# Do Canadians even care anymore?



## Guardian (8 Oct 2004)

Fri, October 8, 2004 

Grits' sad record of underfunding

Liberal governments dating back to Pierre Trudeau have sold our armed forces short, says Bob MacDonald 

By BOB MACDONALD -- For the Toronto Sun


*A man appearing to be in his early thirties glanced at the front page of my Sun yesterday as he walked past me in an east-end Toronto coffee shop. 

He read the headline aloud to a friend walking behind him: "HE GAVE HIS LIFE SERVING HIS COUNTRY." 

"Oh, it's just a guy on that submarine -- I thought it was someone important," he said to the other as they walked away. 
   

Ah yes, just the guy on the submarine.* 

His words stuck with me all day as I thought of the death from smoke inhalation of 32-year-old Canadian submariner Lieutenant Chris Saunders. His lungs had been lethally damaged helping to fight a fire that raged through his newly-acquired, second-hand submarine -- HMCS Chicoutimi. Six other injured crewmen remain aboard. 

A 14-year naval veteran, New Brunswick-born Saunders, father of two, was described by colleagues as a young officer destined for top leadership roles in Canada's armed forces. 

"He was a shining example of everything that is good and right about the military," his sister-in-law said. 

I mention the callous comment by that young man in the coffee shop because it reflects what has become too often the view of some Canadians about our armed forces. And one of the worse culprits has been the Liberals -- the ever-governing party that's built a sorry record of weakening our military and saddling them with dangerously obsolete equipment. 

'Bargain price' 

The four used British subs acquired by the Liberal government for the "bargain price" of $750 million is just the lastest chapter in that nasty story. Especially when the government has stuck with the deal despite a never-ending litany of rusted hulls, rotting electrical wiring, leaking pipes and torpedo tubes, etc. And now lethal, crippling fires while at sea. 

In fact, that sorry record of mistreating Canada's armed forces goes back to the reign of Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau. Soon after grabbing power in 1968, the left-leaning Grit PM tried to pull Canada out of the NATO and NORAD mutual defence pacts. That was at the height of the Cold War and would have suited the Soviet Union just dandy. 

However, with our allies and most Canadians objecting, he was forced to pull back from that move. So, he did the next best thing: cutting Canada's troop strength and dragging his feet on replacing Canada's aging, obsolescent equipment. 

For instance, I remember in the mid-1970s covering Canadian Forces operations in NATO's annual fall manoeuvres in Europe. The Canadians were stuck with 30-year-old Centurion tanks that required three days to replace an engine in the field. Time for modern U.S. tanks: three hours. 

Under pressure from NATO allies and the opposition Conservatives, the Trudeauites finally bought German-made Leopard tanks. However, they were the old Mark I type that would soon become obsolete -- instead of the latest, much more formidable Mark II model. 

Allan MacKinnon, then the Conservatives' defence critic, told me at the time that the Tories had to be low-key in their criticism because they feared Trudeau would simply cancel buying the new tanks entirely "if he becomes miffed." 

Down through the years, this thinking continues. Liberal PM Jean Chretien's cancellation in 1993 of the contract to buy badly-needed Cormorant helicopters cost taxpayers $500 million in penalties. It was a political decision that left the forces with increasingly dangerous 40-year-old Sea King choppers. Today, the Liberals have finally awarded a contract to replace the choppers to a rival firm for what some critics say is an inferior helicopter. 

On and on 

And so it goes. Chopped budgets, obsolete tanks, rusting, used submarines, plus sending troops off to Afghanistan with bright green camouflage battle dress. And stuck with 40-year-old Hercules transport planes and aging CF-18 fighter jets. 

Will it change? Based on the sorry record, no way. And that's why Conservative leader Stephen Harper must demand that there be a full inquiry into the submarine mess -- and the continuing mistreatment of Canada's armed forces. 

