# U of Windsor Pres Wonders Whether AFG Mission is About Oil



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2009)

If he REALLY doesn't know, he's not doing much reading - an interesting stance for somone committed to (according to his bio) "the importance of universities as places where learning, discovery and creativity in all disciplines make essential contributions to society."

_Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act._

*U of W president questions purpose of Afghan mission*
Donald McArthur, Windsor Star, 20 Jan 09
Article link

University of Windsor president Alan Wildeman questioned the mission in Afghanistan Monday, wondering in a speech to a room full of Rotarians whether Canadian soldiers were there for oil.

*"I can't help but become emotional each time a casket is flown home with another young Canadian in it who has been engaged in a conflict that I really can't understand, and I try really hard to understand it," said Wildeman in a lunchtime speech at the Caboto Club.

"I don't know. Is it really about a better future for all of us? Is it really a war on terror? Is it about oil? I just don't know and I wish I did."*

The remarks came during a prepared speech where Wildeman discussed the global economic turmoil and the "magnitude of the expectations" being shouldered by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated today as the 44th president.

"There seems to be a desperation in the air right now," said Wildeman, who took over from Ross Paul on July 1.

"There seems to be a sense that a lot of things are happening and a lot of things are changing."

(....)

Wildeman was noncommittal when asked after his speech whether he thought Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan.

*"Because I don't know why we're there, I don't know if we should be there," said Wildeman.*


----------



## chris_log (20 Jan 2009)

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Because Afghanistan is sitting on a sea of oil.  :


----------



## Michael OLeary (20 Jan 2009)

> "I don't know. Is it really about a better future for all of us? Is it really a war on terror? Is it about oil? I just don't know and I wish I did."



If only he worked somewhere where he could ask smart people about viable oil reserves in Afghanistan.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

No.  No.  NO.  It was a Pipeline.  To ........ Pakistan...........No, China.    Or was it going to Georgia through Iran?  Wait, it wasn't oil; it was Natural Gas.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.  No.  NO.  It was a Pipeline.  To ........ Pakistan...........No, China.    Or was it going to Georgia through Iran?  Wait, it wasn't oil; it was Natural Gas.



No, wait, it was a PROPOSED pipeline.....  I'm not alone, I see....


----------



## chris_log (20 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No.  No.  NO.  It was a Pipeline.  To ........ Pakistan...........No, China.    Or was it going to Georgia through Iran?  Wait, it wasn't oil; it was Natural Gas.



And it was funded by Hallibur....I mean Kellogg, Brown and Ro....I mean Blackwat....the mastermind was Dick Chen...I mean Donald Rumsf...or was it George Bu....MATT DAMON MATT DAMON MATT DAMON (if anyone remembers Team America).


----------



## GDawg (20 Jan 2009)

Not much of a "prepared" speech if he just stood up there asking question after question. And how is this news? I'd question the Windsor Star for producing a completely irrelevant non-story as much as the U of W for supposedly producing such a bewildered individual as its president. Who cares if he is non-committal?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Not much of a "prepared" speech if he just stood up there asking question after question. And how is this news? I'd question the Windsor Star for producing a completely irrelevant non-story as much as the U of W for supposedly producing such a bewildered individual as its president. Who cares if he is non-committal?


Guess they never had anyone covering the Obama story.


----------



## IntlBr (21 Jan 2009)

Dr. Alan Wildeman  
President 
(519) 253-3000 Ext: 2000 
Room 505 Chrysler Hall Tower 
wildeman@uwindsor.ca 


Whoooopsies.  Guess we'll all have to e-mail him now.


----------



## leroi (21 Jan 2009)

Wildeman was noncommittal when asked after his speech whether he thought Canada should pull its troops out of Afghanistan.

"Because I don't know why we're there, I don't know if we should be there," said Wildeman.

I can think of a University of Guelph activist-communist who'd probably like to award Wildeman a Leadership Award for that statement ...


----------



## HollywoodHitman (21 Jan 2009)

MATT DAMON! 

Wow. 



			
				Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> If only he worked somewhere where he could ask smart people about viable oil reserves in Afghanistan.



You said it Michael. It makes me wonder how someone this learned in terms of world affairs can get a position like this. Nice to see he'll be influencing the student body and helping shape some ideas and sparking healthy debate! Yuck.


----------



## TCBF (21 Jan 2009)

- Our universities are bastions of institutionalized socialism.  Aside from the sets of actually useful skills (engineering, science, medicine, commerce, law), most of the effort of a university is directed towards maintaining the socialist cadre. Students pay their wedge of the tuition, after which they pretend to learn while the profs pretend to teach.  The students are then CERTIFIED (vice EDUCATED) and have a slip of paper assisting their eventual admittance to the bureaucracy.  University presidents are chosen for their level of enslavement to the dogma of socialism, not their intellect.


