Steven Staples & Company

[Bruce Monkhouse]

..and that's probably about the only thing you and I disagree on Edward, [ except on that horrible thing called Scotch] I don't believe Mr. Layton has done anything noble in running for any office.

IMO, its always been about the fame and perceived power.

 

[vonGarvin]

I am a little unhappy with the tendency to attack the messengers, like Messers Layton and Staples, rather than their message.

Hear Hear!  I was getting the feeling that this was becoming a "Attack Mr. Staples" thread, vice engaging in debate.  The message sucks, but this is NOT Sparta!

(For those who haven't seen it, in one scene, the head Spartan yells "This Is Sparta" as he thrust kicks a messenger into a hole)

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Hear Hear!  I was getting the feeling that this was becoming a "Attack Mr. Staples" thread, vice engaging in debate.  The message sucks, but this is NOT Sparta!

(For those who haven't seen it, in one scene, the head Spartan yells "This Is Sparta" as he thrust kicks a messenger into a hole)

300...totally awesome movie!!!! ;D

 

[Franko]

Back on topic please.

The Army.ca Staff

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And besides, without us, who else would that mysterious Ruxted Group have to blog about?

Mr. Staples, .....less 'mysterious' than some of your sub-groups.
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/64695.0.html

 

[stevenstaples]

A coupla points for ya....

1. For all you Zapruder film fans, in the age of Google you can't hide anything. The fact that so many of you folks are able to cut and paste my bio from our websites onto army.ca should dispel any claims that I have a hidden agenda. :

2. The "MSM" is pretty frank about my point of view - call up any Ottawa Citizen story and you'll see that "left-leaning" descriptor in front of my name every time. Even Tom Blackwell in the National Post today spelled out our opinion of the war when quoting me for his story.

3. And speaking of Blackwell's story today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=211105) - yet another example of our research being proved correct. In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did.

OK - holidays are over - I have to get some work done...

Steve

 

[George Wallace]

Why did I know this "numbers game" would come up after reading that story?  Let's see, Canada has approximately 2500 troops on the ground and the USA has several times that number.  Of course the percentages are going to be different and disproportional.  How about looking at the totals over all?

If we had only ten people in Afghanistan as Military Observers (something I am sure Steven's group would prefer to see) and one was killed by and IED, that would mean that a wopping 10% of our commitment were fatalities.   Nothing compared to the hundreds of Americans who have died and make up a portion of 1% of their commitment.

:  Friggin Statistics and the people who manipulate them to ill-inform the public.

 

[aesop081]

Beyond the fact that statistics can be twisted by anyone to mean anything, what do casualty numbers indicate ? George's post is bang on. Numbers alone do not mean anything.


So what if our casualties are higher percentage-wise than others. Does that have any bearing on the need for the mission ? If anything it indicates that it is not the time to change our role or withdraw.

 

[Gunner]

Friggin Statistics and the people who manipulate them to ill-inform the public.

Beyond the fact that statistics can be twisted by anyone to mean anything, what do casualty numbers indicate ?

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

 

[Franko]

Steven, you are dodging a question.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/69333/post-656644.html#msg656644

Please clarify.

A coupla points for ya....

1. For all you Zapruder film fans, in the age of Google you can't hide anything. The fact that so many of you folks are able to cut and paste my bio from our websites onto army.ca should dispel any claims that I have a hidden agenda. :

True enough, however on CTV you make no attempt to let the public know this nor have you told them to include it in any introduction prior to your views being aired. I'm sure that the majority of baby boomers out there do not have regular access to the internet and take you at face value. An unbiased expert, which by your own admission, is incorrect.

Do you not think that in a fair debate or even the presentation of your arguments that that little tidbit should be included?



Regards

 

[Reccesoldier]

3. And speaking of Blackwell's story today (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=211105) - yet another example of our research being proved correct. In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did.

What's that truism.. Oh yeah, Lies, Damn Lies and statistics

 

[Good2Golf]

Mr. Staples,

2500 CF pers currently serving in NATO ISAF in Afghanistan as part of OP ATHENA.  75 fatalities is a 3.0% relative fatality rate.

8 CF military observers serving in UNTSO in the middle east as part of OP JADE.  2 fatalities is a 25.0% relative fatality rate.

Using your very own methodology, being part of the UN "peacekeeping" mission in the Middle East makes one (25.0% / 3.0% =) 8.3 times more likely to die than being part of security operations in Afghanistan. 

Uh-oh!  :-\  ....that means that Afghanistan/Iraq debate aside, it is over EIGHT TIMES MORE DANGEROUS (i.e. DEADLY) performing UN blue-beret "peacekeeping" than combat operations!  Well, that's kind of an awkward figure, isn't it?

Are you advocating that we send our troops elsewhere than Afghanistan, potentially exposing them to deadly risks more than eight times as high as those experienced in Afghanistan?


G2G

 

[Franko]

From your own quoted source Steven:

"We are, with the British, in the hotbed of the insurgency," said Steven Staples of the Rideau Institute, a think tank opposed to Canada's involvement in Afghanistan. He said Canadians need to evaluate seriously whether such losses are justified by the mission in Kandahar.

You forgot to say something about Mr Macnamara opinion:

Another expert, though, cautioned against reading too much into the figures. The numbers in Afghanistan are relatively small, which can skew statistics, and the comparison with the American allies may not be accurate, said Don Macnamara , a retired brigadier general and board member of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies. The U.S. forces typically have far more troops involved in support roles and therefore out of harm's way, which would lower their rate of fatalities, he noted.