Submariner Saunders should not have died in vain.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The bold highlight is mine    :crybaby:

Maybe it's just the fact that it's downtown Toronto.... but I can't help the feeling that we're losing the battle for public support. After all, people are well aware of the problems faced by the CF now - underfunding, overextension, lack of equipment, quality of equipment. These stories certainly get wide play in the media... Just in the last two years, press has covered - in great deal and with great rhetorical rage - lack of desert-pattern CADPAT, the unsuitability of the Iltis, the Sea King crash on a CPF....

At least the deaths in Afghanistan this past year could be attributed to enemy action. This can't.

It just is a heavy blow that now, when a soldier/sailor/airman dies, people are so used to the problem that it doesn't matter anymore. After all, although the problem hasn't been fixed, the sky hasn't fallen on the average Canadian. Buddy in the article probably went his merry way without thinking about the CF's problems again, because it didn't deny him the Starbucks coffee he bought immediately thereafter or interfere with the satellite TV show he's watching as I write this.

Our cry of frustration used to be, "Is someone going to have to die before these problems are fixed?" It saddens me that, well, now they are, and yet some people don't care enough to read about it in the paper. I fear that this guy is typical. 

What IS it going to take to not only get Canadians' attention, but to motivate them to change things? Ground Zero in Toronto and 20,000 deaths? I wonder what this guy would say then....

Maybe if a Sea King crashed on HIM, and widowed HIS wife and orphaned HIS kids, he'd care. But it would be too late.

Just like it was for Mrs. Saunders and family....

Rant ends. Let me have it, guys..............   :crybaby:

Someone please reassure me...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

I would have punched that fucker right in the mouth.
Service members are the most visible and most active branch of the government internationally and therefore should be getting the same kinda of funding as the Gov. General as she is suppossed to be the gov't rep oversea's.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

SomeONE isn't going to have to die.  A battle group or ship is going to have to take serious loses before anyone remotley wakes up.
Was Mulroney any better/worse/on par with military spending vs the gov'ts before and after him?


----------



## Inch (8 Oct 2004)

I don't think Mulroney was light years ahead of the Libs, but the 1987 Defence White paper came out under his government and it was this white paper that stated we should have Nuke subs among other things. Mind you, the end of the Cold War certainly put a damper on that white paper.  Unfortunately, I feel the world is a worse place now.  There's no clearly defined enemy anymore and I don't think anyone in power really knows what direction we should be heading let alone how to get there. It was Mulroney's government that made the deal for the 50 EH101s that was promptly cancelled by Chretien. 

So I don't think he was that much better, it was just different times and circumstances.

CFL, I don't even think a military disaster would hit home as much as a plane flying into a building in downtown TO. I sure hope for the sake of Canadians it doesn't happen but I think it's the only way people will realize the world we live in. 

Just my $0.02

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

Even then Inch I'm not so sure. :-\


----------



## Inch (8 Oct 2004)

I have a sinking feeling that you're right about that.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

Back to the jackass with the big mouth. 

The good news, I guess, is that his comment was considered outrageous enough for the reporter to write a column on it. If this beatnik represented most Canadians, we wouldn't be reading about his idiotic remark, we would be hearing it ourselves everywhere we went.


----------



## venero (8 Oct 2004)

We need to stop buying crap. I Think it's time the liberals take a seat on the bench next election.


----------



## scm77 (8 Oct 2004)

venero said:
			
		

> We need to stop buying crap. I Think it's time the liberals take a seat on the bench next election.



If they didn't get voted out in this last election after 11 years of military cuts plus scandals and wasted money, what could possibly happen that would finally make the average Canadian voter who only cares about healthcare, wake up and realise that these guys are no good? ???


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Oct 2004)

We need more people like this fellow Mr. McDonald who are in a position to inform the public of these injustices.

It is truely a sad day when a man (or many) has to die for the public to become aware of the gross negligence on the part of the Liberal Government.

Unfortunatley, there are also people out there who will take the oposite stance, saying   "it's the military's fault for endangering the people serving, let's cut their funding even more"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (8 Oct 2004)

Why don't we wait for the investigation into the accident before we beat the Liberal drum.


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Oct 2004)

sorry, I jumped the gun.