----------



## sm1lodon (21 Jan 2009)

It seems to me that socialism is all about cowardice and greed.

Cowardice, as in never being willing to lay down any comfort, or take any risk of any harm to one's self for the betterment of anyone but yourself.

Greed, as in, wanting everything belonging to everyone, thus no one has to work hard for anything. "Socialism: Where everyone shares. With someone who has more."

I do not subscribe to that ethos.

I have not often found anyone who has actually been, willingly, in combat, who does not understand the need for combat.

I have, however, often found that hollywood women and the effeminite hollywood men are leaders in criticizing, ridiculing, and belittling any and all who are involved in combat, unless, of course, they are terrorists who would murder children to make headlines. Then they are "freedom fighters struggling against American imperialism."

Socialism is just one of many steps on the way down the tube for a society.

And, being truthful and honest have nothing to do with socialism, at all. Thus the constant whining attacks on anything that involves military action. Socialism seems to have at its heart the destruction of any society where being rewarded for character and hard work is valued.


----------



## brihard (21 Jan 2009)

I've gotta give the guy credit for one thing though. Those in his position are often quick to commit to taking a particular stand on an issue. At least he admitted ignorance and didn't try to take a specific stand one way or the other. That takes a certain amount of courage of its own in a society where everyone is so quick to form, hold, and vociferously argue their opinion, regardless of whether they're informed or not.


----------



## rlee_1001 (21 Jan 2009)

TCBF,

Ridiculous. I can't believe that you think university is just about the promotion of socialism. Personally I just graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in History, and I think its laughable that you think professors simply 'pretend' to teach. I had many profs of many different backgrounds and ethnicities and to say that they 'pretended' to teach me is personally offensive. When was the last time you sat in an advanced seminar class and voiced your opinions? As for your useful level of skills, give me a break, many of those you list have little to do with anything in the real world and only refer to specific occupations. Last time I checked a degree in Science isn't too helpful in the real world, unless you're in a lab. Also I took a course based on globalism and indeed argued until I was blue in the face against the typical socialist behavior, and quite frankly crushed most people of that opinion. While I do not agree with the president of U of Windsor's position, I think you are being unfair in your labeling of a University degree.

-Ryan


----------



## ArmyRick (21 Jan 2009)

To the guy who is featured in the article at the start of this thread, is he a bloody ostrich with his head in the sand?


----------



## KingKikapu (21 Jan 2009)

Last time I checked, the world wide web was invented by the science homeboys at CERN.  I would argue that has made a profound impact on 'real life', or whatever that really is anyways.

But you are right; there are a myriad of degrees that weren't listed that play an important role in the development of our society.  It would be silly to deny their far reaching influences.


Mkay, back to this silly story.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Jan 2009)

sm1lodon said:
			
		

> I have, however, often found that *slutty hollywood women* and the *effeminite hollywood men* are leaders in criticizing, ridiculing, and belittling any and all who are involved in combat, unless, of course, they are terrorists who would murder children to make headlines. Then they are "freedom fighters struggling against American imperialism."



Wow, tell us how you _really_ feel.  :

On topic:  I certainly hope the U of W Pres will read up on the reason we are in Afghanistan.  But at least he didn't say we *shouldn't* be there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess they never had anyone covering the Obama story.



No. That was today's paper. Half the front section. Another daily waste of a good tree.





edit - spelling


----------



## ex-Sup (21 Jan 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> most of the effort of a university is directed towards maintaining the socialist cadre.


I think I have to add my 2 cents here.
I have two degrees...does that make me a double socialist  ???
I've spent a lot of time in university (more than some, a lot less than others), but in no way do I think it swayed my beliefs or political views. The only people who are influenced are those that haven't made up their minds or, who are weak minded and easily swayed; take your pick. Ya, there are some "interesting" individuals and profs at university, but they're not all like that. One prof I remember was a former NDP MP, but I also had a prof who trained me while in the Sups and is still an officer in the Regiment.
So while some of what you are saying might be true, you can't sterotype everyone.
BTW, am I certified? Yes. But am I educated? I dunno, maybe you can ask my students...they seem to think so. But what do they know anyway, right?


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2009)

Letter sent to the _Windsor Star_:



> Dear Editor,
> 
> So Alan Wildeman ("U of W president questions purpose of Afghan mission", Jan. 20) wonders "whether Canadian soldiers were there  for oil."  One is astounded that a senior educator can be so ill-informed.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jan 2009)

Boys

Calm down

If truth be told - University Learnin reflects markets for in-demand skills

Take a look at any top 500 Business leaders bios and there are as many English grads as there are Engineers and just as many who started in the mail room ------- just like say.... THE ARMY?  

