Major embarrassment

[CdnGalaGal]

I don't know if that would help...

They might just treat it like a vacation... Paid accomodations made cushy for their benefit, souvenirs to bring home to the kids, and free tours courtesy of frontline CF personnel who are required to gloss over their ways of speech so that they don't offend these high-ranking officials with the actual story...

I wonder how much of the "real" conditions these politicians would actually experience or even UNDERSTAND. They're civies, not military. Unless they had a definite interest and solid background in military matters, it might just be another money-wasting expedition...

As debatable as this may be, the job of understanding what's going on is that of the Generals. And (I don't know much about govt matters) they should be the ones making the decisions.... not politicians. <sighs>

Only so much money to go around and too many ways to allocate the funds...   :-\

 

[Michael Dorosh]

So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas. 

Anything else?  :

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As debatable as this may be, the job of understanding what's going on is that of the Generals. And (I don't know much about govt matters) they should be the ones making the decisions.... not politicians. <sighs>

Exactly right.

And the job of the civilian bureaucracy, in turn, is to listen to the generals and support them as far as is practicable.

 

[CdnGalaGal]

"So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas. "

<lol> not to THAT extent...

And the job of the civilian bureaucracy, in turn, is to listen to the generals and support them as far as is practicable.

Oh, for sure... We wouldn't want a little band of Hitlers running around making all the decisions on resource allocation, afterall.  I'd say, though, that the Generals should have a little more say than they currently do regarding the decisions made by the Canadian government WRT military issues. Don't ask me how much MORE say they should have... On that, I pass the buck... I've got no clue...

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

So all cabinet ministers should be qualified airline pilots and railroad engineers (cause they might need to vote on bills put forth by the transport minister), own their own dories (fisheries), have some degree of medical training (public health), have degrees in science and commerce, and have military experience including a six month tour overseas.  

Anything else?   :

Was it not you just yesterday that pretty much told me I was unable to provide a worthwhile opinion because I'd never been in NDHQ???   Under the logic that specific experience is an absolute prerequisite to enlightenment how on bloody earth can you now argue that exposing our politicians to real-world military situations can somehow be a bad idea?

More importantly, does your inconsistant logic even matter to you, or are you just fixated on taking shots at others in an attempt to somehow boost your own ego?



Matthew.    

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Was it not you just yesterday that pretty much told me I was unable to provide a worthwhile opinion because I'd never been in NDHQ???  Under the logic that specific experience is an absolute prerequisite to enlightenment how on bloody earth can you now argue that exposing our politicians to real-world military situations can somehow be a bad idea?

More importantly, does your inconsistant logic even matter to you, or are you just fixated on taking shots at others in an attempt to somehow boost your own ego?



Matthew. 

I don't see any inherent lapses in logic, Matthew, but if you are really determined to pick a fight, keep mouthing off.  I won't warn you again about your tone, and in fact, you just got off Verbal Warning Status if I remember correctly.

Canada is run by civilians, that's the way the system works.  As pointed out, sending MPs out to do 6 month tours would be a huge investment of money for no apparent gain.  The lapse in YOUR logic is that you seem to think National Defence is the only issue important to Canadians.  It's not.  It's down the list. Way down the list.  So you are suggesting that all cabinet ministers receive 6 months of indoctrination to help them better understand one single portfolio out of dozens.  And while they're living in Afghanistan, how exactly are they learning about fisheries, health care, the cattle industry, or any of the other things they need to know about to run the country?

Plus, you haven't proven that giving them military experience (if you call it that) would help them one iota in making better decisions.  I don't see that sleeping under canvas in Afghanistan will make them better appreciate their responsibilities.  It might make them better understand that Canadian soldiers live in harsh conditions.  Guess what, so do Newfoundland fisherman, seismic crews up in the Arctic, or roughnecks out on the wells.  So what?  What possible good would it do?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I don't see any inherent lapses in logic, Matthew, but if you are really determined to pick a fight, keep mouthing off.   I won't warn you again about your tone, and in fact, you just got off Verbal Warning Status if I remember correctly.

Canada is run by civilians, that's the way the system works.   As pointed out, sending MPs out to do 6 month tours would be a huge investment of money for no apparent gain.   The lapse in YOUR logic is that you seem to think National Defence is the only issue important to Canadians.   It's not.   It's down the list. Way down the list.   So you are suggesting that all cabinet ministers receive 6 months of indoctrination to help them better understand one single portfolio out of dozens.   And while they're living in Afghanistan, how exactly are they learning about fisheries, health care, the cattle industry, or any of the other things they need to know about to run the country?

