# Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?



## MuayThaiFighter (5 Jul 2003)

As everyone knows in Canada,the Canadian Forces needs more people.

In order to strengthen the Canadian Forces should the gov‘t put out more money in order to make it a requirement for a person coming straight out of high school to join the army?Allowing them to get a free education and learn a new trade in Canadian Forces.

I know other countries used to have it like this but could it not be useful in Canada still?


----------



## _Ditch_ (5 Jul 2003)

Would be beneficial to most individuals, whether they know it or not, BUT... Canada is a free country, and to force people to join the military outside of their own free will stands against what so many have fought and died for.
Smartest thing the CF could do is to straighten their **** out and make a military career more appealing to people.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Jul 2003)

Why dilute a highly professional and motivated force with a bunch of draftees?

I am at the Stampede this year as part of the armed forces displays; talked to two Swiss guys yesterday - they all do mandatory military training and even keep their rifles and ammo at home.  But neither of them knew what a machinegun was and seemed kind of dumbfounded by the C6 and what it did.  I‘m guessing they did basic training but never any kind of section training or infantry stuff.

Is that what we really want?  An army pandering to the whims of 18 year old dumbasses who don‘t want to be there in the first place?


----------



## Gunnar (5 Jul 2003)

Draftees make poor soldiers.  Part of the reason our forces are so good (and were widely loved by the Americans in Afghanistan) is because they‘re hard-trained *volunteers* who *want* to be there.

Drafting 18 years olds into the army hasn‘t improved the culture of most European countries, so I am unsure that it would help these Canada much, even if these guys get their *sh|t* together.

Army training can help an individual, it can‘t help society much as "cultural influence".  What truly needs to happen is a philosphical shift on the part of the Canadian public, towards a philosophy that supports the military.  Can‘t do that by indoctrination...


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jul 2003)

Read "Starship Troopers", Heinlein has some good insights into mandatory service.


----------



## Veteran`s son (6 Jul 2003)

Are there many countries that have compulsory military service?

Also, has Canada ever had compulsory military service in peacetime?


----------



## deathwing5 (6 Jul 2003)

My country has mandatory service at 18, i was spared it, since i‘m here in canada.  From what my dad tells me training is **** , and you constantly get beats for doing the smallest thing wrong. Even if u look at them wrong.  Makes you hardcore though.


----------



## Ruthless4Life (6 Jul 2003)

> Are there many countries that have compulsory military service?


From the top of my head there‘s Israel and Taiwan.

But political/military reasons, they require that amount of numbers.

Canada doesn‘t.

Why the he|| would Canada make conscription? The public would slam the government anyways.

And in order to arm these number of troops, where does the money come from? All these equipment, clothing, training, where do they come from?

If this does happen, the quality of the troops will be terrible. In the current state, the military can barely sustain itself with such a small military doing all these operations worldwide and it‘s straining itself to the max. What we need is a gradual increase in regulars and more in reserve that are fully operation, not conscripts that are f**k ups.


----------



## combat_medic (7 Jul 2003)

Some other countries that have compulsory military service:

Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland

There‘s quite a few others, but I don‘t really know all of them.


----------



## kurokaze (7 Jul 2003)

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] Some other countries that have compulsory military service:
> 
> Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
> ...


You can add the Phillipines to that list.


----------



## Danjanou (7 Jul 2003)

Also Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicarauga, Colombia, Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Chile etc. Basically most of the Latin American countries aside form those without standing armies such as Costa Rica and Panama.

As for the original question. No I think it would not improve the quality of the CF for some of the reasons already noted. Better to spend the effort on attracting and retaining more volunteer soldiers both regular and reserve.


----------



## Fusaki (7 Jul 2003)

> Read "Starship Troopers", Heinlein has some good insights into mandatory service.


There was no "mandatory" service in Starship Troopers, but Heinlein did have some good ideas. 

While no one was _forced_ into the military, you needed to complete a term of service in order to be considred a citizen. While anyone could own land and run a business, only citizens were allowed to vote and hold a place in the government. 

The philosphy was that you‘re not considred responisble enough to make political decisions for the good of the people if you havn‘t already put your a$$ on the line for the good of the people. This was supposed to keep corruption in the government to a minimum, because someone who‘s lost friends while fighting for the state is less likley to exploit the state for personal gain.

Smart guy, that Heinlein was... Check out his book called _Stranger In a Strage Land_ for his thoughts on religion and ethics.


----------



## Bringer (7 Jul 2003)

Starship Troopers contained quite a bit of Heinlein‘s view of mandatory service. Basically, he thought it was an awful idea. It‘s expounded on quite a bit early in the book - do you really want someone next to you who‘s just thinking how much he wants to go home, or do you want someone who‘s had to prove how bad he wants to be there, again and again?

When Rico enlists, one of the Sergeants asks him "Do you know what will happen if you don‘t come back after your 48 hours of leave?"

Johnny, thinking it‘s something awful, guesses that he‘ll get arrested. The Sergeant replies with something like "No, not a **** thing will happen. If you don‘t want to be here we sure as ****  don‘t want you either. They‘ll just mark it down somewhere that you bailed out and you‘ll never be eligible to try again."

It‘s a **** good book. I need to buy a new copy since my old one is falling apart. Reread it so many times...


----------



## WINDWOLF (7 Jul 2003)

Have to agree with that Bringer.
Own just about everything he has written.

I would hate to see manditory service here.
Don,t want a whiner in my trench,just somebody
i can count on when the crap hits the fan.

If your not here because you want to,get out.

But it sure would help some people with
their work attitude & time appreciation.


----------



## Etown (8 Jul 2003)

Hey combat_medic

You might want to check your list again. I know for sure that Spain no longer has mandatory service (I have family there). France has also phased out conscription, and Italy is scheduled to do so by 2006.


----------



## combat_medic (8 Jul 2003)

The study I got that from was only a few years old. I didn‘t think it had changed that much in such a short time. My apologies.


----------



## Pte Lickers (8 Jul 2003)

Everyone just for a cool little reference 
Starship troopers is a satire of the war in korea.  His ideas on conscription and military service have previuosly been discussed so theres no point in me repeating it.  But Heinlein does kick *** .

Mandatory military servive is in my opinion foolish.  Some people would not benifit at all from a miliatry expereince and could serve us better by going to university or college.  

However there are  select individuals (theres a group in every school) who have no respect or displine to pursue a legitimate career.  This MIGHT teahc them a usefull trade or simple make them even more rebellious to the system of government and accepted norms of soceity.


----------



## MuayThaiFighter (9 Jul 2003)

> Originally posted by combat_medic:
> [qb] Some other countries that have compulsory military service:
> 
> Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
> ...


France hasn‘t had mandatory service for quite a few years at least 5yrs anyways,probably more.I know this because my mother is from France and most of my relatives had to join army when they were 18,but it has all now changed.

Germany also doesn‘t have mandatory service and hasn‘t since World War II.They are not even really allowed to have more then a certain amount of people in their army and that‘s due to them having started both World 1 and World 2.

The only time I would agree with mandatory service is when a country goes to war and needs a bigger army in order to defend its country.

Correct me if I am wrong,but if a country with a small army goes against a country with a huge army after sometime the country with a limited army will lose until they have more people they can call to come in to fight and to replace the ones who died.

Canada has a small army,is that not true?

In cases like this,isn‘t mandatory service necessary? I‘m just curious.


----------



## WINDWOLF (9 Jul 2003)

I don,t know about that MTF.
Being a "small" army should not matter if your
troops are highly trained & equipmt.
You use to need 3-1 to take a entrenched position.
This may have changed since my time,but 300
guys dieing to take my 100 works for me.
Sooner or later they are going to run out of
troops.Todays technology has changed the way
armies fight,so maybe the more tech a army is
the better their chances of winning.

As for conscrips,they would just be cannon fodder.
Check out Iran & other countries that have
conscrips.Min traning & max dead.


----------



## Danjanou (9 Jul 2003)

Once again MTF engages his mouth, or in his case his typing fingers, prior to putting his brain in gear.

France gave up mandatory military service just recently (we covered this in previous posts already)

Germany did have mandatory military service after WWII. Those West German troops I and many othere here trained alongside in 4CMBG were for the most part conscripts as were their counterparts on the other side of the IGB (Inter German Border).

Now on to the main course. Bigger does not equate with better as more than one "real soldier" here has noted. 

FYI you may have noted this little thing on the TV the last couple of months called Gulf War II(it was the number 1 show on CNN for a while there).

The US committed 1 Mech Division, 1 Marine Division and assorted Armoured, Airbone etc. units of Brigade size which were equivalent to say a third Division. Add to this a British Division and you have 4 Divs plus support troops.

Care to guess the size of and number of Divisions in the Iraqi Army?

All sorts of factors besides an Army‘s size must be considered. Equipment, training, doctrine, and tactics are major factors. The moral of the army and the mission are also important. The units of the Wermacht and SS that defended Berlin in 1945 against the Soviets were willing to fight to the end. Compare that to the motivation of the average US Army conscript in SEA circa 1970.

All consript armies can fight well. napoleaon conquered most of Europe with one. Also look at the performance of the IDF and the SADF.

Then again they can also come apart very quickly, as was the case in both Gulf Wars and with several Argentine units in the Falklands in 1982 when faced with well equipped, well trained, and determined professional enemies.

Once again for a wannabe who says he wants to join you‘re doing a great job of making yourself look like an idiot in front of the people you may be serving alongside of some day.

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## haplo6 (16 Jul 2003)

FYI MTF.  Germany most certainly does have mandatory military service.  I know this to be a definate fact as I‘m living their right now.  The only thing that has changed about it in recent years is young people now have the option of working in civil service (ie. cheap gov‘t labour) or the military.

Romania Does not have mandatory military service and neither does Slovakia.  My wife is Romanian and The people I work with are Slovakian.


----------



## PilotGal (19 Jul 2003)

I think mandatory military service for 18 year olds is a good idea - for BOTH men and women, for at least 8 months.     But remember, this is not necessarily for a stronger CF, but for efficiency in times of war, when people are drafted. It is always better to have already trained people drafted than training people from point 0 when the war has started. And it also builds character and teaches discipline.   

And add Lebanon to that list too (not that it‘s a big deal LOL).    

Mandatory military service at 18 - you‘re spared for a few years if you‘re attending university, but have to go back and serve once you‘re done with your degree. Training is he||. It just totally f*cks up some people - something like that kid in Full Metal Jacket.      If you flee the country to avoid serving, they catch you at the airport once you come back, and you‘ll be charged and imprisoned. LOL. But, there are always ways around this - you can hand someone a coupla hundred dollars and be done with the military service. Many people do that because they‘ve heard so many horror stories - it‘s just literally scary. 

And another thing, women are allowed into basic training, but I think they‘re trained separately (!), and then they are appointed to office positions, and can‘t do anything else, like infantry, artillery, etc. And you don‘t advance into the position you want to advance to unless you bribe people and have relatives/friends who can shift you up into that position. It‘s a sad fact that army life is like that - it just shows how corrupt people in the Lebanese army are.    

D.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Jul 2003)

I‘d be fore some kind of service.

That is until i take a walk downtown and see kids who live on the street because they dont want to be in school or listen to their parents rules.  People who will starve just to spend their last $30 on extacy and bottled water.
Canada totally doesnt have the mentality for that stuff.

Maybe we just need MTF in our army to level things out


----------



## blackhat56 (19 Jul 2003)

MTF I hate to correct you but germany has had conscription since the four powers left and the FRG was formed. I spent 5 years in lahr and we worked a lot with german units and a large percentage were draftees. you had the choice of doing your time in the armed forces or any other service to the state. German draftee‘s were treated pretty basic but then at the end of their term they could elect to join the regulars and their benefits went way up, ie pay,quarters, and such. Before unification the bundswehr stood at 3 regular corps and 4 reserve corps so they could throw a lot of manpower at the fulda gap or north german plains. I was born in France as my dad was posted to NATO there before degaulle kicked us out so when I turned 18 I got a letter in french stating that I was drafted lol Quelle surprize needless to say I never reported in as I was already in the cdn army and no friggin way was I going to wear a kepi. lol


----------



## ForeverPvt (22 Jul 2003)

On paper it sounds great.  All of our troubled youth get a good kick in the ***  and learn some discipline.  Unemployment drops, blah, blah....  Unfortunately with a conscripted army you get a lower quality soldier and the government has to make consessions for these people.  For instance, look at the Dutch while they had manditory service.  Long hair, ACDC shirts, and Nike‘s while on duty.  If thats the kind of army people want, I‘m outta here.  Besides, if we had to fund all of these people, where would the Liberals get their cash to grow dope in caves?


----------



## Pugnacious (24 Jun 2004)

OK I was just seeing a report on TV about how out of shape some of us Canadians are, and then I come here to read about how short of warm bodies we have for the CF.  So my question is why not a system like Sweden?  Don't they have a manditory service of some description? Or am I thinking of another country? 
It might improve the health of our population, and give us more support.  Just a silly thought.  What cha' think?  Be gentle I'm a Civi. ;D

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Jesse3 (25 Jun 2004)

I myself dont think its a bad idea at all. I'm sure others can come up for reason against it like we are free to choose to go in or not.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Jun 2004)

I think a totally volunteer force is always the best, but on the other hand I dont mind the idea of national service either. It was here until 1972 in Australia, where they were known as 'Nashos'.

Australia sent over 50,000 troops to Viet Nam from 1962-72, and many were Nashos as weer ARA (Australian Regular Army) also.

Of course in todays world, it would be easy to get out of it any way. Only the serious would go for it anyway I reckon.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Sheerin (25 Jun 2004)

I don't think a manditory service is something that would go over to well, especially with those who are between 18 and 25.  
I kinda like the idea that Heinlein put forth in Starship troopers, where in order to be a full citizen with the power to vote you have to enlist in the federal service.  
I mentioned this idea to a few of my housemates this past academic year, 1 a conservative, one in the middle and one extreme leftest, and all of agreed that manditory service was a bad idea.  As the extreme leftest said (and i'm paraphrasing) "why should I have to be put into a situation where i'd have to kill in order to vote?"  He also believed that all those who joined the military were adrenlin junkies who just wanted to kill and he cited his family as evidence for this.  He also got high (off of weed) at least 6 times a day and loved shrooms... just go towards credibility.


----------



## Jascar (25 Jun 2004)

Plenty of European countries (Austria, Germany, Finland, Norway, Greece, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland) have some sort of conscription. Most of the Middle East and lots of Asian nations also have it.

Conscription has always been a very controversial issue in Canada, so it would likely meet severe opposition. Most of the countries that use conscription have long histories of it. Imposing it upon a society with little or no conscription history is usually quite messy, such as in the USA during Vietnam.

Then there's the fact that the Canadian government can barely afford the troops it has now. 214,623 males reach military age in Canada annually (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html). Employing these people in military service would give Canada a much larger and more expensive military than it realisticly needs.

But getting to your original point, military service might not be the best way to fight obesity. Some people in the military are fit, but certainly not all........


----------



## Military Brat (25 Jun 2004)

Well, personally, as someone who is in the process of enlisting, I would much rather have someone beside me who actually wants to be there as opposed to someone who was just conscripted. Especially when "the mess" hits the fan. 

I think a volunteer service is good, up until our sovereignty is dependant upon winning a war. If/when that occurs, I think it is the duty of every able-bodied person in the country to defend what we all believe in. Until then, our military as is, maybe with more funding and a few more troops is adequate I think. 

But then there is the big question of equipment. Someone earlier cited 214,000 as the number reaching military service age each year, that is a tremendous amount of people. If mandatory military service was say 3 years, that is almost 650,000 people in arms, along with those who are willingly there past their term of service. So that could easily put numbers over 700,000 people, possibly even more. Canada really has no need for such a military. In order to have such a military you need to be able to employ them. We aren't in immediate threat of being invaded by anybody(despite what the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada might tell you, who think annexation by our neighbors to the South is imminent). 

Also, it would be political suicide if any politician tried to push for mandatory military service. For some odd reason there seems to be a growing movement among the youth of this country that we don't even need a military, so I can only guess how well conscription would go over.


----------



## Scratch_043 (25 Jun 2004)

I think that the 'serve to vote' school is the best Idea, then you would only have people who are serious about Canadian issues deciding our future.

I do not like the idea of mandatory service for everyone tho; like Military Brat posted above, I know quite a few ass clowns that I would never want to even hold a firearm, or have to rely on when the going got tough.


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2004)

Bad idea, especially in a country such as Canada. One of the side effects of Canada's unparalleled multiculturalism is that many of her subjects would have trouble fighting for the "values we all believe in." If Canadians are unable to come to a consensus on values such as marriage and bilingualism, I doubt international affairs will go over well. I mean, if it was hummed-and-hawed upon by the CDN government (largely because of Quebec) during a period where the entire world was at war.....

And Brat, speaking as a university-going lefty who is ALSO in the process of enlisting, I'd just like to know whether or not you have actually been to a university. I'm curious, because during my poli sci lectures, I heard nothing but good things about the forces from other students. Oh, and on the Marxist-Leninist party of Canada....

http://www.cpcml.ca/tmld/Archive.htm

Perhaps you could highlight the article that outlines the coming US invasion and need to militarize...? I found articles like these:

"¢ The Challenge Facing Small Parties _(notice how people are voting for major parties because "they can't be any worse?")_
"¢ Elect a Steelworker to Parliament! _(not a bad idea to get rid of career politicians!)_
"¢ A Public Dogfight Is Not a Leader's Debate _(Martin in particular was being an *******, attacking Layton who was polite throughout)_

Some are pretty extreme, true, but I didn't see any that were particularly threatening. 
Perhaps you should form your own opinions instead of trying to using stereotypes and overblown generalizations to score points with conservative members of the board.


----------



## Pugnacious (25 Jun 2004)

All good points.
I also like the idea of the serve in the forces so you can Vote system.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## Tebo (25 Jun 2004)

The foundation of Starship Troopers ("The book, not the movie," I say shaking head in despair) was that to assume the responsibilty of a citizen you must demonstrate an abiltiy to sacrifice self for the greater good.  The idea here is that the authority one is given must be in balance with the responsibilty they feel to the group.  To this end the vote giving service need not involve violence, only personal sacrifice in service to a group.  

Administering this sort of system seems inprobable when we lack any sort of social engineering.  I mean, we still have incapable adults raising children in appaling manners.  Singapore's compulsory vote seems like a good transition point to segway into something more dynamic in the future.


----------



## R031button (25 Jun 2004)

My friends and I have debated this quite frequently, and we all range from left to right in vairying degrees. Most of us are in the belief that Nation Service should come into play. The system we all came to agreement on was something like this;

At the age of 17 your sent a package announcing you have to start national service. Inside the package would be a booklet with a variety of militia and civil  trades  relating to national security such as SAR workers, Ambulance Drivers, and various Militia(ie: purely defensive force) positions. People choosing those options would be "in" until the age of 45, during this time they would be required only to go on a 2 month long training course at the beginning, and a single one week course every year. This would not be the only option, however. Alternatively one could join the Reserves for a set period of time, become a professional and work in a public service(crown prosecuter or defense, public health care worker), serves in the Regular Forces, service in the RCMP, or the Coast Guard. Effectively, as long as you are spending a period of a few years serving Canada, everything is fine. Now, as a last resort, and if you disagree to serve, you loose your claim to free public service, ie: no police service, ambulance service, hospitals or welfare. In this system no body would have a political/religious/moral reason  not to serve, as any form of service, no necessarily military, is available.

We also think that every healthy body on welfare should be put in apartment complexes and given a job working in a factory building supplies for Canada, that way they're giving back, can get the help they need(like a SIN number), and have an incentive to get off of it.


----------



## sinblox (25 Jun 2004)

Why?

Don't we have enough people who want to join the military but are getting "jerked" around by long enlistment periods? There's no way the CF could handle a huge onslaught of troops when it's having so many problems training the ones it has now. 

Why should someone need to join a civil service anyway? I think we have enough people already trying to be RCMP officers and join the military etc that we don't need to do something like that. What if someone wants to be an artist?

And the idea of a military-to-vote system is fascist. What if someone is morally opposed to war? It's a valid opinion and you're cutting them off from their fundamental right because of their opinion. The political process is meant to represent everybody, not just those who join the army. And what if you're disabled and can't?

We're Canada, we're not fascists and we're not a military country. 

[and just so nobody thinks I'm some left wing hippy, I'm a reservist right now transferring into regular force combat arms]

(Moderator edit:  profanity corrected.)


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2004)

Congratulate your left wing friends comrade, they have gotten their corrupt conservative assocaties to agree on the makings of a socialist utopia where everyone worls for the common good or has no place in society. 

HAHAHAHA YOU FOOLS TOMORROW MORNING WE MARCH TO POLAND


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2004)

Pay.  Rations.  Accommodations.  Weapons.  Ammunition.  Equipment.  Training areas.  Putting people who already do the "national service" jobs out of work.

Nations used to keep large numbers of conscripts because of perceived threats, not because they needed a way to burn the national treasury surplus.


----------



## Pugnacious (25 Jun 2004)

"HAHAHAHA YOU FOOLS TOMORROW MORNING WE MARCH TO POLAND"

Can we stop for a 45 pack of Tim Bitz, and a Coffie first?  

Cheers!
P. ;D


----------



## Jascar (25 Jun 2004)

R031button said:
			
		

> At the age of 17 your sent a package announcing you have to start national service. Inside the package would be a booklet with a variety of militia and civil   trades   relating to national security such as SAR workers, Ambulance Drivers, and various Militia(ie: purely defensive force) positions. People choosing those options would be "in" until the age of 45, during this time they would be required only to go on a 2 month long training course at the beginning, and a single one week course every year. This would not be the only option, however. Alternatively one could join the Reserves for a set period of time, become a professional and work in a public service(crown prosecuter or defense, public health care worker), serves in the Regular Forces, service in the RCMP, or the Coast Guard. Effectively, as long as you are spending a period of a few years serving Canada, everything is fine. Now, as a last resort, and if you disagree to serve, you loose your claim to free public service, ie: no police service, ambulance service, hospitals or welfare. In this system no body would have a political/religious/moral reason   not to serve, as any form of service, no necessarily military, is available.


The amount of bureaucracy required to run this system would be absolutely enormous. You want to move to Hickville, Saskatchewan? Ok, just wait 18 months for the paperwork to go through. Hope they didn't need you to start that new job this year.....The nearest military base is 827 km away from Hickville? Have a nice drive to work, sir. You called for an ambulance? Please wait while we check to see if you've done your civil service and are allowed the benefit of medical attention. You now earn enough money that you don't require social services and therefore don't want to participate in military service anymore? Sorry, you signed up until you're 45, soldier. You want to live in another country for a few years? OK, but then you have to do the military service that you missed when you come back. You should be finished when you're......62. Hold that rifle straight, gramps.

What exactly would we do with ambulance drivers who only work one week a year? I think I'd rather have a full-time employee driving me to the hospital, thanks.


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2004)

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> "HAHAHAHA YOU FOOLS TOMORROW MORNING WE MARCH TO POLAND"
> 
> Can we stop for a 45 pack of Tim Bitz, and a Coffie first?
> 
> ...



in marxist-leninist canada,_Tim Bitz and Coffee stop you._


----------



## Military Brat (25 Jun 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> Bad idea, especially in a country such as Canada. One of the side effects of Canada's unparalleled multiculturalism is that many of her subjects would have trouble fighting for the "values we all believe in." If Canadians are unable to come to a consensus on values such as marriage and bilingualism, I doubt international affairs will go over well. I mean, if it was hummed-and-hawed upon by the CDN government (largely because of Quebec) during a period where the entire world was at war.....



Well, I think there are definantely things that most everyone in this country agrees on. Examples; democracy, charter of rights. I don't think I would ever ask someone to stand up and defend something they didn't believe in with their life. But I did state I would only support conscription if the future of the country relied upon it. The future of the country isn't in jeopardy because of billingualism or marriage, but it could be in jeopardy because of a world war, like World War 2, where a fascist dictator tried to take the world by force. That is a prime example where I think Canadians have a role in stopping that threat.

But to tell you the truth, I don't think we will ever see conscription in Canada ever again, we are in a time of technology where it's the technology and not the manpower that wins the battle, as opposed to World War 1, World War 2, or the Korean war where it was a war of attrition and we needed every last man we could muster to confront and defeat the enemy. 



> And Brat, speaking as a university-going lefty who is ALSO in the process of enlisting, I'd just like to know whether or not you have actually been to a university. I'm curious, because during my poli sci lectures, I heard nothing but good things about the forces from other students.



No, I have not been to university. But I am sure you have heard many good things about the Forces, probably about the humanitarian aid the CF provides to people in far off lands. That is all great. I am sure all Canadians are proud that soldiers put it on the line to represent Canada. But there are many Canadians, especially in the youth of our society, who unfortunately believe military spending should be cut or done with all together. I don't think the majority of Canadians hold that view, but the numbers of people who are coming to that conclusion is certainly on the rise. Many Canadians think we shouldn't focus on our military because the good ole US of A will always be there to defend us. (Funny thing is that it's pretty much the same people who take a stab at American foreign policy every chance they get). But we have agreements, like NATO, like NORAD, and UN peacekeeping missions that we have to provide soldiers to.