As for if Afghanistan is about oil ---> if they ever stablise that region there are valleys that could be routes for Oil to where there is no Oil.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jan 2009)

Actually for me this just goes to show how the Federal Govt. and the higher-ups in DND are not doing 1/10th of the job, in regards to getting information out to the masses, as our brave boys and girls are doing on the ground over there.

Shame.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2009)

Michael O`Leary said:
			
		

> If only he worked somewhere where he could ask smart people about viable oil reserves in Afghanistan.



Best line _ever_!



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Actually for me this just goes to show how the Federal Govt. and the higher-ups in DND are not doing 1/10th of the job, in regards to getting information out to the masses, as our brave boys and girls are doing on the ground over there.
> 
> Shame.



There could be marching bands parading in front of people with our news from Afghanistan, but if people wish to remain willfully ignorent (regardless of their positions in life), then there is little we can do to change that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There could be marching bands parading in front of people with our news from Afghanistan, but if people wish to remain willfully ignorent (regardless of their positions in life), then there is little we can do to change that.



True, and we've all read criticisms of MSM in the coverage, but I have to agree with Bruce - if the highest bosses don't get out there to talk about it all the time, like they say about lotteries, ya can't win if you don't buy a ticket...



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> If truth be told - University Learnin reflects markets for in-demand skills



If that really was the case, according to Stats Can, there's a case to be made that "the market" would be made up of, in descending order of numbers (based on BAs):
- Social and behavioural scientists/lawyers
- Business, management and public administrators
- Teachers
- Health, parks, recreation and fitness workers


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2009)

Actually "University Learning" is a euphanism for "Credentialism". It doesn't matter if your BA is in 13th century French poetry, only that you have a BA behind your name.


----------



## CorporalMajor (21 Jan 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I've gotta give the guy credit for one thing though. Those in his position are often quick to commit to taking a particular stand on an issue. At least he admitted ignorance and didn't try to take a specific stand one way or the other. That takes a certain amount of courage of its own in a society where everyone is so quick to form, hold, and vociferously argue their opinion, regardless of whether they're informed or not.


Agreed.  He didn't pull a UofG or a UBC at least. 

The question is.  If Canada really was spending billions of dollars fighting in AFG for oil, why?  I thought we had the largest oil reserves next to Saudi?  Wouldn't we save more money and start less controversy minding ourselves?  That's why I laugh every time someone mentions oil..


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jan 2009)

I suggest you look at Colin Powell's comments on CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/powell.president.obama/index.html

The $ we are spending isn't for Oil - an Oil pipeline to alleviate the lack of energy where it isn't (and I have no idea where the markets is except its probably E and N of Afghanistan) - is a 2nd or 3rd order result of STABLITY in the region.

So next time someone says we are fighting for oil you should back away to avoid the flies because the speaker had his head up is a$$ before he let loose with those words.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2009)

54/102 CEF: Please read this comment; there is no/no blinking plan for any oil pipeline through Afstan ::
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83343/post-802583.html#msg802583

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jan 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF: Please read this comment; there is no/no blinking plan for any oil pipeline through Afstan ::
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83343/post-802583.html#msg802583
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Hi Mark

I don't see I said there was a plan for an oil pipeline.


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Jan 2009)

54/102 CEF: Sorry, I may have been too jumpy, but you did write:



> The $ we are spending isn't for Oil - an Oil pipeline to alleviate the lack of energy where it isn't (and I have no idea where the markets is except its probably E and N of Afghanistan) - is a 2nd or 3rd order result of STABLITY in the region.



There is a zero order result for an oil  pipeline involving Afstan in any foreseeable future--unless there are undiscovered and very large oil reserves somewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of which we now know nothing.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## 54/102 CEF (21 Jan 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF: Sorry, I may have been too jumpy, but you did write:
> 
> There is a zero order result for an oil  pipeline involving Afstan in any foreseeable future--unless there are undiscovered and very large oil reserves somewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of which we now know nothing.
> 
> ...



we agree


----------



## Ralph (21 Jan 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Our universities are bastions of institutionalized socialism.  Aside from the sets of actually useful skills (engineering, science, medicine, commerce, law), most of the effort of a university is directed towards maintaining the socialist cadre. Students pay their wedge of the tuition, after which they pretend to learn while the profs pretend to teach.  The students are then CERTIFIED (vice EDUCATED) and have a slip of paper assisting their eventual admittance to the bureaucracy.  University presidents are chosen for their level of enslavement to the dogma of socialism, not their intellect.



Open letter to all CF officers who have one of those actually useless degrees - he's found us out, comrades! Increase your agitprop and leaflet distribution fourfold! The people grow surly!   
Kommissar Ralph


----------



## Long in the tooth (22 Jan 2009)

I can only feel pity for the University President being so ignorant.  I guess a trip to the library is beyond his means....

Maybe we could start a fund?


