and social services will always seem expensive when one doesn‘t need to use it at any particular moment.  I guess it‘s sort of like car insurance -- we pay so much that we can practically buy a new car in a couple of years, and until that day that we crash our own vehicle, it‘ll seem like highway robbery.


----------



## Pikache (12 Dec 2002)

Just adding my two cents...

I came to Canada about 11 years ago and never a day go by when I think I love this country. Part of reason why I signed up for CF.

BUT. I think I am a minority in that train of thought.
I know for fact that many immigrants don‘t really care for Canada. They came to Canada because it is a great country. But they also came here to do business and to grow their kids up. They‘d rather have health care than military spending, because military don‘t really effect them, but health care do. Sure, they don‘t want Canada to go bad, but because of our encouraged multiculturalism, some of them, IMO quite a lot of them give more of a damn to what happens to their native country than Canada, because they feel more loyalty that way.

So, give them a choice between something that‘ll benefit them more directly vs. something that‘s fuzzy and unknown, (I wonder how many immigrants bother to study Canadian history. Certainly the exam for citizenship was ridiculous) what do you think they‘d take?


----------



## SpinDoc (12 Dec 2002)

I definitely see your point Bedpan Elemental, and you are probably right in your assessment.

But I think one would find the same level of self-interest amongst the rest.  High school kids these days don‘t want to take Canadian History.  They do it because it‘s mandatory (that or it‘s a bird course if a teacher is lax).  It‘s only the ones who develop into history buffs that take a more friendly view of today‘s military and its necessity.  We live in an increasingly self-centred society (some blame Dr. Spock).  I haven‘t been around 50 years yet so I can‘t say if it‘s more self-centred than 50 yrs ago or not, but looking at the participation rate in WWII, I think it‘s a safe bet it is such a case.


----------



## toms3 (12 Dec 2002)

WOW...cool.  This tread took on a life of its own, but all interesting posts. 

Just want to throw something out there.  The basic idea was that Health Care is more important then the Military to the average Canadian.  Ok...lets say the gov is presently spending 2 bucks on health care and 1 buck on defence (just an example).  From the people that I have spoken too, the impression I get is....the military is still important, but not as much as health care.  So in their minds, the Gov should increase spending to 4 bucks on health care and 3 bucks on defence.  If that is correct...hey...I‘ll take it.  Now...ask the question "would you pay more tax to increase spending on health care and defence"???!!!!


----------



## BestOfTheBest (12 Dec 2002)

Well i came to Canada before 10 years 
I am 16 yeas old now.
And am planning on joining the reserve soon this summer.
just thought i would share with you people over here


----------



## onecat (12 Dec 2002)

I was just reading the posts here, and it was cool to see the debate on health care, but I just have to point something that Ghost778 said.

"Canada is a country born from conflict. In world war two what was it, 1 in 10 canadians were involved in the military? It‘s who we are and were losing who we are because people think "well the US will just defend us, to **** with the military lets have more free "things"

If you look at how canada came about it was from debate not conflict per say.  Conflict and war is everyone‘s history but Canada was created and shaped by the conflicts to the south.  The first being 1776 with the emripe loyalist moving to lower and upper canada, then 1812, and the us civil war and the fear that the war of 1812 would be repeated.

The military for some reason has never been a main interest of any goverenment here....  if any one has any answers to that question I would love to know why.  I think its because we have always thought of ourselves someone else‘s little brother and they would come to help out.  First it was Britian, and now it the States.


----------



## humint (12 Dec 2002)

I think it is mistaken to assume that people who move to Canada from another country automatically don‘t care about the military. Is there a particular country or set of countries of origin you are refering to? 

As you point out, the report from Polaris states "average Canadians." 

Where you get immigrants (I am assuming you mean immigrants when you say "people who move here from other countries") and why you feel safe in that assertion/hypothesis, I have no idea. 

I would argue that, by  *average Canadians* , the report means just that --  *people born here as well as those who are landed immigrants* . 

I need to be honest here, I think those of us who believe that the military needs more money are in the minority. 

If you look at this country, the national ethos seems to be more towards social services and heath care than it does for national defence. Fair enough, if that‘s what people want, well that‘s fine; in fact, that‘s what a democracy is all about.

Now, you and I know that the military is in $hit shape and a massive infusion of cash is needed -- and NEEDED NOW! And, certainly, most families of vets know this as well, cause they have taken the time to research the issues and have made an informed decision. 

But the average, everyday Canuck out there doesn‘t see it the same way we do for the simple reason that his/her priorities are different. It is, therefore, up to us to inform people (i.e. make people aware, educate them) of what a poor state the military is in rather than blame "people who move here from other countries" for our problems.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2002)

Raidohead, just Ghost is fine   :blotto:  

I was refering to Canada comming together really for the first time as a country.
Our military may not have been that big of an interest to the goverenment but it was a big deal to the average canadian. In world war one our army was sued as shock troops. In both world wars if im not mistaken we were considered super powers.

I know health care is important, just as important as the military. It can be argued with sick and ill citizens we won‘t have any people recruiting to the army. I ment we should not sacrifice military spending for heatlth care. ur health care is pretty good, especially considering what the US has but the forien legion could probably take over canada.

I was not refering to any country specifically. Personally if i went to another country i would be more concerned about what i can get rather then supporting it‘s military. (it just so happens im ont he other end) I applied that thought for someone comming here. It‘s also a case by case thing. For someone who comes here and is from another country and they support the military (probably because if their leaving a war torn country they know what NOT having a good military can bring about) good on them. Their more respectable in my eyes then the students who have their parents pay for their university and blow mommy and daddies money drinking and protesting monkeys in china being used for tests in ottawa.


----------



## onecat (12 Dec 2002)

Sorry Ghost,

  I wasn‘t sure, but your right we really did only come together in this century.  I‘ve read a lot of books on the cultural and social changes bought on by WW1.  A very nasty war, but it did bring Canadians together as Canadians, even more so after WW2.

Just a question to test to test peoples knowledge on this site.

How many people here know that if WW1 had lasted one more year; that I canadian gerenal would be running the show?  Field Marshal Haig was on the way out, Sir Arthur Currie was would of been next in line. But the war ended.


----------



## Tyler (13 Dec 2002)

> "The government needs to keep the defence lobby‘s hands out of the cookie jar. Canadians know that our security comes through good social programs, a clean environment, and a positive role in the world - not through the barrel of a gun," Staples says.


Same old socialist sh*t pushed by the Liberals and similar creatures. 

Leftists blame the ‘gun lobby‘ for the failure of the registry, and they want to keep the ‘defence lobby‘ from getting too much money. It‘s never their fault for poor decisions and funding, afterall.

We can really scare off an enemy with our good social programs. Give me a break.

Personally, I think it‘s sad that alot of smaller European countries have better equipped militaries than we do, and Europeans tend to be more on the socialist side of things than we are. Can someone explain to me how that works? Maybe it‘s because of the ridiculously high taxes they pay? In Finland (for example) the government can take up to %70 of someone‘s pay.

I‘ve talked to alot of current and former CF members and the opinion that I get from them is that funding is only half the problem, the other half is seems to be incredibly poor management of that money.



> "to unmask and challenge the corporate power that is the driving force behind governments concerning public policy making on economic, social and environmental issues."


When will these people realise that ‘big business‘ and ‘big government‘ are equally bad?    

Tyler


----------



## humint (13 Dec 2002)

The current income levels for Finland range from 25% for lower income eaners to 48% for the highest bracket of income earners. In fact, Finland isn‘t even the highest in all of Europe -- Denmark, Belgium, and Germany, for example, all have higher income tax rates! 

Not sure where you get the 70% tax rate? 

As for taxes, I would rather pay a high rate of income tax and know that social services, education, health care, and national defence are protected institutions -- of course, proper fiscal management is also needed. 

As for Liberals pushing socialist cr@p, let‘s be honest here -- as much as we think they are left wing, they are just a mirror image of the Tories. I would even go far as to suggest that that there really isn‘t much difference (at least in the modern era) between the two central parties. If you want socialism, I think you need to go to the NDP and then beyond to actually find it -- at least in the Canadian perspective of things! 

Obviously, socialism does not preclude an emphasis on defence spending. What I really think it comes down to is national ethos -- does John and Jane Q Public really care about defence spending or are they more concerned about other things. 

Man, we are now so far off topic that I need a map and gps to get back.


----------



## Gunnar (13 Dec 2002)

The Polaris Institute is not exactly non-partisan.  A quick look at their web site, and their "favourite links" ought to give you a rough approximation of their political viewpoints.  They support the people, and communities in the very same way socialists have always claimed MY voice as part of a collective.

As usual, the fact that MY voice isn‘t part of that collective doesn‘t faze them...

Socialist bull****.  Probably funded by the Liberal Party.  Ottawa-based, and the Liberals have a documented history of giving money to their friends...

G


----------



## Tyler (13 Dec 2002)

Thanks for clearing that up humint, I got that info from a visiting Finn. He might have meant taxes on something else, it was a while ago, I‘m not sure.



> As for Liberals pushing socialist cr@p, let‘s be honest here -- as much as we think they are left wing, they are just a mirror image of the Tories.


Right you are.

The national ethos of this country tends to fall to the socialist side of things, IMO. It all depends on individual opinion. **** , the NDP is as close to communism as you can get with any major party.



> Socialist bull****. Probably funded by the Liberal Party. Ottawa-based, and the Liberals have a documented history of giving money to their friends...


Bang on.    

Bahh, enough with politics, time to drink.    
Have a nice Friday night!

Tyler


----------



## Paul Gagnon (14 Dec 2002)

> We can really scare off an enemy with our good social programs. Give me a break.


Perhaps if we got rid of health care and the military and invested all of that into dental care we could scare them off with the flash of our sharp white fangs.   :evil:


----------



## Drez (19 Dec 2002)

I think this debate about money has always been around since there was a Canada to speak of. The social programs raised in the last 50 have expanded, and thus the funding for all of them instead of other things. Yet the fact clearly remains that where they raise the rest and forget about the base, the military as one of them. 