----------



## dutchie (8 Oct 2004)

This thread is not about the tragedy off the coast of Ireland, it about the apathy of the Canadian public as described by the article.

There will be lots of time to disect the tragedy, so in the mean time, let's get back on topic.

Does anyone have anything to add re: the article or the attitude of the public towards the CF?


----------



## GGboy (8 Oct 2004)

I think you guys are being too pessimistic. I get a much different reaction when I'm off to parade nights in my CadPats: my local corner store owner's face lit up when I dropped by to buy a Coke. The guy pumped my hand non-stop.
For every jerk like the one described by MacDonald there are a lot more people who appreciate the people in the CF and aren't afraid to show it. See the Rex Murphy monologue reproduced on another thread for instance: Rex has a good feel for the pulse of the nation. Or look at Don Cherry, who's always been a big CF supporter.
There's a reason why stories about the Canadian Forces have been so prominent in the media the past year or two: it's because people are interested. They may not know a lot about the CF, but they think highly of the guys and gals in uniform (for the most part) and they're learning. Ten years ago, would the death of a sailor in a shipboard fire, however tragic, be front-page, top of the newscast news? A lot of the recent talk about the Victoria-class subs is nonsense, but at least people are talking about it.
The government is behind the media in this regard, but they're starting to pick up on the fact that Canadians are paying attention to what happens to their military. Say what you will about the Liberals, but they can read an opinion poll. And they didn't include a promise of 5,000 more troops during the last election campaign out of the kindness of their alleged hearts ... 
So chin up boys: there will always be the occasional jerk, but things are looking up for the CF today in a way they haven't for 10 years.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Oct 2004)

You guys have a vote, here:

http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/index.html

You can make a comment, as well.


----------



## Scratch_043 (8 Oct 2004)

I just did the poll

this was the result:


> POLL
> Has Ottawa failed to properly support the Canadian Forces?
> 100.00 %
> Guilty
> ...


seems as though many people feel the same way we do.


----------



## pbi (8 Oct 2004)

I think we've flogged this issue a few times before on other threads. I'm totally with GG Boy. As well as recognizing the generally good levels of media coverage and public support (as compared to ten years ago) that we get, we should sit up and remember that embarassing pressure from the media has helped to speed up a number of procurements (such as desert CADPAT that we now have over here, including body armour and tacvests in desert CADPAT that most US don't even have yet...), the Iltis replacement, (arguments go on, but the G-Wagen is new and the Iltis was old...) etc. Even the Govt's Throne speech is a clear indication that they can smell the wind-the Liberals are nothing if not astute poll-watchers. I say let's take GGBoy's attitude-be proud, keep ourselves in the public eye, and make sure we tell our story every chance we get. That will get us alot further than moaning to each other over beers in the mess or bitching here. Cheers.


----------



## Gayson (9 Oct 2004)

The only way to fix the problems we are facing is to educate the public about them.  If the general public actualy understood why we need more support we would get it.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2004)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> The only way to fix the problems we are facing is to educate the public about them. If the general public actualy understood why we need more support we would get it.



In a way a forum like this on the Internet is doing just that.  It may be slower than you may like, but the curious will be here and spread the word...

GW


----------



## Scratch_043 (10 Oct 2004)

what we need is Giant billboards, and to staple it to the PM's forehead :evil:


----------



## venero (10 Oct 2004)

Hopefully there will  be an election next year at some point to settel this minority government crap. And best case scenario that the Conservative party will get elected.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Oct 2004)

Ya cause when they get in power they never change their tune.


----------



## Storm (10 Oct 2004)

venero said:
			
		

> Hopefully there will   be an election next year at some point to settel this minority government crap. And best case scenario that the Conservative party will get elected.



A recent statement by McKay regarding the subs certainly diminishes my hopes that the Conservatives would be much better. He said, IIRC, that of course the brass would say the subs are good... he's sure those sailing on them would tell a different story. Now I'm certainly not a navy type myself, but I have talked to a few, all of whom seem to be in favour of the subs also (none of them being big brass). I can only conclude from this that McKay put words into the mouths of canadian sailors without talking to them first - just to score some cheap points out of a tragedy. Politicians all.

