Royal Canadian Air Force headed to mission in Africa ‘very soon’: top general

[Jarnhamar]

Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.

What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.

Why are you inventing a strawman argument when clearly  no one suggested soldiers should be the ones to decide where and when they deploy?

 

[Altair]

Why are you inventing a strawman argument when clearly  no one suggested soldiers should be the ones to decide where and when they deploy?

If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?

 

[Jarnhamar]

If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?

Exactly how it reads

 

[Good2Golf]

If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?

Perhaps as a bunch of civilians who are helping decide where a country (Canada) should direct its foreign efforts, and that they don't have a personal connection or appreciation to the reality on the ground, so it's easier for them to support going to a place they "think" they understand, but don't really?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Sure and it's been that way since the roman empire.

What of it? Soldiers have never decided where they go unless it's soldiers running the country.

The bigger issue is that the Liberals, while in opposition, used things such as the Conservatives not voting on Libya to show that they were not respecting parliament. Then in power they do the same things, but without any sort of clear mission or end state. Also stating that they dont need to have a vote since their election win was a clear "mandate" from the people also smacks of self importance and hypocrisy.

Everyone in the military understands that once the powers that be say it's go time that it's go time. However, there is still a valid reason to ask why for those in the military and for the citizens of Canada, of whom 61% didn't vote for the Liberal mandate.

 

[Altair]

The bigger issue is that the Liberals, while in opposition, used things such as the Conservatives not voting on Libya to show that they were not respecting parliament. Then in power they do the same things, but without any sort of clear mission or end state. Also stating that they dont need to have a vote since their election win was a clear "mandate" from the people also smacks of self importance and hypocrisy.

Everyone in the military understands that once the powers that be say it's go time that it's go time. However, there is still a valid reason to ask why for those in the military and for the citizens of Canada, of whom 61% didn't vote for the Liberal mandate.

I agree.

I still believe they will. They backed down on forcing MPs to be on schedule for votes.

They backed down on having a majority on the committee on electoral reform.

I think they will back down on this.

 

[Altair]

Perhaps as a bunch of civilians who are helping decide where a country (Canada) should direct its foreign efforts, and that they don't have a personal connection or appreciation to the reality on the ground, so it's easier for them to support going to a place they "think" they understand, but don't really?

When has this not been the case?

 

[jollyjacktar]

When has this not been the case?

How's about when many of the MPs were veterans themselves and/or serving in the military.

 

[Altair]

How's about when many of the MPs were veterans themselves and/or serving in the military.

And when was this?

 

[Kirkhill]

...Over the history of the House of Commons, only 18 per cent of the 4,202 MPs ever elected have military duty on their resume, according to statistics on the parliamentary website.

Among them was George Baker, elected as a Tory in 1911 as the Canadian government decided to join the British effort in the First World War. He then joined the military and was the commander of the 5th Canadian Mounted Rifles when he was killed in action at Ypres in July 1915.

The majority of MPs who have military records come from the First and Second World Wars, when collectively about 2 million Canadians served in the forces.

Fewer veterans to draw on

As the number of Canadians serving has dwindled, so too has the number of politicians drawn from their ranks, said military historian Christian Leuprecht.

"In the U.S., the military has a strong linkage with society — one in eight Americans will serve at some point in their lifetime," he said via email from a conference in Spain.

"In Canada, it's closer to 1 in 100. It just doesn't have the same cachet as it does in the U.S."

Of the 43 men who have served as U.S. president, only 11 have zero military experience on their resume. By contrast, of the 22 Canadian prime ministers, 15 have never done military duty.

The last prime minister to see active duty was Lester Pearson, who was both a member of the Canadian Army Medical Corps during the First World War and then a pilot in Britain

Thirteen current MPs list some military service in their official backgrounds: two are Liberals, five are New Democrats and six are Conservatives.....

This referred to the last parliament.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mps-send-soldiers-to-war-but-few-have-gone-themselves-1.1188017

 

[jollyjacktar]

And when was this?

Feel free to look it up, there's been 836 members whom have connections to service in the military.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/lists/MilitaryService.aspx?Menu=HOC-Bio&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

 

[The Bread Guy]

Feel free to look it up, there's been 836 members whom have connections to service in the military.

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/lists/MilitaryService.aspx?Menu=HOC-Bio&Section=03d93c58-f843-49b3-9653-84275c23f3fb

And if you go thru it, you maaaaaaay be surprised which party ends up with a larger number of folks with military service ...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Lieberals, I'm sure, although NDP would make milk squirt out my nose and bust my gut laughing.

OK, just had a quick look and as suspected, Lieberals for the win (they weren't always whiney anti-military bitches).  But holy fuck Batman, I've never heard of, nevermind dreamed of the so many different parties listed over the years.  Amazing.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lieberals, I'm sure, although NDP would make milk squirt out my nose and bust my gut laughing. OK, just had a quick look and as suspected, Lieberals for the win. 

Also likely because they've been up to bat a bit more often, too.

I think the captain of the ship makes more of a difference in our system than the make-up of the crew when it comes to political decision making, including military.

 

[Good2Golf]

When has this not been the case?

Arguably never, and exactly why I answered as I did to your original question here:

If someone says it's easier to vote for soldiers deploying because it's not them that have to go, how else do you take that?

You do remember asking that question, right?  Perhaps you could knock out the middle man and entertain us with you challenging your own questions.  :nod:

G2G

 

[daftandbarmy]

Har Sajan is our current Minister of National Defence. A former soldier, with recent operational experience, and a good one.

Even he will have not much to say about how, when or where we deploy our troops, I'm sure, as he will be expected to support the 'will of the government of the day'. Just like the rest of us.

'I am a soldier
And unapt to weep
Or to exclaim upon fortune's fickleness'

Henry VI

 

[McG]

Sure he is expected to support the will of the government, but as a minister he is also expected to have a role in crafting, guiding and developing that will.  As MND, he should have very much to say about how, when, where and why.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It seems like there's been a few times now where the MND has went on the record and said something only to turn around and change his statement days or even hours later.  I can't imagine he appreciates being put in that position anymore than we are when it happens to us.

 

[Kirkhill]

The MND has an opportunity to bring his views to the Cabinet table.  He has an opportunity to influence the decision.  He doesn't get to make the decision. 

Once the decision is made then he has a duty to implement the decision.  Or quit.

His life, and that of any other Minister, is actually pretty simple.

To prevent being embarrassed he is wise to hold his opinions to himself.

 

[Good2Golf]

That challenge is to be proactive in a manner that fits within toeing the line that the small cloister may (or may not) be clearly articulating to such ministers (or even MPs, for that matter).  What would no doubt be frustrating would be discussing issues in a manner consistent with the Party line, then get your chain yanked because senior insiders changed the line (based on the classic Liberal method of ruling by poles) and didn't do anyone the courtesy of letting them know of the change.  'Hypothetically'

:2c:

Regards
G2G