I figure pbi and others have made some good responses but I just cant resist adding my own two cents, so coachron, here are my comments:
coachron said:
My, but there is a lot of defensive reaction to any suggestion that the military solution is rarely a solution to anything with the possible exception of contributing to the death and injury of mainly young and impressionistic people.
Do you read the papers? Our government does not send our troops willy-nilly around the world. They are deployed only after a lengthy political review process of investigation and debate that usually results in our forces being one of the last countries to arrive. This is YOUR government making a decision to deploy troops to fight. If you don't like it, argue with the representative YOU voted for. It is amazing how defensive anti-military proponents get when it is suggested that the government THEY voted into power is responsible for sending troops out to die or get injured; they would much rather blame a person in uniform who does not make the decision, but is willing to serve their country. Oh and by the way, we also support national and international humanitarian and search and rescue roles, are you also opposed to those 'military' actions?
It may or may not come as a surprise to members of army.ca that not all Canadians are quite so keenly supportive of the war making project,
How very amusing. Every Canadian soldier is well aware of the opposition against our existence in society. Why don't you use that vast education and knowledge you possess and explain to us a viable solution that the government can use that would successfully remove the need for any 'war-making project'?
particularly as far as it concerns the Middle East and South Asia. Nearly 2500 American lives have been sacrificed, not to mention 17,000 wounded, by an administration that had no cause whatsoever to invade Iraq. Historical attempts by, for example, England in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th to invade and occupy Afghanistan suggest that there is more than a little reason to worry about Canadian Forces deployment in that country by a government that appears not to have thought much about the mission.
Quoting empire-building and the sacrifice of US lives is nice for your local anti-war demonstration, but what's your point. We are not an invading army. How does your criticism of the military relate to the fact that the government YOU elected 'appears not have thought much about the mission'. You obviously have a problem with our government's decision, but instead of facing up to YOUR responsibility for electing them, you blame the military. No serving soldier gets to vote on this issue, we get issued an order. Every soldier in turn has the choice of obeying that order, not out of blind obedience but out of duty to their country. Unlike most members of the general population, many members of the military are willing to risk their lives for their country, and obey
a decision made by representatives of the people who were elected by the people.
Yes, there is a place in the world for the warrior. There also is a place for those who question whether high school is the place to indoctrinate people in the science and attitudes of war fighting without balancing that indoctrination with information that war is an outmoded method of solving problems.
This is the most ridiculous statement yet. You state that high school is no place to indoctrinate children in the science and attitudes of war without fighting'. Wellllll, how interesting, lets follow that thought. Let's remove all references to war from school programs. Lets start with history. No need to talk about how the Greeks formed their nation and founded western civilization, or how the Roman empire was built and founded legal and electoral systems still in use today, they were all founded on warlike activities. No need to discuss the British empire, which spawned over 20 countries worldwide, that was just war-like expansion and colonization. No need to inform the kids about how the English fought the French for control of Canada, no need to discuss the war of 1812 with the US, no need to discuss the Riel movement, and lets get rid of every reference to world war I and 2, or any other warlike event that affected the population and society of our country. And geography, wouldn't want to clutter up the kids minds and explain the role that international conflict had in shaping the borders that encompass a nation. Oh don't forget mythology and theology, cant forget all those references to wars and battles that are an integral part of our religious belief systems, or any references to the Charlemagne's unification of Europe through religious expansion. There's the English and French languages, lets remove every word in the two languages that has any reference to war, war machines, or war effects. Then there's also law, lets remove any reference to the Geneva convention or to war crimes. I hope you get the point. It's not the military that indoctrinates kids with thoughts of war, its the school education system and teachers who teach kids about war. Whether they perceive it as a noble purpose is up to them.
Finally, an 'outmoded method of solving problems' - what fantasy world do you live in? War is recognized in all political textbooks as either the last act of a desperate government or a means of enforcing or supporting political will. It is used as a tool by every government in existence today. Unpopular, yes, but outmoded, no.
In summary - THIS, your so-called informed opinion, is why I react negatively. You want to dislike the military, be my guest. But if you are going to present arguments based on poorly thought out concepts and ill-informed ideas of how the world exists and how people interact, or even on how the school system works, and most importantly, ignore YOUR role in the process, then expect a negative response. 
CF personnel are very committed to there job and very passion about how they work. 