> Oh, and on the Marxist-Leninist party of Canada....
> 
> http://www.cpcml.ca/tmld/Archive.htm
> 
> ...



I heard, this evening, from the leader of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, on CPAC, in French (it was translated into English, so maybe something was lost in the translation) but from what I gathered they thought American annexation of Canada was coming and that we needed to discuss measures to stop it. Personally I don't think invasion from the USA is coming, and I never mentioned anything about the Marxist-Leninist Party supporting beefing up the military. In fact, not knowing much of their platform, I would gather they are more anti-war, anti-military. But I believe they are also anti-globilization, anti-US policy, which might lead to their dislike of the USA.


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

I'm not too fond of mandatory service. I'd take one person holding their ground beside me over ten people running to save their sorry asses any day.

Saying we need conscription and that our forces need more people are two totally different arguments. First we need to clean up the problems with recruiting, training, equipment, leadership, and anything else that is causing problems with retention. If the problems in these areas are fixed - or at least reduced to a respectable level - and there is still a shortage of new faces each year, then maybe we can talk about alternatives to voluntary service. Conscription would be treating the symptom, not the cause.

We can't deny citizenship to someone unwilling to serve, but we can certainly give benefits to those that do. How do the following suggestions sound for options:

--1 yr 50% tuition assistance or X% tax reduction for each year served in reserves?
--no federal taxes for reg force and full time reserve (continues after retirement if 20 yrs served)?
--permanent X% tax reduction for 10 yrs class A or 5 yrs class B/C/reg force?
--Job security for reserves on training or deployment (not bothering with "?" for this one)

To be fair to those who aren't military types, can't meet the CF medical standards, or simply want an alternative, this principle could extend to full-time service with a list of approved/credible NGO's (e.g. red cross, medecins sans frontieres, salvation army) either domestically or abroad. For example, the government could give a year's worth of tuition (either retroactive or credit for next year) or a tax credit for each year served. Having more Canadian citizens with an actual understanding of the REAL world would do wonders for our society too (those that spend time in the 3rd world especially would definately be unlikely to take Canadian citizenship for granted).

Basic principle is this: as a Canadian citizen, you have the option to contribute to the Canadian or international communities with either your time or your money. It just happens that if you contribute time you can gain valuable insight into the world around you, plus have an experience that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.

Do you think this is reasonable, or am I on crack?


----------



## Pugnacious (25 Jun 2004)

"Having more Canadian citizens with an actual understanding of the REAL world would do wonders for our society too (those that spend time in the 3rd world especially would definately be unlikely to take Canadian citizenship for granted)."

Sounds good to me.  

One question... how does one deal with the few that come to Canada, get citizenship, and then do sweet bugger all but complain, and pine for the 'old coutry'.
I know someone from Sarajevo (sp?) like this, if yah can believe it.
Or is this another topic?

Cheers!
P.


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

Pugnacious said:
			
		

> One question... how does one deal with the few that come to Canada, get citizenship, and then do sweet bugger all but complain, and pine for the 'old coutry'.



Well, just as with any other citizen who chooses not to serve, they miss out on the benefits granted to those that do. In addition to this, when they open their mouth to complain, and say how good things were back in the "old country", their bs will be detected immediately by those that will have served in places such as their beloved "old country" or even the country at issue itself. Looking like an idiot in front of a large number of peers who you are fully aware know from first hand experience that you are full of crap can be a powerful motivation to shut up. Society would be a bit better, but expecting an end to human stupidity is probably asking a bit much.


----------



## Stakhanov (25 Jun 2004)

I, Personally, don't agree with manditory MILITASRY service.  Germany has a good system though, many people believe it is mandatory military service, when it is really mandatory civil service...and yes there is a difference.  I would support mandatory civil service to be allowed to vote.....civil service includes military, but you can also work for hospitals, or other such things benefitting society.  However, if we look at a lot of countries with mandatory service...like Germany and Austria, and Switzerland....they also have free public university.  Hell....if we could get university free about 70% of the student body would vote for mandatory civil service...


----------



## nULL (25 Jun 2004)

Military Brat said:
			
		

> No, I have not been to university. But I am sure you have heard many good things about the Forces, probably about the humanitarian aid the CF provides to people in far off lands. That is all great. I am sure all Canadians are proud that soldiers put it on the line to represent Canada. But there are many Canadians, especially in the youth of our society, who unfortunately believe military spending should be cut or done with all together. I don't think the majority of Canadians hold that view, but the numbers of people who are coming to that conclusion is certainly on the rise. Many Canadians think we shouldn't focus on our military because the good ole US of A will always be there to defend us. (Funny thing is that it's pretty much the same people who take a stab at American foreign policy every chance they get). But we have agreements, like NATO, like NORAD, and UN peacekeeping missions that we have to provide soldiers to.



The last people you should be attacking is the youth of the country for not being patriotic or not supporting the forces. Say what you will about the education system, but the youth of the country are more aware of their country's past sacrifices than many adults, and are damn proud of it. Have you looked in a textbook recently? If you want to attack anyone for a desire to scrap the forces, you should blame the adults who live comfortable lives in the suburbs and work a white collar job - you know, the ones who are currently making the decisions and hurting the forces. 



> I heard, this evening, from the leader of the Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada, on CPAC, in French (it was translated into English, so maybe something was lost in the translation) but from what I gathered they thought American annexation of Canada was coming and that we needed to discuss measures to stop it. Personally I don't think invasion from the USA is coming, and I never mentioned anything about the Marxist-Leninist Party supporting beefing up the military. In fact, not knowing much of their platform, I would gather they are more anti-war, anti-military. But I believe they are also anti-globilization, anti-US policy, which might lead to their dislike of the USA.



Perhaps you misunderstood the translation. My take on an American invasion would be a situation where Canada is help hostage by international trade agreements into losing her ability to control her own foreign policy. During the build-up to the Iraq war, I remember some pundits kicking around the idea that if we didn't go, or even send a token force, the softwood lumber dispute would take a turn for the worse.

THE INVASION HAS ALREADY BEGUN. WE MUST KILL THEM _ALL._

EDIT: And yes, in classes we do learn about the humanitarian aid and peacekeeping that Canada prides itself on. Interestingly enough, when did something like that become dishonourable, or not worth the time? Wars don't happen all that often, but right now, we could be somewhere spreading our good name, helping people out, and reducing the risks that systemic poverty and famine will bring to world stability years from now. That said, while peacekeeping gave you a good feeling, so did learning about Juno Beach, Vimy Ridge, and the liberation of Europe. You should be targeting the people who have forgotten these things, not those that are still inspired by them.


----------



## Military Brat (25 Jun 2004)

I don't think a civil service system would work if the goal is to boost numbers in the armed forces. I would bet that 9 times out of 10, a person would rather serve in a hospital than in a war. We live in a society where we put a great deal of value on life. Most people like giving back to the country that has given them so much, but a lot of people are hesitant to risk their life. That doesn't mean they don't support what the CF does, it just means that they themselves wouldn't want to do the same job. The military isn't cut out for everybody after all.


----------



## Pugnacious (25 Jun 2004)

Well I think a good start ould be to move towards the manditory civil service, esp' it it nets us free university.
I know countless friends and family that are struggling for decades to pay of student loans.  Wannah improve our future, and get serious about education? 
Open the schools free to everyone.

Also the manditory civil service would get young people out and about, and away from their often too narrow tunnel relities on life, and give a good perspectinve of our country.

I can't see it being nothing but a good thing.  Think of how many young (and old) people right now in Canada don't have a clue what they are going to do in life.
The experience of manditory civi service might give them some good ideas.  Maybe I should have been raised in Germany or Switzerland..I know I would have thrived in such a system, and prob' had a few degees by now, and could be really giving somethingback  to my country.

Cheers!
P.


----------



## wongskc (25 Jun 2004)

ags281 said:
			
		

> To be fair to those who aren't military types, can't meet the CF medical standards, or simply want an alternative, this principle could extend to full-time service with a list of approved/credible NGO's (e.g. red cross, medecins sans frontieres, salvation army) either domestically or abroad... Having more Canadian citizens with an actual understanding of the REAL world would do wonders for our society too (those that spend time in the 3rd world especially would definately be unlikely to take Canadian citizenship for granted).
> 
> Basic principle is this: as a Canadian citizen, you have the option to contribute to the Canadian or international communities with either your time or your money. It just happens that if you contribute time you can gain valuable insight into the world around you, plus have an experience that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.



Completely agree 100%.  You outlined a line of thought that I have been musing over for a little while.  And the added advantage of having a population with real life experiences in all kinds of different environments is a compelling argument in itself for a system like this.



			
				nULL said:
			
		

> The last people you should be attacking is the youth of the country for not being patriotic or not supporting the forces. Say what you will about the education system, but the youth of the country are more aware of their country's past sacrifices than many adults, and are damn proud of it. Have you looked in a textbook recently? If you want to attack anyone for a desire to scrap the forces, you should blame the adults who live comfortable lives in the suburbs and work a white collar job - you know, the ones who are currently making the decisions and hurting the forces.



Again, I have to agree with this quote.  I only know maybe one or two people out of dozens my age that believe we should scrap the forces.  Everyone else is for it.  I even heard a younger poli sci prof state (paraphrasing) "the Liberals use the military as place to test their social experiments.  They don't realize that some day we might need them to fight a war."


----------



## ags281 (25 Jun 2004)

wongskc said:
			
		

> I only know maybe one or two people out of dozens my age that believe we should scrap the forces.   Everyone else is for it.   I even heard a younger poli sci prof state (paraphrasing) "the Liberals use the military as place to test their social experiments.   They don't realize that some day we might need them to fight a war."



I think I like that prof.


----------



## Limpy (25 Jun 2004)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I kinda like the idea that Heinlein put forth in Starship troopers, where in order to be a full citizen with the power to vote you have to enlist in the federal service.



I to thought that this idea was very intriguing. It's right of passage that might sort the honest from the dishonest, the loyal from the disloyal and the willing from the unwilling and prevent those of unsound minds from gaining positions of power of others. Not to mention a sizable amount of man power when needed and respect that freedoms don't come cheap. 
           However, It would never wash in this country. I think members of the CF should be given very special pprivilegesin Canada. Something that ordinary civilians would want to join up for like wide spread tax exemptionsfrom say GST for the rest of their life.


----------



## Scratch_043 (26 Jun 2004)

Limpy said:
			
		

> However, It would never wash in this country. I think members of the CF should be given very special pprivilegesin Canada. Something that ordinary civilians would want to join up for like wide spread tax exemptionsfrom say GST for the rest of their life.


Never gonna happen


----------



## Limpy (26 Jun 2004)

I know. Just an example.


----------



## Sheerin (26 Jun 2004)

Hey, Null what school do you go to?  
I'm going into my fourth year at Trent and the most common thing I hear about the forces is that they should be disbanded.  Unfortunately, the majority of the people I go to school with seem to think the military's only purpose is to invade innocent third world countires and rape their women and steal their resources.  
On a sidenote, I find it rather ironic that the majority of my friends/school mates seem to think that if there was any threat to Canada the United States would protect us... and will later say that we should separate ourselves from the Monster to the south.


----------



## nULL (29 Jun 2004)

Third year at malaspina UC, the only place you can get a degree by double minoring. haha, whatever, that just means I'll be wielding a useless degree and be off to try my hand at being a pilot when I'm 21 instead of 23.

And your friends are idiots.

I'm sorry, but it's true.


----------



## Blindspot (30 Jun 2004)

I have thought about this many times and wondered if perhaps the the answer would lie in having military service as an option among other options. Other options might include some kind of domestic disaster relief corps and an international aid corps. All these services including the military are and would be fantastic character building vehicles for the youth of this country who have it too easy and are self-serving in nature. Incentives could be given like university tuition paid for each year of service, and inherent trade skills.

Such programs would bring about a little more structure to the lives of the youth of our nation. When you see masses of hundreds of young adults hanging out at an urban mall doing absolutely nothing, you wonder where all that energy could be directed positively for the benefit of the country if such things were made mandatory.


----------



## Goober (2 Jul 2004)

How can you claim your country to be a "Free" country when it forces someone to do something against their will, such as join the military. Some people are not cut out for the military and would only be a liability, some people are anti-war, some people are terrified of guns and would probably end up shooting one of their own in the arse, and others should NOT be trusted with a gun or the responsibility of defending a nation. For some people, the wheel is spinning, but the hamsters dead. Oh but wait he's the one sitting in that fox hole with you trusted to keep you awake... Gotta love mandatory military service....


----------



## ags281 (2 Jul 2004)

> How can you claim your country to be a "Free" country when it forces someone to do something against their will, such as join the military.


Which is why people have suggested that it would NOT be mandatory, rather that incentives would be given to those that serve.


> Some people are not cut out for the military and would only be a liability, some people are anti-war, some people are terrified of guns and would probably end up shooting one of their own in the arse, and others should NOT be trusted with a gun or the responsibility of defending a nation.


Don't forget that many others are perfectly capable, but would perfer to direct their efforts to getting food to starving people and such. This is why a number of people have mentioned giving the same sort of incentives not only for military service, but for work as disaster relief, aid worker, etc. Have you not been reading the discussion?


> For some people, the wheel is spinning, but the hamsters dead.


Hey! That's my line. Go get your own


----------



## Goober (2 Jul 2004)

ags281 said:
			
		

> ... Have you not been reading the discussion?
> ...



Yes but I'm late in the discussion and I wanted to put my 2 cents in on the original topic.


----------



## elscotto937 (3 Jul 2004)

Personally, I would like to see a reward based military service, rather than a manditory one. One where there would be some extreme rewards for those who serve. For example, allow only those with former military service (Reg or Res) to be a federally elected official, or be promoted to the higher echelons of civil service. I would also require that everyone who works in DND have former military service. Therefore we could have soldiers who have done thier time working in jobs were they can put there experience to use. I know this does happen occasionnally, but it should be the rule, not the exception.  
Some have mentioned that the reason why we do not have enough recruits in the forces in the long enrollment and training periods... this is why the forces are recruting and training badly, in my humble opinion: We are recruting for all trades, we shouldn't be, at all... all pers enrolling in the ranks or as an officer should do the equivilant of thier first BE in the Artillery, armour, infantry, Combat engineers. Once that is completed they have the option of OTing any of the other trades, and if it is open the change is automatic, if they recommended to stay in the combat arms then they are promoted. At that time if they wish to release, they can join the reserves in any of thier trades. Finally, all reserve units must be re-roled to combat arms units with specific mission functions in the total forces.

Would any of this happen, no, because Canada as a whole has become too self-absorbed, average Canadians think they are better than americans, and are mostly repulsed by american support of thier military, so they turn thier backs on it. Canadians knowledge of thier history and thier military is embarrassing and is much more degrading to Canada, then the average americans ignorance of the world is to America.

I was all over the board on that one, but my arguements only come out logically at beer Five of a case of Keith's, and sadly I'm sober today. Thanks for your patience..

Scott


----------



## Eric5 (5 Jul 2004)

I'm 16, and I am joining the Primary Reserve. (Just to give you a little background) I agree that something should be done about things like obeisity, but mandatory military or civil service is not the answer. Canada is a free nation, our citizens and military are loved around the world for the aid we provide. Why have a huge military if it isn't needed? I would never get rid of our military, or cut spending on it, but instead of trying to make more people join, why not get the people who have already joined and are now choosing to join better equipment? What is this I hear about buying subs that have leaks from the british, and having 40 year old helicoptors, etc. Think about Russia, they went into WWII with a massive number of people, but didn't give those people enough equipment (not enough bullets, or guns, improper clothing for the climate they were entering, etc.) And it was a slaughter. We have a small, but very well trained army, all we need is better equipment.

Now, as for benefits for the forces, we already have alot. Free schooling if you're in the reg. force, help in paying for schooling in the reserves, medical, dental, pensions, any moving that you are required to do is fully paid for, etc. But one thing that I do think should be changed is that only someone who has served in the military, and had actual overseas experience should be able to give the final decision on whether or not our boys and girls go to war. I do not trust Paul Martin to decide that, since he's been trying to be "Dubya's" best friend lately.

One last thing, and no offense to the people that supported this idea, but giving the right to vote to only the people who have service experience is the worst idea I have ever heard. That's controlling the vote. then only people who are of a somewhat like mind would be voting, and the government wouldn't represent the majority of the people. The reason why I am joining is because Canada is a free, multicultural country where everyones views, and opinions are accepted, and I want to do my part to protect that way of life. If you think that our whole system should be changed so that a few would control the changes that affect many, what are you protecting?


----------



## Military Brat (5 Jul 2004)

Making it mandatory for elected officials to serve in the military is ridiculous. Learning how to kill shouldn't be a requirement to serve the people. It wouldn't be a bad thing for the Minister of Defense, the Prime Minister, and the Veteran Affairs Minister (the ones who make decisions directly affecting the military. But what good does it do for a Minister of Natural Resources to have served time in the military? 

Also, making it mandatory to serve in the combat arms would be a big blow for recruitment. There are a lot of people who would like to serve their country in the Armed Forces - just not in the combat arms. Very few people are cut out to carry 100lbs on their back for extended periods of time in the infantry. Support trades are just as (maybe even more) vital as combat arm trades.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2004)

> How can you claim your country to be a "Free" country when it forces someone to do something against their will, such as join the military.


The free country of ours forces us to pay taxes. We all have to pay that new health care tax, who signed up for that? Were told how old we have to be to drink, smoke, have sex, drive a car.



> But what good does it do for a Minister of Natural Resources to have served time in the military?



The military is all about juggling resources, especially when your given a job without the proper amount of resources to do the job but it still  needs to get done.  I know the point your trying to make but this was a pretty bad example.


I liked the idea of everyone serving int he military, even it it's a little stint in the reserves.  Canada doesn't have the mentality for it and it doesn't need to go past that. We would spend the next 300 years in court cases why such and such person can't be forced to join the army, how its against someones religious rights, now they are too fat to join and currently in a lawsuit with mcdonalds over making them fat.

It's fun to consider the pro's and con's but in reality your going to have better luck kicking a football to the moon than forcing kids who cry and throw tantrums because they piece of shit parents only bought them 5 $20 CDs at the mall and not all 7 that they wanted.


----------



## elscotto937 (5 Jul 2004)

I agree Ghost it would never happen, but it's great to dream... 
that being said Military Brat, I would sooner have a person with military experience as an elected official, soldiers, for the most part, have a way of breaking things down to a common sense level. From our government Canadians deserve explinations on decisions. I would sooner see the logic behind a bad decision then an arbitrary one. Bottom line Military Brat, the current situation in Canada is that most of the elected officials do not have any former service, and we can what an outstanding job they are doing. The proof, or lack there of, is in the pudding. 

 CSS and other trade have a very important role to play. But could Sgt in charge of the truckers, have been in the infantry for 16 years until his knees went bad, in charge of other truckers who spent 3 years learning to fight in the combat arms. Gives you a bit more options when the armoured escort is hit when when a convoy is ambushed.


			
				Military Brat said:
			
		

> Support trades are just as (maybe even more) vital as combat arm trades.


Where did you come from, are the cooks going to through hot soup at the enemy. We are all part of the team, I can't, definately not, fight without food, but you are putting the cart before the horse. All, I'm saying is that if someone is shooting at me I want to be able to trust that the guy beside me knows how to maintain and fire his weapon on my direction.


----------



## willy (6 Jul 2004)

As a serving soldier myself, obviously I'm not someone who has a problem with the military.  But that said, I don't think I'd like to live in a society where everyone was expected to be a soldier.  We all piss and moan about the problems we have in Canada, but overall it's one of the best places to live on Earth, and that fact has been widely recognized.  Forcing people to serve as a matter of course, though an interesting theory, is, in my opinion fundamentally at odds with the basic values of our nation, which I believe are largely responsible for the fantastic standard of living that we currently enjoy.  To all those who say that serving in the military should be a prerequisite for x,y, or z, I say this: don't kid yourself.  I think there's a lot of self-aggrandizement going on here along the lines of "we're soldiers, we're better than people who aren't".  Have you seen the idiots we have in our army?  In every unit that I have ever served with, there are far more people that I would NOT want running my country than there are that I would be happy to have doing so.

I agree that a lot of people are dummies and that they don't vote intelligently.  People do a lot of dumb things.  But I don't think there's really much that can be done about that, and I certainly don't think that mandatory service, military or otherwise, is the answer.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jul 2004)

Quote from:wongskc



> Quote from: ags281 on June 25, 2004, 04:48:28
> To be fair to those who aren't military types, can't meet the CF medical standards, or simply want an alternative, this principle could extend to full-time service with a list of approved/credible NGO's (e.g. red cross, medecins sans frontieres, salvation army) either domestically or abroad... Having more Canadian citizens with an actual understanding of the REAL world would do wonders for our society too (those that spend time in the 3rd world especially would definately be unlikely to take Canadian citizenship for granted).
> 
> Basic principle is this: as a Canadian citizen, you have the option to contribute to the Canadian or international communities with either your time or your money. It just happens that if you contribute time you can gain valuable insight into the world around you, plus have an experience that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.
> ...




I agree with both of you. Couldn't express it better.  

One of the advantages of this would be promoting an outward view for Canadians.  Rather than navel gazing and picking at our own scabs, fretting about how we are being treated it would give Canada a greater sense of what it is, what it has and a greater sense of pride.  

The concept is as old as time, when domestic politics get divisive focus on an external enemy.

What Canadians could do is decide that the "enemy" is not another nation/race but the "situation" faced by others.  

And any who have seen my posts by now know that I do not want a "touchy-feely" army.  I still want an army that will kill when the case demands it, and when trying to solve "situations" such cases are likely to arise. If only to defend NGOs/Government Aid workers who are trying to help the starving and destitute in the face of opposition by their own governments.

But that sense of "doing", "helping" in a good cause, that would do more for National Pride and Canadian Unity than all the multi-cult ad campaigns ever devised.

Wasn't that the rationale behind the comments by those that said "they went up Vimy Ridge as Ontarians, Quebecers, Bluenosers and Herring Chokers, Stubble Jumpers and Cowboys (OK so they didn't say that, I paraphrase), but they came down as Canadians"?


----------



## Gunnerlove (7 Jul 2004)

Does anyone really think that pushing people into the military would benefit the country?
We can't afford to train our current troops let alone an influx in the tens of thousands.

Mandatory service is a way for nations to make their population do things they would rather not do. Also in a lot of scandinavian counties you get out of high school and go to school or public service for a few years. In both cases you get paid and paid for. We do not have the money. Norway does. That would be the difference in national oil policy at work.

We seem to have a recruiting crisis in our country. I say "seem" because the largest bottleneck in the system is CFRC, it takes far to long to get people into the forces. In any civilian organization thousands of vacancies would be unacceptable. However we overlook our HR department and their role in the problem. 


I think it is cute to hear people talk about required service for federal politicians. Take a look around and ask yourself what they could take with them from the military. The ability to miss the big picture? The total inability to accept accountability? Sounds great. We need politicians on the outside to start cracking the whip on NDHQ not embrace its failings. A country run by "Pointy Heads" can you imagine? Spin the map could become a national sport.


----------



## Guardian (7 Jul 2004)

This point was made earlier in the tread, but I'll try to expand upon it.

Military / civil service may or may not produce a better citizen - you guys are debating that at length, and I'm not going to touch that one here. My question is, if we required mandatory service, would that produce good soldiers?

History would suggest no. If you compare volunteer and conscript armies throughout history, the professional volunteer militaries are far better - they fight harder, are more innovative, etc. Some reasons why:

1. Motivation. A volunteer, by the act of volunteering, is claiming a personal stake in the organization and its success. Conscripts, on the other hand, may feel coerced by the organization, and an "us-vs-them" mentality, on the part of the soldiers towards the chain of command, may result. Example: US troops in Vietnam - their discipline was very shabby.

2. Cohesion. A conscript army would consist overwhelmingly of a large pool of less motivated, disinterested conscripts held together and commanded by a small cadre of professional officers and NCOs. That is not the picture of a cohesive army.

3. Experience. Volunteers would be far more likely to choose to make a career of the military, and would be more inclined towards professional development. The majority of the military's personnel would have several years or more of experience, making for a smarter, harder organization. In contrast, a conscript army's average level of experience would be far lower because the vast number of conscripts who stay only for the length of their terms.

4. Turnover. A volunteer army, because its personnel, by and large, are in to stay of a long period of time, will deal with personnel leaving and coming in generally on an individual basis. A conscript army would have to induct and train huge numbers of conscripts, several times a year. Units would have to spend a significant fraction of their time orienting and training the large percentage of unit personnel who are raw recruits, while simultaneously saying goodbye to a similarly sized fraction of their personnel whose terms are ending (and who are the most experienced conscripts!) A unit like this would have a much more difficult time reaching combat effectiveness. Alternatively, the army could form a new unit with every draft, train up the unit, use it, and then isband it as all its troops' terms expire; however, continually reforming and disbanding units would not only be a massive organizational headache, but would not allow individual units to build any traditions, history, or esprit de corps.

5. Technical expertise. Equipment and tactics are continually becoming more complex. A professional military, with people staying for longer periods of time, would find it far easier to grasp and command the intricacies of modern warfare. A conscript army would never be fully trained due to turnover, and its terms of service might be too short to fully train on modern equipment.  