I'm leaning more towards seeing how this session of parliament turns out first - minorities can sometimes turn out better than majorities would. Let the blows cheap shots land where they may, and keep score of who's stepped on us less. When the next election rolls around, check the score card before you head to the polls.

(hmm... kind of cynical for an introductory post on the site, ah well   :-\)


----------



## Armymedic (10 Oct 2004)

Good post.

The Lib Gov't is truely democratic. It follows well what the (majority of) PEOPLE want.


----------



## Armymedic (10 Oct 2004)

Now here is what should be put forth to all the Canadian public...

Name: T. McDermott 
Occupation: Naval Officer 
Location: Halifax 

This week's disaster in CHICOUTIMI has understandably left a country angry and confused. I too am angry, but my anger is not with the "navy brass", or the Defence Minister, or even the Government. My anger, my fury, and my disgust is directed at the Canadian general public. You have allowed the Government to neglect us. You love to jump on the band wagon when we suceed, but you are never really there when we need you. You allowed the Government to drag out the sea king replacement project for ten years. You allowed the Government to send soldiers to Afghanistan with 40 yr old Iltis. You allowed the Government to reduce the CF by 20,000 people and reduce it's budget by 25% while at the same time demanding the Government send in troops to Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Zaire. You have demanded that troops be called out to fight forest fires, floods and clean up after hurricanes and shovel snow. If you want to know who to blame, just look in the mirror... it's YOUR FAULT  


Bang on, Sir.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (10 Oct 2004)

That was actually posted?


----------



## winchable (10 Oct 2004)

Edited to delete Incorrect information.


----------



## Scratch_043 (10 Oct 2004)

ArmyMedic, may I ask where you got that? I would like to forward it to a few people.


----------



## jmacleod (11 Oct 2004)

It appears to me at 75 years of age, having grown up in a military environment, and a family
with strong military links for decades in Canada, that, except for municipalities with direct links
to the Canadian Forces, the public is indeed apathetic - mostly based on ignorance, because
of the poor quality, for one thing, of Canadian history being taught in Canadian schools, in 
 Ontario and Quebec - although the other Provinces are probably just as mediocre. This in
turn reflects on the quality of the teachers. The history curriculum in high schools in Nova Scotia
is pathetic, when one considers the historic past of Nova Scotia, which damm near became a
state of the United States in the Revoluntionary War (Thomas Raddall "His Majesty's Yankees)
and the great presence of Halifax as the famous "East Coast Port" of Atlantic convoy fame
in both World Wars - indeed Amherst and Wolfe planned the conquest of French North America
in Halifax, their headquarters being the site of Jim O'Carroll's Bar and Grill, Lower Water Street.
How can this sad stuation, which has caused so many problems for the Canadian Forces be
resolved? MacLeod


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Oct 2004)

I think jmacleod that the funding for schools and their programs is as woefull as the military.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (11 Oct 2004)

They even read my post on TV, besides posting it!



> Yes, ever since Trudeau, the Canadian Armed Forces have been in a steady decline. But are the politicians to blame? It seems to me that the politicians had the tactic approval of the majority of Canadians all along. Was there a hue and cry when the tanks were parked, or the HMCS Huron tied up, or half the CF-18's stripped for parts? Did the media and general population scream and gnash their teeth as units were disbanded, and personnel strength was cut again and again?
> 
> The Canadian people, it seems to me, care far more about health care, welfare, the lack of robins, the use of herbicides, well, you get the idea. If they care about anything, then the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces are pretty darn low on their list of priorities.
> 
> ...



You guys can add your two cents worth as well: <a href=http://www.staging.canada.com/national/soundoff/view.html?id=3ed23c33-cbe3-4821-a4bc-5e6efc7734ba&soundoff=91011>HERE</a>


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Oct 2004)

good for you lance


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Oct 2004)

Im upset that 2.18% feel its isnt the governments fault..........


