# "Canadians trust military more than government: Poll"



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2010)

This from ipolitics.ca via Postmedia News:


> Canadians have more trust and confidence in Canada's armed forces than they do in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government, according to a new study.
> 
> The study, based on polling conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies (ACS) and released exclusively to iPolitics, found that 75.7 per cent of respondents had trust and confidence in the Canadian Forces to do a good job compared to only 54.1 per cent who trusted the federal government.
> 
> ...


----------



## Canadian Signaler (2 Jan 2011)

Not surprising.    Bad thing is......One functions at the direction of the other.   When it comes to the 18-25 yr olds,   I sense that will be because they compare the CF to their US counterparts.

I tend to compare the CF more to it's EU counterparts as their training and tactics are mirrored more in that direction.
iper:


----------



## Jacqueline (1 Mar 2011)

Question.... Who are the people who are in control of the weapons in Canada and who are the people (or groups/forces/teams...whatever) who possess the weapons and all of those nuclear type things? Aren't they the military in all countries?


----------



## infantryian (1 Mar 2011)

I think that 18-25 year olds are just more likely to find it fashionable to be socialist.  At least that is assuming that the average university student I have spoken with is any indication.


----------



## Private (10 May 2011)

I'm 20 years old and get weird looks from people my age when i say I've recently joined the CF. I don't know what it is but joining the military has become an outlandish concept to alot of the youth nowadays. Even had a few tell me they are "against" the military, whatever that means.... or that i'm commiting suicide....

Lack of information is most likely the culprit, but having someone say they are "against the military" seems to imply they know something about the Canadian Forces that they don't.

But you can't argue with all the fools in the world..


----------



## xo31@711ret (10 May 2011)

I joined in 82 & retired last year. Doesn't matter when or what generation you live with or in. I got the same looks & responses from some back in 82. And there will be others who appreciate their Canadian Forces and go out of their way to shake your hand...


----------



## RememberanceDay (11 May 2011)

When I tell kids at my school, even older people that ask what I want for a job, that I want to get into the military, they're all like "Oh, you're suicidal?"  :facepalm: :threat:


----------



## callsign (17 May 2011)

Sapperian said:
			
		

> I think that 18-25 year olds are just more likely to find it fashionable to be socialist.  At least that is assuming that the average university student I have spoken with is any indication.



As much as I hate to say it, many of us just echo a series of normative statements that we read or hear somewhere just for the sake of going against an established status-quo.  I am 20, and I can tell you that at least three-quarters of my peers do not have the faintest idea about anything that bears any real economical, historical or political significance.


----------



## pitdroid (27 May 2011)

Private said:
			
		

> I'm 20 years old and get weird looks from people my age when i say I've recently joined the CF. I don't know what it is but joining the military has become an outlandish concept to alot of the youth nowadays. Even had a few tell me they are "against" the military, whatever that means.... or that i'm commiting suicide....
> 
> Lack of information is most likely the culprit, but having someone say they are "against the military" seems to imply they know something about the Canadian Forces that they don't.
> 
> But you can't argue with all the fools in the world..



Yes, I hate it when i here people say that  if your joining the army you basically want to kill yourself. They probably aren't very informed though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2011)

It's really this:


----------



## Lowlander (28 May 2011)

Well I have heard all kinds of things form people about the army and CF, but I would have to say that 95% of everything that people have said to me is postive


----------



## toyotatundra (5 Jul 2011)

Private said:
			
		

> I don't know what it is but joining the military has become an outlandish concept to alot of the youth nowadays. Even had a few tell me they are "against" the military, whatever that means....



Strangely, I have received similar comments from arts students who are "against" the military. Without exception, these students hadn't given their position any serious thought.

So I would use the Socratic method. And quickly they would realize that they weren't against having a military. They were just against the wars in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. They hadn't separated the military as an organization from the offices of Prime Minister and U.S. President.


----------



## Jed (5 Jul 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's really this:



Just when I think I can count on you Mr Campbell to always take the high road and supply some really relevant, unbiased perspective; you come up with something out of the blue that keeps me chuckling. Thank you for your sense of humour as well as your usual infallible insight.


----------



## toyotatundra (7 Jul 2011)

I am fascinated that the gap in approval between the military and the politicians is so consistent across various nations. I wonder what the common factor is. Are the globe's political classes universally full of the dishonest and the incompetent? Do militaries in a wide range of countries share the same ability to attract the best in character and behavior?


----------



## Delaney1986 (7 Jul 2011)

I was lucky to go to a University and end up in a Military History/Political Science program. I believe this helped me to better interpret both sides of the story. Liberal, or socialist or whatever you believe, you need to be well informed on both arguments to have any credibility, or ability to properly argue your point. I was 24 before I even voted. Not because I didn't trust the government or military but because I didn't feel that I was well informed enough to make such an important decision. I have more information now and more perspective on world events, it feels more natural now to engage in political conversations. I think it's natural for most people aged 18-25 to not trust anyone quite frankly  , so suspicion towards any government controlled institutions is natural while you learn more about the world and yourself (and it isn't as though we are properly exposed to the workings of our own governemnt in schools growing up). People who are "against" the military often know nothing about it or how it works. I have encountered a lot of ignorance in my life and studies from friends and acquaintances and found myself trying to explain the mission in Afghanistan (for example) to people but you can't trust something you don't understand - that just goes against human nature.