I could go on, but I've made my point. Thoughts?


----------



## Gunnerlove (8 Jul 2004)

I agree that turnover would be a huge burden. With 4 year stints you would lose 25% of your troops every year. I wonder if anyone out there has the figures for what it costs to train lets say, the four combat arms troops to a useful level.

It would make more sense to spend the money on retention. Why train people who are going to quit?

I think that retention is just as if not more important than recruiting, and both are lacking right now.


----------



## pbi (13 Aug 2004)

You're talking about conscription, which has historically been political dynamite in this country, particularly in Quebec where anti-consciption rioters were shot by troops in WWI. No Canadian government would willingly raise this ghost again unless they were confronted by another WWII-type crisis. As well, conscription usually produces the wrong kind of Army; a mass of indifferently trained troops whose skills immediately begin to fade after their service is over, a diluted and unpopular NCO cadre (with officers often assuming too many NCO functions, as in the Norwegian Army which has no professional NCOs), and a professional officer corps that is far, FAR more distant from its troops than is the case in a smaller, long-service professional Army. The US Army in the period of the draft (around Vietnam) is a good example. Since they went to a volunteer Army post Vietnam, they are much better.(Although they are facing serious recruiting and retention problems) Conscript armies lack flexibility and are usually  no match for professional forces except perhaps in home defense, where the drive to defend the homeland takes over.

What we need to serve our foreign policy is a hard-hitting, mobile, flexible and lethal force (both Reg and Res). Conscripted armies don't give you that. Conscription gives you a big, blunt instrument. As well, contrary to misconception, a conscripted Army is not all that cheap (if you consider the total cost to the military and to the nation). Sweden, Norway and Switzerland all spend very high proportions of their national budgets on defence, and none of them have an Army that is of any significant use whatsoever beyond its own borders. Several European nations, such as France and Germany, are moving away from conscription to greater or total professional manning.

I am against conscription, but all for carefully and gradually increased recruit intake into a professional force (it's not that we can't attract them-we can and do-its that we don't have the capacity to enroll, train and retain them. We actually turn people away because of these problems)  BTW the Canadian Army's definition of "professional" includes both Reg and Res, Officer, WO and NCO. Cheers.


----------



## SHARP WO (23 Dec 2004)

Should Canada like other smaller populated countires move to a National Mandatory period of Service? 

SHARP WO


----------



## Horse_Soldier (23 Dec 2004)

It's a moot point.  Canada will never institute national service.  It's just not in our national culture.  Other western nations with long traditions of national service are phasing it out anyways.  It may be a good way to smarten-up a certain segment of our youth, but do we really want to rely on involuntary soldiers in a crunch?  Not that our governments could ever get it right anyways - just look at the mess our governments made of conscription in both world wars, when there was a pressing need for cannon fodder - er, soldiers. :blotto:


----------



## X Royal (23 Dec 2004)

Horse_Soldier - Good points.
Just to add a few of my own.
1. Unmotivated conscripts who do not want to be there would be a waste of money and an exercise in babysiting for the nco's.
2. In Cyprus I seen the level of the conscripts motivation. One side motivated only by fear the other not motivated at all.


----------



## scm77 (23 Dec 2004)

You should hear some of the people complaining about having to do 40 hours of community service to graduate highschool (in Ontario).  You can get it done in a few weekends, but people complain like it's the end of the world.  I can't imagine what it would be like if they were forced to be in the military and possibly be in harms way.


----------



## Observer23 (23 Dec 2004)

Ref: Should Canada like other smaller populated countries move to a National Mandatory period of Service?

With citizenship as a birthright, it does not foster civil responsibility.  This is reflected in our election turnouts for all level of governments.  We as a nation have never had to stand up and protect our home as a whole (we haven't a border skirmish since how many 100plus years?).  I think that this is an excellent way to instill some sense of ownership in their country.  It would also aid in unifying the country in common causes through common experience.  There really isn't a sense identity across the country because we are segregated by geography, culture (heritage), and economic focus.  There is no common bond.  You see this contemptuous attitude as people demand more from their governments without any concern of long-term impact, how it effects everyone else, and the common good.  With mandatory service, we might just instill a sense of true pride in ourselves.

We would have to establish a clearly defined mandate for those serving during their mandatory commitment.  These soldiers would be used in domestic operations (Floods and Ice storm) and could easily be rapidly deployed.  For those that can be identified as trust worthy can be brought out to back fill Pte positions in D & S Platoons or Rifleman positions in the rifle coys.  Establishing a mandate would go a long way to determine a real purpose for these people instead of employing them as garbage sweep attendants back at the barracks (simply for sake of employment).  There has to be some value to the country for them showing up.

What would the terms of service be? 3 yrs full service, 1-2 years full service followed by a stint in the reserve.  How about 5 yr service in the reserve?  Any reserve commitment would allow us to train them while they were still in school and minimize any impact for those with a career path or goal in mind.  This would also provide a great proving ground for our future leaders to be identified (excellent screening process).

I'll throw this in the works since I am here.  If we have mandatory service then we may wish to consider a Canadian Foreign Legion for those wishing to immigrate to Canada as the price of citizenship.


----------



## MdB (23 Dec 2004)

For one thing, that doesn't mean conscription. National Service is not conscription, because it just isn't the same purpose. But, I know most of people would misunderstand and not make the difference anyway, unless a certain wide public discussion is done.

What I see is Canada doesn't have a war army, but a peace one. IF the Government commit CF members to an operation, it will be either for peacekeeping, or multilateral operation. We aren't talking about an all out war and invasive one.

I think we could have some benefit from a National Service. But, we don't have that culture at all, so I believe that it won't happen until we have a war that would mobilize the entire nation.

Still, I would give some of my thoughts on that. Having lived in Germany, I tasted some of European and German realities and opinions. In that country, there's still a mandatory 10-months long service after high school. You have to decide wheter it will be social or military service. It only for men, but I think women should have that choice too to do social service.

In that view, I think it's kind of best of both worlds. For those who have no interest whatsoever in the military have an exit. For everyone, it's a social education, how it's important to help to stick together, to know that we aren't alone in our appartment or house. We form a society and have social responsabilities and not only rights.

It teaches responsabilities and not only rights. You have to earn your rights and not only receive them without any efforts.
That's what's about.

The other side is a sociological matter, about the link between the civil and military society. When a lot of people have to get through a service, it's exposed to those realities and have a better, if not keener, idea of what our Armed Forces are about. I'll end with a touch of history. As I read, and anyone feel free to correct me, the Romans lost the link with their military when it became professional and no more mandatory to do a service. It became them and us for most of the population and that was one of the big reason why their army lost their legitimity and manpower. It became as well a political instrument manipulated by opposing parties and their purpose was perveted and not anymore for nation preservation, but for population(s) control. The idea to keep is that this mandatory service give the population a keen sense of the nation, of the society and of the bond between a society members. 

I would be for a civil/military mandatory service, but how it would be accepted is another question.


----------



## SHARP WO (23 Dec 2004)

Here is another view on a segment of national service.

The Netherlands used to base service on how good a person was at school. If a student had test scores that were good enough to merit college or university they would be exempt from national service or if you worked as a civil servant, ie garbage man or police officer.

I think Canada could have the same policy, it could help so that you see less people on welfare.

SHARP WO


----------



## Horse_Soldier (23 Dec 2004)

Being an unreconstucted cynic (that's what you get for living in Ottawa for 15 years and working for the Feds :dontpanic, I could probably stop this discussion right now by simply pointing out that compulsory service, whether military or civilian would not survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2004)

This issue was discussed in the "Short Service Army" thread, and the overwhelming response was negative.

If we want to socialize children with a certain set of values, that value set needs to be reinforced through constant action and exercise, or it will just be a mental curiosity. This is similar to the public schools teachin children French, I learned it, but living in Ontario and Alberta, and travelling through the East Coast I never had a need to use the French language, and so my ability to speak french is limited to "Cafe un begin sil vous plait".

There are some values like teamwork and the will to overcome challenges which could be instilled through a properly run sports program (emphasising technical skills and merit rather than "win at any cost"), or introducing "outward bound" and "Eco Challenge race" type programs, especially for students at risk. We have to get them early, though, because by the time they come to us as recruits, their self centred values and mind sets are almost impervious to the military values, especially since we have a "kinder, gentler" recruit program. 

If the people advocating "manditory service" really wanted to get the results they seem to desire, then ship these candidates to Paris Island for a dose of USMC basic, because thats what it will take to make those changes in a 17-18 year old.


----------



## kellywmj (23 Dec 2004)

I would agree with the position that any sort of conscription, or even an American style form of selective service registration would not survive a Charter challenge. Besides, we do not have the training facilities or instructors to deal with the trickle of low quality recruits we get now. My sister in law is a CF recruiter, and the flotsam she sees every day would make an old soldier weep. None of them would have made it through the Depot I went through. The emphasis today seems to be pass them at any cost, where as when I went through, our instructors were ruthless in weeding out those individuals who could not hack it. Anyway, my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Tracker (23 Dec 2004)

Wow, I haven't heard the term "Depot" in a long time, kellywmj, you must be really long in the tooth, like a hundred or so.

BMQ has changed a lot in the last hundred years, it is no longer cost effective to weed out the week at BMQ, that is attempted at the CFRC.

Instead of National Service or Obligatory Service, why not sweeten the pot a little with incentives to do some time in the CF.  Scholarships, tax breaks, employment placements after service, that sort of thing.

Maybe we need to separate the CF from the Government.  Ruling Political Parties only look 5 years into the future, but the CF needs a longer range plan.  Maybe if there was a separation, the media would quit using the CF as a political tool for embarrassing the government and actually start promoting us.  If the Canadian People had more Pride in us and knowledge of the good we do, the CF might then be considered an employer of choice instead of an employer of necessity.

Go out on the street and ask anyone if they ever heard of the Madak Pocket, then ask them if they ever heard about the Somalia scandal.  I bet more people remember the negative than the positive.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Dec 2004)

Horse_Soldier said:
			
		

> Being an unreconstucted cynic (that's what you get for living in Ottawa for 15 years and working for the Feds :dontpanic, I could probably stop this discussion right now by simply pointing out that compulsory service, whether military or civilian would not survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



Interesting......followed by the next couple of posts and a couple of drinks, I am beginning to wonder if Forced Bilingualism is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  If we can have a country that insists you be "French speaking" to advance in any Government Department, surely there would be grounds to bring in a form of Compulsory Service/National Service where by the youth of the nation must serve in the Military or Police forces or if a Conscientious Objector work in the Health Services or Fire Services.  If Ottawa wants to challenge National Service on those grounds, then Anglophones would also have grounds to challenge Language Policies/Discrimination.

Personally, I believe that National Service would be good for our youth of today.  Being a 'Cold Warrior', and having witnessed the German system, I think that this would be a good interlude for an eighteen year old.  It would give them an insight into what a job would be like.  It would fill out the Military, RCMP, Emergency, Medical and Fire Services.  It would allow those desiring further education to save some monies towards that education or even provide a means to further their education at no cost.  In the end it would greatly help in developing the 'maturity' of our youth and make them more productive and contributing members in the building of our society.  

Of course there may be some 'plugs', but I think the majority would benefit.  

Three years would be the max that I would expect this type of service to entail, most likely less.  Those who would like to continue on an make this service, military or nonmilitary, a career would be able to continue on as a 'professional'.

Just a few thoughts.....

GW


----------



## Infanteer (23 Dec 2004)

Where the hell did this zombie thread come from?

Anyways, I'll restate (using the original post) the position I've always held:

_Ha, Heinlein has an answer for everything.  I personally wouldn't want to share a trench with someone who didn't want to be there in the first place.

*"Uh, sir, why not go - well, go the limit?  Require everyone to serve and let everybody vote?"

"Young man, can you restore my eyesight?"

"Sir?  Why, no, sir!"

"You would find it much easier than to instill moral virtue - social responsibility - into a person who doesn't have it, doesn't want it, and resents having the burden thrust on him.  This is why we make it so hard to enroll, so easy to resign.  Social responsibility above the level of family, or at most of tribe, requires imagination - devotion, loyalty, all the higher virtues - which a man must develop himself; if he has them forced down him, he will vomit them out."

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers - pg 184*_

That being said, you wouldn't find me arguing against a principle that required voluntary National Service (of which the military would be an important part of) if one wished to earn the sovereign franchise.


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Dec 2004)

Agreed.  Forcing everyone to serve - bad idea.  Telling people they have to earn a vote by serving - good idea.  It'll never happen though - the current government would never even consider it, and if they did stop to think about it they'd realize that such a system would gaurantee that they'd never be elected again.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Agreed. Forcing everyone to serve - bad idea. Telling people they have to earn a vote by serving - good idea. It'll never happen though - the current government would never even consider it, and if they did stop to think about it they'd realize that such a system would gaurantee that they'd never be elected again.



Sure, not know.   But as long as apathy considers to be the norm in our system, perhaps those who do hold the notions of earning enfranchisement and service to the greater good to be acceptable, when the current outlook collapses under its own weight, the unrealistic proposal will become a desired alternative.

_"To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy.   The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority...other than through the tragic logic of history.   The unique "poll tax" that we must pay was unheard of.   No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.   If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead_ (emphasis mine)_ - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple."

Robert Heinlein. Starship Troopers, pg 183._


----------



## X Royal (23 Dec 2004)

[quote author=Tracker ]
Wow, I haven't heard the term "Depot" in a long time, kellywmj, you must be really long in the tooth, like a hundred or so.
[/quote]

I did my basic infantry trg. in "Depot" with 1RCR in 1978. According to your profile I can't be to much older than you.

Pro Patria

And yes the wash-out rate(for Cornwallis & TQ3 combined) was quite high(well over 50%). But then now, they don't use the 25 mile ruck march as a must pass P.O. check.


----------



## Boydfish (25 Dec 2004)

> I could probably stop this discussion right now by simply pointing out that compulsory service, whether military or civilian would not survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.



You'd be extremely wrong on that point.

The first line of Trudeau's Charter renders it neutered and useless, especially in cases like this:

_1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society._

In other words, if the government can convince itself that it needs to do this to protect the policies of the Liberal Party of Canada, the Charter doesn't apply.  If the government says that it needs mandatory service in order to maintain "a free and democratic society", then it's legal.  Who determines what is a "free and democratic society"?  Why, that would be the government!  Remember boys and girls, Trudeau used the Charter to strip you of your rights, not actually protect your rights.

The Canadian Emergencies Act, which replaced the War Measures Act, does prohibit the forced conscription of people into the CF during war, it is worded in such typically Liberal weasel wording as to be irrelevant as well:

_40. 
(1) While a declaration of a war emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council may make such orders or regulations as the Governor in Council believes, on reasonable grounds, are necessary or advisable for dealing with the emergency.
(2) The power under subsection (1) to make orders and regulations may not be exercised for the purpose of requiring persons to serve in the Canadian Forces._

The CEA is simply an act of the Canadian Parliament, meaning that they can amend that out as they see fit.  Alternative to that, they can simply compel service into the newly created "Territorial Security Force" or "Uncle Jean's Personal Bodyguards".  As long as they aren't being put into the CF, there is no violation.

In terms of mandatory service, I think that it would be better to do at a provincial level, rather than confederal.  If it was done to provide a local defence/ domestic emergency response capability to relive the CF of the responsibility of domestic operations, you'd see it be viable.  By doing it provincially, the risk of eventually having CF NCOs and junior officers having to ride herd over unwilling conscripts would be reduced.


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2004)

I'm not personally fond of the idea of conscription, since as a rule it produces marginally motivated soldiers who are just counting the days. It is best suited to "mass" armies, or to purely home-defence armies. In general, I think you will find that the calibre of most compulsory service troops in Europe was/is fairly low. This is perhaps why these countries tended to rely on more professionally manned "elite" units such as their marines, commandos, or "Legion" equivalents for the "real" work.

It is also quite telling that voluntarism is beginning to replace compulsory service to a greater or lesser degree in some major European nations such as France. But not in all nations: in Germany, while there are professionals (especially amongst officers and WOs/NCOs) the whole issue of a fully professional force is considered to be politically unacceptable, since it might lose touch with society and then, well...you know.....

Perhaps the most telling blow against compulsory service was struck by the US after Vietnam, when compulsory service was shelved (but not struck down) and   the Volunteer Army (VOLAR) established. The US Army has resolutely stuck by volunteers ever since (despite a rocky start with sub-standard applicants...) and even in their current severe manpower crisis they are relying on ARNG/USAR to fill out the ranks, although I know that some of those soldiers might dispute the exact meaning of the term "volunteer".   IMHO compulsory service is recognized in the Us (just as it is here in Canada...) as potential political dynamite, to be utilized only as a last resort.

We are an expeditionary force with no mass-army home defence scenario realistically in sight. Securing Canada againt the likely threats is as much a CSIS/law enforcement job as it is Army, if not more. The recent guidance from the CLS is focusing us on being a flexible force that can handle the Three Block War (3BW) in an expeditionary setting. This requires a solid professional Regular Army capability backed up by a Reserve that is operationally focused and well motivated, not an Army composed of a mass of time servers who really don't want to be there.

Cheers


----------



## aesop081 (27 Dec 2004)

I could not agree more with PBI's statement.  Having seen conscript soldiers from several nation ( Russians in perticular), i can attest to his assesement of these soldiers ( generaly speaking of course).


----------



## Sailing Instructor (27 Dec 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting......followed by the next couple of posts and a couple of drinks, I am beginning to wonder if Forced Bilingualism is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.   If we can have a country that insists you be "French speaking" to advance in any Government Department, surely there would be grounds to bring in a form of Compulsory Service/National Service where by the youth of the nation must serve in the Military or Police forces or if a Conscientious Objector work in the Health Services or Fire Services.   If Ottawa wants to challenge National Service on those grounds, then Anglophones would also have grounds to challenge Language Policies/Discrimination.



I wouldn't think so because, as a Canadian, you aren't forced to work for the state.  Thus the state's forced bilingualism is simply a requirement for that particular job and, just like the EXPRES test, is not contrary to the charter.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Dec 2004)

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> I wouldn't think so because, as a Canadian, you aren't forced to work for the state. Thus the state's forced bilingualism is simply a requirement for that particular job and, just like the EXPRES test, is not contrary to the charter.



So in your opinion unilingual Canadians are not discriminated against in applying for and advancing in the employ of the Federal Government?

GW


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2004)

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> I wouldn't think so because, as a Canadian, you aren't forced to work for the state.   Thus the state's forced bilingualism is simply a requirement for that particular job and, just like the EXPRES test, is not contrary to the charter.



    Hah.  Well, say the state refuses to hire you because you're black.  Well, then not being black would simply be the requirement for that particular job, and not contrary to the charter.

    Any limitation to employment which cannot be demonstrated to be a reasonable pre-requisite is against the law.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Dec 2004)

We have had several language threads,..........back to the topic

_                                           Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?_


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

No.


----------



## 48Highlander (27 Dec 2004)

No.

Haven't we had several threads on that too?


----------



## Reccesoldier (28 Dec 2004)

While I agree with all the reasons not to institute forced service I can honestly say that having worked with Conscripts and competed against them in the Boeselager competition, that just because you are a conscript doesn't mean that you can not be a good soldier. It's the same as anything else you get out of it what you put in.

As far as voluntary service creating better soldiers the same thing applies. I've been on tour with guys who were only there to buy black market CD's and collect the extra pay. They had no real interest in being a soldier and were there just because they couldn't get a job out on civy street. Hell we all know oxygen thiefs in our own units, screen door on a submarine is a good way to describe a lot of the ones I've known.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Let's look past the conscript thing for a minute. National Service doesn't mean just military. Any Federal job should be open, within reason. Postal, Fisheries, Resources, etc. 18 years old? Not going to school? Off you go. Already working? You get your job back when you finish NS. Low pay scale if you wait and get called, but a bonus if you volunteer. No NS, no benefits (welfare, medical, old age pension, etc). Germany had a similar system in the 70's (may still have). It seemed to work for them. It instilled national pride and a work ethic. Both sorely lacking in a lot of our youth.


----------



## Veterans son (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's look past the conscript thing for a minute. National Service doesn't mean just military. Any Federal job should be open, within reason. Postal, Fisheries, Resources, etc. 18 years old? Not going to school? Off you go. Already working? You get your job back when you finish NS. Low pay scale if you wait and get called, but a bonus if you volunteer. No NS, no benefits (welfare, medical, old age pension, etc). Germany had a similar system in the 70's (may still have). It seemed to work for them. It instilled national pride and a work ethic. Both sorely lacking in a lot of our youth.



Both an excellent and informative post, recceguy!


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's look past the conscript thing for a minute. National Service doesn't mean just military. Any Federal job should be open, within reason. Postal, Fisheries, Resources, etc. 18 years old? Not going to school? Off you go. Already working? You get your job back when you finish NS. Low pay scale if you wait and get called, but a bonus if you volunteer. No NS, no benefits (welfare, medical, old age pension, etc). Germany had a similar system in the 70's (may still have). It seemed to work for them. It instilled national pride and a work ethic. Both sorely lacking in a lot of our youth.



I would be in favor of it, and its definately true that the younger generations and upcoming generations canadians seem to be lazier and less ambitious than the ones before.I think it could work.... some people just need a swift kick in the rear to get them going i guess.


----------



## pbi (28 Dec 2004)

> Any Federal job should be open, within reason. Postal, Fisheries, Resources, etc.



Try running THAT one by CUPW! Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

They'd probably jump at the chance to collect those dues, etc, for the eighteen months, without having to pay out many benefits. It might even increase their bargaining power.


----------



## R031button (29 Dec 2004)

The other side benifit of a national service program is that it could help with Kid's physical health. Most jobs available would be out door, and physically demanding. Frankly I wouldn't have an issue with two years of national service; and most of the guys I graduated with wouldn't either...at least the intelligent ones.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Dec 2004)

The military is a profession, not a form of public service, a correctional institution, or a means for social engineering.  Any effort to force it on people as such will only result in the decline of our professionalism.


----------



## oyaguy (29 Dec 2004)

Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

Short answer, no.

First, the CF is a professional force, and conscripts would just dilute that professionalism.

Second, it can't be done. 214,623 men reach military age every year. Throw in a simlar number of women and the CF would have to deal with 400,000 recruits, every year.

Third, what would be the point? We don't have any forseeable military threats on the horizon, and the threats that are on the horizon {terrorism etc...} isn't going to be dealt with by a million half-trained soldiers.

As for the idea of trying to instill today's youth with civic duty, etc... blah blah, I see two options. Parents should parent. I don't care what anyone says about the state tying parents hands {corporal punishment}, if you're a good parent you need never lay a hand on your child, and still raise a perfectly decent human being. 
The second option being, youth will grow up. Even if they don't hit the ballot box in droves, they still get jobs, and pay their taxes, really what else do people want?


----------



## George Wallace (29 Dec 2004)

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?
> 
> Short answer, no.
> 
> First, the CF is a professional force, and conscripts would just dilute that professionalism.



Would they really?   The Bundeswehr, although largely conscripted, still maintained professional soldiers.   Are you trying to tell me that the German military of today is not a force to be reckoned with?  We would keep our professionalism as we do today with the high turnover of young recruits.



> Second, it can't be done. 214,623 men reach military age every year. Throw in a similar number of women and the CF would have to deal with 400,000 recruits, every year.



Let's not get tied up in knots here.   By National Service, we are not talking about all these kids joining the military.   We are talking about some sort of service that could include the RCMP, OPP, Fire Services, Paramedics, Hospital Orderlies, etc.   Yes the military would take up the majority, as it and the RCMP are probably the two largest such organizations in the country.   That would give these organizations bodies to fill their depleted ranks.



> Third, what would be the point? We don't have any forseeable military threats on the horizon, and the threats that are on the horizon {terrorism etc...} isn't going to be dealt with by a million half-trained soldiers.



As an example that is current.....perhaps we could field a DART deployment to those 11 nations that just got hit by the Tsunamis.   Do we require troops to react only to military threats or do they also react to snow storms in Toronto and Ice Storms in Eastern Ontario/Western Quebec, or floods in Manitoba, or fires in BC and Newfoundland, etc.



> As for the idea of trying to instill today's youth with civic duty, etc... blah blah, I see two options. Parents should parent. I don't care what anyone says about the state tying parents hands {corporal punishment}, if you're a good parent you need never lay a hand on your child, and still raise a perfectly decent human being.
> The second option being, youth will grow up. Even if they don't hit the ballot box in droves, they still get jobs, and pay their taxes, really what else do people want?



Unfortunately todays parents have dropped the ball in many instances.   Canada's youth have, in the most part, lost any form of work ethic and may need something like this to open their eyes.   There are many kids today who don't want to work, but sit back and collect an allowance and live off their parents or other peoples labours.

Needless to say, I think it would be a good thing.   I feel it may alleviate some of our unemployment problems by giving many an opportunity to gain some experience at work and life.