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2004)

http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/10/11/fCanada173.raw.html

These articles seem to fit here.   The first , despite the headline "Public bitter at Liberal cuts to Military" seems to bolster jmacleod's argument that only "military" communities get it and have a clue. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22671-2004Oct10_2.html

The second one is titled "American Deserters Find a Mixed Reception in Canada"

These quotes got my attention.



> Estimates of how many Americans came to Canada in those times to avoid service in the war range from 30,000 to 90,000. They were invited by the prime minister at the time, Pierre Trudeau, who in 1969 declared Canada to be "a refuge from militarism."



I always thought we just turned a blind eye to American Draft Dodgers.   I didn't realize that Trudeau, draft dodger that he himself was, made it government policy to offer safe haven to dodgers and effectively encourage Americans to desert and contributed to the undermining of the National will to pursue the war in Vietnam.   If true it is easy to understand why some American politicians, bureaucrats and soldiers are less than thrilled at us in general and at Trudeau and the Liberals in particular. Curiously the Washington Post is usually a Democrat/Canada friendly paper.



> On taking office in 1977, President Jimmy Carter pardoned the draft dodgers and allowed deserters to apply for resolution of their cases. Many of the Americans went home. Others stayed in Canada, and many flourished. *Today they include several judges, scores of university professors, a popular radio host, a music promoter, politicians and a film critic. *



This quote suggests that: 

A, a lot of our institutions are/were friendly to the attitudes and opinions of the Draft Dodgers
B, that a lot of the Draft Dodgers have infiltrated our institutions
C, that a lot of Draft Dodgers and their friends have put themselves in positions to influence public discourse and and attitudes, especially amongst the young, in Canada

Perhaps we can spin this to the Americans that the current anti-American attitudes of Canadians is due to a Fifth-Column of Americans that infiltrated our society and corrupted our youth not so much out of conviction but out of self-interest.   They did't want to risk getting the a** shot off but still wanted the jobs with the prestige and the big paychecks.

The reason we hate Americans is because Americans corrupted us and told us to hate Americans.   Do you think it would sell? ;D


----------



## Armymedic (11 Oct 2004)

That was a post in the National Posts Sound Off area/


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.herald.ns.ca/stories/2004/10/11/fCanada173.raw.html
> 
> These articles seem to fit here.   The first , despite the headline "Public bitter at Liberal cuts to Military" seems to bolster jmacleod's argument that only "military" communities get it and have a clue.
> 
> ...



While you say that in jest their appears to be more than a little truth in it. IM not sure if a man who would let his friends and neighbours die while he runs away should be allowed into a position of authority....I think there maybe a character issue there.


----------



## tabernac (12 Oct 2004)

> plus sending troops off to Afghanistan with bright green camouflage battle dress.



When we were in the Tora Bora's hunting Al Quida(can't remember the Op), the dusty CADPAT was a better blend with the foliage,(therefor harder to see) then the 3 color American BDUs. Any way, back on topic.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Perhaps they meant the whale.  I have heard the cadpat was way better at night as well.  The politician/public tend to pick up on the wrong problems facing the CF.


----------



## canuck101 (12 Oct 2004)

politicians need to get reelected every four to five years and really don't have the time of day to care about what the CF needs in the future.  They will say what they have to, so as to get reelected.  For the military as we all know needs to plan 10 to 15 years in the future for purchases of equipment.  That is to long for your average MP to care, if he or she is lucky they will be in Parliament for one or two terms and out collecting their fully indexed pension.

I care very much but i guess i am from a lucky few.  My father servered for 38 years. Starting in the army reserves and when he was 17 he joined the navy then later changing to the air force for the most of his career.  My Aunt was also in the airforce for 25 years, my uncle served in the also army reserves.  My dad's father served in the second world wars along with family members from my mothers side of the family.  So i have always been very proud of my father and family.  I will always care about the sacrifices that my family and other families have made to keep this great county free. For me anyone who serves in the CF has chosen a higher calling, they have chosen a life protecting the country they love you can not ask them to care more.