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2009)

More on credentialism. Sorry Kommissar Ralph, but having a degree really only proves you have the ability to stay in school and pass your courses. Lots of smart people pass, of course, but some graduates seem to be.....lacking. The best way to evaluate people was allegedly developed by von Moltke the Elder, who created a 2X2 matrix of:

Smart/Stupid
Lazy/Industrious

People who are Smart and Lazy (according to von Moltke) would make excellent staff officers, since they would find the easiest solutions to problems.
People who are Smart and Industrious were ideal Regimental officers
People who are Stupid and Lazy were the unfortunate byproducts of any system, and should be carefully isolated 
People who are Stupid and Industrious are dangerous, and need to be removed from the system as soon as possible!

(See also Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy)

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2009/Q1/mail554.html



> As predicted. Once an oligopoly is granted -- *in this case to the colleges as the gatekeepers for credentials -- the market will work as expected*. Where there is competition there is lobbying to restrict entry into the competitive field of endeavor; once the entry is restricted by government, then those who own that field of endeavor will seek to maximize what they can get out of it. The US education system is a perfect example.
> 
> By law, once must have a college degree to become a commissioned officer of the United States. Teaching credentials are under the control of colleges of education. You can't issue bonds without financial ratings from one of four named companies, every one of which demonstrated its utter incompetence when it gave AAA ratings to those goofy mortgage based security packages when there was not data whatever to go on.
> 
> It takes government to create such a structure. Letting people be gate keepers lets them collect rent. From everyone.


----------



## Long in the tooth (23 Jan 2009)

I believe you are correct with Von Moltke, but have also heard that 

Those stupid and lazy, although unfortunate, can also be useful for ceremonial purposes.

To wit, many Canadian General Officers had been promoted above their heads after the first world war; the wise thing was to employ them in force generation (not in charge of) to show off the flag.  They had been fine and courageous soldiers in the first but were completely unsuited to the second.

Cheers


----------



## KingKikapu (23 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on credentialism. Sorry Kommissar Ralph, but having a degree really only proves you have the ability to stay in school and pass your courses. Lots of smart people pass, of course, but some graduates seem to be.....lacking. The best way to evaluate people was allegedly developed by von Moltke the Elder, who created a 2X2 matrix of:
> 
> Smart/Stupid
> Lazy/Industrious



Could you define what it is to be smart or stupid?

are the elements of this setup linearly independent?

sorry, math joke.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (24 Jan 2009)

Otto Fest said:
			
		

> To wit, many Canadian General Officers had been promoted above their heads after the first world war; the wise thing was to employ them in force generation (not in charge of) to show off the flag.  They had been fine and courageous soldiers in the first but were completely unsuited to the second.
> 
> Cheers



The Stupid Barrier was the Channel. As for the 1st and 2nd war - read Granatstein`s Canadian Generals of WW2 - want to do a repeat? Just starve the Army of Trainers in the Regs and Reserves. What do we hear today? We could do more but we have no trainers.


----------



## Ralph (24 Jan 2009)

Thucydides - I agree. Staying in school and passing proves you have the ability to a) complete a task and b) complete it correctly. No different than taking an army course and passing all the POs. Nobody cares less than me as to where I got my degree and what it's in. However, the CF requires me to have one. Almost half the candidates on my basic training and CAP courses failed because they couldn't grasp basic military skills, and are proof that a university degree is only some sort of vaguely related benchmark.
That being said, the useless degrees that TCBF speaks of are the ones that (hopefully) teach people to string words together well. If me no right good, my troops' PERs will stink and will suffer at meriting boards. Memos that I write or minute and send upstairs chock-full of mistakes will come back down in a sea of red, slowing down whatever it was we hoped to accomplish. Not to sound old, but high school doesn't teach one to write well; practice does. That I had to pay a whole bunch of money to have some old dude mark my boring essays didn't seem worthwhile back then, but it does now. Except when I'm dismounted...


----------



## ltmaverick25 (26 Jan 2009)

Ralph said:
			
		

> That I had to pay a whole bunch of money to have some old dude mark my boring essays didn't seem worthwhile back then, but it does now. Except when I'm dismounted...



I think you make some very good points here.  Having a degree proves that you can learn.  It should, in most cases prove a certain level of intellect.  It does not, however, prove that one is capable of being a combat leader.  I am in the process of doing a masters degree in one of the so called useless fields that TCBF is referring to (History) and I work with and compete against some fairly brilliant people.  They are also the first to admit that they would be completely useless in a military setting.  Having a degree will not guarantee that one has the makings of a great military officer, rather, it means the degree holder possesses the bare minimum nuts and bolts essentials that are required to do the job.  That is not to say of course that someone without a degree won’t also have the same minimum potential though.  The only thing I don’t like about the requirement of having a degree to become an officer is that it potentially alienates those who could not afford university or could not otherwise qualify for student loans.  In that one sense, it is an unfair and limiting factor.


----------