GE


----------



## onecat (29 Dec 2004)

"Third, what would be the point? We don't have any forseeable military threats on the horizon, and the threats that are on the horizon {terrorism etc...} "

That's why CF is in the state its in right now.  Way too many people in Gov't and the Liberal party believe that is no threats to Canada and so don't give the CF the money its needs to keep up and same current, or the manpower to meet the tasks handed by the Gov't of the day.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Dec 2004)

To compel young adults to perform National Service would be to turn the CF, the RCMP, the various emergency services, and anyone else whose turf you inflict them upon into a babysitting service.  How many of the affected professionals and employees do you think would look forward with joy to each year's new intake of reluctant know-nothings who require constant supervision?


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Dec 2004)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> To compel young adults to perform National Service would be to turn the CF, the RCMP, the various emergency services, and anyone else whose turf you inflict them upon into a babysitting service.  How many of the affected professionals and employees do you think would look forward with joy to each year's new intake of reluctant know-nothings who require constant supervision?



What was that starship troopers quote?  "That's why we make it so hard to join, and so easy to quit".  It's only a babysitting service if we allow it to become one.  Make the standards high, and the training harder.  Those who truly want to be there will perservere, and they're the only ones that count.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> What was that starship troopers quote?   "That's why we make it so hard to join, and so easy to quit".   It's only a babysitting service if we allow it to become one.   Make the standards high, and the training harder.   Those who truly want to be there will perservere, and they're the only ones that count.



So why bother conscripting then?


----------



## 48Highlander (30 Dec 2004)

Uh.  Wow, that was a good brain fart.  My mind was on the whole can't-vote-unless-you-serve idea.  Ignore my last, over.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (30 Dec 2004)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Uh.   Wow, that was a good brain fart.   My mind was on the whole can't-vote-unless-you-serve idea.   Ignore my last, over.



;D


----------



## c4th (31 Dec 2004)

The quickest way to build a strong army is to destroy the local economy.  Worked in '39 after the depression, and currently provides the CF with it's second largest demographic group who by and large are excellent soldiers.

Personally I am also a fan of the Gurkha recruiting process.  Recruit 30 a year but pay them approximately 40 times the average national salary.


----------



## Radop (31 Dec 2004)

> "Third, what would be the point? We don't have any forseeable military threats on the horizon, and the threats that are on the horizon {terrorism etc...} "
> 
> That's why CF is in the state its in right now.  Way too many people in Gov't and the Liberal party believe that is no threats to Canada and so don't give the CF the money its needs to keep up and same current, or the manpower to meet the tasks handed by the Gov't of the day.





Who is to protect us from ddetonationof a dirty bomb, terrorist attacks, winter storms in TO (lol), ice storms, floods and fires?  We have a dedicated force who has responded to all our military requirements.  Conscription would have to be reserved to Canadian homeland tasks unless they sign on to do future service.  I would rather see people encouraged to join the reserves and get compatent trg for them.  Most of the reserves we get attached to us are lacking self-ddiscipline training and effectiveness under stressful situation.  The government does not protect reservists on call up like they do in the states (ie/ job protection).  This was stuff they were talking about in the 80s when I was in the reserves along with reserve contracts and terms of service.  Until they address all the issues, conscription would become a problematic adventure with more downside than upside.  We are cconsistentlygetting less and less disiplined soldiers and their rights to become insubordinate are getting greater.  Give us more powers to deal with these people don't take them away.  Some summery trial outcomes have really upset me and others as to the punishment or lack there of that were imposed upon these soldiers.

Note by Moderator - hit EDIT in error, original post restored.


----------



## pbi (31 Dec 2004)

> We are cconsistentlygetting less and less disiplined soldiers and their rights to become insubordinate are getting greater.  Give us more powers to deal with these people don't take them away.  Some summery trial outcomes have really upset me and others as to the punishment or lack there of that were imposed upon these soldiers.



We may be "_getting_" less disciplined people coming in, but they have no "_rights to be insubordinate_". The Code of Service Discipline remains one of the most powerful in the Western world, giving a Candaian CO more powers than, for example his US counterpart. And, as far as I know, no significant powers to try people under the NDA have been taken away. In fact, with the addition of offences such as sexual assault  (which we normally didn't used to try...) you could argue that they have been increased. If some summary trial outcomes have upset you, that may say more about the officer trying the case or the quality of the charge that was laid in the first place, than about the powers we have to deal with offenders. Simply because a maximum penalty is available does not mean it is a good idea to apply it in every case.

The real problem IMHO is not the system: it is fine, and is greased and ready to go if we want to bother finding out how to use it properly. The real problem is that we are afraid to use it, or feel that even if we use it there will be no useful result. On top of that, we have become infected with the same "blame/entitlement" culture that permeates civvy street:  nothing is ever my fault, oh and by the way its my right to be compensated for blah blah blah. This type of thinking is totally at variance with military values but IMHO contributes to an atmosphere in which leaders are no longer sure if they will be able to effect discipline or not. Of course, the whiners, skivers and malcontents exploit this to the hilt. Hopefully the recent move to include RSMs in Presiding Officer training will permeate a better sense of confidence through the WO/NCO ranks about laying charges, and hopefully more officers wil live up to their responsibility to dispense discipline in an effective and fair manner. Cheers.


----------



## bgreen (31 Dec 2004)

Everytime I hear about being a professional army I get this picture in my head of a play by the rules, politically correct soldier armed with a staff book and a lap top in a briefcase wearing a DEU raincoat and forage cap.

I joined in 68 and at that time it was common for judges when dealing with youth to offer them a chance at mil reserve service.  Granted it was a suggestion offered in the sentence but we got a lot of guys that today would never be looked at as they would never pass the CFRC screening process.  These guys weren't team sport players, they didn't participate in social clubs and they weren't Valedictorians.

They were rough, fit, great fun to hang with and they sure added sparks to whatever they undertook.  They responded to the discipline, became NCOs and some even officers.  They were adopted and they adapted.  They would get charged from time to time but were never considered an administrative burden.  They became the prodigal sons in a regimental family and then later the fathers.

While I welcome the very bright and elite athletic types I think there is also a place for those from a rougher background.  I often had District Commanders and then Bde Comds tell me if there was a war they would want these less professional guys at their side but in our peace time army they wanted them weeded out.  I tended to agree with the war part but kept them because they were usually the most passionate about the army.  And while I am not suggesting we create and army of deviants I do think there is room for some recruits from the darker side.

I believe they will respond well to army culture as we know it if given the chance. 

BG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2004)

bgreen, to further your point, just about every regimental history tells us that in WW II "the best ones in action were the hellers in England."  

I rather suspect that most of those "hellers" - the party boys, as you call them, probably would see little about the military in peacetime that would suit them, so the feeling of those brigade commanders you speak of that wanted them weeded out is likely mutual.  Few of my friends growing up had any interest in army cadets and later the Militia, though would probably have done well in it.  They needed a war to get their interest, I think.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2005)

http://www.ccs21.org/articles/boisvert/2005/boisvert_nationa-service_nov05.htm

"Tweaking the existing model of reserve restructuring will not produce the order of numbers required to meet all of the challenges.  Perhaps the key to real reform lies in taking to its logical conclusion the assertion of Prime Minister Martin that the defence of Canada is his first priority.  In so many other areas of national economy where supply does not meet demand, the government does not hesitate to intervene with some form of compulsion.  Maybe it is time to consider national service."

And if you believe the media....

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2005/11/07/pf-1296238.html

"Hey kid, wanna go to war?  Maybe you'd have to - if you got caught in a draft.  It hasn't happened in Canada since the Second World War, when a political furor over conscription nearly tore the country apart. But if an idea man with the Calgary-based Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century has his way, it might happen again."

Anyone, anyone?


----------



## Big Foot (7 Nov 2005)

To be honest, I have to say that I would like to see some form of compulsary service. I feel that the German model is a model we should follow, although there is the issue that conscription in Germany is rooted in history. While there would be initial resistance to this idea, I feel it would be beneficial to the CF and Canadian society on the whole as it would help to eleviate feelings of apathy toward the military, feelings which currently run rampant in mainstream Canadian society. Compulsary service would serve as an excellent means of changing this unfortunate fact of Canadian society. It would also serve as an excellent means of developing teens and young adults into responsible citizens, citizens with a good sense of duty and what it means to serve. IMHO, it would do Canada a great deal of good to impliment the German model of service, or a model based on the German system. I realize Canada isn't Germany, however, I see no problem with placing the onous for security on the average citizen. Just my thoughts...


----------



## Armymedic (7 Nov 2005)

In opposition to my personal view and the obvious right leaning bias on this site in favour of increasing the manning levels and budget, I would have to disagree that conscription or any sort of mandatory service would be good for the CF.

People join because they want to. That in itself is a powerful motivator and also is the first of many screens that separate the ordinary Canadian chaff from the wheat that make our military as good as it is. 

If you want, lets add incentives like the US Army's GI bill where service entitles you to an education with benefits and funding, then lets explore that option...not make everyone join.


----------



## Big Foot (7 Nov 2005)

Armymedic, I'm going to again come back to the German situation. While I see where you're coming from, I must whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment that those who do not serve constitute "chaff". After having had the opportunity to visit Germany this past summer and deal with a good number of conscripted soldiers my age, I do not see much difference in their attitude or demeanor to the people of Canada. My personal view is that conscription (see? I used the dirty "C" word) would create a much stronger feeling of national pride and would at the same time go a long way toward changing the seemingly hostile perception of the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Nov 2005)

I personally think that a compulsory term (2 yrs?) of military service would be excellent..But I am willing to agree that this would be very controversial..

What about 2 years of required CIVIL service? Don't want to serve in the military? how about 2 years in another government service...road crews, office assistants, parks services, etc.

something like the GI bill would also be beneficial, IMHO


----------



## Big Foot (8 Nov 2005)

Controversial, yes. But then, so was womens sufferage and Native voting rights back in the day. Times change when they're forced to change. I do like your idea about compulsory civil service though.  But yeah, I think it would be very beneficial to Canadian society.


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Controversial, yes. But then, so was womens sufferage and Native voting rights back in the day. Times change when they're forced to change. I do like your idea about compulsory civil service though.   But yeah, I think it would be very beneficial to Canadian society.



agreed, but I don't think we'll ever see it in todays Canadian society....tell York U students that they'll have to serve compulsory service, and see how that goes


----------



## Big Foot (8 Nov 2005)

Give the York students a choice, army or prison. That simple. People tend to resist change like this, but it's high time we as Canadians realize how lucky we are to live where we do so I think it would only be fair if everyone did their part to protect the country.


----------



## GDawg (8 Nov 2005)

I hate this topic.  

1.   Conscripts make bad soldiers, period.

2.   I equate compulsory service to treating your citizens like children by forcing them to do their "chores" against their will. 

3.   Paying taxes is enough, if people choose to serve in one way or another good on them. 

4.   We live in a free society, and forcing people to do things like serve in the military takes away our freedom to choose how we wish to live our lives.

5.   Forcing everyone to serve against their will may create a sense of resentment against the government, and even further degrade the public preception of the military.

6.   Forcing everyone to serve for X many months would severely handicap the our military supply chain, budget, and infrastructure....we can barely equip and train the troops we have now!

7.   This always brings up the "Join the army or go to jail" rant. Being able to serve is a privilege afforded to those who are lucky enough to be physically capable and so inclined to do so.


----------



## Slim (8 Nov 2005)

Personally I think that the idea of forcing national service in the form of the military specifically on anyone is a bad idea.

Imagine some of those hippie-clowns with machine guns! National service in the military should always remain voluntary unless the nation's survival is at stake.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2005)

National service yes.

Conscripted military no.

Many other tasks that conscripts can do domestically, challenging and necessary, great way to get to know Canada and Canadians.

Soldiering should be a profession for volunteers only.


----------



## Slim (8 Nov 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> National service yes.
> 
> Conscripted military no.
> 
> ...



I concur 100%!!


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Nov 2005)

I'll agree, which is why I brought up the option of civil service, and if someone should wish it, THEN military service


----------



## onecat (8 Nov 2005)

I can't see this ever happening here. For two reasons, the first is that military service or nation service is not in the politicla will of any party and population gerenal hasa poor opinion of military.  the second reason it would never fly in Quebec and if it won't fly there it won't happen.  Had this been left place after WW1 or WW2 then the tradition might of held on though the 60 and 70's, but its way too late now.  Adding to that 40 plus years anti military policies in liberal run government.. kill any idea of national service.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2005)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "Tweaking the existing model of reserve restructuring will not produce the order of numbers required to meet all of the challenges.  Perhaps the key to real reform lies in taking to its logical conclusion the assertion of Prime Minister Martin that the defence of Canada is his first priority.  In so many other areas of national economy where supply does not meet demand, the government does not hesitate to intervene with some form of compulsion.  Maybe it is time to consider national service."



This quote only indicates a huge misunderstanding of economics. If there is no "supply", it generally means there is no demand either. Governments, with unlimited powers of compulsion (Taxation, physical compulsion, the ability to print money) can attempt to "create" supply or demand, but the economy reacts with all kinds of second order effects. In terms of defense, our local "demand" is suppressed since the government and people long ago decided to tap into the "supply" provided by the United States.

As to the topic at hand, please see:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21429.0.html


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Nov 2005)

I wouldn't back national service or conscription - the former because our bureaucracy is more than sufficient as it is, the latter because conscripts make bad soldiers (just ask the French circa 1939). Far from increasing the respect and popularity of the military, I think it would damage it. Military service, I've found, isn't popular or super-respected in countries where it's obligatory.  Many of the Europeans I've spoken with think it strange that someone would voluntarily join the military when they had a choice. If anything, it damages the military's appeal by making service therein something required rather than offered.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Nov 2005)

absolutely not. It goes against everything I believe in to force someone to fight. I do this job so that others don't have to. 

Conscripts are lousy soldiers, and totally unreliable. I do not one beside me. And most certainly not behind me.

To loosely paraphrase Heinlein: Any nation that cannot raise it's children to fight for it doesn't deserve to continue to exist. Instead of bemoaning the lack of people in the CF, maybe, just maybe, the _Intelligentsia_ should be looking at WHY the situation exists. What has happened to create a nation whose children feel no loyalty, no sense of civic responsibility, and who are frightened of difficult choices.


----------



## Jed (8 Nov 2005)

I would vote for National Service with a volunteer option to serve in the CF in a DOMOPS capability. Maybe under Canada Command. Much as I am not happy with the government bureaucracy, (the argument for not having National Civil service) I do not feel the problem is with too many people; It is with too many pocket sized empires and not enough worker bees to get things accomplished.


----------



## cpl-cam (8 Nov 2005)

I am sitting in a high school library right now. When I look around I see a guy hoping around looking like an idiot deliberately to annoy the librarian, a group of people talking about how high they got over the weekend, people who I know steal from their jobs, people with severe mental problems who I would not trust with a weapon and I see people who would sell national secrets if it made them more popular. If you want to conscript Canada's youth you'll need to fix Canada's youth first. Joining the Army may help some of them but not most. Military service in Canada is an honour, an honour which should not be forced upon people who do not deserve it. Canada's soldiers should be the elite of the society and not your average kid off the street.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Nov 2005)

National service?  No, thanks.  If there is work to be done, provide terms of reference and offer a market-based wage.  Don't conscript slaves to do the messy jobs you don't wish to touch.  Don't force people into your healthy, happy, right-thinking citizen indoctrination schemes, either.

I wonder how many people in favour of conscription right now were conscripted themselves, or would drop everything in their lives right now to fulfill the conscription obligation they didn't face after graduating high school?  Hands up high, now.  I'm counting...


----------



## Marauder (8 Nov 2005)

I'd soldier beside a canine before I'd soldier beside a conscript. Just look at all the cowards, sorry, "conscientious objectors" like that prat Hinzman who VOLUNTEER and then run like small children when it comes time to pay the butcher's bill. Now imagine being the lone soldier in a platoon who wants to take the fight to the enemy, and you see the size of the cluster-fuck in the making.

Just say no to conscirpts.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Nov 2005)

As I said: No conscript soldiers - only volunteers.  That is a given.

However as to Civil National Service my take on that is this.

Everybody expects to benefit from society.  Society expects everybody to contribute.  Government forces people to contribute by paying taxes but that only applies to people that earn money or own property.  This automatically excludes kids and the unemployed who still expect to receive the benefits of society that taxpayer's receive.  

Solution:  Pay your taxes in kind, sweat equity if you like.  You can sweat on government time or you can sweat on your own time and pay cash to the government.  Either way everybody is equally "forced" to contribute.  "Challenges" are no excuse......and now someone will no doubt find me a mentally challenged blind 90 year old to which the response will be every rule requires exceptions.


----------



## darmil (8 Nov 2005)

Armymedic has it right.Add incentives like the US Army's GI bill where service entitles you to an education with benefits and funding.Thats the only way to get the recruits Canada so desperately needs.Force conscription only if we get attacked. Watch and shoot! :bullet:


----------



## Infanteer (9 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> After having had the opportunity to visit Germany this past summer and deal with a good number of conscripted soldiers my age, I do not see much difference in their attitude or demeanor to the people of Canada.



Try working with them on operations - dig through and find Kevin B's experience with the Euro-rentals....

Anyways, we go through this topic every 6 months - I think it is safe to say that I would rather be in a trench with somebody who wanted to be there.  Let's not be too hasty to denigrate conscript armies though - while we pride our WWI and II forces composed of volunteers, remember that the Americans, Brits, Russians and Germans accomplished lots with armies of conscripts.


----------



## highlandranger (16 Mar 2006)

Thank you for your input. Now return to your duties soldier.

edited to better reflect question of the poll.
-HF


----------



## Pikache (16 Mar 2006)

heavens no.

conscript army is a bane to a professional army unless you're looking for cannon fodders


----------



## kincanucks (16 Mar 2006)

manditory or mandatory?

Actually I have always thought that every _screened and eligible_ Canadian from 18-21 should serve in the military and then carry on with post-secondary education after that.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2006)

Actually I have always thought that every Canadian from 18-21 should serve in the military and then carry on with post-secondary education after that. 

Canadian citizens? Landed immigrants?

I can think of a certian population of 'Canadians' I'd rather not work with. Rhymes with kadar  

All kidding aside I used to think this was a great idea.  Have people serve a few years in some aspect, maybe trade service for an education afterwards.  Don't have much confidence in the idea anymore though.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2006)

The poll is incomplete. There should be a response 

Yes, for National Service (not necessarily military).

Then you still only have people who want to serve in the military, but everyone is doing something (even if it is "only" planting trees, picking garbage, or whatever).


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2006)

Do I sense a _*Starship Troopers*_ thread about to begin?


----------



## geo (16 Mar 2006)

Hmmm.... just when all countries are phasing out conscription - you want to bring it in?

Ask any professional in the US military about how safe they felt around draftees during Vietnam.... you won't get a very favorable response.

You have to ask yourself... what are you trying to accomplish?... add numbers (most of which are unwilling)?

In the UK, they get volunteers out of the Courts....
The judge gives them a choice.... 3 yrs in Jail or a 3 year stint in the army... 
at least they're volunteers (sort of)


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Ask any professional in the US military about how safe they felt around draftees during Vietnam.... you won't get a very favorable response.



Luckily the majority of US soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers...about 67 percent.

Ironically, about 67 percent of the same US Army that played a major role in winning the Second World War were draftees.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2006)

> Luckily the majority of US soldiers in Vietnam were volunteers...about 67 percent.



Doesn't that seem scary?
33% of the soldiers in Vietnam were civilians who were ordered to go fight in a war they had no intention of fighting?
Now most of us on this board are soldiers who volunteered for service. It's easy for us to think big deal and take the patriotic stand point.  When your country is at war you should go fight.

Putting myself in an American civilians shoes that would freak me out. I think about the Canadian government  (say the liberals because I never voted for them) ordering me to put my life at risk for something they started. Fuck that.

WW2 was a pretty clear cut case of kill or be killed, us vs them.  Lines aren't so clear anymore.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Mar 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> Doesn't that seem scary?
> 33% of the soldiers in Vietnam were civilians who were ordered to go fight in a war they had no intention of fighting?
> Now most of us on this board are soldiers who volunteered for service. It's easy for us to think big deal and take the patriotic stand point.  When your country is at war you should go fight.
> 
> ...



It's possible some of those draftees in Vietnam thought they should be there, just as some of the volunteers no doubt opposed the war. I am sure most draftees in the Canadian Army in 1944 thought the war against Germany was a just war - a common opinion among them was that if the Government wasn't going to have the balls to send them into combat, why should they volunteer?

Many in the US considered the war against Germany and Italy as a European civil war and did not want to send troops there, until Germany declared war in Dec 1941.  Certainly Roosevelt was chomping at the bit to get into things to help the British, to his credit, and the USN was practically in a state of war from 1940 on (not to mention the draft for all three services came into being in the US in 1940 or early 1941 also).


----------



## MountainRunner (16 Mar 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Actually I have always thought that every _screened and eligible_ Canadian from 18-21 should serve in the military and then carry on with post-secondary education after that.



Agreed, but I think 2 years full-time is enough.
I also think "conscientious objectors" should have to provide some form of community service in lieu of military service.


----------



## monika (16 Mar 2006)

I'm all in favour of national service provided there's a non-military option. Maybe I'm getting old but I think being forced to work between high school and post secondary would be worth just as much if not more than jumping right into school.

I know that the work I do now I couldn't imagine myself doing when I was 18 and fresh out of high school. It could be Canada's answer to the "gap year."


----------



## geo (16 Mar 2006)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> I think about the Canadian government  (say the liberals because I never voted for them) ordering me to put my life at risk for something they started. frig that.


WTF are you talking about?


----------



## goldorak (16 Mar 2006)

I'm in favor of military service. I don't know for anywere else in Canada, but here in Montreal, people are more and more .... savages? So maybe it is a good thing to put back some youg people in the tracks. I've past all my teens years in cadets until a had the age to go as cic officer and i will tell you that in i wasn't fot cadets... i don't know were i'll be at this moment...!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2006)

> I think about the Canadian government  (say the liberals because I never voted for them) ordering me to put my life at risk for something they started. frig that.
> 
> WTF are you talking about?



Just an example. (obviously a made up one)  
I can't imagine being forced to fight in a war to support a government I don't support. ie how some draftee's probably felt during vietnam.


----------



## geo (16 Mar 2006)

made up examples are fine....
to ensure you leave partisanship out of it.... leave ALL political parties out of it.


----------



## QV (16 Mar 2006)

I would laugh my a$$ off if they started conscription.  I'm all for 2 years of mandatory national service of some kind.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

An armed forces manned by unwilling conscripts is bad enough, but imagine what garbage collection, hospital cleaning, crop harvesting  or tree planting would be like with unwilling "labour battalions". A private detective was hired to follow a Montreal city works crew picked at random, in an approx 3 day period they drove around, drank coffee and filled three potholes. (and these were "volunteers", not conscripts)

Now multiply by 10,000........


----------



## monika (17 Mar 2006)

Good point. Someone would definitely have to supervise these kids, not because they're inherently lazy, but because they'll be young and foolish as long as they can get away with it!


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (17 Mar 2006)

Well, I've been toying with the idea of what our country would be like if everyone had to be military trained. I figured that perhaps it would put an end to some of the stereotypes and ignorant opinions we see among the public. Perhaps mandatory military service isnt the way to go... but rather mandatory military training? Just train them and then put them on an inactive reserve list like we do with people who quit the military?


----------



## MountainRunner (17 Mar 2006)

Switzerland presents an interesting case.

"For a small country, the only way to raise a sizable army is to put every able-bodied man under arms. This is how Switzerland managed to stay independent despite repeated attacks throughout history."  http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conscription 

"Switzerland has the largest militia army in the world (220,000 including reserves). Military service for Swiss men is obligatory according to the Federal Constitution, and includes 17 weeks of basic training as well as annual 3-week-refresher courses..."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Conscription


----------



## FastEddy (17 Mar 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> An armed forces manned by unwilling conscripts is bad enough, but imagine what garbage collection, hospital cleaning, crop harvesting  or tree planting would be like with unwilling "labour battalions". A private detective was hired to follow a Montreal city works crew picked at random, in an approx 3 day period they drove around, drank coffee and filled three potholes. (and these were "volunteers", not conscripts)
> 
> Now multiply by 10,000........




Yes admittedly, there would be a certain number of unsuited or undesirable elements gathered up. But if "Paris Island" can take the same Groups (not just because they volunteered) and turn them into Marines or at least after their enlistment better citizens and individuals. Why not us ?. What I've seen of the youth of today, it sounds like just the answer. If Civie Street can't handle them, then the Army's just the place.

Using the Montreal Blue Collar Workers as a example, You didn't bring up their UNION factor. For Christ sake they could shoot the Mayor and still not get fired or disciplined. Tremblay didn't need a PI to figure that one out.


----------



## bbbb (17 Mar 2006)

Conscription serves no useful purpose. If the country is about to enter a major war than I would say to use bigger recruiting targets to increase the size of the volunteer army. For example they could do what our minister of defence wants to do, if it works then the military will get bigger, if not oh well you'll still get people joining for the money, and its certainly a lot of money nowadays.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Mar 2006)

Ummm hello people are not joining now, setting bigger targets won't get any more people in. *sigh*


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (17 Mar 2006)

You want numbers in the CF?  Scr#w conscription, try incentives.  Offer up a years paid tuition for every two years service (with honourable discharge) at eligible trade schools, colleges and universities and you will get people who are willing to work hard to build a future.  Do you want the smart and ambitious people who are willing to trade hard work for future opportunities, or conscripts who think that they are doing us a favour just dressing in CADPAT, and who stand on their rights not to give a shite or work up a sweat?  It is an ancient military maxim that numbers alone offer no advantage. In todays armies, having unmotivated, untrainable, undeployable numbers just gives you a good way to drain away our opporating budget while leaving the same small number of useful troops deployed at the end of an even more burdened supply chain.