Canadians have to stop comparing themselves with other countries like the USA on where we should be...and for a good reason. We have NOWHERE close to their population, or their purchasing power that comes with it. True, our funding should be a bit better, but we should have it to maintain ourselves and improve our forces and the technology we use, and our soldiers...not to try and look like the rest. I say have the funding for what we need and use...and forget the fancy dandy extras.

And about the posts concerning the past wars Canada participated in...we were never a vast force, but Canadian were considered shock troops. The Canadian Army was always regarded as a just and elite troop. We have our share of the exploits for those who think we never did anything...Vimy Ridge ring a bell? And so many other things...(I studied canadian military history by the way...).

So juss my two cents...and...Im new to the CF. Im 18 and I just signed up! Glad to do my part and serve my country proudly!


----------



## portcullisguy (20 Dec 2002)

Well, let me toss in my two cents on this subject.

I love Canadian health care.  Sure, it‘s not perfect, but having a system that provides (mainly) free services, minimal waiting for low-level services, and a high standard of health expertise is certainly one of the things that makes me happy I live in Canada.  Since our taxes are so damn high, our health care system had better be at least as good as it is.

But, I don‘t think health care should be the #1 government priority.  Should it be up there?  Yes, I think it should.  But not numero uno.

That said, does the military budget have to necessarily be larger than the health care budget?  They are two entirely different programs, and it‘s like comparing apples and guavafruits.  If the hypothetical $1 spent on the military could give us all the safety and security we need, and we still have to spend $4 on health care to maintain it‘s current levels, then so be it.  However, I know that the military does need fixin‘, and that means a budget increase.

I just don‘t think our present elected leaders are responsible enough to appropriate a budget increase effectively, for either program.

Health care is great -- but what good is a great health care system if I get mugged on my way to the hospital, or a terrorist flies a jetliner into my office tower?  In Toronto, we have had a record number of motor vehicle and pedestrian deaths as a result of accidents on our roads, which places an obvious burden on health care because some of these people end up in hospitals before they give up the ghost.  The cause could be that we do not have enough police on our roads.

The problems start small.  They grow to effect many areas of our lifestyle.

An anthrax attack in a major Canadian city would certainly put a HUGE burden on our healthcare system!  But the problem isn‘t that healthcare is underfunded.

We need to take a step back, analyze the whole picture, and look for cause and effect.  I honestly do not believe that our present government is willing to do this, until they‘ve spent every last tax dollar on their conflict-of-interest pals.

Yes, health care is important.  But I do not want to have to speak Arabic/Russian/Chinese/whatever, or speak through a gas mask, at my local hospital (unless, of course, those are my native languages!) in order to GET that health care service, simply because Herman the German or Herb the Serb or whatever you call your Figure 11 targets, just marched over to Canada and took over.

It‘s not xenophobic at all, either.  I am a proponent of a healthy and effective immigration system.  I have experience with the immigration system, and know it‘s current faults, etc., since I am a border guard.  I myself am the son of an immigrant.  Canada has a way of life that people find attractive, which is why 30 million of us live here, in spite of the ridiculous cold and snow half the year.  I am not willing to compromise that way of life simply because we as a nation decided that getting our free flu shot was more important than keeping out terrorists and subversives.


----------



## Marauder (20 Dec 2002)

In an ideal world, we would be able to slash and hack at all the useless fat that has turned what was a government into a beauracratic Leviathan.

In this ideal world, the federal governement would focus on three things:

Education - Make sure little Timmy and Susie can read the paper, write effectively, and do math without having to take off their socks, as a bare minimum. There should be one high standard of primary and secondary education from sea to shining frickin‘ sea. More support of colleges and universities would be nice, so as to allow anyone who is academically able to attend university without placing a crippling debt on them. 

Health Care - Be able to provide to every citizen *essential* health care. If it‘s gonna keep you alive past a reasonable age, you should have access to it, period, end stop, fini. It‘s public funding of stupid **** like "gender reassignment" surgery (anyone recall that freak working in the Puzzle Palace?) that is leaking needed funding out of the system. While Romano may think just throwing money at the problem will make it go away, there is a lot of restructuring that should be going on before throwing in new cash. Trust me, I know, I‘ve been on the coal face of this one the last three years.

Defence/Security - Not just the Forces (though God knows we could always use more funding to make the *whole* sha-bang truly combat effective, instead of two battalions and a few ships being the go-tos at any one time) but also CSIS, CSE, CG, customs, forces covering vital infrastructure, etc. need to be given top billing, especially in the world in which we live now. Again, the focus should be on restructuring. All these elements are so far beyond top heavy it is not funny, and there is a lot of bull**** that could be stripped out tying up cash that should be downloaded to the troops on the sharp end. Then the focus should be turned to buying equipment that focuses on helping the troops do the job they are assigned most effectively.

The federal governement should not be focused on anything other than those three areas. Anything else is either socialist bull**** (think anything Sheila Copps whines about) that should not be funded or is something that can be handled provincially and/or locally.


----------



## Drez (20 Dec 2002)

If im not mistaking are they not in current restructure with the New Army thing? I read on the site that it was a 5-10 year project aiming to bring the CF in the 21st century. 

Does anybody know if this restructuring means that they will inject money to overhaul some of our outdated material and equipment? From what I read or see it  seems to be concerned with the organisation...but if anybody knows Id be glad to hear it!


----------



## Spr.Earl (24 Dec 2002)

Get ready to become the 51st state!
Re. inter border troop movement‘s in case of?

National Emergency!!!!


My Arse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thank god I only have another 5yrs to go and I‘ ****ing off out of here!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (24 Dec 2002)

Perhaps we ought to be supporting the United States in imposing Pax Americana on the rest of the world.

I think Chretien was exactly right when he said our higher standard of living has left us at risk for worldwide jealousy and terrorism.  Until the standard of living is sufficiently high in other countries in the world, we will always have enemies.

If every Afghani family lived in an air conditioned house, with two cars, three TVs, an X-Box, and unlimited health care...would they really be concerned about arming themselves with Kalishnikovs, training suicide bombers, or pledging a blood oath to the local warlord?

I should think that "fat and happy", as the earlier reference to the Romans intimated, should be a global goal.  Hungry people make for angry people.   The best way to provide for our own security is not to arm ourselves to the teeth, but to convince our enemies and potential  that they don‘t have to arm themselves in order to secure a decent way of life, too.

We‘ve tried to be proactive in this regard...witness Somalia...but we, the UN, everyone seems to fall short of actually taking constructive measures to secure our interests in this manner.

Terrorism is not a problem, it is a symptom.  The problem is the disparity between rich and poor, and the useless nationalism exhibited by ethnic groups in Africa, Yugoslavia, et al.  We see it here in Canada, too but for some strange reason have avoided major bloodshed over it (if you dismiss the dead policeman at Oka as "minor").

Happy Holidays, everyone, hope to see you, and more newcomers here, in the year ahead.


----------



## Anti Matter (25 Dec 2002)

I don‘t think the primary reason the US is a target of terrorism is because of their higher standard of living but rather because of their politics regarding other nations, most notably Israel and, at the moment, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. They also tend to be fairly arrogant and self centered as a whole.

Here‘s an example : recently the US invited Turkey to join the European Union.

They don‘t have the authority to do so, something the EU made quite clear to them.

Also, does anyone else find it strange that even North Korea has freely admitted to having a nuclear weapons program and are very close to having warheads, the US is still more concerned about Iraq, even though the weapons inspectors have found NO evidence of any weapons of mass destruction? They‘re probably going to go to war with Iraq regardless of what the inspectors find. The reason they‘re so concerned about Iraq is because of the region‘s oil and not, as they would have everyone believe, because they want to protect the people of Iraq and the surrounding nations from this evil dictator. Saudi Arabia has denied the US the use of their country as a base of operations.

The list goes on and on. I think we should try very hard to not get put into the same boat as them.

Anyway, Merry Christmas


----------



## the patriot (26 Dec 2002)

There‘s lots of talk here about social programs vs. military spending.  Maybe if it was presented differently there wouldn‘t be such a debate over it.  Why can‘t the military be viewed as a cornerstone "social program" in itself?  Whether you were born here or elsewhere, one can gain an education from the military and a career upon graduation!!!  Now ask the struggling university student paying off OSAP and flipping burgers at Burger King why they didn‘t want to invest in themselves?  A lot of it is complacency.  If military spending was presented in this manner to immigrants, I‘m certain they would understand the value behind it.  They would definitely see the benefits their children could gain by a degree program financed by the Canadian Armed Forces and a subsequent career in the service.

-the patriot-


----------



## Linc (31 Dec 2002)

Well part of the problem is nobody friggin knows about the few petty little educational benefits the Forces even offer.  The recruiting site makes vague references, but in reality unless you‘re planning to be a pilot, doctor, or dentist, there‘s not much for the average Canadian besides RMC (where they only take the best of the best students).  The average highschooler doesn‘t want to spend his college years doing drill and kit inspections anyways.

There are some Naval Technician programs that give you a free 2-yr diploma prior to service from a select number of community colleges, but a college diploma (as opposed to a university degree) is neither expensive enough or desired enough to encourage youngsters to trade 3 or 4 years of service for it.  What we need is a REAL education benefits program like the US has:  The Montgomery GI Bill gives any Enlisted w/ an honourable discharge $50,000 for college or university after 4 years service.  The US military also has ROTC programs at most of the accredited colleges and universities in the country, which heavily subsidze almost any recognized degree progam, in exchange for 4 years of service as a commissioned Officer upon graduation.

There‘s shyt all in this country for military educational benefits and that has to change first.


----------



## Ian (31 Dec 2002)

While the CF certainly doesn‘t have as many educational benefits as the US services, the civilian university ROTP program provides something fairly similar to the US ROTC programs. While the civvie U ROTP program was downsized in the past  (I think), this year there were almost as many civvie U ROTP students as RMC ROTP students.

There‘s almost no publicity for the program though, I know. I hadn‘t heard of it at all until it was offered to me, and the vast majority of people I meet have never heard of it.


