- Status
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
MedTech said:Ah, because you think without the military there would be a Canada. I believe that without the military, as our history have shown, there would very well not be a Canada as we know it today. But I also believe that the prosperity and the close geographical link between a military power such as the United States contributes to that. But let's not forget that our relatively peaceful existence came about through fighting wars, and who fought those wars? The soldiers did, and they did indeed bleed for your free speech and various other rights, which you so enjoy. Without them, there would be no Canada as YOU know it today. Pretty important wouldn't you say?
Good one. So if it looks like an ignorant civi and talks like an ignoratn civi, it just MIGHT be an ignorant civi? :Give me a break.
I don't consider many of those who have expressed their opinions whining. I do however consider the opinions of those who have never served their country, who have never marched a mile in our soldiers boots, and so openly criticize their speech and beliefs to be a tad bit self-righteous don't you?
I find it very telling how you seem to think that the only way to serve your country is to "march a mile in a soldiers boots". You seem to have a very militarycentric(if thats a word) view of things. I find many posters here do. Anyone who doesn't fall in line with the promilitary line here is blasted and then shredded for having never served. Many people serve the interests of the country, not just soldiers. School teachers, doctors, nurses, social workers, police officers, etc....Self-righteous is how you seem to think that soldiers have a monopoly on the ability to serve a nation. Many do it every day in different ways. I respectfully submit that the country would be a lot worse off if our education system or health care system dissapeared overnight, than if the armed forces did.
The soldiers didn't grant me the rights of free speech and mobility. The constitution does. Which was framed by civilians. If the civilian government wanted to repeal those rights tomorrow there isn't anything the military could do about it. In fact the military would probably be used to take those rights from me. A la the implementation of the war measures act during the October Crisis. This notion that somehow soldiers are the mighty defenders and providers of every right, privelage, and benefit that Canadians enjoy is a myth. Do they play a role, sure. But so do a lot of others.
As for the whining. Most people dont get too upset that someone else doesn't understand their job. Not everything knows everything about the structure of provincial education departments. Teachers don't discuss it on the internet. When is the last time you heard a pipefitter lament the publics lack of knowledge of his trade? It seems a bit like whining to me. I have been known to be wrong in the past, but that is a sentiment I don't hear from many others here.
- Reaction score
- 1,808
- Points
- 1,190
Really? Most of the people on "ARMY.ca" (or MILNET.ca, whatever) have a 'miltarycentric' view of things?! NO WAY!?!neilinkorea said:
neilinkorea said:
The military didn't write those rights down on paper, but it created a peaceful environment that allowed the civilian government to organize itself. Then, the military protected those right against those who would seek to take them away.
Finally, militaries have been known to stand up for the rights of a nation's citizens against the 'legal' government.
(speaking 'generally' here)
A
aesop081
Guest
ryananderson said:
What does that have to do with anything ?
Yet you are incapable of basing that opinion on any sort of fact and credible information. You have so far been incapable of making a single irrefutable argument. You are, i am sure of it, basing this "opinion" on protest website and other crap like that and come here regurgitating it as if it were independent thought. The reson you are having such a hard time here is not so much that you have offended people. Its because you have no understanding of the "opinion" you have and thus are unable to explain it and sustain it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
neilinkorea said:
I am sorry, but the second our/any country becomes invaded, and @#$% really hits the fan, the enemy wont care about our constitution, and it'll be our soldiers who defend our right to even live.
