Def Min's "Architect" Statements (split fm Walts et. al.)
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
NavalMoose said:
Churchill was never a senior officer, he retired as a Major. You'll note that I said "General Officers" when I mentioned the house of Lords.
the 48th regulator said:
Don't get your pants in a knot 48th Regulator. I've quoted lots of sources in the above posts. My beef is when Officers use their military service for political purposes, it's unprofessional.
Not pandering for sympathy, simply stating the fact that Defence isn't important to Canadians, would you like me to cite one of the numerous surveys available?
Again as a Major, not a Senior Officer.
Hmmmm, you're clearly ignorant of our political institutions if you believe the above. Canada follows The Westminster system and has a bicameral legislature.
The House of Lords serves the same purpose as the Senate, it's not the systems fault that we've bastardized the Upper House.
I never once cited a meme. Did cite a couple of political theorists, quote a few Generals, etc.
Don't care about pomp and pageantry, I care about the institutions we have functioning properly. You know that whole "peace, order and good government" thing.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
NavalMoose said:
My grandfather was with the Queen's Own 4th Hussars in Bangalore from 1895-1902. He served under Churchill. At that time, Churchill was not respected by the other officers (at least) as they used to beat the shit out of him and throw him into the horse troughs. Mom never mentioned what the ranks thought of him, grandfather was a Cpl. Churchill did serve in the front lines to some distinction in France after the Gallipoli disaster. These experiences must have taught him some lessons in being successful in politics.
I am bias, but I will have more faith (Leslie excepted) in a Member of Parliament who has served than a mouth piece who had things handed to him because of his father, political connections or just a being a bloody lawyer. (sorry FJAG, not a lawyer fan)
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
jollyjacktar said:
Churchill was an excellent politician; however, I don't know if he was much of a soldier. He also didn't take part in any serious battle while commanding his Battalion in WWI.
One of the benefits of being a writer back in the day is you could write whatever you wanted without the worry of immediate retorts or having someone being able to confirm the validity of what you were saying. Churchill never wrote in an academic setting where his work would have been scrutinized.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Parliament and the Senate, and hence the Country as a whole, benefit from diversity of membership. I'd rather have former Officers in both than neither, and both places could benefit from a few former Sergeants-Major as well.
I'd infinitely prefer that such members had served in areas of conflict and had to struggle with ancient and crumbling equipment as well.
I'd infinitely prefer that such members had served in areas of conflict and had to struggle with ancient and crumbling equipment as well.
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
Loachman said:
I fundamentally disagree because what you end up with is an "iron triangle" much like what exists in the United States with the "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex".
Having former officers, especially senior officers, in a legislative body corrupts the political process. In my mind, it's no different than having a judge run for office. Mind you in Canada, retired judges are allowed to do so but they're not supposed to refer to themselves as a judge. Some do though and there are plenty of Judges that think that's wrong.
Lobbyists and Special Interest Groups are IMO, and many would agree with me, the biggest threat to democratic government today.
- Reaction score
- 1,003
- Points
- 1,160
I think what you are describing is the laurentian Lieliberal elites vice Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex.
- Reaction score
- 2,389
- Points
- 940
While I initially thought this thread should be under Canadian politics, it was obviously a wise choice putting it under Chatter.
:stars:
Update: ....and then it gets moved to Canadian Politics. :-[
:stars:
Update: ....and then it gets moved to Canadian Politics. :-[
- Reaction score
- 22,112
- Points
- 1,090
Humphrey Bogart said:
Not to be pedantic, but, by definition, a Major is a Senior Officer.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
The Snowbirds just flew past our building on the way to Parliament Hill, a short time ago. One of the officers here commented "there goes our Defence Minister. He must be flying the lead plane". Man oh man, he won't be living this down for a long time to come, if ever.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
dapaterson said:
Agreed. They were considered "Field Grade" officers at that rank and above when I was an MP in Calgary. Any investigations that involved them were not dealt with by Patrols.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 26,590
- Points
- 1,160
jollyjacktar said:
They should have spelled out 'Memento Mori' over the Hill.... just to keep egos in check
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
dapaterson said:
For the purpose of elaborating I define Officers in to three grades:
1. Junior - Lt/Capt
2. Field - Maj/LCol/Col
3. Senior - Brigadier and above
Just because the Canadian Army arbitrarily decides they will change something doesn't make it actually so.
We decide to do things all the time that nobody else does, such as remove combat support from all infantry battalions (making them little more than well armed constabulary).