----------



## Linc (31 Dec 2002)

Ya but ROTP is only for a select few degree programs, like nursing or medicine, and its only available at certain schools.  In the US, you can go to just about any University in the country and take whatever bachelor‘s degree program you want: art history, music, basket-weaving, etc and enrol in the ROTC program there and most of education paid for by Uncle Sam, with your 2nd year partially paid for and 3rd and 4th yrs completely paid for.


----------



## Ian (1 Jan 2003)

I‘m in ROTP under History and Religion, and I know people in ROTP taking subjects such as sociology, engineering, etc. The only requirement is that an ROTP student has to be in a degree program. It is also offered at every Canadian university, including those without any regular military base.

This could be a newer program in terms of its scope, but it‘s basically unknown to the public. I‘m surprised that recruiting doesn‘t mention it other than a few lines hidden in with the RMC information.


----------



## Linc (3 Jan 2003)

Interesting, I‘ve never heard of it and I still can‘t find anything about it on the internet.  You wouldn‘t happen to have a link for more info would you?


----------



## Ian (3 Jan 2003)

Just what there is at the DND recruiting website regarding ROTP. They mention that some people are selected for study at selected civilian universities, although nowadays I believe its almost half of the ROTP candidates.

www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/html/careers/career_advantage/education.html


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

*The Polaris Institute - Corporate-Security State Project*



> Introduction
> 
> The relationship between economic globalization, militarism, and security has become critically important in the post 9/11 context. The ongoing war on terror is being used not to just seek out those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but to provide greater protection for corporations through a war economy and muted social justice movements.



http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/corp_security_state_index.html

This is a series of quotes from their website. Every now and again these guys pop up with some very socialist-sounding statements about the "concern" they have for our overly militant society. They speak out against anything to do with the military, national security and any police-power matters being discussed.

So i started to wonder exactly who they are and what they're really up to.

All comments are more than welcome (even the less than intelligent ones - Who knows you may guess lucky!    



> Externally, industrialized states have been extending protection to transnational corporations through myriad instruments including foreign policy, defence policy, and international trade policy. The extensions of a global free trade system and military force have become intertwined objectives. The new round of negotiations within the WTO and the War on Terror have been used to build alliances and acceptance for the globalization of corporate and military hegemony.



Some things I'd like to know about them is

-Where does their funding come from?
-Who works for them?
-What effect do they already have on our society, if any?
-What power can they (or have they) already brokered and where did it come from?

One of the things that I can't understand is (according to their website anyways) the are most certainly AGAINST the privatization of just about anything. They seem to get the message across by attacking big business on a number of levels by promoting a sort of universal conspericy theory...If that's the case do they have corporate donations of any kind? who would donate and why?

More digging! ^-^

Later...

After reviewing a bit more of their website they have featured a number of organizations that do sponsor them.

The Canadian Union Of Public Employees
The Canadian Auto Workers Union
The Canadian labour Cogress
The Steelworkers Humanity Fund
Oxfam Canada
There are several others but those above are the biggies...

Here's what they had to sayt about Vivendi Universal...



> Persistent patterns:
> Corruption, bribery, environmental problems, maintenance deficiencies, and huge price increases make up their rap sheet. Vivendi bribed a French minister for a fake contract to privatize a towns water services. The minister was jailed for two years and fined $172,000 US. Similar pattern of behaviour founding their operations in Italy and Puerto Rica.



Last one for today...



> Drought - it's the real thing: Poor villagers in India claim that soft-drink bottling plants are causing severe water shortages. 'After Coca-Cola came here, my land has become a desert' one farmers says.
> February 12, 2005








> Contact:
> Steven Staples
> Director, Project on the Corporate-Security State
> Polaris Institute
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2005)

http://www.rmc.ca/academic/poli-econ/idrm/notes/0702_e.html



> *Breaking Rank: A Citizens' Review of Canada's Military Spending*
> Economic Note Series 07/02
> 
> Motivation
> ...


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (19 Jul 2005)

Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.


----------



## Slim (19 Jul 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out... and the corporations sit there in their... in their corporation buildings, and... and, and see, they're all corporation-y... and they make money.



Oh...o.k.

Now that that's clear. 

I'm actually doing quite a bit of research on this crowd and enjoying it quite a bit. I will be posting it when I have a bit of it organized. ???

Cheers all and thanks for taking an interest in this thread. 

Slim


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2005)

I understand their next target is going to be Hillier himself- nobody on the left seems to like a straight talking man. [literally, in practice and otherwise]. All this talk about killing the enemy is making their friends and supporters over here squeamish, and politically active. It will not be long before the CBC consults Staples to give his "informed" opinion as to whether "Canadians really want" their military to handle the enemy roughly.


----------



## Donut (20 Jul 2005)

I had to choke my way through much of this guys fluff several years ago; he's nothing new to the scene by any means.   He's pretty much the epitome of the "soft power" peacekeeeper image idiot, a la (Lloyd) Axeworthy.   He routinely overlooks facts that don't agree with his rose-tinted view of international affairs and diplomacy.

That being said, I think he *may * have a point as to how we spend our defence dollars;   we don't get nearly enough bang for our buck by the time the industrial offsets and partisan allocations are factored into project costs.   In his estimate, the only solution is to reduce our spending and our troops can just make do on all these PSO we're on.   Oh, wait, we're fighting a war!

The man is an academic ******* of the highest order.

I'm embarrased to say my union throws money at this clown... ???

Maybe I'll have to get involved in CUPE politics...

DF

Edited for grammer


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2005)

I doubt he opposes global centralization and hegemony.  He just opposes global centralization and hegemony which isn't controlled by him and his fellow travellers.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Jul 2005)

I didn't vote because you left out my answer: dumbass loudmouths needing punches to their throats.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> *I understand their next target is going to be Hillier himself-* nobody on the left seems to like a straight talking man. [literally, in practice and otherwise]. All this talk about killing the enemy is making their friends and supporters over here squeamish, and politically active. It will not be long before the CBC consults Staples to give his "informed" opinion as to whether "Canadians really want" their military to handle the enemy roughly.



OK, we will form a human shield around Gen Hillier and "take one" for the team. What I found rather disgusting was the Maude Barlows and Steve Staples are so disconnected from reality that they find taking a blast from Gen Hillier more offensive than the possibility of taking a blast of HE in the TTC.

As an aside, a friend asked why Mr Dithers seems to be backing Gen Hillier.This doesn't seem to have a political angle (that I can see anyway), and is certainly outrside the arcs for any politician in recent memory. Or is it just Mr Dithers is in a very precarious spot politically right now, and Gen Hillier is on his "to do" list?


----------



## mdh (20 Jul 2005)

> OK, we will form a human shield around Gen Hillier and "take one" for the team. What I found rather disgusting was the Maude Barlows and Steve Staples are so disconnected from reality that they find taking a blast from Gen Hillier more offensive than the possibility of taking a blast of HE in the TTC.
> 
> As an aside, a friend asked why Mr Dithers seems to be backing Gen Hillier.This doesn't seem to have a political angle (that I can see anyway), and is certainly outrside the arcs for any politician in recent memory. Or is it just Mr Dithers is in a very precarious spot politically right now, and Gen Hillier is on his "to do" list?



Maude Barlow? - grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

But I do worry about Mr. Dither's sudden discovery of a backbone. And by inverse proportion I worry about the CDS.   Being outspoken can make you a conspicuous target in P.C. Ottawa and I can only imagine the PAFFOs at NDHQ must have cringed in terror when that luncheon briefing was over. 

It didn't take much time for the reporters to start calling around to see who would "disapprove".

I suspect that the CDS's timing was fortunate (if I can use that phrase).   The bombings in London seem to have had a grim impact on Ottawa (at least among its more anglophilic elements) - probably because Martin (whose father had spent time as High Commissioner in London) was a first-hand witness to Blair's distress.

My concern is that the CDS develops a reputation among the media mob as a source of "colorful" quotes and they make something a sport of getting him on the record with the latest salty observation on the GWOT.   I wouldn't depend on Martin's "support" as a foregone conclusion going forward.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Slim (21 Jul 2005)

> My concern is that the CDS develops a reputation among the media mob as a source of "colorful" quotes and they make something a sport of getting him on the record with the latest salty observation on the GWOT.   I wouldn't depend on Martin's "support" as a foregone conclusion going forward.



Excellent observation!

Paracowbay...Sorry for not including your vote choice. I pretty much feel the same way you do but as a mod, need to stay in my lane more than most...Somehow I don't think Mike would like my adding that in...

One thing I have noticed...The "concerned citizen" vote is still at zero...At least they're not fooling anyone.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## Joe Blow (21 Jul 2005)

> Being outspoken can make you a conspicuous target in P.C. Ottawa


 ...and in the press at large.  Well, at least at the CBC, CTV, Globe, Toronto Star, Daily Worker and the rest of the usual suspects..  ie. the greater half of Canadian media.  

Truthfully, after reading Hillier's remarks I wondered how long he will last in Ottawa.  However, I've been surprised by the (if not sympathetic response) the at least neutral response the remarks have generally received. - Ms. Barlow and the Polaris Institute not withstanding ..and I guess the great majority of letter from readers the Globe published were negative. (The National Post has actually been quite enthusiastic.)  

Anyway, the machinations of Ottawa are separate from the press, and to be sure after *that* airing there are people in positions of influence that would rather see a a CDS of a different stripe. ...I suppose we'll see.

In any event, it says something about our culture (or maybe just the news outlets) that when the CDS says outloud the the CF is for killing it makes national news for a few days. 



> I'm actually doing quite a bit of research on this crowd and enjoying it quite a bit. I will be posting it when I have a bit of it organized.


Slim: Looking forward to that.


----------



## Dare (21 Jul 2005)

I have seen the Polaris Institute on the CBC several times. I would say they have a fair bit of influence on public opinion. The fellows comments are usually well spoken. That doesn't mean the content is well thought out. He is among several pundits that the CBC likes to bring out to speak in favour of the CBCs positions (especially on BMD). (The CBC being their own political party has its own messengers) With the ever present smirks, sly nods and agreeing facial expressions (that they seem to think no one else can see), they are obviously playing up a part. I'd be interested to know more of what is found and I have found the Institute to be a curiosity, as well.