And yes you're right, if our education system and health care system just disappeared over night, we would be in a world of @#$%, but if there was NEVER a Canadian Military, there wouldn't be a Canada to have an education or health care in.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Yrys said:
I would expect open and balanced discussion about the Canadian Army. By militarycetnric I wasn't refering to the content of the site, I meant the views of the posters. It feels like everything that is not pro military or full of military jargon gets ridiculed. You guys have been complaining about civilians not being informed or interested about the military. I am a civilian who is interested in military affairs and in the actions our military is instructed to take on behalf of the citizens of Canada. The more I read and post here, the more I am inclined to believe that the name of this site should be changed to armymembers.ca. You guys say you want an engaged, informed and active citizenry when it comes to military affairs, but those of us here who are engaged basically get told we can't understand these things because we are not in the military. When it comes down to it, we live in a democracy where the will of majority is done. Since military members are not in the majority, the views of civilians should be very important to military members, because ultimately, due to majority rule, the wants and opinions of the civies are more important than the military member's.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I think this subject is being dragged out quite a bit...I think there is a lot of confusion about what the military does and what the country needs it for. Having a military is power, even if it is not used extensively. The fact that we would be able to defend ourselves against an attack is what makes our claim to have sovereignty credible. Take the north, for example...if we say it's ours (Canada's) but are unable to defend it, who says any other country cannot just claim it as it's own, populate and defend it? We would put up a stink, of course, but, really, what could we do? And this goes for our rights and freedoms in Canada as well. Without a military that would be able to defend our citizens from opposing forces, our sovereignty (which includes our interests and values) means nothing. Our military gives Canada credibility and strength, even if we don't go pushing our weight around. The fact that we are in Afghanistan has to do with our national interest and encouraging global freedom. I hope that I am not totally out to lunch on this one and I hope what I am saying makes sense. And please don't take it all out of context, I am not trying to offend anyone. Respond if you have any questions or anything to add.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Canada itself was formed in part out of fear of the United States.
They just bought Alaska, we were flanked. The only way the area could maintain its security, and "sovereignty" was to take the regions as they were and unite them. Creating a stronger bond, and a stronger MILITARY.
With that military in place and providing security for the colony/country things like the Constitution were written by those being protected.
So please, without a military in the first place...we first probably would have been American until WW2 and then who knows what.
I've never heard people make insulting ignorant comments to a pipefitter. Ask questions, sure...but not blatantly be a fool.
I work at a lumber yard, and I don't complain about ignorant people....Because I have no reason to! My job does not lend itself to insulting, stupid comments.
The Military does however. MANY reasons for that.
*Oh my goodness...forgot to spell check. And still probably missed a lot of errors.*
They just bought Alaska, we were flanked. The only way the area could maintain its security, and "sovereignty" was to take the regions as they were and unite them. Creating a stronger bond, and a stronger MILITARY.
With that military in place and providing security for the colony/country things like the Constitution were written by those being protected.
So please, without a military in the first place...we first probably would have been American until WW2 and then who knows what.
I've never heard people make insulting ignorant comments to a pipefitter. Ask questions, sure...but not blatantly be a fool.
I work at a lumber yard, and I don't complain about ignorant people....Because I have no reason to! My job does not lend itself to insulting, stupid comments.
The Military does however. MANY reasons for that.
*Oh my goodness...forgot to spell check. And still probably missed a lot of errors.*
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Yrys said:
Oxford dictionary: (guys)[pl.] a group a peolpe of either sex.
It doesn't say anything about guys relating to military service. Guys refrences people who post here not military members. When you can't attack the content, attack the spelling, grammer, wording or anything you can think of to stand in the place of a reasonable argument.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Sorry, Just what I was taught in school. Other than old notes that I no longer have, and text books that I returned I have no sources at hand.
I have teachers names however. haha (One of which being ex-navy...not that it matters)
Because it was a while ago that I covered that part of history, the best I could do was say "in part".
Garrr...that's the problem with schools...it depends so much on the teachers as to what you are "taught" or what slant there is to it.
*Edit*
Don't shoot me for this source (First one that popped up...Wikipedia)
"External pressures that influenced Confederation:
the U.S. doctrine of Manifest destiny, the constant threat of intervention from the US
the U.S. Civil war, British actions and American reactions
the Fenian raids
the creation of a new British colonial policy, Britain no longer wanted to maintain troops in its colonies."
Oh, God...I feel so dirty.
*and http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001842*
I would look for more...But sleep is calling. I've been neglecting the poor thing.
I have teachers names however. haha (One of which being ex-navy...not that it matters)
Because it was a while ago that I covered that part of history, the best I could do was say "in part".
Garrr...that's the problem with schools...it depends so much on the teachers as to what you are "taught" or what slant there is to it.
*Edit*
Don't shoot me for this source (First one that popped up...Wikipedia)
"External pressures that influenced Confederation:
the U.S. doctrine of Manifest destiny, the constant threat of intervention from the US
the U.S. Civil war, British actions and American reactions
the Fenian raids
the creation of a new British colonial policy, Britain no longer wanted to maintain troops in its colonies."