Plus, you haven't proven that giving them military experience (if you call it that) would help them one iota in making better decisions.   I don't see that sleeping under canvas in Afghanistan will make them better appreciate their responsibilities.   It might make them better understand that Canadian soldiers live in harsh conditions.   Guess what, so do Newfoundland fisherman, seismic crews up in the Arctic, or roughnecks out on the wells.   So what?   What possible good would it do?

To begin, I don't believe I've ever been on Verbal Warning Status before, but you can correct me if I'm wrong...

In regards to your post, this is the most polite you've been to me in any dialogue to date, and I just want to say thank you.

In regards to your comment that six months is unreasonable, I agree with you.   However, I would contend that putting
Cabinet Ministers out in the field is not only appropriate but essential considering the widening divide between the idealist
academics with padded expense accounts and chaffeured cars in government and the infantrymen in Kabul driving in open
cockpit ILTIS praying another suicide bomber doesn't jump in their lap while worrying about kids they haven't seen in
four months.

Bottom Line:   There is a disconnect between the fact that we are asking soldiers, sailors and airmen to make the ultimate
sacrifice in carrying out the government's foreign policy, but those in government are so isolated they cannot even relate
to the men making that sacrifice.   How does the proverb go: "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

Well in this case if you want Cabinet Ministers and MP's in general to understand the plight of our Armed Forces, the only
way to do that is to get them to see worst parts from a soldiers vantage point.

Take them on a tour of Kabul in an Iltis.
Take them on an ASuW Patrol in a Sea King.
Take them on a fisheries tour in Victoria-class Submarine.
Take them to a Reserve Training Session in the front of an MLVW and tell them the build-date.
Take them to Bosnia and let them watch an Aardvark clear mines from close enough they can feel the explosion.

Let them feel the fear.

Let them see the stoicism our men and women carry themselves with regardless of that fear.

You take those decisionmakers out for one year and put them through those experiences and pacificist Liberals or not,
they will step up when it's budget time.  

You don't take the decisionmakers out and we get 1 or 2 more Liberal or NDP Governments and I think you may
have gone past the precipis at which point recovery is no longer an option.

I'll look forward to your response Michael....



Matthew.    

P.S.   On the priorities front, Canadians don't believe the military is important because our political leadership has failed
to explain why it is important.   Ignorance plus poor leadership is a deadly combination....

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Well I've been told that after the Minister of Defence visited the troops in Afganistan during Roto 0 during a major sand storm he soon uped the hardship allowance which he had previously dragged his feet on.  I think it seems to make sense for members of parliment to have some experience in the postion they are in.  A former teacher in charge of education, lawyer/judge in charge of justice, farmer in charge of agriculture etc.  However you'd be hard pressed to find many military members in the gov't.  And no I don't think Jacques Villeneuve should be in charge of the ministry of transport.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Who says politicians don't understand the military?  The help us remember the sacrifice of the men at Vichy Ridge ... the D-Day invasion of the beaches of Norway ...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Well I've been told that after the Minister of Defence visited the troops in Afganistan during Roto 0 during a major sand storm he soon uped the hardship allowance which he had previously dragged his feet on.   I think it seems to make sense for members of parliment to have some experience in the postion they are in.   A former teacher in charge of education, lawyer/judge in charge of justice, farmer in charge of agriculture etc.   However you'd be hard pressed to find many military members in the gov't.   And no I don't think Jacques Villeneuve should be in charge of the ministry of transport.

Looking at your example, I think we can see that it's the ministers' job to know - not the entire cabinet.  I would say that the Minister's visit paid dividends and that the system worked as it was supposed to.  He went, saw for himself, and made a good definsible decision.  The suggestion was made here that the entire cabinet should have military experience, which is a silly notion, and as you suggest, optimally you would have cabinet assignments filled with experienced people from those areas they are expected to govern.  I wouldn't even consider this a prerequisite, just a "nice to have".

If the cabinet works as it supposed to, they will listen to the MND's advice and weigh their options re: national policy accordingly.  Again, we really have little idea of what goes on in cabinet discussions.  I will be the first to admit that spending a million dollars on a covered walkway for MPs from the parkade to the Parliament buildings seemed a little much, and there are plenty of examples of things like that which stick in the craw.  However, it is far easier to complain than to try and see the viewpoint of the other side.

Canadians have chosen to make health care a larger priority than defence.  Calling the politicians idiots or demanding they serve overseas tours in order to redress that apparent "problem" will not make average Canadians want health care less or a stronger military more.  Nor will all the complaining on this board.  At worst, it will only futher alienate average civilians from the military, if they see a lot of senseless complaining from our end, and I wouldn't blame them. 