----------



## Franko (30 Dec 2007)

Lookie at what I found on YouTube.

Military anaylist my arse. He has an agenda and I don't think CTV or anyone else in the MSM actually took the time to realise it.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ow5B_r2yTPI&eurl=http://www.ceasefire.ca/site/pp.aspx?c=afLJJWOuHkE&b=1068135

I saw his mug on CTV criticizing the mission and everything in between so I figured I google him and do a bit of digging. Can't remember exactly how I came across the video but holy shite.

If this isn't proof enough that the guy has a hidden agenda and is not "neutral" in his "analysis" of the situation, he's leading the masses to the beat of his drum.

What say you?

Regards


----------



## aesop081 (30 Dec 2007)

Someone should remind this "analyst" that the first operational mission that the CC-177 carried out was delivering aid to Jamaica (IIRC) and was then used to help us out with OP DRIFTNET and in the north recently with LRP and the fighter guys going toe-to-toe with the Russians. So i guess they were not just bought for "fighting for George Bush"  :

I wonder what these loonies will come u with as a lightning rod once GWB is out of office.....


----------



## Franko (30 Dec 2007)

Even more tripe on this guy, including links:

http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/Steven_Staples.html



> Steven Staples
> 
> Steven StaplesSteven Staples is the Director of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa and author of Missile Defence: Round 1.
> 
> ...



His "Institute":

http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/site/c.doIELOOuGnF/b.2467081/



> Welcome to the Rideau Institute
> 
> The Rideau Institute on International Affairs is an independent research, advocacy and consulting group based in Ottawa. It provides research, analysis and commentary on public policy issues to decision makers, opinion leaders and the public. It is a federally registered non-profit organization, established in January 2007.
> 
> ...


=============================================================================================================
Right On Canada:

http://www.rightoncanada.ca/site/c.juIZLdMOJrE/b.2500197/

Ceasefire.ca (where the video is linked up):

http://www.ceasefire.ca/site/pp.aspx?c=afLJJWOuHkE&b=1068135
=============================================================================================================


I can't understand why the MSM is giving this guy so much air time. If they (CTV) wants to be considered balanced in it's reporting, why give this guy, who obviously has a clear agenda, so much air time without giving someone of opposing views the same?

Regards


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Dec 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> ...
> I can't understand why the MSM is giving this guy so much air time ...



The media is in the marketing business: they sell soap or cars or penile erection kits by filling the _white spaces_ between the advertising with so-called _news_. In fact, in the 21st century, there is less and less _news_ because Canadians (like Americans) are unwilling (maybe unable?) to sit still long enough to read/view/hear and digest anything like a detailed report with some _expert_ analysis; instead we demand 10 second _sound bites_ and equally brief "Yea!/Nay!" shouting matches. Staples provides a cheap (he 'works' for free) and readily available "Nay!" on almost any defence issue. That fact, and I believe that it is a fact, that he is a (strategic) dunderhead with an anti-military agenda doesn't matter: a "Nay!" voice is required to provide balance controversy because balance contrived, dishonest and preferably noisy controversy is that hallmark of the _profession_ of journalism.


----------



## Dog Walker (31 Dec 2007)

The MSM is not there to inform people or to give balance or objectivity. 

They are there to entertain! They are there to attract an audience who will sit through and watch the silly advertisements. Remember from the point of view the MSM the advertisements are the important content, and not the news. That is how they make their money.   

Remember a few years ago all the stories about the crop circles in England, and the stable full of so called experts who were paraded before the cameras giving their ill-informed opinions about their origins.

On Sunday mornings on CNN there is a show where the media talks about itself. Last summer one employee from CNN admitted that how they slant a story is determined by opinion polls, study groups etc. In other words they tell the masses what they want to hear. After all they don’t want to upset the viewer and tell them that they are wrong. It the viewer gets upset they might switch to another network and watch someone else’s advertisements.    

  Ooops … Mr Campbell types faster than I do…


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Note how he plays on the anti-Americanism of the left. "fighting for Bush" "these American war planes" Doesn't mention that the tanks come from Germany or the Nyalas from South Africa. Plays on the themes of keeping us out of Iraq and opting out of the US missile defence plan. His mention of the child care spaces begs the question of why the former Lib government didn't create them when they had huge surpluses and certainly didn't spend it on Defence.
This kind of rhetoric does appeal to a great number of people in the country unfortunately. It perpetuates the myth of Canada the great peacekeeper and mild mannered neutral country, created by the Liberals in order to avoid spending money on Defence.


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

A little more of connecting the dots. Anti-military, far left wing is his POV.

The Polaris Institute and Ceasefire.ca are one in the same. 


http://www.ceasefire.ca/site/c.afLJJWOuHkE/b.1068243/



> "A ceasefire is always the first step to achieve peace."
> 
> Ceasefire.ca is a project of the Rideau Institute on International Affairs, a public policy research and advocacy group based in Ottawa. Ceasefire.ca is the institute's main public outreach and advocacy arm.
> 
> ...





The Polaris Institute:

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/



Here's something if you want a good chuckle, apparently written by Robert Fulford from the National Post Saturday, November 11, 2006 

http://canadiancoalition.com/forum/messages/19939.shtml

So far I haven't found any sort of schooling or trades related training that makes him an expert on foreign affairs or military matters at all. He holds a Bachelors of Education (Hon. History) from UNB apparently. I guess that's all one needs these days to be an expert.

Regards


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

Excellent commentary...Robert Fullford is the man!


----------



## George Wallace (31 Dec 2007)

That was an interesting piece following the links to http://canadiancoalition.com/audiovideo/20060411_CTV_GordonStaplesAfghan.asx  

Steven Staples gets side tracked very easily with his anti-American views and avoids answering the tough questions.  

I wonder how long the MSN will continue to use him as entertainment?  Once he is done with the News, he could make a pittance on the Comedy Network.


----------



## Dog Walker (31 Dec 2007)

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> He holds a Bachelors of Education (Hon. History) from UNB apparently.



So let’s see……Steven Staples has the qualifications of a high school history teacher.

We all know how poor history education is in our school systems.


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2007)

Definately too much reading but here is my opinion on his video and his "ceasfire .ca":
He's a definate peacenik who never served in the military yet believes himself a military analyst {won't go there about the first four letters of that word!} 
It may be true that some people see the war in Afghanistan as one for oil {not!} or to continue GW's war on terrorism, {possibly!} but I firmly believe that we are doing good in that country and we don't need fools like this to deter us from our mission.  Yes, we've taken casualties, but not as many as the states in Iraq, but the soldiers I talked to were all for the mission over there and support their job there.
_"If you don't stand behind our Troops
Feel free to stand in front of them"!!!_
Good young and old men and women are fighting and dying for a cause they believe in, the re-establishment of a legal and peaceful government of Afghanistan.  
This guy, again, brings back my favourite saying {still need copy right laws on that one from recceman???}
Kneel, face the ditch...Sorry, I can't stand the guy. BUT our society allows him to voice his opinions and we as soldiers must defend his right to do so. Kind of ironic isn't it??
 :-\


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Dec 2007)

I have no problem whatsoever with Mr. Staples saying anything.  He is obviously passionate about it.  I do, however, have a bit of a problem with him presenting himself as an objective military analyst.  I have a bigger problem with the MSM who cannot see him for what he is.


----------



## Flip (31 Dec 2007)

> Once he is done with the News, he could make a pittance on the Comedy Network.


  As Shrek's little brother?

During that interview he was beaten by the facts - fair and square.

He does have a pretty twisty view of the world and maybe he needs to 
be educated.  That is, I'm curious about his 15,000 ??  supporters and
I wonder what they would say if he were proven wrong again&again.

The introductory video is designed to play well with people who don't
have time to stop and think ( single moms ) and his position suggests
Canada is an island and all we really need is to get out from under GWB.

He could be reminded that without America there would be no microwave
ovens Hollywood, Playstation and of course security.

I agree with the general tone on this thread. This young guy has a heir of 
legitimacy he does not deserve. Looks like nice work if you can get though... ;D


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> _"If you don't stand behind our Troops
> Feel free to stand in front of them"!!!_



I really hate that saying.  :-\

I love people like this, each time he opens his mouth to condem us and our mission -- it just reinforces for me the fact that he is able to do so exactly because of the proud military history of this country during the wars that we have been involved in.

People like Mr Staples who slant the truth, spin the facts, _and_ get away with it (especially in the MSM) in this democratic country, make me very proud to wear this country's uniform and only serve to re-inforce my utmost respect for my military predecessors who performed their duties to uphold democracy so well. I am proud to follow in their footsteps of upholding democratic tradition both within and outside of our borders.

And the MSM can take me to the bank on that.


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2007)

Sorry to have offended with the troops bumpersticker, but for me, it rings well.  Some people are not behind the reason for being in A-stan, but everyone should support the troops who are there and everywhere for whatever reasons.  We do something that many people either are not qualified to do or choose not to do. 
My fore-fathers and ancestors did not fight and die in Europe for nothing! 74 Canadian troops did not die for nothing!
Democracy and Peace.


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Sorry to have offended with the troops bumpersticker, but for me, it rings well.



Offend me? I don't get offended by too much (BUT trust me -- IT happens!! Depends on the circumstances).

I just don't like the idea of suggesting that they stand in front of me -- I'm a good shot.    I am pretty sure that's the implication being made with the saying in question.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (31 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Offend me? I don't get offended by too much (BUT trust me -- IT happens!! Depends on the circumstances).
> 
> I just don't like the idea of suggesting that they stand in front of me -- I'm a good shot.



Agreed and in a democracy such as ours we don't shoot people who disagree with the military or the government's policies. I've never liked that jingle either.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Dec 2007)

http://forums.army.ca/forums/members/12834

He hasn't posted in over a year, but does show up once in awhile..............


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Offend me? I don't get offended by too much (BUT trust me -- IT happens!! Depends on the circumstances).
> 
> I just don't like the idea of suggesting that they stand in front of me -- I'm a good shot.    I am pretty sure that's the implication being made with the saying in question.


...meh! All's fair in love and war...well, except that was has ROE's.  And I've seen some people shoot..the safest place IS in front of them.. ;D

edited for spelling.