Oh, God...I feel so dirty.
*and http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001842*
I would look for more...But sleep is calling. I've been neglecting the poor thing.
A
appletreecdn
Guest
uh.....have you checked that this site is known as Army.ca and that Milnet.ca, Navy.ca all link to the same space on the net? If I go to such places, I naturally would expect to see military-centric opinions on topics and meet military-centric people.
"march a mile in a soldiers boots" comment does not say at all that only soldiers serve their country. I believe that comment is in response to an inaccurate perspective taken by a non-military individual. It simply says if you have not been a soldier then do not pretend you know how a soldier might think and do.
Soldiers certainly do not grant you the rights but they certainly are among those protecting the rights granted to you by the constitution. Those rights are granted to you by the society as a whole through social contracts. Canada's written constitution laws simply prescribe those rights so that the courts do not have to reinterpret them again and again through precedences. And yes, each of us plays a role and the military's role in Canada is to protect the Canadian society's ability to uphold those rights against external and internal enemies. So YES, in the case of Canada, soldiers are among the mighty defenders of those rights. (BUT they are not the only ones.)
If the civilian govn't wants to repeal those rights? Well then the entire basis of this discussion would be non-existent. In that case, if many are affected, there might even be armed uprising and even a revolution. (our neighbour to the south is a good example)
Another very ignorant point is that during the Oct Crisis, the soldiers did not take away any people's rights. They were there to assist the elected civilian government in maintaining and protecting the environment that would allow those rights to be upheld. Whether that was an over reaction or not could be left to historians. One thing for sure is Trudeau certainly didn't set out to make himself a king. It's also quite ironic that you should mention this because the repatriation and the addition of the Charter to Canada Act is one of Trudeau's political brain child.
Like I said in previous posts, the military is a tool of a society made up of members of that very same society, hence certainly it could be used by a bad government against the people but there is no shortage of examples in which the military is a stabilizing force and preserver of social values.
Most people don't get too upset that someone else doesn't understand their job, indeed. BUT I don't believe most people don't take offence if non-understanding AND rampant ignorance has been committed toward thier job. Try saying 'elementary school teachers are all lame ducks who can not deal with older students and are bunch of p***philes' out loud in a school lounge and see if anyone get upset.
"march a mile in a soldiers boots" comment does not say at all that only soldiers serve their country. I believe that comment is in response to an inaccurate perspective taken by a non-military individual. It simply says if you have not been a soldier then do not pretend you know how a soldier might think and do.
Soldiers certainly do not grant you the rights but they certainly are among those protecting the rights granted to you by the constitution. Those rights are granted to you by the society as a whole through social contracts. Canada's written constitution laws simply prescribe those rights so that the courts do not have to reinterpret them again and again through precedences. And yes, each of us plays a role and the military's role in Canada is to protect the Canadian society's ability to uphold those rights against external and internal enemies. So YES, in the case of Canada, soldiers are among the mighty defenders of those rights. (BUT they are not the only ones.)
If the civilian govn't wants to repeal those rights? Well then the entire basis of this discussion would be non-existent. In that case, if many are affected, there might even be armed uprising and even a revolution. (our neighbour to the south is a good example)
Another very ignorant point is that during the Oct Crisis, the soldiers did not take away any people's rights. They were there to assist the elected civilian government in maintaining and protecting the environment that would allow those rights to be upheld. Whether that was an over reaction or not could be left to historians. One thing for sure is Trudeau certainly didn't set out to make himself a king. It's also quite ironic that you should mention this because the repatriation and the addition of the Charter to Canada Act is one of Trudeau's political brain child.
Like I said in previous posts, the military is a tool of a society made up of members of that very same society, hence certainly it could be used by a bad government against the people but there is no shortage of examples in which the military is a stabilizing force and preserver of social values.
Most people don't get too upset that someone else doesn't understand their job, indeed. BUT I don't believe most people don't take offence if non-understanding AND rampant ignorance has been committed toward thier job. Try saying 'elementary school teachers are all lame ducks who can not deal with older students and are bunch of p***philes' out loud in a school lounge and see if anyone get upset.
- Status
Similar threads