I would suggest that reasoned arguments are the best weapon in our arsenal, along with spokespersons like General Mackenzie, for as little as that has done.  The other options are simply to complain, or at worst stage a military coup and then all your ministers would have that requisite military experience some of you seem to feel is necessary.  I wouldn't want to live under a military dictatorship - can anyone name one anywhere in the world throughout history in which human rights were respected as much as they are in our current system of government here in Canada?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Sorry I missed the part where the argument was made that the whole cabinet should have military experience.   I agree that is unnecessary, however I still believe having someone in a ministers position having some experience like I pointed out couldn't hurt.   I agree health care should be number one but defense should be a very close 2nd (I'm sure its not though).

 

[Brad Sallows]

Health care, when you get down to first principles, is not a duty of government.  It is merely "nice to have".  External and internal security (ie. defence and justice) are the two pre-eminent responsibilities of federal government.  If those matters are inadequately provided for, government is negligent.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Health care, when you get down to first principles, is not a duty of government.   It is merely "nice to have".   External and internal security (ie. defence and justice) are the two pre-eminent responsibilities of federal government.   If those matters are inadequately provided for, government is negligent.

You say that from the viewpoint of a small "c" conservative.  The majority of people in this country, however, are small "l" liberals.  In other words - tell it to the lard asses who eat themselves to death with fried foods, smoke all their lives, drink their livers rotten, then demand free treatment for cancer, dialysis, etc. paid for by the government (who gets their money from us, the taxpayers.)  Or the head injured who ride bicycles, motorcycles and skateboards without helmets.  Etc.

Unfortunately, your view (and mine) re: government and health care is in the minority and will very likely be so for a long time, barring a major catastrophe like an armed invasion or massive terrorist attack on either Canadian nationals or Canadian soil.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You want to see "major embarrassment"?, here it is. This piece of trash is at it again and worst, I was listening to the CBC radio news and she denied that she said this until the reporter said he had it on tape and then she said " I meant it in a different context.      This "thing" has got to go.

OTTAWA â ” Some Liberal MPs are banking on the U.S. presidential election this fall to help defuse a looming decision over joining the continental missile shield program.

And at least one outspoken backbencher says Canada must avoid joining what she calls "a coalition of the idiots" promoting the space-based defensive shield.

The issue promises to be one the hottest this autumn in a divided House of Commons under Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority Liberals.

Carolyn Parrish, the Toronto-area MP with a history of anti-American comments, fanned the flames today during a break from a Liberal caucus meeting.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots," Parrish said at a small anti-missile-defence rally outside the Parliament buildings.

"We should be joining the coalition of the wise."

Parrish got into hot water last year for publicly muttering: ``Damn Americans, I hate the bastards." Asked to clarify her latest outburst, she denied saying Americans are idiots and asked media not to air the comments.

The prime minister was not amused.

"This is a very, very

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Another version...


Reuters) - It was damned bastards last year, "idiots" this year.

Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish had said she hated "damned Americans" and called them bastards in the run-up to the Iraq war. She found a new moniker, idiots, on Wednesday in discussing the planned U.S. missile defense system.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots. We are joining the coalition of the wise," the Liberal legislator told a small group of demonstrators.

Parrish, who had to apologize for her "bastards" remarks last year, at first denied using the term idiots, and when reporters pointed out they had her remarks on tape, she said: "I don't mean Americans are idiots."

"The world respects Canada. If we were to join this then it will be giving credibility to what they're doing," she said.

Parrish then begged reporters not to use the remarks: "Please guys don't put that on tape," she said. "I already got into trouble once.... Really, please, I've had enough trouble."

The top spokeswoman for former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Francoise Ducros, had to resign in 2002 for calling President George W. Bush a moron.

Chretien's successor, Prime Minister Paul Martin, has pledged to put relations with Canada's largest trading partner on a warmer footing

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think Martin is at least smart enough to know where his bread is buttered.  I hope he throws her out on her ass.

What is the opinion among board members re: Canadian participation in SDI?  I think it certainly couldn't do us any harm to say the very least.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Personally, I have few problems with the whole concept outside of the fact that $0 Canadian defence dollars should go into it. My concerns are very narrow, and have nothing to do with the merits of the system.  I am more interested in the NAFTA implications re: technology transfers between US and Canadian companies. If the NDP manage to somehow scuttle the deal after we sign on, Canadian taxpayers could be on the hook for damages for loss of profit expectation if Canadian companies are subsequently barred from completing contracts they have obtained. And those profit expectations are substantial ... where will the money come from> why, the defence budget of course!!

On the whole, the Canadian hi tech industry could potentially make some huge gains in knowledge, and if for no other reason, I support that outcome!!