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Agreed and in a democracy such as ours we don't shoot people who disagree with the military or the government's policies. I've never liked that jingle either.


Sometimes that is unfortunate, but we all fight for HIS right to say that...I just don't like the fact that our forfathers may be rolling in thier graves to hear such drivel??!!  Sorry, but I'm a bit emotional right now after Gnr Dions passing.  I won't let his sacrifice,or any others be tarnished by some peacenik who probably shirked away from military duty...not that I condone conscription..but I also fully believe that a person has no right to criticize another unless they've been in that person's shoes for awhile.  
I like my job...   :-*


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

Jingleman Coal-Getter said:
			
		

> I do, however, have a bit of a problem with him presenting himself as an objective military analyst.  I have a bigger problem with the MSM who cannot see him for what he is.



Hence why I started this thread. It's one thing to be passionate on a POV and speak your mind on it. 

It's another to pass yourself off as something completely else.

CTV passes him off as a objective analyst when, in reality, he isn't nor is he qualified to do so.

This link demonstrates what I'm talking about....Canada wants to use freakin' lasers.        :

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=SEAfghanistan&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402098_1195406514_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402097_1195405072_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:48:52.73&clip_end=00:03:08.58&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Steven%20Staples,%20military%20analyst&clip_id=ctvnews.20071118.00222000-00222760-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20071118&slug=afghan_death_071118&archive=CTVNews

He uses times of anguish in not only the families of the fallen, but of comrades as well to get in sound bites.

I, for one, am sick of his misleading the public and pushing his propaganda.

Regards


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> ..but I also fully believe that a person has no right to criticize another unless they've been in that person's shoes for awhile.
> I like my job...   :-*



Ahhh, soooo

You've been heading up a left wing think tank and giving expert military analyses & opinions to the media without fessing up to us then??  >

We may not like what he says, nor his opinion of us ... but I'm quite sure that he feels the same way about how we feel about him.

Anyway, there's parties to participate in this evening -- asshats please confine yourselves to the cloakroom on the _Left_. I'll be with the rational thinking majority in the main room.  ;D


----------



## gaspasser (31 Dec 2007)

Aah Soo, a tit for tat...I stand corrected but he shouldn't criticize the military and our jobs without doing some time.  I only _criticized his lack of understanding of us._  And, yes, I do tend to play devils advocate without meaning too.  


I wish you all a Happy New Year and Safe Journeys this night.
BYTD 
edited to add: I wasn't critiquing him or his website, I was calling him out.   :blotto:


----------



## observor 69 (31 Dec 2007)

Mr.Staples:

"Born in the Maritimes and a long-time resident of Vancouver, Steven now lives in Ottawa with his wife and two children. He holds a Bachelors of Education (Hon. History) from the University of New Brunswick."

Oh the shame!       Speaking on behalf of all those with a history degree from UNB.


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> I stand corrected but he shouldn't criticize the military and our jobs without doing some time.  I only criticized his lack of understanding of us.



Anyone can criticize the military, no time in required IMHO. 

It helps your argument if you do though. (Sunil Ram comes to mind, I'm not a fan either, but that's another topic.)

He (Staples)is a peace advocate on the far left end of the political spectrum passing himself off as an impartial analyst, which he is not. 

He doesn't want to understand us nor the part we play in Canada's defense, nor our role in NATO. Certainly not the reasons why we're in Kandahar either.

Regards


----------



## armyvern (31 Dec 2007)

For some reason RBD -- it's not letting me quote your post ... GLITCH!!!  :-X

From the video:

Mr Staples: "Laser type weapons that *may skirt the law*."

Yep -- there's an _expert_ on Defence for you.  :

What is it with your frequent need to imply that Canadian soldiers will circumvent the Law or the Geneva Conventions? One can also see evidence of this in your previous posting history (linked in an earlier thread) where you imply that the JTF2 would get away with "committing atrocities" if Canadian and CF policy on "Secrecy" is not changed.

That's just low -- and disgusting of you. 

And, now I _AM_ offended. You may have the right to speak freely, but you do not have the right to imply that I (and I AM a soldier so your statements are directly ABOUT me) or any of my comrades in arms would circumvent Canadian Law or the Geneva Conventions -- that's just slanderous. _*We*_ are more professional than that.


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, now I _AM_ offended. You may have the right to speak freely, but you do not have the right to imply that I (and I AM a soldier so your statements are directly ABOUT me) or any of my comrades in arms would circumvent Canadian Law or the Geneva Conventions -- that's just slanderous. _*We*_ are more professional than that.



The Canadian MSM is allowing him to slander us all...in front of the Canadian public who, a large portion it would seem, are ignorant of the facts of how we conduct business.

But I digress.

He has an agenda and it's pretty clear to anyone that takes the time to do a bit of research. 

Regards


----------



## Dog Walker (31 Dec 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Oh the shame!       Speaking on behalf of all those with a history degree from UNB.



Mr Staples dose not have a degree in History. His Bachelors is in Education. 

The bottom line is that Mr. Staples is not a military analysis, or an expert. He is a lobbyist with an anti-military and anti-American agenda.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Dec 2007)

I might be out of my lane but maybe we should take some care about what we say about Mr. Staples. Lets not give him ammo to use against us.


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I might be out of my lane but maybe we should take some care about what we say about Mr. Staples. Lets not give him ammo to use against us.



I believe that the thread, so far, is fine. Everyone is free to voice their opinion and state facts. 

I'm sure that Steven Staples has a thick skin and can take criticism, seeing as he doles it out on a regular basis publicly.

Mike Bobbitt or another mod will be along to give it a read I'm sure.        

Regards


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Dec 2007)

No problems with that RBD, was just being cautious. Never know how he might try to spin it.


----------



## Roy Harding (31 Dec 2007)

As long as no slander is published, I don't see the harm.

People (including Mr. Staples) have a right to their opinion, to "hold back" because of imagined consequences smacks of (self)censorship - which isn't required.  Mr. Staples is more than welcome to state his opinion here, should he so desire.

Keep it legal and there won't be any problem.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Dec 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I just don't like the idea of suggesting that they stand in front of me -- I'm a good shot.    I am pretty sure that's the implication being made with the saying in question.



I personally like the bumper sticker, because I do not see it in the same vein as you and IN HOC do.  I see it as an "invitation" to the ungrateful bastards (such as the man who is the topic of this thread) we serve to step up into the line of fire if they think they can do a better job.  And they do seem to.

I would be happy to see him and his tribe take over doing convoy runs and other hazardous work outside of KAF for a while.  I am sure the Taliban would be happy to educate them and open their collective eyes.


----------



## Thompson_JM (31 Dec 2007)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I would be happy to see him and his tribe take over doing convoy runs and other hazardous work outside of KAF for a while.  I am sure the Taliban would be happy to educate them and open their collective eyes.



AND HOW!  ;D

+1 on that point...

Im all for free speech, but i do get tired of the people who continue to get this kind of publicity from the media when they are so obviously out to lunch!


----------



## Franko (31 Dec 2007)

Back on topic please....not on bumper stickers.

Regards


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Dec 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That was an interesting piece following the links to http://canadiancoalition.com/audiovideo/20060411_CTV_GordonStaplesAfghan.asx
> 
> Steven Staples gets side tracked very easily with his anti-American views and avoids answering the tough questions.
> 
> I wonder how long the MSN will continue to use him as entertainment?  Once he is done with the News, he could make a pittance on the Comedy Network.



Kate Wheeler spanks Staples in the above video pretty well -- Staples' answers were pretty fluffy compared to Mr. Gordon, who seemed well informed and logical in his presentation of his position.  He kept on avoiding Kate's question about, "have things improved?"but she kept him on topic.  

It is interesting to note that Staples was rather economical with the truth thereafter, stating that Canada had moved (at the time) from a NATO mission (which he describes as obstensibly "peacekeeping", really not the case at all) to an OEF (CT by mandate) mission -- while true, he certainly doesn't point out that this is because NATO was not in RC(S) and RC(E) at the time, thus there was no option but to operate under OEF to assist those in the Southern provinces.

G2G


----------



## EW (1 Jan 2008)

Not to overestimate the average Canadian's knowledge of defence matters, but I think that the more that is seen of Mr. Staple, the more Canadians will recognize that he certainly does not represent a neutral view of Canadian government policy, and eventually he will burn out his image as being an 'honest broker' when speaking on defence matters.  His only hope is that in that timeframe he can attract enough new members to his organization to make it worth his while.  We'll have to see how that plays out over time.

In the meantime he's free to say whatever he says.  I don't really blame the MSM for engaging people like him.  They have to provide a counter opinion to all the government news releases, and professional DND public relations officers.  Must be kind of hard to find anyone who can go toe to toe with the CDS  ;D   So, they've had to resort to this fellow.  Lets be glad its not someone who is more credible.

Not happy with him or his Institute, but such is a free society.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Jan 2008)

In a year's time he'll have to find a new villain. Once the US elects a new president, GWB will no longer be available as Mr Staples whipping boy.


----------



## Flip (1 Jan 2008)

Generally good advice but.........



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> No problems with that RBD, was just being cautious. Never know how he might try to spin it.



Spin what? - In the interviews posted he has used more "imagination" in his 
commentary than we could ever offer him.

"Laser type weapons"!? What? "May skirt the law" My hats off to the guy!
It spins so smoothly in doesn't even look like anyone touched it!  ;D


----------



## stevenstaples (2 Jan 2008)

The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public. Our research has been proved correct time and time again. In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.

And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?  

Steve

BTW, I like the thread's subject line. Big fan of Robin Hood.


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2008)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.


I suppose you also get a lot from the Senlis Council reports.  Interesting how a third party which actually puts investigators into the country comes to the conclusion that the military needs to be there.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (2 Jan 2008)

Welcome to the thread. We're actually not a bad crowd when you get to know us....I think a lot of us have a much different perspective than you do but that's what we're sworn to uphold...your right to a different opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2008)

If you don't mind my asking, Mr. Staples, were you aware during your interview with Kate Wheeler on CTV.net that NATO had not yet expanded operations into the Southern provinces of Afghanistan when you described Canadian operations changing from NATO command to U.S.-led OEF?  Unless I misinterpreted your intent, it seems that you were implying Canada had deliberately chosen to cast aside the "peacekeeping" mantle in Kabul, instead joining the U.S. and other "non-peacekeeping" allies in the South.