The problem i see it is that most Canadians don't see enough military people in the daily lives, you only care for something if you can  see and hear about it.  If you only hear about it only when it needs new equipment then citizens get a warp view of the military.


----------



## ramy (12 Oct 2004)

Current Poll results

Has Ottawa failed to properly support the Canadian Forces? 
 97.78 %
Guilty 
 2.22 %
Not Guilty 

I guess the numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## Chewy (12 Oct 2004)

What we truly need is to take some Liberal government officials and make them live on a used british sub for two weeks alone and see how they like it. And although I hate to say this we kinda need to go the way of the americans and get aMajor polition Conservative or better yet a Liberal Who has served in the Forces into power and the spot light so that we can take our views and put them into a political context.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2004)

Slowly the word is spreading.......

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/10/12/665475.html

Tue, October 12, 2004 



Canada's forces: CFB Junkyard

Pundits, analysts agree - it may be too late to stop a catastrophic failure of our military 
By STEPHANIE RUBEC, OTTAWA BUREAU

OUR MILITARY'S hardware is dropping like flies. Rust, electrical failures, leaks, cracks, malfunctions -- and that's not just the four Victoria class diesel-electric submarines. 

Point to almost any piece of kit in Canada's army, navy or air force and chances are it's 20 to 30 years old. 

There are a few exceptions: New Coyote reconnaissance vehicles, light armoured vehicles and forest-green camouflage gear. 

But an overwhelming amount of vital equipment is expected to keel over within the next eight years. 

Canadian Defence Association senior analyst Howie Marsh says it's a struggle to determine who is worse off, but puts the navy's equipment woes a razor's edge above that of the army and air force. 

Marsh said equipment that isn't faulty is old and limping along, thanks to Band-Aid solutions dreamed up by the cash-strapped military. 

"From 2008-2013 you're likely to see the disappearance of the air force and half the navy and half the army," Marsh said. 

"There's a big gulf coming and it's going to be very difficult to get across that. We're into the vanishing phase." 

IT'S TOO LATE 

Even if the Liberal government begins placing orders today, it takes on average 10 years to replace vehicles, planes and ships, he said. That means there's no way to avoid the upcoming rash of problems. 

The air force continues to depend on the 32-year-old Hercules transport plane and the army relies on the 18-year-old Jeep-style Iltis and 22-year-old, 2.2-tonne transport trucks. 

"Soon we should start to see the Hercules try to take off and their wings fall off," Marsh said. "We should see old trucks going downhill and the brakes fail." 

The Liberal government pumps just over $13 billion into the defence department annually. Less than half of that goes to equipment maintenance and purchases, the rest is for a variety of costs related to bases and personnel. 

The military must pitch its need to replace hardware to the Liberal government, and then take it to Treasury Board for approval. 

Once it gets the feds' okay, the military draws up what bells and whistles it wants, and public works puts it on a public bidding system. After bids close, a selection committee picks the winner. 

It takes upward of a decade to get through the whole process. In terms of the Sea King replacement, it has taken two decades to award the $3-billion contract. The paperwork is still being completed and the military might have to wait longer than 2009 to take delivery of the first maritime chopper. 

Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor said the Liberals can only blame themselves for failing to replace equipment at the end of its lifespan. 

"There's not enough money to replace the equipment and there's not enough money to maintain them, so the whole system keeps decaying," O'Connor said. "And that's why every few days some other grand problem keeps popping up." 

'PROBLEMS EVERYWHERE' 

"Now the chickens have come home to roost and you're seeing problems everywhere," he added. 

O'Connor said it would take major purchases within the next five years to counter the decline of the forces and "set this thing right again." 

"To stop the rot, you've got to increase the budget substantially," O'Connor said. "You have to start putting effort into it, you have to start spending money." 

Retired Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie said the cash crunch has forced the Canadian military to go bargain shopping. The sale sticker on the Victoria-class submarines was too good to pass up. 

The Liberals were attracted to a deal that seemed too good to be true, and inked a $750-million lease-to-own agreement for the second-hand British subs. 