----------



## bbbb (17 Mar 2006)

People are not joining now? Odd, RMC is quite popular with the high school people I would think. Don't quote me on that.

However I do not know many people who like being hit on the head with an old bayonet during drill.


----------



## MikeL (17 Mar 2006)

RMC an the CF is not popular for people in High School, atleast not with anyone at my high school. Out of my grad class, only two people joined the CF, myself an my brother.

Not a lot of teens in school are interested in the Military, since alot of them are missinformed an buy into the "it's cool to be anti-military trend".

Like mainerjohnthomas said, you need too make the CF more appealing, look at the US Army, they have a lot of incentives, get different schools in your contract, a lot of different signing bonus, etc.


Also having recruiters set up displays in malls, or coming out too schools to inform people about the CF an what it offers, etc would be good.


----------



## kincanucks (17 Mar 2006)

Well with over 1200 ROTP applications for this year with the vast majority of those applying to RMC it must be popular somewhere.


----------



## MikeL (17 Mar 2006)

I know there are a lot of applications across the country, but that 1200 is out of how many high school grads across the country though?


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> You want numbers in the CF?  Scr#w conscription, try incentives.  Offer up a years paid tuition for every two years service (with honourable discharge) at eligible trade schools, colleges and universities and you will get people who are willing to work hard to build a future.  *Do you want the smart and ambitious people who are willing to trade hard work for future opportunities*, or conscripts who think that they are doing us a favour just dressing in CADPAT, and who stand on their rights not to give a shite or work up a sweat?  It is an ancient military maxim that numbers alone offer no advantage. In todays armies, having unmotivated, untrainable, undeployable numbers just gives you a good way to drain away our opporating budget while leaving the same small number of useful troops deployed at the end of an even more burdened supply chain.



If the desired result of these discussions is to creat a new generation of fit. well diciplined and motivated Canadian *citizens*, then this is indeed the answer: incentives and rewards for service. Since the military neither needs or is prepared to accept vast hordes of applicants, extending this program across the board for all kinds of service makes a great deal of sense (after all, I'll bet there are lots of good people out there who have no interest in the military but really do have a desire to serve their country and their fellows in some meaningful way). The rewards could be on a sliding scale, the really hard core *citizens* who are willing to take on the most difficult tasks get the "best" rewards, those willing to serve but in lesser capacities can get (say) one year tuition for every three years service or something similar.

MJT, call Mr Harper. He will need more MPs with good ideas when the next election rolls around!


----------



## monika (17 Mar 2006)

MikeL said:
			
		

> Also having recruiters set up displays in malls, or *coming out too schools* to inform people about the CF an what it offers, etc would be good.




Definitely. I remember having reps from all the colleges and universities visit my high school, but no one from the Forces ever showed up.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Mar 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Well with over 1200 ROTP applications for this year with the vast majority of those applying to RMC it must be popular somewhere.



From a nation of 33 Million, of whom *223 thousand reach military age annually*, and eight million are eligible (in theory) to apply from the total population.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html

That means that, by these numbers, one out of about every 222 students applies, or  less than half of one percent.

 I would say that no, RMC is not very popular.


----------



## kincanucks (17 Mar 2006)

When we consistently have 5 applicants applying for each position that is available in RMC every year then it is popular.


----------



## geo (17 Mar 2006)

Still boils down to .... what are you going to do with all those "troops" and
How you plan to pay for em.

At present, we hardly have two nickles to rub together and you're talking about drafting all these able bodied and potentialy unwilling warm bodies.

Check please!
(Reality)check that is


----------



## FastEddy (18 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Still boils down to .... what are you going to do with all those "troops" and
> How you plan to pay for em.
> 
> At present, we hardly have two nickles to rub together and you're talking about drafting all these able bodied and potentialy unwilling warm bodies.
> ...




So far that is the best question/argument whether you are for or against.


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2006)

I voted NO. Just look at some of the riff-raff we've already got in our voluntary Force. I can only see bad things happening with the "unvoluntary riff-raff" that conscription would encompass. No thanks. That'd be the day my release gets put on the Boss' desk. We've already got enough people who shouldn't be serving bantying around wasting oxygen.


----------



## FastEddy (18 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I voted NO. Just look at some of the riff-raff we've already got in our voluntary Force. I can only see bad things happening with the "unvoluntary riff-raff" that conscription would encompass. No thanks. That'd be the day my release gets put on the Boss' desk. We've already got enough people who shouldn't be serving bantying around wasting oxygen.




I would like to hear your thoughts on why we have (some) riff-raff in the CF's today. I would have thought that it would be the responsibility of NCO's and especially Sr. NCO's to sort them out.

Given the  vast number of inductees, I would presume that there would be far more suitable candidates than riff-raff. Unless your under the impression that anyone who didn't volunteer for the CF's may not be a viable candidate and retentionable.

Cheers.


----------



## armyvern (18 Mar 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I would like to hear your thoughts on why we have (some) riff-raff in the CF's today. I would have thought that it would be the responsibility of NCO's and especially Sr. NCO's to sort them out.



Perhaps if we could roll back the recruting process to the times of 12-15 years ago (before your time) to the standards that used to exists prior to ""my individual rights," big hug fests et al. Back to those days when Snr NCOs could actually enforce discipline without all the crap that goes with it. Ie defending themselves against harassment charges because they told someone who, if 2 inches shorter would resemble a circle, to get off their ass, get to PT and get in shape..."but the Sgt yelled at me...innapropriately and I feel harrassed. Perhaps an HA is required or even I might settle for some Alternate Dispute Resolution...." Too bad. The Snr NCO did their *job* and still has a job to do. Time to build a bridge and get over it and on with it and quit the whining. 

Back to the days when recruits who could not make the grade, either never made it past the door of the recruiting centre or were actually released during the Basic or their 3's at the latest. Not just passed up through the system for us Snr NCOs outside of the Training system to look after.  Or remustered off to another trade...etc etc. 

Individual rights in the Military setting...that's where it all began in my books.

Conscription? I'd rather have someone next to me who wants to be there and who can do the job.

But we have to grow our numbers? Funny thing is, the way I remember it from back in those Cornwallis days? We never had any shortages of personnel who wanted to join and serve. Cornwallis was wall to wall recruits undergoing much more vigorous trg than todays BMQ and we had no individual rights. But guess what? We actually had discipline!! Maybe that's why much higher mental/physical stress courses ran constantly with no shortage of volunteers who got sworn at, yelled at, spit on etc ad naseum but managed to have the best time of their lives? Imagine that? Actual discipline in the Military and it's training. What an original idea.


----------



## dynaglide (18 Mar 2006)

Army Vern,
I couldn't have said it any better myself...Outstanding!!!!


----------



## 2 Cdo (18 Mar 2006)

> But we have to grow our numbers? Funny thing is, the way I remember it from back in those Cornwallis days? We never had any shortages of personnel who wanted to join and serve. Cornwallis was wall to wall recruits undergoing much more vigorous trg than todays BMQ and we had no individual rights. But guess what? We actually had discipline!! Maybe that's why much higher mental/physical stress courses ran constantly with no shortage of volunteers who got sworn at, yelled at, spit on etc ad naseum but managed to have the best time of their lives? Imagine that? Actual discipline in the Military and it's training. What an original idea.



 Bravo and well said!


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (18 Mar 2006)

My Grandfather, all of his brothers, and three of his sisters enlisted in WWII.  By the end of that conflict, Canada had a huge mass of conscript soldiers who were totally undeployable, some of whom were even mutinous.  There were conscripts who fought hard, won honours, or fell where they stood, but these are the ones who probably would have enlisted anyway.  What did that mass of conscript soldiers who would not fight do for my Grandfather?  They did not free up men to fight; women volunteers had done that.  They did not provide material support, they provided a material drain.  They dishonoured the uniform, wasted training resources and experiences NCO's that could have been employed strengthening the overstretched expeditionary force.  Like many WWII vets, Grandad has often waxed both profane and eloquent on his desire to take a platoon of his Grenadier Guards through one of those mutinous camps and "wipe some shite off the maple leaf".  The US army experience in Vietnam, and Soviet experience in Afghanistan has not done a lot to change my mind on the usefulness of conscripts in modern warfare.


----------



## Daidalous (18 Mar 2006)

I voted "no" I do not want to work with someone who does not want to be in. And if they did they would have enlisted.   If you conscripted 50 you might get 5 that really come to work every day with drive, with 45 crying that they were "forced" to join and have XXX days left till they are done.


----------



## big_castor (18 Mar 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> My Grandfather, all of his brothers, and three of his sisters enlisted in WWII.  ( ... ) There were conscripts who fought hard, won honours, or fell where they stood, but these are the ones who probably would have enlisted anyway.



Actually, a very small number of conscripts where sent overseas to fight and of that, a fraction saw combat.


----------



## Koenigsegg (18 Mar 2006)

Conscription does not seem to bad from looking at the more western European nations that have it.  Several have madatory service for men for 9 to 12 months.  Can choose to do non armed forces work, such as firefighter.  In Sweden firfighting work has a longer stay-in time than armed service.
Germany has it, and they are very professional in their service.  The Trades training could provide people with training they can use after they leave if they wish to, allowing for more skilled workers in the workplace.

I do not really know what would be better, conscription or no conscription, but if done right (no hippies, people allowing the CF to do their job discipline and enforced rules.  I dont the first two are possible though) we would have fewer fat people rolling around the streets.

I would not want the mandatory service to be too long for each person, 9-12 months maybe.  So people would dont want to be there wont cause too much trouble.  Strong pro-armed forces advertisement would be required, but our government does not seem to be too good at that.

I will do more research on conscription in the nations that have it.


----------



## geo (18 Mar 2006)

with the demise of the Communist block, most western NATO coutries have done away with their conscripts..... France is phasing their's out, so is Russia ......

what is it that they have figured out that others haven't?

No one has answered my question... what is it we want to do with this wealth of heads, hearts and hands.... once we have em?


----------



## Long in the tooth (18 Mar 2006)

IMHO conscripts do not make good soldiers, just waste training resources that should be used for volunteers.


----------



## FastEddy (19 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> Perhaps if we could roll back the recruting process to the times of 12-15 years ago (before your time)
> 
> But we have to grow our numbers? Funny thing is, the way I remember it from back in those Cornwallis days? We never had any shortages of personnel who wanted to join and serve. Cornwallis was wall to wall recruits undergoing much more vigorous trg than todays BMQ and we had no individual rights. But guess what? We actually had discipline!! Maybe that's why much higher mental/physical stress courses ran constantly with no shortage of volunteers who got sworn at, yelled at, spit on etc ad naseum but managed to have the best time of their lives? Imagine that? Actual discipline in the Military and it's training. What an original idea.


.

I couldn't agree with you more "ArmyVern", but I think you got my time a bit wrong, it was more like pre-1968, when most of the Corps Schools were at Camp Borden. When a RSM was on Deck, every rank below a Captain hid, Captains and Majors usually stayed indoors and the Colonel gazed out his window and knew everything was Tic-Ka-Tee-Boo and as it should be.(A bit exaggerated, but you get the point)

It was a time when Recruits were not all 6 foot 3, a 190 lbs, possessed a B.A. and were in perfect Physical Shape. (ahem, they were all sent to the Provost Corps lol) But really, they were selected for the Combat Arms as should be. But the other not so perfect, 5 foot, a little pudgy, grade 8 or 9 but psychologically acceptable were enlisted and assigned to the other supporting Corps, where they made fine Soldiers and performed they Trades with excellance. Lets face it they didn't have to poses this high degree of standards to perform their Trades, but in a pinch they could still pick up their weapon and defend them selves when their duce-an-a-half was blown off the road and coming under fire. Its amazing to what heights man can rise to in a life threatening situation. But like you mentioned, we had DISCIPLINE, and even the Whiners and I Wanna go Home, towed the line and most of the time eventually fell into step.


----------



## TCBF (19 Mar 2006)

"Ask any professional in the US military about how safe they felt around draftees during Vietnam.... you won't get a very favorable response."

- Most of those American draftees did pretty damn good.  And most of the professional Officers and NCOs who led them will tell you that.

Think the North Vietnamese Officer and NCO veterans today tell war stories complaining about THEIR draftees?  Not bloody likely either..


----------



## GO!!! (19 Mar 2006)

Extremely interesting thread!

I agree with geo on the subject of what we would do with all of those conscripts if we ever had them. The slackers of today, who volunteered, are able to figure out and use the system to avoid work and undesireable (to them) training at will, sometimes before even finishing QL3. I shudder to think how a conscript army could paralyze some of our services with people trying to ride out their year or two on a chit for "sore feet".

Armyvern, before you wax poetic about "the good ol' days" lets not forget that if we go too far back, you (as a woman) would not be permitted to join as anything but a medic or clerk, and later, could be kicked out for being pregnant. Soldiers were often poorly educated, alchol abuse was rampant, and the military was often viewed by the rest of society as an "employer of last resort" It was'nt all good!

I also find it interesting that no-one has mentioned the conscription crises that nearly tore this country apart in the past. Quebeckers have, in the past, violently opposed conscription to fight in "English wars". I would guess that this would also be the case today. 

We should institute a draft if we need it, to defend the nation and her vital interests. We don't need to now, so let's stockpile the old kit, and train up a new army if we need to.


----------



## Rory (19 Mar 2006)

Not all conscripted soldiers are the downers who are counting the XXX days. Think of it, the public is generally uninformed so you take a few conscripts to BMQ and what might happen heads might turn and see the light. I am no way saying conscription will do this but I mean in todays world in any arguement you can never really say the sides fall into black or white, everything now adays is a beutifully muddled shade of gray.


----------



## armyrules (19 Mar 2006)

I think that once a young person gets to a certain age 18-22 or something along those lines, it should be mandatory to serve in the CF. A little military training never hurt anyone. Well maybe those few occasions  Like all these little punks running around swarming other kids and all the crime  would be lowered because they would have some sense in their little heads  to do the right thing for one time in their life. Sorry about the rant this has been on my mind for awhile.


----------



## Rory (19 Mar 2006)

I mean myself is going to BMQ after graduation this year so I will be 18 and already volunteered myself into the reg force. But out of my high school, I know of about one other person who will enlist. That number used to be three but my friend decided working as a landscaper is better and left me high and dry in that sense. People just think about the immediate aspects of life now adays, not what you can accomplish later down the road, and in the military down the road you have many possibilities.


----------



## canadianblue (19 Mar 2006)

What about this, it should be mandatory to do a year when your between 18-22 in the reserves so its not to stringent on a person's life, as well as getting some military training and a taste of the CF. If a member enjoys it they can decide to stay with the reserves or switch to the fulltime force. I think this would be a good option, personally I wish I had gone into the reserves before the regular force just to get a taste of the CF, as well as get any education in that I wanted to do before going fulltime.


----------



## Daidalous (19 Mar 2006)

I still say conscription is very bad idea.  The CF will end up having to deal with the baggage oh any who are conscripted. Weather it be drugs, massive personal debt, how they conduct themselves and level of physical fitness.    It opens a massive can of work for suppervisors and money/resourses to get these people to the standard the CF expects of it's members.   Sure getting mass bodies in the system is good,  but you are only as strong as your weekest link.  And if some conscript does not want to be in and they have decided not to put forth any effort, then what do you do.  Kick them out?  Send them to jail then punt him?  Extend there contract?  Beat them?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (19 Mar 2006)

Sweet gods, the reserves don't have enough problems?  No way do the reserves need conscripts.  If there was a national service that included a full spectrum of public service work, with the military as an option, then maybe.  If you dumped the mass of unmotivated crap that conscriptions net would yield into our current reserve system, we would envy a handful of shot in a bucket of spit.  The reserves need equipment, larger budgets for training, and job protection legislation similar to the US and Europe (No Swiss militiaman ever lost his job if called up too often) to retain experienced NCO's.  We don't need conscripts, we don't want conscripts.  Given more money, equipment, and job protection, the Reserves could expand a great deal, and provide a stronger support for the CF.  Given a mass of unmotivated unwilling bodies, the Reserves would collapse, and finally become the joke the Reg force has so long (and so falsely) cherished.


----------



## Rory (19 Mar 2006)

I think this thread has already proved one valid point, conscription is way to  messy to even be bothered with for a country that never started out with it. Look at all the points and counter points being given, IMHO it wouldn't work too costly no apparent bonus as many problematic soldiers may come up, no one wants a second Somalia like affair. There is no clear cut effective way to implement a form of conscription from the looks of things once you read the points and counter points, way to messy for our countries own good.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Armyvern, before you wax poetic about "the good ol' days" lets not forget that if we go too far back, you (as a woman) would not be permitted to join as anything but a medic or clerk, and later, could be kicked out for being pregnant. Soldiers were often poorly educated, alchol abuse was rampant, and the military was often viewed by the rest of society as an "employer of last resort" It was'nt all good!


Rather GO!!! I "waxed poetic" about the good old days of actual honest to God discipline in our training system. 
My platoon in Cornwallis just happened to be the first one that contained those first women going infantry. All 6 of them and us 2 other women in the midst of all those men. Save for an Armoured Pl WO, a female MCpl trucker, all of our instructors were PPCLI. DISCIPLINE. Do you know how hard it was mentally and physically being the first "guinea pigs" in a platoon full of Infantry recruits and PPCLI Instructors who at that point in time were, for the great majority of them, dead set against the CREW trials we were joining the Forces under? 
We didn't have individual rights, we were called some pretty vicious names and were the evenings entertainment as we did our pushups with our feet up on the barrack boxes while the 100 some-odd males in the Pl sat around us in a circle and the instructors yelled, spit, kicked the barrack boxes and told us how unworthy we were. Well guess what? We're still around, still doing our jobs. I've met up with quite a few of them since those "good old days" and I harbour no ill-feelings or grudges and some of them are great friends today. The made us "grow" they stressed us out and they push us through hell...and we made it. We made it without individual rights, through crap that would never fly today, and made it just fine. You know why? We also learned discipline from this bunch of men. That was their jobs; and they did a great one.

Let's not turn this into another thread about "the good old days" and women vs men. That was not what my thread was about. It was about discipline. Full stop. We need it back. Desperately.


----------



## geo (19 Mar 2006)

Vern...
Guess you could call it .... a different perspective on discipline

most support trade types would've peed in their britches (and ain't talking fem or male varieties...


----------



## FastEddy (20 Mar 2006)

armyvern said:
			
		

> You know why? We also learned discipline from this bunch of men. That was their jobs; and they did a great one.
> 
> Let's not turn this into another thread about "the good old days" and women vs men. That was not what my thread was about. It was about discipline. Full stop. We need it back. Desperately.




God Post Armyvern, I suspect that many of the protesters against National Service and Discipline still harbor opinions about Female roles in the CF's. As for DISCIPLINE of course they don't want it back, I imagine maybe some couldn't take it.

I guess the old Maxim doesn't apply in todays modern Cdn. Military "Break them Down, Build them Up".

Its been mentioned here, why or what do we need this vast increase in Service Personnel ?. Well if people and the World expect us to be everywhere, then we need the Bodies, equipment is secondary, its People who get the job done.

Given Canada's population, our Volunteer's will probably never provide the numbers we would like to see, except in a National Mobilization for a World Conflict.


----------



## TCBF (21 Mar 2006)

"I guess the old Maxim doesn't apply in todays modern Cdn. Military "Break them Down, Build them Up"."

- I got the impression that was a peacetime blip.  My relatives that went to WW2 talked a lot about discipline, but it was instilled on the PARADE SQUARE by drill commands - not verbal assault (real verbal assault, I mean).  It was also backed by a good stiff set of KR's that allowed orders parades the next day - if in fact not that afternoon.  The worst thing we did was let the lawyers frig up mil law, and without some form of IMMEDIATE low level justice, all the 'getting tough' won't do a damn thing.

But, start with the DRILL.

Tom


----------



## armyvern (21 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I got the impression that was a peacetime blip.  My relatives that went to WW2 talked a lot about discipline, but it was instilled on the PARADE SQUARE by drill commands - not verbal assault (real verbal assault, I mean).  It was also backed by a good stiff set of KR's that allowed orders parades the next day - if in fact not that afternoon.  The worst thing we did was let the lawyers frig up mil law, and without some form of IMMEDIATE low level justice, all the 'getting tough' won't do a damn thing.
> 
> But, start with the DRILL.
> 
> Tom



I agree that drill is an imporatant part of discipline. I have had quite a few discussions with my relatives (both male and female) who served in the Miltary during WWII and Korea. The names I was called were not new to them. They actually thought some of them were pretty timid compared to their "day." 
I just think of it in the context it was given. A large part of the instructors jobs during basic (both on and off the Parade Square) were to keep us recruits under physical and mental stress, so that we learn to deal with it and react appropriately in stressful circumstances. Everyone has heard the saying "in one ear and out the other...don't let it get to you." Not to whine and cry and yell 'harrassment" or put up my yellow or red card when I thought the instructors were picking on me.
Talking about drill squares...try yelling even 6 feet away (vice the 2 inchs from our faces we used to get with the spit flying) from the face of some recruit these days "what the hell are you doing you BoS, GET OFF MY PARADE SQUARE and I'll deal with you later." These days...after you deal with the recruit, you may also be dealing with whatever write-up they decide to file on the incident regarding you belittleing them and calling them a BoS in front of their peers, thereby hurting their feelings. Poor muffins.


----------



## geo (21 Mar 2006)

err.... them muffins must be "stale"


----------



## armyvern (22 Mar 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> err.... them muffins must be "stale"


Quite possibly!!

And I must point out that I mean absolutely no offense or comparison to Army.ca's very own "muffin"

 ;D


----------



## FastEddy (23 Mar 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> "I guess the old Maxim doesn't apply in todays modern Cdn. Military "Break them Down, Build them Up"."
> 
> - I got the impression that was a peacetime blip.  My relatives that went to WW2 talked a lot about discipline, but it was instilled on the PARADE SQUARE by drill commands - not verbal assault (real verbal assault, I mean).  It was also backed by a good stiff set of KR's that allowed orders parades the next day - if in fact not that afternoon.  The worst thing we did was let the lawyers frig up mil law, and without some form of IMMEDIATE low level justice, all the 'getting tough' won't do a damn thing.
> 
> ...




Yes "Tom" I agree fully, whats the use to get tough if you can't back it up.  But instilling Discipline in a Soldier goes far beyond Parade Square Drill. (yes its a important part). The application of Discipline should apply and effect every aspect of the Soldier indoctrination.

IMO, it all started in 1968 by the Idiots at DNDHQ and the Government who thought they saw a way to save a Buck. Its been all down hill since then.


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Mar 2006)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Well with over 1200 ROTP applications for this year with the vast majority of those applying to RMC it must be popular somewhere.



My guidance department is pretty anti military unless you mention RMC, they figure that you're only going there to get a degree and get out...

So actually I'm glad it isn't so popular or more people would likely try to play the system.

Oh, and I'm thankful there isn't conscription, not because I don't want to serve, but because I don't want to serve with all the kids I know...


----------



## exsemjingo (4 Jun 2006)

Wait a minute...

Which countries in the Westen World have 2 or 3 year mandatory military service?
-Many European ones.
Now, which countires in the Western world are afraid to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan?
That's right: many of the ones with mandatory military service!

Conscripts would displace those of us already interested in a military career in our volunteer army.  I would imagine all officers would be RMC graduates (because they are elite, not for any other reason), and very few NC Ms would be offered additional contracts.

Finally, politicians would not think of the military as soldiers, but as citizens.  There would be limited international missions, and few deployment oppertunities.

A Volunteer Army is a Professional, Effective Army.  Conscription is for total wartime only.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jun 2006)

"Actually I have always thought that every screened and eligible Canadian from 18-21 should serve in the military and then carry on with post-secondary education after that."

- Hey, lets apply that to all RMC Cadets!  Let's have them do a stint in the military first, then we only need to send the useful ones to RMC.  Save us millions of dollars on Phase 1, 2 and 3 Cbt A.

Tom


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2006)

exsemjingo said:
			
		

> Wait a minute...
> 
> Which countries in the Westen World have 2 or 3 year mandatory military service?
> -Many European ones.
> Now, which countires in the Western world are afraid to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan?



Bullshit; just because a country doesn't employ troops it doesn't imply cowardice on a national scale, simply differing priorities. How does one even apply cowardice on a national scale in any event? You just invalidated your entire post with that.


----------



## clasper (4 Jun 2006)

Living and working in France, I've had the opportunity to discuss their national service with many of my colleagues.  Most people had to serve a year in the military, although the rich or well-educated could do a two-week basic, followed by a year working for a French national company overseas, or some other area of vital national interest (a colleague worked for a year in a government nuclear physics lab).