Rather than viewing the move as toeing the "U.S.-company" line, one could instead look at Canada as having the conviction to redirect its 3D operations to areas of Afghanistan that badly needed the additional support to establish security, stability and strengthened development efforts, no matter the fact the NATO had not yet expanded its own operations to the needy region?

In your view, was Canada better off to have stayed in Kabul city/province under NATO's command until Phase 3 expansion (ref: NATO ISAF expansion plan) had been completed?  If so, why?

Regards,
G2G


----------



## McG (2 Jan 2008)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Rather than viewing the move as toeing the "U.S.-company" line, one could instead look at Canada as having the conviction to redirect its 3D operations to areas of Afghanistan that badly needed the additional support to establish security, stability and strengthened development efforts, no matter the fact the NATO had not yet expanded its own operations to the needy region?


I'd add another possibility:  we were setting the conditions to allow for the ISAF expansion.


----------



## Franko (2 Jan 2008)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public. Our research has been proved correct time and time again. In fact, we often rely on the government's (and even NATO's) own numbers.
> 
> And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?
> 
> ...



Debate is fine Steven, however, you pose yourself off as an abject analyst devoid of any political leanings, which as it would seem, is incorrect.

You have an agenda and it's pretty clear to anyone who takes a few minutes to do a bit of digging. Unfortunately the public only grab sound bites and take it as gospel.

Can you explain this? 

Your last tidbit on the "Laser type weapons that may skirt the law" is inferring that the CF and the forces on the ground in theater are going to go against the Geneva Convention and the rules of lawful warfare by nefarious means. Kind of a bold statement with nothing to back it up with.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate?tf=/ctv/mar/video/new_player.html&cf=ctv/mar/ctv.cfg&hub=SEAfghanistan&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402098_1195406514_500kbps.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2007/11/18/ctvvideologger3_195402097_1195405072_218kbps.wmv&clip_start=00:48:52.73&clip_end=00:03:08.58&clip_caption=CTV%20Newsnet:%20Steven%20Staples,%20military%20analyst&clip_id=ctvnews.20071118.00222000-00222760-clip1&subhub=video&no_ads=&sortdate=20071118&slug=afghan_death_071118&archive=CTVNews

Please take the time, which it may take you a while to do so, and go through the entire thread and respond to the questions put to you.

You may inadvertently educate some of us and give us a bit of an insight to your own perspective.

Regards


----------



## I_am_John_Galt (3 Jan 2008)

The end of the interview (the one with Alistair Gordon) really clarifies the mentality of Mr. Staples:
_
"the risk is that their [the US] enemies become our enemies and if we weren't on a terrorist target list we may find ourselves [on one]... "_

It it *NOT *a "risk": the reality is they declared themselves our enemy, and that we were on their target list, a *long* time ago.


*WAKE UP!*


----------



## medaid (3 Jan 2008)

To naievly think that we are free from harm, and to think that terrorist organizations don't already consider us (Canada and Canadians) to be targets of opportunity is plain ignorance and stupidity. The osterich mentality that seems to plague our nation. Many peace advocates demand that we look to our past as they argue that, if we do not learn from our historical mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them. I look at history, all the time! Everyday when I do my job, and I need to look no further the 9/11. I know my history and so should you. I am not advocating hyper vigilance, but more constant readiness.


----------



## Rodahn (3 Jan 2008)

Good commentary from 2006 re: Mr Staples.

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/007920.html


----------



## birdgunnnersrule (3 Jan 2008)

Although it has been known for quite sometime that Canada has been targeted in media broadcasts by known terrorist such as Bin Laden, there is still a requirement for organizations such the Polaris institute that are left of center.  For Mr. Staples to join the forum is impressive and this should be applauded. Hopefully we all remember the democratic values that define the country and contribute positive debate to the forum. There's an opportunity here to understand the role that Polaris institute can play as certainly in the not to distant future the Afghanistan debate will be at the forefront of the Parliament. Keep in mind the same arguments used here, will definitely be used by the Bloc, NDP, and some Liberals in the immediate future.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2008)

birdgunnnersrule said:
			
		

> Although it has been known for quite sometime that Canada has been targeted in media broadcasts by known terrorist such as Bin Laden, there is still a requirement for organizations such the Polaris institute that are left of center.  For Mr. Staples to join the forum is impressive and this should be applauded. Hopefully we all remember the democratic values that define the country and contribute positive debate to the forum. There's an opportunity here to understand the role that Polaris institute can play as certainly in the not to distant future the Afghanistan debate will be at the forefront of the Parliament. Keep in mind the same arguments used here, will definitely be used by the Bloc, NDP, and some Liberals in the immediate future.



Agreed, birdgunner. While I disagree with Mr. Staples' conclusions, opinions, and, insofar as he makes them known, his data analysis, especially  when he talks about defence spending, I support his right to preach from his pulpit - just as I expect him to respect e.g. Ruxted's right to preach from its.

I am a little unhappy with the tendency to attack the messengers, like Messers Layton and Staples, rather than their message.

Jack Layton has done what none of us here, the registered users of Milnet.ca, has dared: he has put himself, warts and all, in front of the electors and has stood for public office. They have found him to be best amongst a field of good, solid candidates representing the whole range of political opinion. He deserves our respect, indeed our admiration; in standing for and serving in elected office he has performed a great public service - at least as great as the service performed by members of the armed forces. Mr. Staples also exposes himself, willingly, to the _slings and arrows_ of a free, open public discourse. I attack his ideas but I respect him for bringing those ideas into the debate.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Jan 2008)

Seems he only dropped by to see what was being said about him and has not bothered to engage any of the questions put to him. Good level of debate eh?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2008)

..and that's probably about the only thing you and I disagree on Edward, [ except on that horrible thing called Scotch] I don't believe Mr. Layton has done anything noble in running for any office.

IMO, its always been about the fame and perceived power.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am a little unhappy with the tendency to attack the messengers, like Messers Layton and Staples, rather than their message.


Hear Hear!  I was getting the feeling that this was becoming a "Attack Mr. Staples" thread, vice engaging in debate.  The message sucks, but this is NOT Sparta!

(For those who haven't seen it, in one scene, the head Spartan yells "This Is Sparta" as he thrust kicks a messenger into a hole)


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (3 Jan 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Hear Hear!  I was getting the feeling that this was becoming a "Attack Mr. Staples" thread, vice engaging in debate.  The message sucks, but this is NOT Sparta!
> 
> (For those who haven't seen it, in one scene, the head Spartan yells "This Is Sparta" as he thrust kicks a messenger into a hole)



300...totally awesome movie!!!! ;D


----------



## Franko (3 Jan 2008)

Back on topic please.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Jan 2008)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?



Mr. Staples, .....less 'mysterious' than some of your sub-groups.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695.0.html


----------



## stevenstaples (3 Jan 2008)

A coupla points for ya....

1. For all you Zapruder film fans, in the age of Google you can't hide anything. The fact that so many of you folks are able to cut and paste my bio from our websites onto army.ca should dispel any claims that I have a hidden agenda. :

2. The "MSM" is pretty frank about my point of view - call up any Ottawa Citizen story and you'll see that "left-leaning" descriptor in front of my name every time. Even Tom Blackwell in the National Post today spelled out our opinion of the war when quoting me for his story.

3. And speaking of Blackwell's story today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=211105) - yet another example of our research being proved correct. In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did. 

OK - holidays are over - I have to get some work done...

Steve


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jan 2008)

Why did I know this "numbers game" would come up after reading that story?  Let's see, Canada has approximately 2500 troops on the ground and the USA has several times that number.  Of course the percentages are going to be different and disproportional.  How about looking at the totals over all?

If we had only ten people in Afghanistan as Military Observers (something I am sure Steven's group would prefer to see) and one was killed by and IED, that would mean that a wopping 10% of our commitment were fatalities.   Nothing compared to the hundreds of Americans who have died and make up a portion of 1% of their commitment.

 :  Friggin Statistics and the people who manipulate them to ill-inform the public.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jan 2008)

Beyond the fact that statistics can be twisted by anyone to mean anything, what do casualty numbers indicate ? George's post is bang on. Numbers alone do not mean anything.


So what if our casualties are higher percentage-wise than others. Does that have any bearing on the need for the mission ? If anything it indicates that it is not the time to change our role or withdraw.


----------



## Gunner (4 Jan 2008)

> Friggin Statistics and the people who manipulate them to ill-inform the public.





> Beyond the fact that statistics can be twisted by anyone to mean anything, what do casualty numbers indicate ?




Lies, damn lies and statistics...


----------



## Franko (4 Jan 2008)

Steven, you are dodging a question.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69333/post-656644.html#msg656644

Please clarify.



			
				stevenstaples said:
			
		

> A coupla points for ya....
> 
> 1. For all you Zapruder film fans, in the age of Google you can't hide anything. The fact that so many of you folks are able to cut and paste my bio from our websites onto army.ca should dispel any claims that I have a hidden agenda. :



True enough, however on CTV you make no attempt to let the public know this nor have you told them to include it in any introduction prior to your views being aired. I'm sure that the majority of baby boomers out there do not have regular access to the internet and take you at face value. An unbiased expert, which by your own admission, is incorrect.

Do you not think that in a fair debate or even the presentation of your arguments that that little tidbit should be included?



Regards


----------



## Reccesoldier (4 Jan 2008)

stevenstaples said:
			
		

> 3. And speaking of Blackwell's story today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=211105) - yet another example of our research being proved correct. In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did.



What's that truism.. Oh yeah, Lies, Damn Lies and statistics


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jan 2008)

Mr. Staples,

2500 CF pers currently serving in NATO ISAF in Afghanistan as part of OP ATHENA.  75 fatalities is a 3.0% relative fatality rate.

8 CF military observers serving in UNTSO in the middle east as part of OP JADE.  2 fatalities is a 25.0% relative fatality rate.