 I suppose it is better to believe in something than nothing at all.


----------



## SuperbusServitium (20 Nov 2012)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I am fascinated that the gap in approval between the military and the politicians is so consistent across various nations. I wonder what the common factor is. Are the globe's political classes universally full of the dishonest and the incompetent? Do militaries in a wide range of countries share the same ability to attract the best in character and behavior?



I'd bring up Heinlien's proposal in Starship Troopers that only retired Service members could be elected to government. By that method, the cure for dishonest politicians is to ensure that they will never get to do the job unless they go through the military. That will do three things: Turn poorly suited perople into dependable, trustworthy future politicians, break the will of poorly suited political candiates who can't hack military responsibility, or prevent the least suitable people from ever approaching the business of politics in the first place by their unwillingness to serve. Of course, a fourth sub-effect would be that those who would serve the public interest best would have no difficulty at all, if their motivations are pure; Service life would suit them, and therfore public office would be a good place for them as well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2012)

SuperbusServitium said:
			
		

> I'd bring up Heinlien's proposal in Starship Troopers that only retired Service members could be elected to government. By that method, the cure for dishonest politicians is to ensure that they will never get to do the job unless they go through the military. That will do three things: Turn poorly suited perople into dependable, trustworthy future politicians, break the will of poorly suited political candiates who can't hack military responsibility, or prevent the least suitable people from ever approaching the business of politics in the first place by their unwillingness to serve. Of course, a fourth sub-effect would be that those who would serve the public interest best would have no difficulty at all, if their motivations are pure; Service life would suit them, and therfore public office would be a good place for them as well.


Interesting in theory, but still no guarantees.  Heinlein's model presumes _everyone_ with military experience military is, indeed, going to look out for the best interests of the group ahead of their own individual interests - because there's _nobody_ who's only out for number one in the military, right?  This is true of _any_ group, not just the military.  Think of the worst numpties you've ever worked with serving as politicians ....


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2012)

Obviously _someone_, who thinks little of the attributes of exemplary military service, didn't vote in this poll.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2012)

SuperbusServitium said:
			
		

> I'd bring up Heinlien's proposal in Starship Troopers that only retired Service members could be elected to government. By that method, the cure for dishonest politicians is to ensure that they will never get to do the job unless they go through the military. That will do three things: Turn poorly suited perople into dependable, trustworthy future politicians, break the will of poorly suited political candiates who can't hack military responsibility, or prevent the least suitable people from ever approaching the business of politics in the first place by their unwillingness to serve. Of course, a fourth sub-effect would be that those who would serve the public interest best would have no difficulty at all, if their motivations are pure; Service life would suit them, and therfore public office would be a good place for them as well.



OR it will make people who have absolutely no interest in the military join up and spend a career weaseling out of duty screwing people over and punching their ticket JUST so they can retire and become politicians.

Joining the military doesn't make someone dependable or trustworthy.  The CF has enough 'me first' types already. No thanks mate.


----------



## Remius (20 Nov 2012)

The U.S. Senate, Congress et al are filled with ex military types.  Enough said.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (20 Nov 2012)

SuperbusServitium said:
			
		

> I'd bring up Heinlien's proposal in Starship Troopers that only retired Service members could be elected to government. By that method, the cure for dishonest politicians is to ensure that they will never get to do the job unless they go through the military. That will do three things: Turn poorly suited perople into dependable, trustworthy future politicians, break the will of poorly suited political candiates who can't hack military responsibility, or prevent the least suitable people from ever approaching the business of politics in the first place by their unwillingness to serve. Of course, a fourth sub-effect would be that those who would serve the public interest best would have no difficulty at all, if their motivations are pure; Service life would suit them, and therfore public office would be a good place for them as well.



Nope.  Heinlein stated that you could only earn the franchise through service to the country - and military service was not the only way to do so.


----------



## brihard (20 Nov 2012)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Nope.  Heinlein stated that you could only earn the franchise through service to the country - and military service was not the only way to do so.



"If someone blind and in a wheelchair were to insist on serving, something suitably silly would be found- counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch or some such". Rico's discussion with the enrollment doctor in Chapter 2. Franchise through service as the only genuine, universal right.

Between Col (Ret'd) Dubois and Maj Reid, the sociopolitical structure of veterans as sole political actors is thoroughly deconstructed and exposed as merely an instance of post-war expediency. "Separate the wolves, and the sheep will give you no trouble"; though Dubois concedes it as 'nicely put, though analogy is always suspect', he then goes on to continue breaking down what, if anything, 'service' actually intrinsically means- and it's found to be politically insignificant.

Starship Troopers was brilliant (my single favourite, moat read novel), but it's most brilliant once it's realized that Heinlein - a libertarian - wrote it as a parody of fascism. Arguably the only part Verhoeven got right when he made that abysmal film.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Nov 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Arguably the only part Verhoeven got right when he made that abysmal film.


You didn't like the shower scene?


----------

