It was an insult to all CF members past and present as well. The foundations of the ad were that viewers should (speaks to the viewer’s intelligence) and could (speaks to the character of the CF) find that soldiers instill fear and/or scorn. If either were untrue in the minds of those who created the ad, there would have been no point to creating it.

>>”……and having worn the uniform in Her Majesty’s Service I guess you could say I am entitled to say that.”

Well knock me over with a feather. SL, my good man, you are full of surprises, but that might be the biggest one you’ve sprung on us yet……….

“It was an insult to all CF members past and present as well.”

Naw. My dad served in WW2, was wounded and decorated. He wasn’t insulted. HIs comment last night: “If it helps them to beat that prick [Harper], good. It probably won’t, though”.

I’ve been told by a lot of Conservative bloggers over the last couple of years the ways in which they personally insist I should demonstrate my respect for the Armed Forces. Funny…”respecting the Armed Forces” always seems to mean “agree with me, or you must hate our troops “. It’ a kind of thuggish, infantile argumentative blackmail I associate with high school debating teams. I

My dad served. I have two siblings who served. I’ve worked

(Sorry, hit send accidentally)…with DND on a range of projects from training design to DEW Line cleanup. Anybody who puts their ass on the line on my behalf has my respect and my gratitude. I don’t need anyone to tell me how that respect needs to be expressed, thanks.

This just goes to show even further that all “insult” is manufactured in the mind of the one feeling the “insult.”

I’m wondering why that should come as a surprise to you Mike H? Don’t get me wrong but I do find it humourous to hear why people are surprised at that sort of thing when it comes up - I’ve heard some goodies btw, including interesting stuff like ‘you’re a liar, pansy socialist punks like you couldn’t even make it through GMT & Basic, they wouldn’t have you’ :-)

>Oh for petes sake IrC, it was as lame a piece of propaganda as I have ever seen (at least on this side of the US/Canadian border) but it is not an insult to the Canadian Forces, past or present

It seems a large number of CF/ex-CF members disagree with you. Welcome to the era in which identifiable minorities will judge for themselves whether they have been insulted. Ian has that about right. Maybe we can start a trend to challenge minorities over whether they have truly been slighted.

If the “With guns” statement had been omitted, one might be able to mistake the ad as a simple attack against a poorly thought-out policy. “With guns” reduces the ad to fearmongering at the expense of the reputation of the CF. What were the Liberals suggesting, if not that the CF would permit itself to be misused, which would imply the CF were at the least collectively negligent about its ethical responsibilities? You can’t suggest the CPC would misuse the CF without implying the CF would permit itself to be misused.

>an Army was supposed to do what it was told and not think for itself anyway?

What I find interesting is that our armed forces have mostly avoided partisanship despite being employed to arguably partisan purposes in the normal course of governing Canada over the past 15 years, presumably because the fiction could always be maintained that the interests of Canada were in some way being served. The CF seem to object to their collective integrity being suggestively maligned for partisan purposes in the middle of an election campaign, because it can in no way be interpreted as serving the interests of anyone but the LPC. Soldiers agree to be pawns of the nation, not pawns of political parties.

Well, well, well… does that mean I get to identify myself as an “identifiable minority” IrC - how absolutly kewl.

IrC: What I find interesting is that our armed forces have mostly avoided partisanship despite […..] Soldiers agree to be pawns of the nation, not pawns of political parties.

– and what I find interesting is that answer in no way bears any resembelence to question I posed. At this point I will point out that parties form governments and the military becomes the pawn of the party in power. Do you suppose, in the most recent western case for example, that Iraq would have been invaded over the al Qaida attacks on New York, carried out by Saudi nationals, if there had been a Democrat sitting in the big chair in the White House?

Ya know Mike H, I just know I’m gonna forfeit another monthy stipend from the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (and just possibly catch the wraith of Lily and Max) for not jumping all over your

You just don’t strike me as someone who would willingly subject himself to the non-democratic, freedom restrictive and mega-structured culture of the military. I could see you being a conscript, but a volunteer?

– comment which could most definately be construed as an indicator that in your right-wing opinion the only way lefties could possibly be convinced to enter the service of their country was by being forced to do so, and that they certainly wouldn’t do so either willingly, or cooperatively… but I won’t because I’m not a dogmatic leftie and really do doubt you intended it that way. Do, however, be more careful about such things in the future, dogmatic types (either left or right) tend to be touchy about things like that and blanket attribute those sorts of statements (even with smilies attached to them) in all sorts of nasty ways ;-)

As it happens NCOs (and how do you know I didn’t have more than 1 stripe on my upper arm?) tend to be quite reasonable and easy to get along with people - it’s after they get that little crown that things go wrong with them IMO…. it was, btw, the RSM who was my particular nightmare and definately not the other way around. The list of (very creative at times) extra duties I found myself engaged in sometimes remains a source of good laughs in the pub to this day :-)

>Correct me if I’m wrong here, but were you ever in the same camp with the folks who told me (and people like me) that an Army was supposed to do what it was told and not think for itself anyway? Something to do with a moral objector to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq seeking sanctuary in Canada possibly?

The answer to your question is twofold: an army is supposed to do what it is told, and it is supposed to think for itself. Discipline and a unified chain of command are required for armed forces to function effectively (do what is told); politicians should dictate political aims (do what is told) and commanders should direct operations to achieve those aims (think for itself) with each group staying in its own lane of expertise; and armed forces must recognize and refuse manifestly unlawful commands (think for itself).

Characteristics of professionalism include, but are not limited to: specialized knowledge and skills; serving a public need; adhering to codes of conduct/ethics; and being self-regulating. The CF are professionals. It is insulting to their professionalism to insinuate they might submit to being employed as a threatening presence in their own nation, because they are taught to “think for themselves” - even if an order to go forth and look mean were minimally lawful, there are ways to obey the letter of an order without really complying in the manner intended. Despite some of the protestations I’ve heard and read so far, it is clear to me the Liberals did not intend their ad to merely be a criticism of the CPC plan to deal out small groups of soldiers like cards from a deck.

The ad evokes the image of soldiers as jackbooted thugs to frighten voters away from the CPC. Why else “With guns.”? That makes soldiers a maligned third party in an election gambit. There may be a fine line between the contest for power and the exercise of legitimate authority, but the line is there. It seems CF members will tolerate abuses in the course of the latter, but not the former.

What is an unfounded negative perception of an identifiable group, and what is it when you seek to promulgate and exploit such?