Using your very own methodology, being part of the UN "peacekeeping" mission in the Middle East makes one (25.0% / 3.0% =) 8.3 times more likely to die than being part of security operations in Afghanistan.   

Uh-oh!  :-\  ....that means that Afghanistan/Iraq debate aside, it is over *EIGHT TIMES MORE DANGEROUS (i.e. DEADLY)* performing *UN blue-beret* *"peacekeeping"* than *combat operations*!  Well, that's kind of an awkward figure, isn't it? 

Are you advocating that we send our troops elsewhere than Afghanistan, potentially exposing them to deadly risks more than eight times as high as those experienced in Afghanistan?


G2G


----------



## Franko (4 Jan 2008)

From your own quoted source Steven:



> "We are, with the British, in the hotbed of the insurgency," said Steven Staples of the Rideau Institute, a think tank opposed to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. He said Canadians need to evaluate seriously whether such losses are justified by the mission in Kandahar.



You forgot to say something about Mr Macnamara opinion:



> Another expert, though, cautioned against reading too much into the figures. *The numbers in Afghanistan are relatively small, which can skew statistics*, and the comparison with the American allies may not be accurate, said Don Macnamara , a retired brigadier general and board member of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. The U.S. forces typically have far more troops involved in support roles and therefore out of harm's way, which would lower their rate of fatalities, he noted.
> 
> "Let's not run off with any conclusions before we do further analysis," he said.



Strange that he came to that observation and that you didn't. Also his last sentence also speaks volumes of his analytical and impartiality mindset when it comes to this.

Good2Golf just made an excellent argument and supported what Mr Macnamara was getting at.

But I digress.

Please answer the questions placed to you by the members here.


Regards


----------



## HDE (5 Jan 2008)

Hmmm...

   It strikes me that a unit of say, 2,500, likely would suffer a higher percentage of casualties than a unit ten times larger, given the same conditions.  A LAV hitting an IED and having 3 killed is far more likely than 10 LAVs hitting 10 IEDs and having 30 killed, yet both would result in a proportianate number of casualties.  Put another way the smaller the unit the the impact of each casualty would be higher.  I'm a littl surprised Staples hasn't figured that out, assuming he's attempting a fair analysis.

On another note one of his "studies" compared only Canadian spending to U.S. spending over a period of time and leapt to the conclusion that Canada was following the U.S. in military spending, apparently because our defence policy is determined by Washington.  Wouldn't a serious analysis include other of our allies in tracking spending?  It may well be that Germany, Italy , Great Britain, etc. are also being led around by the U.S..  We'll never know because Staples didn't do the research  

I have a degree of respect for folks who offer an alternative point of view on an issue, however I do appreciate it when their point of view reflects a little compelling argument as well.


----------



## Flip (7 Jan 2008)

> The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public.


I'm tempted to think what this really means is that there needs to be dissent.
If he doesn't like the government line - that's not good enough for me.
Not, if there is nothing offered but dissent.

In short, if the antiwar crowd are so smug and clever, lets see some proof.
Let them bring forward a meaningful alternative approach to what the government is doing.
Describing how they feel or whats wrong is useless. I can't say I have much respect
for that tack.  Sorry Mr. Staples.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Jan 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> In short, if the antiwar crowd are so smug and clever, lets see some proof.
> Let them bring forward a meaningful alternative approach to what the government is doing.



They can't do that.Then they would be agreeing with us and have no propose in life....not that they have much now.
Plus who would keep staples Bristol board and Elmer's glue sales up?Someone has to make protest signs.

On a serious note, many questions have been put forward and no response.I take that as a acknowledgement that you guys are right.
I would do the same thing as a kid when I knew my parents were right in an argument.

Now stamp off to your bedroom and tell em you hate them Mr.Staples.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jan 2008)

Lets keep it civil folks. Meaningful debate suffers when backhanded comments and personal attacks creep into the conversation.


----------



## Flip (7 Jan 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Lets keep it civil folks. Meaningful debate suffers when backhanded comments and personal attacks creep into the conversation.



Not really my intention to stifle debate. On the contrary, I'm frustrated by the know it all attitude of some of that camp
and some of them are obviously bright.  Eric Margolis and Steven Staples come to mind. They say Afghanistan is a waste
of our governments time. Yet, I have been offered nothing by the left to make a more favorable decision as a member
of the voting public.

All I am left with is a notion that they(the anti war crowd) are fomenting dissent for some other political or 
private purpose.  I'm sorry for my disrespectful tone.  Again, not my intention.

As a news consumer and civilian, I find dissent and conflict in the media unattractive and disturbing.
I am asked by dissenters and the media to consider an alternate course of action or opinion.
I hear about the need for debate.
My precious and limited attention span is called away somewhere, quite deliberately.
What I am presented with, is a call to not trust our government.
Vague accusations and unsupported opinion are made to sound significant.
It appears to be a cheap smear. 
Having been disappointed time and again by people who purport to know better,
I am simply annoyed. I don't want to hear anything like this anymore.
The government line is sounding more cohesive and more logical all the time.

In a nutshell - There's my point.  I would ask Mr. Staples to put up or shut up.
Sorry, I don't know how to make that sound better.

There it is.  I come seeking truth.
ARMY.ca has been a portal to some knowledge.
In my opinion, Mr. Staples, the debate is over.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (7 Jan 2008)

+1 Flip.

What annoys me the most is once people are proven wrong they go back to the age old myth of the military being brain washed.
We cannot see the truth apparently.We'll maybe we as a whole are brain washed.Maybe we are brainwashed to use critical thinking,weight the pro's and con's,look at the facts and dispel rumours,and make decisions from that.Something some of these people are apparently unable to do.

Mr.Staples is stepping up as an expert on these matters on the national level.On the national level to the Canadian public on our national news at night.And the unfortunate thing is he refuses to answer questions about what he is saying he is an expert on.

I apologise for my previous metaphor,it may have came across as harsh.
It just frustrates me to no end.However it has no place in a meaningful discussion,a one way discussion at this point however.

I do look forward to your responses from the members of this forum Mr.Staples.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jan 2008)

>In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did

Are these "disproportionately high fatality rates" measured as a fraction of forces deployed in theatre or a fraction of forces per battalion (battalion group/battle group)?  If you want to know who is taking it on the chin, you measure the fatalities on ships and in line battalions and aircrew with respect to their own units.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (9 Jun 2008)

http://uk.youtube.com/user/rideauinstitute

A new one. :


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Sep 2009)

A post at _The Torch_:

Shock! Rideau Institute exposed! 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/09/shock-rideau-institute-exposed.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Sep 2009)

Received the attached e-mail from someone who subscribes - I didn't realize peace hinged on the CBC keeping "The National" on at 10pm instead of 11...  :


----------



## Franko (14 Sep 2009)

That has to be the funniest thing I've seen from the dunk tank in quite some time!

Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Sep 2009)

I think I may have peed a little.......................


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2010)

This from ceasefire.ca - as usual, highlights mine:


> Your help is needed. Civilians are paying a heavy price in Afghanistan as thousands of U.S. Marines, leading Afghan and Canadian troops, prepare to attack Kandahar and surrounding areas.
> 
> *Please send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders, calling on them to urge the U.S. and NATO to call off the attack and make sure that Canadian forces are not involved in the offensive.*
> 
> ...



Since ceasefire.ca admits "Most of the casualties were caused by insurgents fighting Western forces" - between 6 and 7 out of every 10 civilian deaths, if you want a figure:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/95262
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/91444
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/91335
I anxiously await ceasefire.ca's campaign to get the Taliban to stop blowing up or assassinating civilians.


----------



## HavokFour (16 Jul 2010)

> Please send your letter to Stephen Harper and all party leaders, calling on them to urge the U.S. and NATO to call off the attack and make sure that Canadian forces are not involved in the offensive.





> Most of the casualties were caused by insurgents fighting Western forces...





> Here is what you can do to help stop the attack...








What the heck am I reading?


----------



## Dog Walker (16 Jul 2010)

Maybe Mr Staples feels that the Afghan people will be safer under Taliban rule?


> 'Leave your job or we will cut your head off your body...'
> With violence on the rise, Afghan women are terrified at the prospect of a deal between President Karzai and the Taliban
> By Patrick Cockburn
> Saturday, 17 July 2010
> ...


----------



## Oh No a Canadian (16 Jul 2010)

> Most of the casualties were caused by insurgents fighting Western forces.



then perhaps steven's letter writing campaign should be with the taliban...


----------



## medicineman (16 Jul 2010)

What makes you think he isn't in contact with them - maybe he believes what they say about the TB being the victims of all this  ;D.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2010)

This little twerp is nothing but a fifth columnist. Can no one take this little SOB to task? :rage:


----------



## SeanNewman (16 Jul 2010)

Dog Walker said:
			
		

> Maybe Mr Staples feels that the Afghan people will be safer under Taliban rule?



They would be, wouldn't they?


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2010)

Now, ceasefire.ca can afford advertising in the Embassy newspaper:


> After overwhelming response from our members, Ceasefire.ca published the first of a series of ads asking Prime Minister Harper to call off the planned U.S. and NATO offensive against the city of Kandahar, which risks many more civilian casualties.
> 
> Already beset by delays and setbacks in recent weeks, the U.S. military leadership is reportedly reconsidering the plan. The Ceasefire.ca ad campaign is intended to help push the U.S. and NATO political leadership to officially call off the attack.



Ad is attached, including a picture of a young person apparently needing protection.  Since we're sharing pix of young people needing protection, how about this one, ceasefire.ca?  Doing anything to protect her and her peers?




Also, I hope the Taliban read the Embassy paper, considering the U.N. says they're responsible for more than 2/3 of the civilian casualties.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Aug 2010)

Ironically, that little girl in the ceasefire.ca photo is standing behind a soldier wearing CADPAT or MARPAT.  Why wasn't she standing behind a Talib?



Oh....right......


----------



## pbi (11 Aug 2010)

> In a desperate attempt to regain the upper hand, the U.S. general leading the Afghan war is considering lifting restrictions on the use of heavy weapons and air strikes when civilians are close to the fighting. This will mean many more civilian deaths.