Most people I've talked to found that their time was completely wasted, and don't look fondly back on their time in the military.  The younger people who weren't involved (the program was phased out in the late 90's) are very grateful that they didn't have to bother.  When this topic comes up for discussion, I normally ask people how they think conscripts affect the effectiveness of the French military when deployed abroad.  One guy just looked at me like I asked him to recite Shakespeare in Swahili.  Most people say one really had very little effect on the other, since they were essentially two different armies- the professional one that the government actually did something with, and the social engineering project.  

The instructors and NCO's for the conscripts came from the professional army, but they mostly resented their time there, or treated it like a holiday (for a Canadian context some people may be more familiar with, imagine a crusty bigoted old reg force WO posted to a reserve regiment, with the additional wrinkle that all of the prejudices he has against the reserves are actually true- it wouldn't be a worthwhile experience for the WO or for the soldiers).

While the conscripts may not have adversely affected the effectiveness of the regular army, they were certainly a drain on the resources of the government.  Based on the small sample size and unscientific polls I've conducted, I'd say that the social engineering project of conscription was a failure in France.  The arguments for such a project are normally to instill our youth with discipline, citizenship, knowledge of military and world affairs, etc.  Like every other society, some people have these things (with or without prior military service), and some don't, but I don't see a higher proportion of these qualities in French men (or former conscripts of other nationalities that I've talked to).


----------



## FastEddy (4 Jun 2006)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I agree that drill is an imporatant part of discipline. I have had quite a few discussions with my relatives (both male and female) who served in the Miltary during WWII and Korea. The names I was called were not new to them. They actually thought some of them were pretty timid compared to their "day."
> I just think of it in the context it was given. A large part of the instructors jobs during basic (both on and off the Parade Square) were to keep us recruits under physical and mental stress, so that we learn to deal with it and react appropriately in stressful circumstances. Everyone has heard the saying "in one ear and out the other...don't let it get to you." Not to whine and cry and yell 'harrassment" or put up my yellow or red card when I thought the instructors were picking on me.
> Talking about drill squares...try yelling even 6 feet away (vice the 2 inchs from our faces we used to get with the spit flying) from the face of some recruit these days "what the hell are you doing you BoS, GET OFF MY PARADE SQUARE and I'll deal with you later." These days...after you deal with the recruit, you may also be dealing with whatever write-up they decide to file on the incident regarding you belittleing them and calling them a BoS in front of their peers, thereby hurting their feelings. Poor muffins.




ArmyVern, you elaborate on the in your face method which you associate with part of the application of the discipline part. But Tom disagrees with you that its not necessary. I agree that it is part of instilling discipline (in your face) along with it use on inspections, kit, deportment, dress and the classroom. I've had VFW's also tell me that they were more afraid of their RSM, than combat. From my experiences, I was hesitant even approaching him in the Mess.

Drill really only instills psychical co-ordination (on its own), how its applied is what makes the difference.

But !, unless theres some really big changes, we're not going to see those days again.

Cheers.


----------



## FastEddy (4 Jun 2006)

clasper said:
			
		

> Living and working in France, I've had the opportunity to discuss their national service with many of my colleagues.  Most people had to serve a year in the military, although the rich or well-educated could do a two-week basic, followed by a year working for a French national company overseas, or some other area of vital national interest (a colleague worked for a year in a government nuclear physics lab).




Maybe France is not the best  Example you could have researched.


----------



## clasper (4 Jun 2006)

Just happens to be where I live...

I've also talked to some Scandinavians about their experiences (although not as many), and they don't see it as a great benefit either.


----------



## FastEddy (4 Jun 2006)

clasper said:
			
		

> Just happens to be where I live...
> 
> I've also talked to some Scandinavians about their experiences (although not as many), and they don't see it as a great benefit either.




Great !, Have a nice day.


----------



## geo (4 Jun 2006)

any person forced to do something will tend to look back upon his "doing time" year(s) with a jaundiced eye.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (4 Jun 2006)

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and conscription gives you lots of those.  Esprit de corps is impossible if you have a group where the majority attitude is that of a prison chain gang.  Our armed forces needs warriors, skilled technicians, motivated, self directing overachievers, not a bunch of sad sorry MoFo's who are doing their best to do SFA.  The absolute best way for the NDP to eviscerate the CF and assure that all war fighting potential is taken away, would be to give us conscription.  Even in wartime, conscription did the CF no favours.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> any person forced to do something will tend to look back upon his "doing time" year(s) with a jaundiced eye.


I don't think this is true.  Most German soldiers in the Second World War were conscripts, but the ones I've talked to were all proud of their service - even despite the criminal acts the regime had committed and to which they were (supposedly) unwitting accomplices.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and conscription gives you lots of those.  Esprit de corps is impossible if you have a group where the majority attitude is that of a prison chain gang.  Our armed forces needs warriors, skilled technicians, motivated, self directing overachievers, not a bunch of sad sorry MoFo's who are doing their best to do SFA.  The absolute best way for the NDP to eviscerate the CF and assure that all war fighting potential is taken away, would be to give us conscription.  Even in wartime, conscription did the CF no favours.



You presume that all draftees are unwilling; some just need to be compelled to serve and after drafted would be quite useful, perhaps even happy.  Your last sentence is inaccurate as well; the manpower crunch (partially self-imposed) in the Second World War required us to get a lot of mileage out of NRMA men - they were vital for the defence of Canada, as evidenced by their employment in the Aleutians and at home in coastal garrisons. A few thousand were also employed in Europe. Regardless of whether or not poor planning resulted in their need, needed they were, and used they were. If you have evidence that not a single one served with honour, distinction, or pride, you should present it here.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Jun 2006)

I think the distinction needs to between conscription during a national emergency (ie: mobilization for war) and conscription as social engineering during peacetime.

While stating that all conscripts are wasters is a sweeping generalization, I'd prefer neither for the reasons stated above.  However, in the former case, I could see the necessity.  The latter is useless and probably antithetical in our liberal democratic society.


----------



## geo (4 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I don't think this is true.  Most German soldiers in the Second World War were conscripts, but the ones I've talked to were all proud of their service - even despite the criminal acts the regime had committed and to which they were (supposedly) unwitting accomplices.


conscripts during wartime, when your country is threatened is a whole other kettle of fish... IMHO.  The Germans are/were masters of the propaganda and were able to motivate their volk to incredible feats; facing the hordes of heathen communists.... and they all knew what to expect from the soviets (exactly what they had been giving em)


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jun 2006)

My opinion is not so much a one or the other on conscription. I think a good place to get recruits would be the welfare system. Reconstruct the welfare system to set it up so people who can’t find a job within X amount of time, they then get sent to boot camp in a sense of involuntary conscription. Also in the same sense, the government is already paying these people to live their life, making them go to the military could be good for all. Furthermore, these welfare people usually have their skills and information to place them well and quickly. Even if they make it just reserves it could be a pretty good place to get those people letters of references to help them in civilian life if they choose to leave after the conscription length.

I’m not sure what kind of yield this could result, but just looking at the “projects” in my neighbourhood alone they could get 40+ good people.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> conscripts during wartime, when your country is threatened is a whole other kettle of fish... IMHO.



I would agree with that, but not in all cases; it would naturally depend on the country and circumstances. I would agree that peacetime conscripts in Canada would probably be in general of low worth - that would likely be the case in most countries, in fact.

In harsher regimes like the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, however, draftees have proven of considerable worth even in peacetime.


----------



## TCBF (4 Jun 2006)

"I’m not sure what kind of yield this could result, but just looking at the “projects” in my neighbourhood alone they could get 40+ good people."

- I doubt it.  Scraping the social and intellectual scum off of the streets of our nation is no way to build a professional peacetime cadre.

- I am against conscription in Canada because we would only screw it up unless we brought over some Germans to show us how the Bundeswehr did it - and then actually followed their advice. 

- The great thing about a properly run conscript system - with no exemptions - is that it is a superb selection tool: You merely pick the best and the brightest of each intake, and give them the trades that need to be filled and that they qualify for - not necessarily the ones they want.  Very efficient.  You get a higher general intelligence level in a properly run peacetime draft than you do waiting for the semi-litterate hillbillies to rouse themselves out of a Salvation Army clothing donation metal bin on a cold winter's day and walk into the recruiting center looking for three hots and a cot.  Like I did.

After a year's service, you offer the best - and ONLY the best - a shot at RMC or a long service NCO position.  The Bundeswehr would put the little silver cords on the officer trainee's shoulder, but he would continue to do his normal job as well as begin a studyprogram in his battailion.  A year later - if he still measured up - he was sent away for training.  The NCO candidates were given a two month long section commanding course,then a thre month long Leopard 2 crew commander's course.  If they passed both, they were given a long term contract and became Stabs Unteroffizier (MCpl).  If they failed either, they were released as time expired conscripts.

Also note that a Swiss conscript - basically every adult male 18 to 40 - keeps his automatic rifle and first line ammunition at home.  Cuts down on crime as well - especially home invasions.

They also psych test EVERY ONE of their enrollees.  We do not - a fatal error which has  cost us an Airborne Regiment.


----------



## Britney Spears (4 Jun 2006)

Mmmm, is there ANY problem in the country that can't be solved with 4 battalions of Leopard 2s (we'll bring bach 8CH too) and an automatic rifle in every house? I think not. TCBF should run for PM on that platform, I'd vote for him.


----------



## munky99999 (4 Jun 2006)

> - I doubt it.  Scraping the social and intellectual scum off of the streets of our nation is no way to build a professional peacetime cadre.


I’d be thinking that is more of a stereotype. The people I know in the welfare system who live in the area I’m speaking of are very respectable people but simply are on hard times and can’t seem to find work. They have their resume on monster.ca and in the closest place which finds people temporary jobs, can’t think of the name of the place. So using the word scum might be a rather stereotypical word to use.



> They also psych test EVERY ONE of their enrollees.  We do not - a fatal error which has  cost us an Airborne Regiment.


I also agree we should be psyche testing everyone in the military. We are training them to use weapons and tactics. Giving this knowledge to someone who is unstable or a gang member would be a very bad thing. If only it was attached to the time officers spend in RMC.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Jun 2006)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Mmmm, is there ANY problem in the country that can't be solved with 4 battalions of Leopard 2s (we'll bring bach 8CH too) and an automatic rifle in every house? I think not. TCBF should run for PM on that platform, I'd vote for him.



How would that help MRI wait times?  ???


----------



## geo (5 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> In harsher regimes like the former Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, however, draftees have proven of considerable worth even in peacetime.


Ah yes, you've used the magic word "harsher".  When the alternative to doing hard time is doing even harder time, oh yeah; motivation is pulled out - like a rabbit out of a hat.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jun 2006)

"I’d be thinking that is more of a stereotype. The people I know in the welfare system who live in the area I’m speaking of are very respectable people but simply are on hard times and can’t seem to find work. They have their resume on monster.ca and in the closest place which finds people temporary jobs, can’t think of the name of the place. So using the word scum might be a rather stereotypical word to use"

- You are correct - I was unfairly harsh with a vague, sweeping generalization.  However, there are lots of jobs just for the asking here in Alberta - so many that they are talking about importing 'gastarbeiten' to stock the Ft Macmurray work camps with.  Why are not these jobs being filled with the unemployed from Eastern Canada?  Why don't they walk into a Recruiting Center instaed of waiting to be drafted.

- At least, if they volunteered, they might get in after the five years or so it takes to process them.

"Mmmm, is there ANY problem in the country that can't be solved with 4 battalions of Leopard 2s (we'll bring bach 8CH too) and an automatic rifle in every house? I think not. .. "

- Four bns would be excessive.  One would suffice.  Pigs get fat - hogs get slaughtered.   Though I would take one regt of Leo2s, one of MGS, and three of AGS.

- As to the auto rifle in every house: no need.  Excessive.  A simple bolt action rifle or hunting shotgun would be fine, and only in those homes who request one.  

"TCBF should run for PM on that platform, I'd vote for him."

- We keep on voting for each other like this, we will soon be running the country.

 ;D


----------



## munky99999 (5 Jun 2006)

> Why don't they walk into a Recruiting Center instaed of waiting to be drafted?


I take my own situation. I had absolutely no idea WHERE the recruiting centre is. Let alone even know the existence of a recruiting centre. As for my habits basically never ever had any sort of recruiting advertising ever showing up for me. In fact the only reason I really found out about the recruiting and military websites is that I had an interesting idea of the Canadian army creating a MMORPG computer game much like America’s army. Or perhaps going in with the Americans and making a NATO-UN game. Creating a very advanced MMORPG which would be VERY popular and as MMORPG games being very profitable it could pay for itself in the long run. They could also make it into a training simulator like they are doing with America’s army. This could be expanded on with a flight simulator which could make the game a huge hit.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jun 2006)

Well, if you spend your entire life with your head two inches from a computer monitor, you really can't fault the CF for not 'getting' to you with their advertising, can you?

No great grandfather at Vimy  Ridge?  No grandfather at Falaise?  No father in Bosnia?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jun 2006)

munky99999 said:
			
		

> I’d be thinking that is more of a stereotype. The people I know in the welfare system who live in the area I’m speaking of are very respectable people but simply are on hard times and can’t seem to find work. They have their resume on monster.ca and in the closest place which finds people temporary jobs, can’t think of the name of the place. So using the word scum might be a rather stereotypical word to use.



I think SCUM is a great word to use.

At last count, there are 17 000, (yes, that is seventeen thousand) unfilled positions here (Alberta - edmonton and north). A similar number exists in the south of the province, and there is a critical shortage of manpower in EVERY SINGLE TRADE.

My parents and my wife's family both moved from eastern Canada (Ontario and Quebec) in search of better and higher paying jobs, and moved again when opportunities arose within the west. 

People who are on welfare are making a choice - a choice to work in only a specific area, to live only in a specific area, and as a result, they make very little. Starting wage for just about any type of apprentice in Ft. McMurray is 22-35$/hr right now, with more overtime then you can shake a stick at, and there have been 80,000 layoffs in the tech sector in Eastern Canada in the last five years.

In my mind - the choice is clear.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (5 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> In my mind - the choice is clear.



In that memorable phrase, Sir Sam Hughes was destined to live and die without ever having had a single doubt. 

It's not a contest.


----------



## GO!!! (6 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It's not a contest.



You're right.

Alberta should endure a labour shortage while easterners sit on UI and welfare. 

What was I thinking?


----------



## big bad john (6 Jun 2006)

Some may not realize it but we have a labour shortage of qualified individuals here in Ontario also.  I have been interviewing for a large defence manufacturer in Ottawa, they are having a job fair that they have been advertising on the radio because they have over 100 software, systems and hardware jobs that they can't fill.  The recruiter told me that when they contact the local colleges and universities they are told that they have empty seats in these programs.  Go figure.


----------



## JackD (6 Jun 2006)

where I live - Poland now - there is conscription - it does work here as there are very few jobs about... I am rather curious as to what exactly they do though, as I see very little training going on - as I live near a garrison headquarters and close to three regimental barracks..I see no jogging, no convoys heading off to some field - I have seen some picking up cigarette butts though... So does it work.. it gives some people money... does it make a good soldier.. good question... Would it work in Canada? Doubt it.. Incidentally the last comments about the unemployed are not truly called for - try getting a job in Canada when you are older.. the last one I had was shoveling snow... that after three degrees... mind you, last job I had at a university was lost as I was perceived as a "killer', having been in the army for 11 years... Up yours University of Saskatchewan! Where I live now - the bitter comment is that to work even at a lousy job you need to speak 3 languages, have 2 doctorates, at least 7 years experience and be younger than 21. If you can give me a list of those employers who are begging for workers, let me know.. I want jobs for my students...


----------



## pbi (6 Jun 2006)

Good points raised here, but it's really a non-starter in Canada, isn't it? Try selling the idea in Quebec. 'Nuff said.

Cheers


----------



## geo (6 Jun 2006)

message from "La belle province"
Don't want em, don't need em.... thanks for asking

CHIMO!


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Jun 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> You're right.
> 
> Alberta should endure a labour shortage while easterners sit on UI and welfare.
> 
> What was I thinking?



Following your free-market thinking, isn't a labour shortage simply a result of the employers not paying enough to attract enough staff?


----------



## TCBF (6 Jun 2006)

It could also be a result of the employers having to compete with a government that pays people to sit on their asses.


----------



## munky99999 (6 Jun 2006)

> Well, if you spend your entire life with your head two inches from a computer monitor, you really can't fault the CF for not 'getting' to you with their advertising, can you?
> 
> No great grandfather at Vimy  Ridge?  No grandfather at Falaise?  No father in Bosnia?


I definitely do no fault anyone for me not seeing any advertising. I have had many of my relatives get into the military, some even forced. I have a 1914-15 medal, victory medal, and British war medal. It’s just in my family the topic of conversation is 99% of the time is about the Canadian Pacific Railway. Never ever speak about anything in relation to the military.



> Some may not realize it but we have a labour shortage of qualified individuals here in Ontario also.


This is true. As my brother and I have found very little problem with getting a job. However there are definitely people who are simply impossible to get a job. In fact today a recruiter told me that a dishonourable discharge would make it very impossible to get a job. So again it’s it very stereotypical to suggest everyone on welfare is scum. From my own personal friends, he and his father were on welfare and simply couldn’t find a job. He has a doctorate chemistry, pharmacy-stuff, and biology. Very respectable American universities but since it was slightly after 9/11-WTC. Nobody would hire him as a Muslim Arab. Welfare is the best he could do, despite his massive brain. He eventually found a job under an Asian manager and it made that pharmacy so productive and he helped run it so well that they are now building a new one - a3rd pharmacy. Was my friend’s dad scum? If you say yes you should jump off a bridge.



> the bitter comment is that to work even at a lousy job you need to speak 3 languages, have 2 doctorates, at least 7 years experience and be younger than 21.


Jeeese Louise younger then 21 years old and 2 doctorates, I have some pretty smart friends but woowzers none of them even have a bachelors. I know you’re kidding by the way.



> Following your free-market thinking, isn't a labour shortage simply a result of the employers not paying enough to attract enough staff?


Or perhaps because there are employers breaking the law… I had a job for a whole week doing excavation. It got pretty bad when a black man walks up to the owner and foreman of the business and asked for a job. The response was. I do not hire N-ers , sp=cs, and other bad racist words. Then I looked around and seen that it was pretty much true. I walked off the job after that without any notice. Just because it’s virtually against the law, doesn’t mean employers don’t do it. If you even look at it; an employer could be breaking every one of the discrimination laws but simply never actually show it, they could get away with it.


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> It could also be a result of the employers having to compete with a government that pays people to sit on their asses.



True enough.  Offering a wage that doesn't compete favourably with the welfare rate is definitely not the way to attract employees.


----------



## GO!!! (7 Jun 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Following your free-market thinking, isn't a labour shortage simply a result of the employers not paying enough to attract enough staff?



No, we are not suffering from a _national_ labour shortage, but a _regional_ one here in Alberta. 

This has resulted in generations of job seeking Maritimers coming west - and good on them. 

I am stating that I have little sympathy for supposedly intelligent and educated individuals who suckle at the government teat in one province while unskilled labourers make 50K/year in another. Employers here pay excellent wages - there are simply not enough workers.


----------



## pbi (8 Jun 2006)

GO- I beg to differ. AFAIK, there is a serious national labour shortage, especially in the building and skilled trades areas, but affecting things all across the economy. IIRC, the numbers in the building trades are in the tens of thousands. I have heard a similar figure for long-haul truck drivers. Here in Southern Ontario(for example), employers are pressuring the govt to amend immigration regulations to permit the import of more skilled workers, and to recognize the qualifications of people already here. I know there was a similar situation in Manitoba when I lived there 2002-2005: workers were being imported from Germany for the agri-industries.

I do agree with you that, somewhere along the way in our national history, native-born Canadians seem to have lost the drive to pack up and move to where the jobs are. If you look back into our history, especially in rural Ontario in the later part of the 19th century and early 20th century, you can find dozens of communities (some still on the map today) that became ghost towns as the local economies failed and people pulled up sticks to go elsewhere.

Cheers


----------



## Rory (8 Jun 2006)

Just a quick question, when/why did a thread about conscription turn into importing immigrants to cover job spots in the civvie world? Just curious, might of missed the post where the fork in the road began (or atleast the sign that told me where I was going).


----------



## geo (8 Jun 2006)

Rory said:
			
		

> Just a quick question, when/why did a thread about conscription turn into importing immigrants to cover job spots in the civvie world? Just curious, might of missed the post where the fork in the road began (or atleast the sign that told me where I was going).


Conscription puts people to work.  If there is already a labour shortage, initiating conscription pushes everything over the top... if there is a labour shortage - then is it not advantageous to open up immigration and allow people from outside to help fill those openings?


----------



## Rory (8 Jun 2006)

Ok, sorry just missed the boat on that one. But if conscription was there wouldn't make that problem go away, I mean not everyone on welfare or out of employment may be meeting certain requirements etc. Though it would help knock off a bit of that.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jun 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Conscription puts people to work.  If there is already a labour shortage, initiating conscription pushes everything over the top... if there is a labour shortage - then is it not advantageous to open up immigration and allow people from outside to help fill those openings?



Very true, but as long as Canada's continues to be a resource based economy, a labour shortage is not a completely bad thing either, despite short term considerations.

None of our natural resources are going anywhere, and they are only getting more valuable. A labour shortage, be it regional or national is really only providing long term stability for these industries.


----------



## TCBF (8 Jun 2006)

"None of our natural resources are going anywhere, and they are only getting more valuable. A labour shortage, be it regional or national is really only providing long term stability for these industries."

- Interesting point.  What IS the hurry to get all of the oil out of Alberta, anyhow?


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jun 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Interesting point.  What IS the hurry to get all of the oil out of Alberta, anyhow?



I'm not really sure. 

It would seem to me that we could benefit from this resource for a few hundred more years if we exracted it slowly, and took advantage of ever higher commodity prices to make up the difference in lost production.

I suppose any centralised control of this would smack of socialism, but the practice of extracting ALL of the resources immediately would seem to be a bit shortsighted in the face of ever rising commodity prices.


----------



## mustialwaysremember (9 Jun 2006)

HighlandFusilier said:
			
		

> heavens no.
> 
> conscript army is a bane to a professional army unless you're looking for cannon fodders



Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.


----------



## pbi (9 Jun 2006)

mustialwaysremember said:
			
		

> Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.



What? ???


Cheers


----------



## FastEddy (9 Jun 2006)

mustialwaysremember said:
			
		

> Yes true..only if many many Canadians civilians die would I support conscription.




If Banned means the inability to post after being Banned, how come this person is posting on (to-day 9 June 2006). Or was he just Banned to-day ?.


----------



## TCBF (10 Jun 2006)

"Banned on the run,  Banned on the run..." - P. McCartney


----------



## JackD (10 Jun 2006)

Good God TCBF - how old are you? I first heard that one in Egypt.  Nice posting by the way.. went there after 7 months in Alert, came out looking like an emaciated dog...A quick question on World War Two Conscription. Were those conscripted and who did not go overseas (or get involved in testing Chemical weapons) allotted pensions? If so, then what are the pension rights for those who served in Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan? Surely these people should have the same pension rights.. or is that why none of these "operations" are considered 'wars"? i think if this aspect is cleared up and those who do serve in such places are allotted full veteran's rights, then conscription is a mute issue. In other words if people see that you get something decent in return, then more people will join up. I'm not saying that people join only for money, (good God I didn't and pay in the 70's was piss-poor) but if it is perceived that people are rewarded for their levels of responsibility and willingness to accept the risk that come with the job, then people will join - the "You worked for us, now we are going to look after you" aspect of a job is what many people look for.


----------



## pbi (12 Jun 2006)

JackD said:
			
		

> Good God TCBF - how old are you? I first heard that one in Egypt.  Nice posting by the way.. went there after 7 months in Alert, came out looking like an emaciated dog...A quick question on World War Two Conscription. Were those conscripted and who did not go overseas (or get involved in testing Chemical weapons) allotted pensions? If so, then what are the pension rights for those who served in Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan? Surely these people should have the same pension rights.. or is that why none of these "operations" are considered 'wars"? i think if this aspect is cleared up and those who do serve in such places are allotted full veteran's rights, then conscription is a mute issue. In other words if people see that you get something decent in return, then more people will join up. I'm not saying that people join only for money, (good God I didn't and pay in the 70's was piss-poor) but if it is perceived that people are rewarded for their levels of responsibility and willingness to accept the risk that come with the job, then people will join - the "You worked for us, now we are going to look after you" aspect of a job is what many people look for.



JackD: I can't comment on WWII, but any Regular Force person who served in any of those areas you mentioned counts it as normal pensionable time. I am not aware of any special benefits to the normal pension just because of where we have served: I have served in Cyprus, Mozambique, Croatia and Afghanistan and I'm not aware of anything "extra" that I would get, under the normal Superannuation Act pension. However, we do get a number of other quite good non-pension benefits related to duty in such areas, while we are actually on the operation. For Reserve soldiers, it may be somewhat different, as the Reserve pension program is new and still has not been fully sorted out, as far as I know (I stand to be corrected here by a more knowledgeable poster). But even a Res soldier, when on active duty on operations such as Afgh, gets most of those non-pension benefits too.  Overall our total pay and benefits package today is miles beyond where it was in the '70s. All things considered (IMHO) we do much better than most other armies. You can "cherry-pick" certain benefits in other armies, but I think if you take all of the factors that go into "quality of life" (QOL), we do very well.