"Let's not run off with any conclusions before we do further analysis," he said.

Strange that he came to that observation and that you didn't. Also his last sentence also speaks volumes of his analytical and impartiality mindset when it comes to this.

Good2Golf just made an excellent argument and supported what Mr Macnamara was getting at.

But I digress.

Please answer the questions placed to you by the members here.


Regards

 

[HDE]

Hmmm...

  It strikes me that a unit of say, 2,500, likely would suffer a higher percentage of casualties than a unit ten times larger, given the same conditions.  A LAV hitting an IED and having 3 killed is far more likely than 10 LAVs hitting 10 IEDs and having 30 killed, yet both would result in a proportianate number of casualties.  Put another way the smaller the unit the the impact of each casualty would be higher.  I'm a littl surprised Staples hasn't figured that out, assuming he's attempting a fair analysis.

On another note one of his "studies" compared only Canadian spending to U.S. spending over a period of time and leapt to the conclusion that Canada was following the U.S. in military spending, apparently because our defence policy is determined by Washington.  Wouldn't a serious analysis include other of our allies in tracking spending?  It may well be that Germany, Italy , Great Britain, etc. are also being led around by the U.S..  We'll never know because Staples didn't do the research

I have a degree of respect for folks who offer an alternative point of view on an issue, however I do appreciate it when their point of view reflects a little compelling argument as well.

 

[Flip]

The point is that there needs to be a debate, and we provide a different point of view than what is typically handed out by the government to the media and the public.

I'm tempted to think what this really means is that there needs to be dissent.
If he doesn't like the government line - that's not good enough for me.
Not, if there is nothing offered but dissent.

In short, if the antiwar crowd are so smug and clever, lets see some proof.
Let them bring forward a meaningful alternative approach to what the government is doing.
Describing how they feel or whats wrong is useless. I can't say I have much respect
for that tack.  Sorry Mr. Staples.

 

[X-mo-1979]

In short, if the antiwar crowd are so smug and clever, lets see some proof.
Let them bring forward a meaningful alternative approach to what the government is doing.

They can't do that.Then they would be agreeing with us and have no propose in life....not that they have much now.
Plus who would keep staples Bristol board and Elmer's glue sales up?Someone has to make protest signs.

On a serious note, many questions have been put forward and no response.I take that as a acknowledgement that you guys are right.
I would do the same thing as a kid when I knew my parents were right in an argument.

Now stamp off to your bedroom and tell em you hate them Mr.Staples.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Lets keep it civil folks. Meaningful debate suffers when backhanded comments and personal attacks creep into the conversation.

 

[Flip]

Lets keep it civil folks. Meaningful debate suffers when backhanded comments and personal attacks creep into the conversation.

Not really my intention to stifle debate. On the contrary, I'm frustrated by the know it all attitude of some of that camp
and some of them are obviously bright.  Eric Margolis and Steven Staples come to mind. They say Afghanistan is a waste
of our governments time. Yet, I have been offered nothing by the left to make a more favorable decision as a member
of the voting public.

All I am left with is a notion that they(the anti war crowd) are fomenting dissent for some other political or
private purpose.  I'm sorry for my disrespectful tone.  Again, not my intention.

As a news consumer and civilian, I find dissent and conflict in the media unattractive and disturbing.
I am asked by dissenters and the media to consider an alternate course of action or opinion.
I hear about the need for debate.
My precious and limited attention span is called away somewhere, quite deliberately.
What I am presented with, is a call to not trust our government.
Vague accusations and unsupported opinion are made to sound significant.
It appears to be a cheap smear.
Having been disappointed time and again by people who purport to know better,
I am simply annoyed. I don't want to hear anything like this anymore.
The government line is sounding more cohesive and more logical all the time.

In a nutshell - There's my point.  I would ask Mr. Staples to put up or shut up.
Sorry, I don't know how to make that sound better.

There it is.  I come seeking truth.
ARMY.ca has been a portal to some knowledge.
In my opinion, Mr. Staples, the debate is over.


 

 

[X-mo-1979]

+1 Flip.

What annoys me the most is once people are proven wrong they go back to the age old myth of the military being brain washed.
We cannot see the truth apparently.We'll maybe we as a whole are brain washed.Maybe we are brainwashed to use critical thinking,weight the pro's and con's,look at the facts and dispel rumours,and make decisions from that.Something some of these people are apparently unable to do.

Mr.Staples is stepping up as an expert on these matters on the national level.On the national level to the Canadian public on our national news at night.And the unfortunate thing is he refuses to answer questions about what he is saying he is an expert on.

I apologise for my previous metaphor,it may have came across as harsh.
It just frustrates me to no end.However it has no place in a meaningful discussion,a one way discussion at this point however.

I do look forward to your responses from the members of this forum Mr.Staples.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In this case, the first report that documented Canada's disproportionately high fatality rate in Afghanistan was "Canada's Fallen," which I wrote with Bill Robinson back in September 2006 and published by the CCPA. Apparently DND looked at the numbers following the release of our report, and came to the same alarming conclusions we did

Are these "disproportionately high fatality rates" measured as a fraction of forces deployed in theatre or a fraction of forces per battalion (battalion group/battle group)?  If you want to know who is taking it on the chin, you measure the fatalities on ships and in line battalions and aircrew with respect to their own units.