Really? I haven't Googled this, but it seems very unlikely that any NATO commander would discuss the details of ROE, which are normally secret.

Stevie puts himself in a rather suspect position when he asks to stop the offensive...who else, I wonder, might benefit from thatt outcome?

And, as we all know, when "Steever" speaks, the world listens.

Cheers


----------



## Sythen (11 Aug 2010)

> Here is what you can do to help stop the attack, after you have sent your letter:
> 
> * Like us on Facebook
> * Follow me on Twitter
> * Sign up for email updates from Ceasefire.ca



So him being popular stops the attack how?


----------



## Teflon (11 Aug 2010)

A person with 10000 Facebook friends couldn't be wrong, could he?


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Really? I haven't Googled this, but it seems very unlikely that any NATO commander would discuss the details of ROE, which are normally secret.


I think this is Staples' spin on Petraeus reviewing the rules
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/board,108.20.html
and issuing a new COIN guidance document
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/95591/post-959922.html#msg959922


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Aug 2010)

Maybe our dear Steven should deploy, armed with nothing but Red Rose tea, a pot and some water.

But we really don't need him, I think we're doing fine!!


----------



## Franko (11 Aug 2010)

Gents, a gentle reminder - Mr Staples reads this site from time to time.

Please keep it civil, he might actually attempt to defend his POV

I'm not going to hold my breath on  it though, but you never know.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Gents, a gentle reminder - Mr Staples reads this site from time to time.
> 
> Please keep it civil, he might actually attempt to defend his POV
> 
> ...



Mr Staples, your position seems based on willful ignorance of the facts, of the reality of the Taliban and their program and the fate of the Afghan people should we stop our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban prevail. I therefore await your reply on Army.ca with eager anticipation. Present factual evidence and prove us wrong.

Just remember, lots of us have had direct eperience in Afghanistan in all kinds of roles and positions, covering Kabul to Kandahar province (among other places), so I hope a man in your position and with your resources takes the time to do the research and not just repeat talking points.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2010)

Meanwhile, the ad doesn't seem to be working yet:


> The United States expects heavy fighting around the key Afghan city of Kandahar through the fall, one Pentagon official said Wednesday, dimming hopes for big gains in the war ahead of U.S. elections and a White House review of its war strategy ....


----------



## GK .Dundas (12 Aug 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mr Staples, your position seems based on willful ignorance of the facts, of the reality of the Taliban and their program and the fate of the Afghan people should we stop our efforts in Afghanistan and the Taliban prevail. I therefore await your reply on Army.ca with eager anticipation. Present factual evidence and prove us wrong.
> 
> Just remember, lots of us have had direct eperience in Afghanistan in all kinds of roles and positions, covering Kabul to Kandahar province (among other places), so I hope a man in your position and with your resources takes the time to do the research and not just repeat talking points.


 Silly man what does experience matter Mr Staples is  morally superior to all us mere  peons .If you don't believe me just ask him !


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Aug 2010)

Is Mr Staples for real? Isn't this the same guy that used to offer up ideas for what we needed for defence procurement? Polaris institute or something?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2010)

He is for real.  Whether or not he is in this reality is another question.  He is at the Rideau Institute.  He was Director of Security Programs for the Polaris Institute, the Issue Campaigns Coordinator for the Council of Canadians and the Coordinator for End the Arms Race previously.


----------



## Haletown (24 Nov 2011)

Because peace at any price is a worthy goal

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/big-labour-v-military/1292517244001


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Nov 2011)

The latest from QMI/Sun Media:  





> The head of an anti-military group that accuses "old generals" of trying to fundraise on the backs of dead Canadian soldiers insists he's not a pacifist.
> 
> Ceasefire.org's Steven Staples chose the Spanish Civil War as a cause he'd fight for.
> 
> ...


----------



## Thompson_JM (30 Nov 2011)

Ugh....

I'm going to take the position with Mr Staples that if you cant say anything nice, dont say anything... As such, were it possible to have less then nothing to say about him I would.


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Nov 2011)

For Mr Staples, I would first argue, LEARN about the world sit rep first and then try and formulate a strategy. He literally seems like a "situate the estimate" type of guy. 

Who actually takes him seriously? He almost comes across as a conspiracy theorist.

I don't agree at all that defence companies are drooling with anticipation any Canadian defence purchases since our numbers are too low to make a bang anyways.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest from QMI/Sun Media:



 :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2011)

The actual video feed is better Sun News Byline on Ceasfire

Brian Lilley pwned Staples


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Nov 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Who actually takes him seriously? He almost comes across as a conspiracy theorist.



Unfortunately, too many people take him seriously. Just look at any MSM reporter who needs a statement regarding any military and he is one of the first people they go to for a quote. That resonates with the public who don't know his background and/or agenda.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, too many people take him seriously. Just look at any MSM reporter who needs a statement regarding any military and he is one of the first people they go to for a quote. That resonates with the public who don't know his background and/or agenda.



Being a "I wish I was/had of been/could have been a MacPap" is a pretty serious background.   :


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Dec 2011)

That said, it's always a treat to watch Mr. Staples try and go up against very capable, well-spoken and very well-informed folks like Mercedes Stephenson.  :nod:  

Interesting to note how interviewers rarely characterise/introduce Mr. Staples as the founder of "Ceasefire.org"...always as the President/Director of the Rideau Institute.

Regards
G2G


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That said, it's always a treat to watch Mr. Staples try and go up against very capable, well-spoken and very well-informed folks like Mercedes Stephenson.  :nod:



There, fixed that for you.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (1 Dec 2011)

Instead of pointing to the Spanish Civil War, Mr Staples should've been honest and admitted he would've been one of the helpers to assist with Stalin rounding up people and sending them to Siberia (or worse), or assisting Mao with his Great Leap Forward.

If you look at his arguments and contradictions, that's exactly where his ideology points him....

I would go further and wager he probably has a Little Red Book somewhere in his office.


----------



## Danjanou (1 Dec 2011)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> .....I would go further and wager he probably has a Little Red Book somewhere in his office pocket.



TFTFY


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2011)

> Quote from: Good2Golf on Today at 10:51:24
> 
> That said, it's always a treat to watch Mr. Staples try and go up against very capable, well-spoken and very well-informed folks like Mercedes Stephenson.  :nod:





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> There, fixed that for you.



 :+1:


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Feb 2012)

Whazzup for the next while for S.S. and Co.?


> ....  Next month we’re organizing our largest ever “Be Heard on March 3rd” annual day of action, calling on tens of thousands of people to refuse to pay taxes for war and the F-35 stealth fighter.
> 
> We are continuing our work to oppose Harper’s plan to build a “Fortress North America” with deeper integration with the Pentagon and uncontrolled sharing of our personal information.
> 
> ...


A bit more in the latest from ceasefire.ca (no link, lest we boost the hits there too, too much).


----------



## medicineman (19 Feb 2012)

I wonder if you get a free packet of gravol with the newsletter...or at least some of whatever they're smoking so all can be on the same wavelength.

MM


----------



## dimsum (19 Feb 2012)

Against my better judgement, I opened that PDF file.  Excuse me while I go hurl.


----------



## dogger1936 (19 Feb 2012)

War loving generals.....


----------



## Teeps74 (19 Feb 2012)

Yikes. I just love how Mr Staples attempts to sell himself as "unbiased" WRT his recent testimony on the F35. 

Mr Staples needs to accept that he is indeed very biased WRT all things military... Nothing wrong with being biased. We are all biased. 

I also find it troubling that he is a "go-to-guy" for military matters within the MSM, especially when it is NOT noted that he is a co-founder for Ceasefire and an anti-military activist.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Whazzup for the next while for S.S. and Co.?A bit more in the latest from ceasefire.ca (no link, lest we boost the hits there too, too much).



Sweet, so we can choose what our taxes pay for now? Adios equalization payments to Quebec!


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Feb 2012)

> "calling on tens of thousands of people to refuse to pay taxes for war and the F-35 stealth fighter."



I'm sure there are a bunch of guys/gals over at Revenue Canada who are thinking, "Oh ya, make my day."


----------



## larry Strong (19 Feb 2012)

Wondering if they are handing out free crack to go with the pipe dream..........


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Feb 2012)

medicineman said:
			
		

> I wonder if you get a free packet of gravol with the newsletter...or at least some of whatever they're smoking so all can be on the same wavelength.
> 
> MM



I would think Granola would be more appropriate.  Along with a touque that has the dangly cords they seem to love so.


----------



## medicineman (20 Feb 2012)

Gravol has two effects - keeps me from puking OR in a pinch gets people stoned.  But I see your point, coming from the West Coast.

MM


----------



## q_1966 (20 Feb 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The actual video feed is better Sun News Byline on Ceasfire
> 
> Brian Lilley pwned Staples



Thank-you Mr. Lilley, for shutting this guy down.

At Vimy Ridge "3,598 dead out of 10,602 Canadian casualties"(1). A single battle, still regarded as one of the most successful in history. When Sir Arthur Currie returned to Canada in 1919 "His visit to the House of Commons was met with a deafening silence and hissing from the gallery. Borden who is out of the country at the time, still waits four months to defend him against the vitriol of Sam Hughes' attacks, (that Currie had wasted Canadian lives), in the House. His attacks certainly did a lot to turn the Canadian public's thinking against Currie and there are those even today, who label him a butcher"(2).

We lost more soldiers at Vimy Ridge, than the entire Afghan war. Generals have always had to lobby on the backs of dead soldiers, in order to get the money, man power and equipment necessary to save lives. 

If we scale down and under fund our military, with the everything winding down in Afghanistan. We will run into the same problems we had in the past.

Notes:
1. http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/history/firstwar/vimy/vimy5
2. http://www.currieproject.ca/post-war.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Feb 2012)

>how to avoid a nuclear and military arms race in this delicate, environmentally sensitive region.

I suppose we could start by not deploying Canadian nukes and armoured divisions.  That should not be hard to do.


----------



## q_1966 (21 Feb 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >how to avoid a nuclear and military arms race in this delicate, environmentally sensitive region.
> I suppose we could start by not deploying Canadian nukes



Or American ones.


----------