Cheers


----------



## geo (12 Jun 2006)

to continue on pbi's thread..... Reservists are / will be entitled to a pension shortly.  Also,  both Reg & Res who come off a mission with some form of PTSD are being looked after by veteran affairs (so long as it has been well documented while in service).


----------



## JackD (15 Jun 2006)

Hi! Thanks for that information. As you know turn-over is high and it is good to know that something is being done for the short-service veteran (for lack of better term). Just from my own experience - getting every injury documented is a good idea - and every posting too (God, I went to Egypt in 1976 and there was no documentation on that..) - as some of us older gents know, effects of injuries and disease show up later in life. Yes, I'm happy about this info... it is only right that the nation returns something to those who actually put something into it - (not just 'celebrities, politicians and their ilk). I do hope that units maintain strong regimental/unit associations for reasons such as this - to identify and inform the veteran who may have a developing problem (effects from the Agent orange spraying in Gagetown for example), not to mention the carrying-over of intergenerational links.


----------



## exsemjingo (19 Jun 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Bullshit; just because a country doesn't employ troops it doesn't imply cowardice on a national scale, simply differing priorities. How does one even apply cowardice on a national scale in any event? You just invalidated your entire post with that.



I will tell you what; go ask people on the street of this country what they think of our Afghanistan mission.  I did when I told people of my decision to join up.  You would get responses like "Oh, I wouldn't go... war is bad" and "You'll get killed, I know it."  These aren't just ignorant sentiments; these ideas form political platforms for national parties.  I.E. The recent motion to stay in Afghanistan in Parliament passed by 4 votes only. (!)  That's the kind of thing I am referring too.

Proof's in the pudding.  Nations that do not want to fight, won't.  Afghanistan and Iraq aren't the only places in the world that need attention, but those other places just go on hurting.
Europe used to be the definitive power broker in the world.  The morals of Imperialism (or lack thereof) are another discussion, but for good or bad it's not anymore, and that's why.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (30 Jun 2006)

The days of useful conscription for warm bodies are over.  War is a trade, and a damn complicated one.  The very last thing that we need is warm, untrained, unmotivated bodies.  The ability to draft conscription legislation in an emergency is useful, and the point of that would be to recall to the colours all of those who had prior military training, activate all reserve personnel, and provide legal means for selecting from the civilian population those individuals with key skills that are needed for the crisis at hand.  That could mean military control over medical resources and establishments, or simply personnel if the mission were overseas.  It could see telecommunications personnel (for hardware) or software experts (for viral attacks) to restore communications after terrorist action.  It could mean nationalization of heavy construction companies and equipment and drafting of applicable skilled operators, planners, managers etc to respond to a natural disaster.  It could likewise involve the drafting of select industrial planners, scientists and engineers to pursue crash development of materials deemed necessary to the national interests.
      What I don't see, is the need for 150,000 untrained 18-24year olds.  If all we need is someone to catch bullets that might otherwise hit a usefull soldier, we can still use the Senate!


----------



## FastEddy (3 Jul 2006)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> The days of useful conscription for warm bodies are over.  War is a trade, and a damn complicated one.  The very last thing that we need is warm, untrained, unmotivated bodies.  The ability to draft conscription legislation in an emergency is useful, and the point of that would be to recall to the colours all of those who had prior military training, activate all reserve personnel, and provide legal means for selecting from the civilian population those individuals with key skills that are needed for the crisis at hand.  That could mean military control over medical resources and establishments, or simply personnel if the mission were overseas.  It could see telecommunications personnel (for hardware) or software experts (for viral attacks) to restore communications after terrorist action.  It could mean nationalization of heavy construction companies and equipment and drafting of applicable skilled operators, planners, managers etc to respond to a natural disaster.  It could likewise involve the drafting of select industrial planners, scientists and engineers to pursue crash development of materials deemed necessary to the national interests.
> What I don't see, is the need for 150,000 untrained 18-24year olds.  If all we need is someone to catch bullets that might otherwise hit a usefull soldier, we can still use the Senate!




I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds a lot like the Old Pre U.S.S.R ERA in Russia.

As far of the Technical Advancement of Warfare, you sure didn't have to be a Rocket Science for the last three major engagements and obvious the same down the road. Just ask the families of the 2500 U.S Marines and Soldiers.

Your appraisal sounds a lot like an selfcentered elitist . All the high flying attitudes will never replace the simple good old, well equipped, well trained, well disciplined and patriotic Infantryman. You don,t need to have a three Degrees , a PhD and the body of a Greek God.

If our Armed Forces are not able to take the not so perfect specimens of mankind and shape him up in all respects, then maybe we should start hiring Mercenaries. And even if they can't be brought up to the rigorous standards of the Combat Arms, there are many other Trades they could be assigned to. These persons might also have a desire to serve. And Serve and Died in the pass they have.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (3 Jul 2006)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong but it sounds a lot like the Old Pre U.S.S.R ERA in Russia.
> 
> As far of the Technical Advancement of Warfare, you sure didn't have to be a Rocket Science for the last three major engagements and obvious the same down the road. Just ask the families of the 2500 U.S Marines and Soldiers.
> 
> ...


      You have missed the point.  A good soldier does not need a PhD and the body of a Greek god, but he or she does need the will and desire to serve their country to the limit of their abilities.  We can and do take those with the heart and soul of a soldier and train them into whatever role they are best suited for, be it combat arms, or support trade.  But one of my WO's used to say, "I'd rather beat some sense into a pack of wolves, than some spine into a herd of sheep".  While the combat infantryman of today does not have to be a rocket scientist, he does have to be a self directing disciplined individual who is able to make, and live with split second decisions upon which dozens of lives will hang.  The private soldier today requires more initiative than was commonly allotted to even Sgts in pre-WWII armies.  If you think the qualities that make a good combat infantryman, able to walk the fine line our troops are trodding in Afghanistan today, are found in the average kid on our streets, take a good HARD look at the next few you pass.  This generation of Canadians boasts men and women as fine and noble as any nation has ever claimed, and from their ranks we draw our soldiers.  We also have a mass of utterly useless sheep whose finest service to the nation is paying taxes, as frequently even voting is beyond their abilities.  As far as mercenaries goes, any nation that is so contemptable as to be unable to raise its defenders from its own sons and daughters deserves the fate meted out to those who think that gold alone can buy their safety.


----------



## L + W Infanteer (8 Jul 2006)

Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.

I think this slogan I've seen on a t-shirt is somewhat related to this topic....

Canada drafts beer, not soldiers.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (8 Jul 2006)

Conscription for Canadian Army during WW II see the War Museum link here http://www.civilization.ca/cwm/newspapers/canadawar/conscription_e.html
that mostly sums that  up and deals with the problems they had then.

I do not think in todays world of a highly trained army would conscripts worl out for the best in most cases.
If they  forced some one to train for 1 to 2 year period. That would get them thru recruit, basic and maybe first level of the trades training, then what would we have, a partially trained soldier and he/ she would be cut from the forces and money spent to train the replacement to the same skill level, then it would start all over in most cases. Cost factors would be high and return would be low. 
Pro:
1) larger number of persons trained to the basic level and more subject to recall if required ( if there was a recall opition factored into the training)
2) lots of people to do the lower level duties on taskings when required
3) lots of warm bodies for parades and pr work
4) some might want to stay on after the term of service is done
i am sure you all could come up with more uses for the soldiers who are not going to be around after 1 to 2 years of service that would be a positive use of man power
Cons:
1) cost of training 
2) where to house the extra bodies, not enough barrack space on all bases now to house those there now let alone the conscripts
3) how many  would come to the Forces if required after release?
4) cost of equiping such a short term 

in my opinion it would be a waste of the few bucks the military gets for training and equipment to have Conscription used in Canada.
The goal of the CF should be recruiting some one who wants to make it a career and who wants to make a long term stay  in the Forces rather then recruit and train short timers. The cost in training a long term soldier benefits Canada in more ways then training a whole lot of short term half trained soldiers. You need more then 2 years to be any  good at msot trades. I am looking at 4 years of working everyday  to become a tradesperson in my career now. 2 Years of work just gets me my second set of exams and some more class training and I just want to build houses. So no to Conscripion in Canada


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

So....are you proposing something like this:

National Service of ten to twelve months for all 18 to 20 year olds.  They would have the opportunity on graduation from High School of serving in the Military, a Police Force, another Emergency Service like Fire or Ambulance, or in an Orderly/Nursing position in a Hospital or Care Facility.  That would cover all within that age group, healthy or handicapped, and include "Contentious Objectors" (who could work other than in the Military.)

For the Military, they would be brought in during the months of Sep and Oct and sent to St Jean and Borden for BMQ.  From there they would be sent to the Cbt Arms Units for their SQ and Trades Trg.  Then they would partake in a Div Level Exercise in Wainwright or Gagetown and be released at the end of Aug through Sep of the following year.  If they decided to 'volunteer' from there they would CT to the Reg Force and go directly onto further Trades Training in a Trade of their choice.  

That would not end the Volunteer System that we currently have, which would continue to function as it is.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

Conscription is a popular topic in many circles.  Here is another discussion on it:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=16745


----------



## FastEddy (9 Jul 2006)

L + W Infanteer said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.
> 
> I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.
> 
> ...




And what do you base your statement on, Volunteers would not trust theirs lives to a Draftee.

I find that statement derogatory to all the brave U.S. Servicemen & Women who died in Vietnam who were either Drafted or Volunteered.

If you've seen a lot of the T-Shirts you've described, then you are hanging out in all the wrong places.

Also, you might consider filling out your Profile.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Jul 2006)

L + W Infanteer said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.
> 
> I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.
> 
> ...



Good Gawd, Lad.  What do you learn in school anymore?  Have you not heard of the Conscription Crisis, or Zombies??  

If they aren't teaching you this history in school, then quit trolling the boards and do some RESEARCH.


----------



## acclenticularis (9 Jul 2006)

_*Please correct me if I'm wrong...but I'm pretty sure Canada did not conscript in World War 2.

I think conscription is a horrible thing, for both those forced into combat and for those who volunteer and don't want to trust their life to someone who was forced into service.*_

Never heard of 'conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription'?  Only one of the most famous lines uttered in Canadian history.  And then, of course it became necessary.  The conscription crisis of '44 does not ring a bell?  So what if only a few hundred saw action in the European theatre ... there was conscripion in WWII.


----------



## Hayrick (9 Jul 2006)

Well I thought I would add my 2 cents to this interesting topic.

I say no to conscription.  The only time I could see a need of it is in a time of crisis and being a last resort.

It was discussed earlier in the thread about incentives.  I thought a good incentive was the do X amount of service for X amount of tuition subsidized to a school of your choice.  This way you get motivated people that want to join to be able to afford an education.  Who knows, they may even decide to stay.

CHIMO!


----------



## Tyson Fox (12 Apr 2010)

Just wondering, I read an interesting article on the subject, and the cons of making it a policy were pretty weak. It seems to work well in Cuba, but I don't know much about that. It wouldn't be impossible to get out of it either, religion, disability, all the tests and such. Of course, I doubt it would be viable in reality, and especially in a peaceful time like now. Too many people would "fail" the fitness exams.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

I read this article on High School Social Interaction and wonder if it applies here?

Meanwhile:

Would Mandatory National Service make the CF stronger?

Most Swedes support mandatory military service: poll 

Mandatory service, but not necessarily military service 

No more Mandatory Military Service in Lebanon

National Service






YeaH!  It has been done to death.


----------



## MikeL (12 Apr 2010)

Tyson Fox said:
			
		

> and especially in a peaceful time like now.



It's peace full now is it, when did this happen  :


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

By all accounts, what forced conscription does is water down the military in terms of every soldier not wanting to be there*, but in the big picture it tends to make the country better in the long-run because you end up with citizens who have a stronger sense of duty and morals, as well as caring more about the country because they have personally invested in it.  Further, anything to encourage fitness is great.

*Note* Mitigated somewhat by countries like Lithuania and others who keep their constricts separate from their volunteers (which is what I would highly recommend).  That way the troops who want to be there can still be part of front line units with high morale where every soldier knows he can trust the guy beside him, and the conscript-only units can fill the other roles.  I'm not saying they can't be Infantry, just that they wouldn't be the A Team.

Any attempt to mix volunteers with conscripts in the same section would be disastrous.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2010)

Strange that.....I couldn't tell one from the other......both were good soldiers......

And your experience is based on??......................


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> And your experience is based on??......................



I was part of a fairly long cross-training exercise in fall 06 (when some of my Regimental brothers were doing real work) in Lithuania where we (Para Coy of 3 RCR) trained them as well as soldiers from Poland and Ukraine.

I was exposed quite a bit to the attitudes of both conscripts and reg force soldiers because I instructed several classes to them, and the difference was night and day.  The reg force soldiers were very similar to ours in that they would care about what you were teaching them because it was directly related to what they wanted to do in life.  Then I would instruct to one of the conscript platoons and was pretty much what teaching a modern high school class would be like; nobody cared, females twirled their hair as they looked out the window, and the males were being goofs.  

The content simply did not matter to them because they didn't ask to join, and they were just counting down the days until their couple years were up so they could get on with their life.

While this certainly does not represent the entire world, I do think it would closely parallel any peace time Army that has conscription.

I think the only time you would see conscripts genuinely trying hard and become good at what they do is if they felt the survival of their country was at stake, like a WW2 environment or present day Israel.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2010)

> While Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine certainly does not represent the entire world, I do think it would closely parallel any peace time Army that has conscription.



Really? So your classroom experience with conscripts and volunteers is what you are basing this on. I'm basing my experience on real live soldiers in the field.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

While I was certainly not in Vietnam and make no attempts to comment on the actions of those drafted who saw and did more in their year than I have in my career, I find it hard to believe that (other than certain exceptions) a group on conscripts could out-perform (or equal) a group of soldiers who want to be in the Army.

I am more than willing to listen though.  I am basing my opinion on logic, but if your experiences have demonstrated to you that as a whole they can live up to Reg Force soldiers then I am completely willing to listen and take that into account.

The hurdle I am having a difficult time getting over is the part about someone who by his very nature does not want to be there performing as well as someone who does.  Again, I am not talking about exceptions but trends.

I am sure there were all sorts of cases of draftees in Veitnam rising to the challenge and doing some amazing things when lives were on the line, but to say that they did it as well as volunteers did would fundamentally shift my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Apr 2010)

Since we have had this topic before I am shutting it down.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Let's put it this way.  You both have different experiences and different perspectives on this.  There are even more.  Most NATO countries, until recently, had conscript armies.  Every country's conscripts, like current day volunteer armies, were trained to different calibres than those of other nations.  Some were good.  Some were trash.  We have nineteen pages of this discussion already. http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24424/post-8929.html#msg8929


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

My apologies guys, I had never seen the other thread before I answered the posts above mine (on the new thread that has now been merged).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> My apologies guys, I had never seen the other thread before I answered the posts above mine (on the new thread that has now been merged).



Its why we encourage members to use the Search function. People may get sick of seeing us say it but believe me, most of us are sick of typing it over and over again.


----------



## Fusaki (12 Apr 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Really? So your classroom experience with conscripts and volunteers is what you are basing this on. I'm basing my experience on real live soldiers in the field.



Your opinions then, don't necessarily conflict.

I'd imagine that conscripts in Vietnam were, for the most part, motivated to do their jobs well because their survival depended on it.

Conscripts in a peacetime army, such as the one Petamocto was exposed to, could have been less motivated because had less of a vested interest in mission success.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

Since this is all on one thread now I feel less guilty about replying.

I am completely willing to grant that a wartime conscript will be far more useful than a peacetime conscript.

I am also willing to grant that a small percentage of conscripts have proven to be better soldiers under fire than a small percentage of volunteers.

The above is common ground that I think we can agree we agree on (fingers crossed here...?).

Could we now please discuss the "en masse" or "mixed" type scenarios, both in combat?  GAP, from your experience, a couple questions if I may:

1.  Do you feel a platoon of conscripts could be made to equal an volunteer platoon after one year of training for a one-year deployment? (Using the conscript serving two years for argument's sake).

2.  Do you feel that a section of mixed volunteer and conscripts (say 4 of each) could merge as tightly as an all-volunteer section, or that a volunteer soldier would trust a conscript fire team partner the same?

Please take what I am asking as me being in a data collection phase, not in any way me trying to counterpoint anything you have said above.  I am genuinely interested in the unique wisdom you have on this topic (certainly no serving Canadians I work with) and I want to learn from it if I can .


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2010)

Let's take this back six years:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> ............................
> 
> Let's not get tied up in knots here.   By National Service, we are not talking about all these kids joining the military.   We are talking about some sort of service that could include the RCMP, OPP, Fire Services, Paramedics, Hospital Orderlies, etc.   Yes the military would take up the majority, as it and the RCMP are probably the two largest such organizations in the country.   That would give these organizations bodies to fill their depleted ranks.
> 
> ......................................................


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Apr 2010)

Hey, we're back in Kabul and Michael Jackson is still alive!


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> 1.  Do you feel a platoon of conscripts could be made to equal an volunteer platoon after one year of training for a one-year deployment? (Using the conscript serving two years for argument's sake).



Col David Hackworth wrote extensively about his experience with both Regular and conscript troops in the Viet Nam war, and the essential element according to him boiled down to leadership.

If the unit leadership really cared about the troops and went all out to train them properly, then outstanding results could be achieved. My copy of "About Face" is packed away somewhere, but one battalion Hackworth thought highly of had the nickname "The Centurions", and benefited from the commander's decision to segregate them from everyone else, train them as a unit and include hardcore and realistic training in the Panama Canal Zone's Jungle warfare school before deployment. On the other hand, Col Hackworth's comments on the training system as it existed at the time are quite scathing, including lack of standards, and unrealistic training (one training company he monitored did their predeployment FTX in the middle of winter in Washington State, somewhat like training for Kandahar by deploying to Wainwright in the middle of January...). Since this is pretty much your scenario, the answer is "Yes" if the proper conditions are met.



> 2.  Do you feel that a section of mixed volunteer and conscripts (say 4 of each) could merge as tightly as an all-volunteer section, or that a volunteer soldier would trust a conscript fire team partner the same?



Once again this would depend on leadership. While most of the units Hackworth observed (and commanded) in the later stages of the Viet Nam war were made up of conscripts, the leadership above the "Shake and Bake" NCO's did consist of Regular soldiers, and when well integrated by the command team (Read Hackworth's account of turning the 4/39 around in About Face and "Steel My Soldier's Hearts") a high level of mutual trust was developed.

I suppose the real answer is "it depends", and the leadership must be able and willing to go all out to train their soldiers and look after the welfare of the men and women entrusted to them. How they do that depends on many factors (being liked isn't one of them, Hackworth's soldiers in the 4/39 reportedly put a bounty on his head, although no one was stupid enough to go for it). Wartime also changes the motivation, conscript soldiers will find it behooves them to learn the trade and learn well when rounds are coming back at them...


----------



## pbi (13 Apr 2010)

Wow! Wander away for a couple of years and look what happens! (_Plus ca change_, etc...)

I'm with Thucydides on this one: it's mainly all about leadership. As we've seen in our own Army over the years, a group of volunteer professionals are just as capable of being very bad soldiers as any group of conscripts (although our last real experience with draftees was a VERY long time ago). When you look at how a unit performs (or doesn't...) you're almost always looking at the results of leadership. ("Rabbits led by a lion" vs "lions led by a rabbit" etc..)

A second factor worth considering (as some posters have already pointed out) is how the society looks at conscription in the first place. Is it seen as a necessary (and maybe even honourable) civic duty, or is it a hated burden to be avoided? How is the military regarded in general? We know that in our own country the history of conscription has been a very painful and divisive one, resulting in everything from troops firing on a crowd to mutiny to a historical legacy that tells us that we could "never" have conscription again.

The third thing is the purpose of the conscription. Is it to send troops to an unpopular foreign war, for unclear purposes? Or is it to defend the homeland? Even within that there can be variations: IIRC, the UK used conscript National Service soldiers in Malaya with some success (although Regular units were there as well).

Personally, I think it's always going to be a non-starter in Canada, both for the military and for the emergency services (as was suggested), except in a time of great national peril. The argument against military national service is pretty well known already. I have no doubt that the respective trade unions/associations for the police, EMS and professional firefighters would bitterly oppose conscripts as "scabs", much as a few ill-informed members of those services do now towards volunteer firefighters, auxiliary police, etc.

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick (13 Apr 2010)

How about this for a far out funky idea. Just throwing it out there.

Instead of conscription, have an extended BMQ (say like 16 weeks) mandatory for all healthy canadians 18-22. After completing BMQ, they are free to leave or they can join the regular or reserve CF.

Some people dead set agaisnt the idea would probably change their minds after acheiving some things they never thought possible in BMQ, they may also develop camraderie and a new level of physical fitness. This might "trigger" some good kids who have been steered in the right direction to change their minds about what they will do with their lives.

BTW, I didn't think forever on this idea, it just popped in my head and I am throwing it out there.

Like the idea? hate the idea? Do I get lynched? Do I get cheered?

Waiting in a semi-duck position ready to evade rotten tomatoes flying at my skull...


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Apr 2010)

This document (PDF) gives a cadre size of 2,125,900 for the age group 15-19 years (in 2004).  This would, on average, mean that about 425,000 young Canadians would be old enough in any one year to enter your proposed program. 

Let's say that we accept any and all rational excuses for exemption (deferrals only postpone training requirements) and let's say about 75% will enter the program each year.  That leaves us with just over 300,000 needing to be trained in your national service BMQ each year.

If we accept your plan for a 16-week training period, we can have three cycles per year using the same staff and supporting resources.

Three cycles per year means we need to train 100,000 people during each cycle.

That's 2000 50-man BMQ platoons at once.

What's your infrastructure and funding plan?


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it's always going to be a non-starter in Canada, both for the military and for the emergency services (as was suggested), except in a time of great national peril. The argument against military national service is pretty well known already. I have no doubt that the respective trade unions/associations for the police, EMS and professional firefighters would bitterly oppose conscripts as "scabs", much as a few ill-informed members of those services do now towards volunteer firefighters, auxiliary police, etc.
> Cheers



Young people are more than welcome. 
"Toronto EMS, in partnership with Scouts Canada, operates a vocational Venturer Company and Rover Crew for male and female youth ages 14 to 25. The group consists of a two Venturer companies: 1st Downsview and 1st Scarborough. 
Toronto EMS MedVent training staff provide the youth with EMS certified first aid training as well as orientation in EMS procedures. They are also assisted by civilian trainer Rick Speckeen, Jenny Leung and Adam Gesicki as well as numerous community college students in the CTS Canadian Career College paramedic program.
Toronto EMS Education and Development oversees the medical training which is provided to Toronto EMS standards."

Toronto Fire Service has a similar program.:
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/venturers.htm

I believe York Regional and Ottawa Police Services also offer Venturer progams.


----------



## dangerboy (13 Apr 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> How about this for a far out funky idea. Just throwing it out there.
> 
> Instead of conscription, have an extended BMQ (say like 16 weeks) mandatory for all healthy canadians 18-22. After completing BMQ, they are free to leave or they can join the regular or reserve CF.
> 
> Like the idea? hate the idea? Do I get lynched? Do I get cheered?



Just one point in regards to this from a school point of view.  As you know we have a hard enough time training the number of soldiers we have right now.  Without a major increase in the number of MCpls and Sgts we would not be able to train that number of people.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Apr 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Just one point in regards to this from a school point of view.  As you know we have a hard enough time training the number of soldiers we have right now.  Without a major increase in the number of MCpls and Sgts we would not be able to train that number of people.



This is a problem.  To produce the numbers required, would mean accelerated promotions.  This would for the most part lower the calibre of the instructors both knowledge and experience wise.  Yes, I do agree that there are some who would do well, but for the numbers required there would be a steep drop in the quality of the instructor pool.  Only time would overcome this problem.

Now, remember as well, not all of these people would be coming into the military.  They would be flooding other organizations as well.  "Conscientious Objectors" would not likely join the military or police, and would likely land up in the Health Care System (more cries for Health Care dollars).  All these other organizations would be facing the same dilemma as well.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> How about this for a far out funky idea. Just throwing it out there.
> 
> Instead of conscription, have an extended BMQ (say like 16 weeks) mandatory for all healthy canadians 18-22. After completing BMQ, they are free to leave or they can join the regular or reserve CF.
> 
> ...



Shades of SYEP... which actually turned out soem good people.


----------



## SeanNewman (13 Apr 2010)

I realize this is just a discussion for debate's sake, but to be honest I just can't ever see anything like this happening in Canada.

Some human rights groups deem any sort of conscription as slavery because your freedom is essentially taken away without your consent and you belong to the State.

There is no way I can see that happening in Canada.

[/reality]

Game on!


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2010)

Conscription *is* slavery, particularly military conscription, where you are forcing people into unlimited liability contracts.

The primary argument for universal service is to "build communities and cohesion". This might work in a well established society like Switzerland, where this is a rite of passage going back 500 years and people who decline national service find their avenues in life are blocked. (This isn't saying it is right, just an observation).