Yesterday I had to listen to someone profess the uselessness of attack helicopters because you know.... Swarm drones are the next big thing!
How about renting supply ships from the Chilean Navy, all part of our global engagement plan I'm sure ;D
Rifleman62 said:
I was making a comparison to the US system of democracy. Frankly, it's more dangerous in Canada because our Executive and Legislative bodies are one and the same.
Going back to FJAG said earlier about great leaders, the ones he mentioned were all American.
In the US system of government, the Executive and Legislative bodies are separate, President's run the country (which includes control of the Armed Forces) but they do not make laws. The President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while in Canada it's Her Majesty thru the GG.
Officers in Canada swear allegiance to the crown; however, they are also expected to answer to the government as civilian control of the Armed forces is a key principle in civil-military relations.
And this applies to the statements I made above:
The problem facing our Armed Forces is that the factor of civilian control has been misused due to the inherent weaknesses in our political system. 1.
A CinC who really isn't. 2. A dysfunctional upper house 3. Combined executive/legislative government without checks and balances (see #1 and #2)
Two types of civilian control - Objective and Subjective (first yielding positive results/second yielding negative results). Our civil-military relations in this country are subjective because we don't have the following:
1. recognition and approval from political leaders to the professional authorities and autonomy of the military.
2. minimal intervention of the military in politics and of politicians in military affairs.
Having formers officers serving in roles such as MND only exacerbates this. Gordon O'Connor butting heads with Rick Hillier comes to mind. A politician telling a four star General what to do because he used to be a one star and knows best. In spite of the fact that he never achieved the professional level of competency in the Armed Forces. It diminishes the credibility of the profession of arms.
Note: I'm not critiquing our system of government, I am critiquing how it has the potential to undermine the ability to generate a proper professional military.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,391
- Points
- 1,160
Still disagree with ya HB although this one has given me pause:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/kfile-trump-army-secretary-pick-theory-of-evolution/index.html
Seems Green went through West Point and was an infantry officer for a number of years before being selected for training as a medical doctor in the army. After twenty years in the military (including West Point) he retired to civilian life and to become a State Senator in Tennessee and a strict creationist. :facepalm:
He's Trump's nominee for Secretary of the Army. :brickwall:
:cheers:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/kfile-trump-army-secretary-pick-theory-of-evolution/index.html
Seems Green went through West Point and was an infantry officer for a number of years before being selected for training as a medical doctor in the army. After twenty years in the military (including West Point) he retired to civilian life and to become a State Senator in Tennessee and a strict creationist. :facepalm:
He's Trump's nominee for Secretary of the Army. :brickwall:
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 2,389
- Points
- 940
Ahhhh....Humphrey Bogart said:
Yet, you also said...with no small amount of repetition... that there's no such thing as a retired officer, because the letter of the law says something about only Queen Liz can turn the commissioning scroll off.
How does one decide which faults can be passed...or which rocks don't need painting...or far that matter, which chicken really isn't that sexually attractive?
:dunno:
ps - for disclosure, until this morning I actually believed I was a civie. :'(
I know my barber probably assumed that I'm a civie -- or dead -- because she hasn't seen me in three months. Of course, I've not yet found a need to say "Guy with Commission (Ret'd)." I better start getting some f*cking salutes then!
Blackadder1916
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,141
- Points
- 1,160
Lightguns said:
There, FTFY
and with a handy diagram http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page
- Reaction score
- 9,100
- Points
- 1,360
Journeyman said:Ahhhh....
Yet, you also said...with no small amount of repetition... that there's no such thing as a retired officer, because the letter of the law says something about only Queen Liz can turn the commissioning scroll off.
How does one decide which faults can be passed...or which rocks don't need painting...or far that matter, which chicken really isn't that sexually attractive?
:dunno:
ps - for disclosure, until this morning I actually believed I was a civie. :'(
I know my barber probably assumed that I'm a civie -- or dead -- because she hasn't seen me in three months. Of course, I've not yet found a need to say "Guy with Commission (Ret'd)." I better start getting some f*cking salutes then!
You're right I did say that and I meant it. Just because you release from the service doesn't mean you lose rank or expectations.
As the Commissioning scroll states:
Yellow - You will hold a rank of XXXX and may be promoted to XXXX
Red - You will be directed by the Crown when they want (i.e. prescribed by us)
If you're promoted to Major, you're a Major for life unless you're demoted or promoted and you can be called upon by the Crown at any time to serve them.
I know, I know, this is all very pedantic to you and everyone.
However, in politics and policy, being pedantic matters.
Similar threads
- Article