A Science Fiction novel (Manna. by Lee Correy) postulated a society where there was "Universal Military Training" as part of high school education, allowing the regular army to be augmented by an armed rabble in the event of an invasion (although even the author, speaking through one of the characters, recognizes this is a danger for _everyone_ involved in the fray). I would say this is a poorly thought out idea, particularly when you consider skill fade.

If the true motivation is to gain cohorts of motivated, civic minded *citizens*, then I would vote for making "outward bound" part of the high school curriculum. We get team building, "hands on" experience in solving problems and a useful set of skills to build on. Throw in standard first aid and financial literacy and you have well rounded, independent citizens who would make outstanding recruits should they decide to enlist.


----------



## pbi (16 Apr 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Young people are more than welcome...
> 
> ...I believe York Regional and Ottawa Police Services also offer Venturer progams.



This is all good and an excellent project, but it isn't what I was driving at. I was referring to the idea that the actual uniformed services (not their cadets or sponsored Scout troops) would contain National Service people in their ranks. I don't think this would go over well with the unions/associations at all, considering that National Service usually provides a fairly low rate of pay.

Cheers


----------



## mariomike (16 Apr 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> I was referring to the idea that the actual uniformed services (not their cadets or sponsored Scout troops) would contain National Service people in their ranks.
> Cheers



National Service recruits could be trained as firefighters.: "Training tends to vary between approximately 12 and 16 weeks, depending on such factors as class size and previous firefighting experience of the recruits in the class."
http://www.toronto.ca/fire/recruitment/faq.htm#a12
But, that would open a can of worms with their union.

I could see a paid - rather than volunteer - Auxiliary police. But, again what would the police associations, and Police Services Act, have to say? Would they even let them direct traffic? 

The first, last, and only time I saw, or heard of, anything like you mention where I worked was during the SARS quarantine. Mayor Mel declared a State of Emergency. 
Students were hired - I don't know what they were paying them - to Deep Clean ambulances. There was a grievance from the union, because Deep Cleans are part of the Equipment Technician's Job Description, so they had to let them go. 
Interestingly, every summer they hire students to clean stations, and do clerical work. Those jobs belong to a different union, so there is no problem.
Almost all of their parents were management. 
I should add that I am not condoning or defending past practices. But, that is how it was.


Cheers.


----------



## pbi (17 Apr 2010)

OK-we are on the same net. 

Having said that, if we had a Civil Defence Service, similar to what existed in the 1950s and early 60's, that might be more of a natural destination for people doing National Service, who don't want to serve in the CF. An organization like CD, which would become involved only in major incidents when local services were stretched, wouldn't look as much like a threat to unionized members.


----------



## mariomike (18 Apr 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> OK-we are on the same net.
> Having said that, if we had a Civil Defence Service, similar to what existed in the 1950s and early 60's, that might be more of a natural destination for people doing National Service, who don't want to serve in the CF. An organization like CD, which would become involved only in major incidents when local services were stretched, wouldn't look as much like a threat to unionized members.



Metro Emergency Services had the Emergency Measures Organization EMO until it was disbanded in 1975. EMO was responsible for maintaining a disaster response network, a heavy rescue service, disaster planning and training to deal with disasters.
All we have left over from EMO is the Casualty Collection Units CCU's.:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/emu/ness/ccu_storage.html
Now, there's the Office of Emergency Management OEM and Heavy Urban Search and Rescue HUSAR:
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/main.htm
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/husar/index.htm


----------



## pbi (18 Apr 2010)

If The Big One ever hits Vancouver, the HUSAR tasks will be far beyond the capacity of the VFD (whatever might remain of it), or any other mutual aid fire services. The HUSAR teams from Calgary and Toronto would take quite a while to reach the scene, and once they got there could only handle a limited number of sites. The Army, as proven in Haiti during OP HESTIA, has a very limited HUSAR capability (although we could support HUSAR in various ways, and do lighter, lower-risk rescue work).

So, what capacity exists in the Lower Mainland, or the rest of BC, to rapidly generate trained, equipped and mobile HUSAR teams capable of reaching the affected area in a timely way? This might be a good target for a resurrection of CD in a limited way: create something like the Heavy Rescue Squads that augmented the Fire Services during WWII in England. These could be trained and held in readiness on a volunteer or part-time basis, or maybe made part of a National Service scheme.

Cheers


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> If The Big One ever hits Vancouver, the HUSAR tasks will be far beyond the capacity of the VFD (whatever might remain of it), or any other mutual aid fire services. The HUSAR teams from Calgary and Toronto would take quite a while to reach the scene, and once they got there could only handle a limited number of sites. The Army, as proven in Haiti during OP HESTIA, has a very limited HUSAR capability (although we could support HUSAR in various ways, and do lighter, lower-risk rescue work).
> 
> So, what capacity exists in the Lower Mainland, or the rest of BC, to rapidly generate trained, equipped and mobile HUSAR teams capable of reaching the affected area in a timely way? This might be a good target for a resurrection of CD in a limited way: create something like the Heavy Rescue Squads that augmented the Fire Services during WWII in England. These could be trained and held in readiness on a volunteer or part-time basis, or maybe made part of a National Service scheme.
> 
> Cheers



Regarding Vancouver. Something you know, but I did not.:
"If the major earthquake predicted for the lower mainland of British Columbia were to occur, studies done in 1989 for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicate that 10-30% of residential construction would become uninhabitable and up to 30% of transportation routes unusable. Fifty to 100% of un-reinforced masonry buildings would collapse. Up to 60% of older schools and hospitals (constructed prior to 1940) that have not been strengthened would become unusable. In a 1990 study, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation compared the damage done in the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake
with what could be expected in the Greater Vancouver area following a major earthquake. 
The report concluded that the level of damage in the Greater Vancouver area would be greater than that experienced in California, due primarily to differences in seismic building codes and geology."
http://www.toronto.ca/wes/techservices/oem/husar/background.htm

Re: Vancouver earthquake:
"Up to 60% of older schools and hospitals (constructed prior to 1940) that have not been strengthened would become unusable."
I watched this heart-breaking documentary a few days ago on exactly that subject. "...the earthquake that hit the Sichuan province on May 12, 2008":
http://www.hbocanada.com/details/?id=49399

Incidentally, regarding British Columbia, I read this in today's paper: "Numerous government and civilian emergency agencies teamed up to see how they would work together in case there ever was a disaster at sea aboard a B.C. Ferry.":
http://www.canada.com/Where+were+paramedics/2924174/story.html


----------



## pbi (19 Apr 2010)

I recall seeing a documentary a few years ago about a potential major quake in the Lower Mainland. One of the most frightening images was of the "liquifaction" of areas (mostly, but not only, suburban) that were built on landfill or reclaimed land. According to the documentary, the sustained heavy vibrations would cause the water underlying the filled areas to mix with the fill, causing  big sinking-mud ponds to appear. Buildings, roads and utility lines would collapse or sink.

This would almost certainly affect the emergency services: if not by the immediate damage/disruption of stations and apparatus, then by problems with mobility and with off-duty or volunteer crews getting in to augment the on-duty shifts. Even without liquefation, building collapses in the downtown area would probably include fire and EMS stations, and cause rubbling of response routes. Unlike a hurricane or even a tsunami, there is no warning time in an earthquake that would permit emergency service evacuation out of the epicentre.

It would obviously depend on the magnitude of the quake, but my guess is that Vancouver might not really be capable of helping itself without relying on  resources greater than the standing fire rescue services.

I know that the CF has done some work in preparing: I've seen the prepositioned sea containers with the emergency gear, but even that will be of limited use, probably only in the neighbourhoods immediately around the containers, until enough lift can be aranged to move the contents. 

There is a bit of a precedent. During the 1950s the Govt of  Canada did have a program to provide fire services in possible nuclear target areas with auxiliary fire apparatus that could augment the existing inventories, probably in the hands of CD firefighters.  Some of these were still around in the 60s or even later. Similar idea to the UK's "Green Goddesses" that came out of mothballs for the National Fire Service strike in 1977.

Cheers


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2010)

pbi said:
			
		

> There is a bit of a precedent. During the 1950s the Govt of  Canada did have a program to provide fire services in possible nuclear target areas with auxiliary fire apparatus that could augment the existing inventories, probably in the hands of CD firefighters.  Some of these were still around in the 60s or even later. Similar idea to the UK's "Green Goddesses" that came out of mothballs for the National Fire Service strike in 1977.
> Cheers



I looked that up.:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/14/newsid_3154000/3154632.stm


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Apr 2010)

At least in the case of a nuke strike, there would be a central area roughly circular in shape that would be completely devastated with everyone in it dead. This would not be the case in an earthquake. There still would be extensive damage and there would be an urgent requirement to conduct rescue and/or recovery operations in the whole area.  In other words, the challenges facing us after an earthquake would be greater than in the case of a post-strike re-entry situation.(We relics of the Cold War were conditioned to think that way. Sorry if it seems hard-hearted.)


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> (We relics of the Cold War were conditioned to think that way. Sorry if it seems hard-hearted.)



After "duck and cover", I think with Distant Early Warning, the idea was that many could be evacuated. "The heart of the city is cleared in 34 minutes. .... Sure the bomb falls. Many will be killed.":
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/news/watch/v148908956T6Rh9WE#
( Notice the kids - and a baby in a child's arms - and no seatbelts! Didn't have them, or car seats, except the ones with the little stearing wheels, back then. They weren't mandatory until 1975 in Ontario. Of course, when mom is trying to out drive a nuke, automotive safety features would have been the last of anyone's worries! ) 
With ICBMs, mass exodus became less likely. Although we did see it during the Mississauga evacuation in 1979, and more recently, during Hurricane Katrina.


----------



## pbi (21 Apr 2010)

The idea that a modern city (say, the size of TO or Greater Van) could be evacuated in an orderly, efficient manner under the threat of an imminent nuclear attack is the sort of silly pipedream that only somebody who writes government pamphlets could come up with.

Traffic conditions are bad enough now, without panic and blind fear.

I lived in Mississauga during the derailment: that evacuation was successful (a city of over 200,000 people was largely emptied out), but it has to be remembered that the actual area affected by the plume from the derailed tank cars was very small in relation to the size of Mississauga. Most of the evacuees (ie: my family) were in areas that were never affected by the toxic chemicals, amd probably never would have been.  (Although I don't fault the authorities for erring on the side of caution) Also, the emergency services were not damaged or disrupted by the event, and the Mississauga fire dept in particular was able to activate mutual aid arrangements to "cover in" while most of its manned apparatus was at the scene.

Almost none of those happy circumstances would prevail in a major earthquake, which was the underlying thought behind my idea to have an auxiliary disaster service along the lines of the old CD, or the THW that the Germans have (had?), manned by people doing National Service.

Cheers


----------



## TimBit (21 Apr 2010)

pbi:

Don't forget the power/necessity of hope. People in large areas NEEDED to believe they could be evacuated comes a nuclear attack...and they still do. Otherwise, people would start leaving their dwelling as soon as international tensions 
appeared and we would _de facto_ lose the war. Therefore I'm not sure that the pamphlet-producing bureaucrat you are making fun of would have believed in the evacuation, only (cynically enough) in the _need_ for civilians to believe in it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2010)

Back on topic folks. The thread isn't about Civil Defence. It's about mandatory service as it pertains to the CF.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2010)

I will have to move back a bit off topic here:

Jerry Pournell pointed out in Chaos Manor that Civil Defence in the 1950's was generally a voilunteer organization, loosly analogous to Neighbourhood Watch. Duri9ng test exercises, it seemed to work well (although we must grant these exercises were more like TEWT's than rigerous eveluation exercises).

Jerry points out that with the "professionalization" of emergency services, it became a job rather than a calling, and suggests that was one of the key reasons FEMA was so unable to deal with the effects of Hurricane Katrina. (The total incompitence and unbelievable lack of movement and action by the City and State governments in the lead-up and first 72 hours after Katrina hit are also big factors, although it seems they simply assumed "Big Brother" would magically appear and make things right.)

How does this relate to Manditory National Service?

Volunteers who join to fulfill a need (either external or internal) will generally be far more motivated and effective than "civil service" drones, or people who have been dragooned into the job. I am using the term volunteer a bit loosly, since professional training, organization and logistics makes a huge amount of difference, but people like us who join voluntarily have self-selected for the position; this is where we want to be. 

A very tiny percentage of conscripted people may discover that this is their calling in life, but the wastage to find these people will be phenominal, and the organization will be a turgid, slow moving mass of deadwood. Far better to stay with volunteers.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (13 Aug 2011)

Interesting take on NEETS (see video). They quote some huge number of British youth who are uneducated, and unemployable.  Charles Adler had a unique piece on "National Service".
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/national-service/1108315956001

I thought YTEP and Katemavik were great programs. As for a brief total military service it would have to be more medic/engineer/civic/ stuff as the last thing we want to do is train ex-gang bangers for a yr to be more capable or trained criminals.  

please watch the whole video. I think alot of the London riot are about the have and havenots. I watched an interrview with a hooded looter and no remorse "watching my new plasma, I guess Christmas came early"


----------



## mad dog 2020 (24 May 2012)

From CBC and with respect to copyright rules.
Nearly a million young Canadians are out of work and more than half aren’t even looking for a job, according to the first-ever study of its kind by Statistics Canada.

They represent roughly 13 per cent of all young people between the ages of 15 and 29, the federal agency said.

And while that’s high compared to Canada’s overall jobless rate, which stood at 7.2 per cent in April, among Canada’s G7 peers only Germany is in better shape with a youth unemployment rate of 11.6 per cent, the study noted.

Unlike previous studies of unemployed youth, the report is the first to include young people who aren’t in school but are also not looking for work.

The phenomenon, dubbed “NEET,” which stands for Not in Employment Education or Training, is an area of growing concern to policy makers around the globe.

In some countries, high levels of youth unemployment have led to riots and demands for social and political change. In Greece and Spain, more than half of those under age 25 are out of work due to the growing debt-crisis in the euro zone.

However, in Canada, a significant chunk of young people who opted not to work cited other factors, such as a desire to stay home with young children, Statistics Canada found.

“Almost half a million young people are not in the labour force. The NEET indicator suggests something negative is going on. But we don’t know that for sure,” said the study’s author, Katherine Marshall.

“The youth in the NEET state are actually a very diverse group, particularly so in Canada. So it has to be taken with a footnote that not everybody in the NEET state is at risk of being discourage or disengaged,” Marshall said. “A large minority is parents with young children, or they’re at home doing unpaid work, or volunteer work, or leisure. These aren’t necessarily negative activities.”

But an association whose members work directly with unemployed youth said the data could be masking some underlying issues.

“Looking for work is very, very hard and very, very stressful. A lot of people when they don’t find work quickly get demoralized,” said Matt Wood, executive director of First Work, an association of Ontario Youth Employment Centres.

The numbers don’t include the millions of young people who may be staying in school longer because so few good jobs are available, he said. Nor do they show how many are working at part-time, temporary or contract jobs, he added.

The pace of technological change means most jobs require at least some training, which few employers are willing to provide, Wood noted.

Meanwhile, some jobs are going unfilled because of a mismatch between employers’ needs and young people’s skills, Wood said.

Canada needs a more coherent youth employment strategy, he said.

Among the 904,000 young Canadians considered “NEET” last year some 391,000 were actively looking for work while the other 513,000 were not, Statistics Canada reported Wednesday.

Among those looking for work, only 55,000, or 1 per cent, had been doing so for more than six months. That’s one of the lowest rates among Canada’s economic peers, the G7 group of countries.

Gender, education and marriage all had an impact on young people’s employment track record.

Young men were having more trouble than women finding jobs. The less educated and unmarried were also more likely to be out of work.

Eight out of 10 who said they weren’t looking for a job cited family responsibilities, health issues or other activities as their reasons.

Of the 2 in 10 who wanted a job but had stopped looking, most said they’d become discouraged, or were waiting to be recalled or were unable to work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 May 2012)

mad dog 2020:
1)  How about a link for the CBC piece?

2)  The last time you posted about YTEP 16 months ago almost to the day....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/98829.0.html
.... the response seemed a bit, underwhelming.

3)  National service/compulsory military service has been discussed at length elsewhere here:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/105089.0/all.html
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/24424.0.html

Anything new to add, bud?


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

Considering we don't have the resource base to train the soliders and service members we do have in the pipeline (see the PRETEC battalion in Borden, for example), funneling additional personnel into the CF on essentially short term "make work" programs would simply leave thousands of people sitting around in uniform and never getting the job and life experience that I think you are implying as a benefit for National Service.

We would need literally thousands of experienced NCO's just to do the teaching/training (we need that right now), in addition to the Officers and NCO's needed to run things in the units. The short term benefit to having a national service pool may be to bring understrength units up to full speed (especially service support units), but then we also have to manage the fall off wave(s) as each draft comes to the end of their contracts.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2012)

I know my youngest is finished his first year of college.  He cannot find work for love nor money.  He's put in dozens of resume and applications and no serious bites.  I did not know the market was so shitty here.


----------



## GAP (25 May 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I know my youngest is finished his first year of college.  He cannot find work for love nor money.  He's put in dozens of resume and applications and no serious bites.  I did not know the market was so shitty here.



It is and it isn't....the higher paying jobs are mostly snapped up pretty quick or gotten through networking. Suggest to him to apply to places where he can grow into a better position over the next couple of years by proving himself this year and maybe next. The companies will largely respond favorably if they understand that the student is willing to grow into the job. 

my  :2c:


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2012)

Actually he has been trying at a variety of places just so he could have some work.  He's striking out, which is a surprise as he has an excellent work record.  Even the Commissionaires did not give him a call back earlier this year.   ???


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

Where is "here"?

Your child might give serious consideration to moving out west, Saskatchewan and Alberta have dire labour shortages. There are also many "hidden" job markets; Reccesoldier has noted vegetable farmers have to import foreign workers into SW Ontario as most people are turning up their noses at these jobs, and the same seems to apply to jobs in the fisheries market, where companies import people from Eastern Europe to fill the positions the locals are not taking.

These may not be high paying or "Gucci" jobs, but they are jobs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> .... Reccesoldier has noted vegetable farmers have to import foreign workers into SW Ontario as most people are turning up their noses at these jobs, and the same seems to apply to jobs in the fisheries market, where companies import people from Eastern Europe to fill the positions the locals are not taking ....


Just heard on the radio this morning that coffee shop owners in Red Lake, Ontario are hiring foreign workers because nobody else is taking them.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Where is "here"?


Halifax Regional Municipality.  He is still between his first and second year of college, so moving is not an option.  This place has always been shitty for part time work, but, things seem to be even harder at the present.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

I'm in Ontario and not in a position to help right now, but best of luck.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm in Ontario and not in a position to help right now, but best of luck.


Thanks for the thought.


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2012)

Which is why getting the word to them in an active manner rather than a passive one, is worth the effort.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So if we want diversity in recruitment to come way up in priority, here is an idea. If you are Canadian, healthy and 18 years old; get conscripted for a year. After a year of serving your country you can go on or stay around if it is the right fit.
> 
> :warstory: I am putting on my helmet as I wait for incoming.



Let’s put aside the usual objection that short-term conscripts would degrade the quality of a professional standing military and follow on with “the conscripts would be exposed to military service and it would make better citizens of them” and the CF could then pick the cream of the crop to whom they make offers of career status.  How much do you think that would be worth?

Let’s make some assumptions.  I am, of course, pulling most of these figures out of my ass but they probably wouldn’t be far off.

All 18 year olds would have to serve.  The number of births in Canada is currently running around 380,000 annually.  For ease of calculations ignore immigrants and round it down to 340,000 to better reflect the number who would be turning 18 in the near future.

Let’s cut that by 10% to account for those who would be exempt due to religious or personal family reasons.  Now 306,000.

Let’s be generous (realistic?) and immediately eliminate 50% for being fat and/or unfit medically or unable to meet (low) academic/aptitude standards.  We’re now at 153,000.

Let’s now eliminate those who would not be able to pass background or criminal checks.  A lot of scumbags out there so let’s say 25% - now at 114,750.   So it is conceivable that a national service program would have to accommodate 114,750 individuals each year for a one year period.  They would have to be enrolled, moved, trained, fed, watered and bedded down.

I don’t think you could get around not paying them.  The lowest rate of pay for a private (as a reservist) would be greater than $32,000 a year if on full time service.  $3,672,000,000 . Got an extra three and a half billion dollars lying around.  That doesn’t even take into account the unseen pay, allowance and benefits cost.

While advertising for recruits would not be as necessary, there would still have to be processing and administration to eliminate the sick, lame and lazy.  My WAG places that at $250 per individual (all of the 340,000)   $85,000,000

Once the 114,740 lucky individuals are identified they would have to be moved to a training location and then possibly a work location and then back home once their service is completed.  Using cattle car class let’s peg that at $1000.  $114,740,000

They couldn’t be allowed to roam around naked and barefoot so uniforms and equipment would have to be provided.  They don’t have to attend any fancy parties so how about $600 worth of issued items.  $68,844,000

Of course little Johnny will probably get homesick and want to cry on someone’s shoulder or he’ll have a toothache so the CF will have to be prepared to provide some comfort.  Letting a few croak wouldn’t be a great loss but it would probably raise questions in the House.  Could probably get by cheap at $100 per for medical/dental (though triple that would be more likely).  $11,475,000

We’ve got them enrolled, moved and clothed and now they have to learn what they are doing wherever they are.  Since this is a significant increase in the overall strength of the CF (which is already at its limit for training pers) there would have to be an increase in cadre to account for those who would have to train, administer and lead those extra bodies.  Granted there is already an annual intake of new recruits (let’s be very generous and put that at 20% of full-time strength – 13,600) and there are already existing units that could (over their screaming) absorb these bodies.  There would, however, need to be an increase in the full-time “career” strength to manage this “conscript” strength.  Another WAG – 3 cadre for every 35 conscripts. 2890 cadre at a low end $60,000 a year - $173,400,000

There would also be significant infrastructure and other capital costs as well as other ongoing costs but we’ll ignore those for now.

What would the final tab be?

Conscript pay  -   $3,672,000,000
Enrolment expenses  -  $85,000,000
Travel -  $114,740,000
Pers cloth/eqpt -  $68,844,000
Med/dent -  $11,475,000
Cadre pay -  $173,400,000

Total - $4,125,459,000

So, a little over $4 billion.  There would be some savings . . . $14 million in recruiting advertising, probably a few other things.  Do you think the cost out-weighs the benefit?  Any more bright ideas?


----------



## Jed (7 Aug 2012)

What would the final tab be?

Conscript pay  -   $3,672,000,000
Enrolment expenses  -  $85,000,000
Travel -  $114,740,000
Pers cloth/eqpt -  $68,844,000
Med/dent -  $11,475,000
Cadre pay -  $173,400,000

Total - $4,125,459,000

Excellent, now we put all that cheap labour to work for the benefit of the country. A win-win all around. Far better than bailing out GM et al.

The vastly increased CF could take on expanded infrastructure projects and dom ops in a big way, probably in remote areas in a much more cost effective way.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> Excellent, now we put all that cheap labour to work for the benefit of the country. A win-win all around. Far better than bailing out GM et al.



More brilliance. What are we making them do ?


----------



## Towards_the_gap (7 Aug 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> More brilliance. What are we making them do ?



Infrastructure. Any civil engineering company bidding on a bridge/highway project gets a discount if they take 100 conscripts to fill gabion baskets/sweep roadways/bang in silt fence/etc etc.


----------



## dimsum (7 Aug 2012)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Infrastructure. Any civil engineering company bidding on a bridge/highway project gets a discount if they take 100 conscripts to fill gabion baskets/sweep roadways/bang in silt fence/etc etc.



Why bother with making them "military" conscripts then?  I'm all for the idea of National Service (not necessarily military, but including stuff like public works, emergency services, etc that benefit the country), but having these people do totally non-military things doesn't seem like a good use of money.


----------



## Jed (8 Aug 2012)

Further to my last; if you needed to limit the intake to a manageable number: Put it into a lotto draw with X number have their name come up. Then take away all the medically unfit and religious objectors. The recruiting door still remains open for those unlucky enough not to be drawn.


----------



## Jed (8 Aug 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Why bother with making them "military" conscripts then?  I'm all for the idea of National Service (not necessarily military, but including stuff like public works, emergency services, etc that benefit the country), but having these people do totally non-military things doesn't seem like a good use of money.



I do not see this as totally non military. No one ever has enough labour for the various infra and dom ops projects that could be done. There is good room all around for OJT for anybody from worker bee to supervisor.


----------



## dimsum (8 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> I do not see this as totally non military. No one ever has enough labour for the various infra and dom ops projects that could be done. There is good room all around for OJT for anybody from worker bee to supervisor.



Fair enough, but my point is that stuff like that doesn't have to be military-based.  Something like the Civil Construction Corps in the US during the Depression would give the projects the needed manpower, without the expense of weapons training, etc. that is strictly military.  If you want to instill some discipline, add a Cadet (or similar) element to it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So if we want diversity in recruitment to come way up in priority, here is an idea. If you are Canadian, healthy and 18 years old; get conscripted for a year. After a year of serving your country you can go on or stay around if it is the right fit.
> 
> :warstory: I am putting on my helmet as I wait for incoming.


Lots of discussion on that issue in a couple of places here - expect a few post moves into those threads while we keep this one on cultural diversity in the CF.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------