"Those are the deals that people are forced to go after," MacKenzie said. 

The subs should have been patrolling Canadian waters in 1998, but upgrading 1980s technology and salt water-corroded equipment has kept them in dry dock until recently. 

The last of the four, HMCS Chicoutimi, was accepted from the British on Oct. 2. Last Tuesday, an electrical panel on the sub caught fire and blazed through two levels before the 57 crew members could put it out. 

DEADLY FIRE 

It left the submarine bobbing on six-metre waves in gale-force winds. Lt. Chris Saunders died and two other crew are recovering from smoke inhalation in an Irish hospital. 

The Liberals continue to heatedly defend their purchase of the subs, and adamantly deny they've saddled the military with lemons. 

MacKenzie said the federal government has failed to apply one of the most simple business theories to the Canadian Forces -- replace equipment before it reaches rust-out. 

"If you go through a decade without repairing or replacing, then all of a sudden you run into this brick wall," MacKenzie said. 

"That's exactly what happened. It's an implosion they're already into." 

MacKenzie said the problem is that the Liberals are stalling the creation of a new defence white paper that would lay out exactly what jobs the military should be able to do and what equipment soldiers, sailors and air force personnel need to get it done.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Well I guess I'm glad I'm not in the Airforce. :-[   Sucks to you Inch.


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

Hey man, I signed my IE, I'm getting a pension out of the deal even if I have to go to court!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Roger that.  At least you have a skill thats transferable to civie side.


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

Good point, though I'll need about 1000hrs to get something good on civie street, only 550hrs to go!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

Really.  I had no idea thats how it worked.


----------



## pbi (12 Oct 2004)

CFL said:
			
		

> Roger that. At least you have a skill thats transferable to civie side.



So do you; in fact, you've got a whole bunch that most employers today would kill for :

-you know how to work as part of a team;

-you can take orders intelligently (ie: you ask questions if you don't understand);

-you understand getting the job done;

-you've seen lots of different leadership styles at work in lots of different situations, so you know what kind to apply if you are put in charge of other employees;

-you may already have had leadership training and experience;

-you understand why rules exist;

-you show up for work on time;

-you've been trained to take care of your equipment;

-you can adapt to different and difficult situations;

-you're in at least reasonable medical and physical shape;

-you can speak and write English clearly; and

lots more.

These aren't skills that fade because a piece of machinery or an industrial technique becomes obsolete-they stay with you. Ask ANY employer today if he wants an employee with all those traits, but without the technical training, and I'll bet you'll be surprised at the answer. My neighbour runs a carwash and he constantly bemoans the lack of these basic traits, and I've heard other employers do the same. The shortage of good employees today, especially in skilled trades, makes almost anybody with a good military record very desireable. Don't sell yourself short because you're an 031. Ducimus. Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Oct 2004)

I think I'll write those down.
I'm not selling myself short.  Don't get me wrong.
You sound like your counseling on of your troops with a release/OT in.


----------



## pbi (13 Oct 2004)

No, it's just that I can't stand hearing 031's run themselves down because "_All I dun lernt wuz diggin a ditch_". BS. You would be surprised how much we learn. Don't get too wrapped up over particular technical skills, although those are certainly important and desireable, because they change over time. There is a recognition out there in the business world that they need more generalists: people who can put various other technically skilled employees together and get a result, but without really detailed technical knowledge. There are literaly thousands of techs floating around-the computer world is a good example-but if these people are ever to be useful as employees and future managers they need human skills as well. And that, IMHO, is the most important thing the Infantry teaches you about: people. Cheers.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (13 Oct 2004)

PBI is bang on, as usual.

I was very surprised to find out that ex-military are in demand by many employers, especially us armour/infantry types.  Seems like we always think about ways of getting the job done, very low absenteeism rate, flexible, reliable and more.

We may not have many marketable technical skills, but we certainly have marketable job skills!


----------



## pbi (13 Oct 2004)

Yes, and the more I see of the civvy world the more I see how desperately these skills are needed, and indeed how rare they are amongst many employees. One of the obstacles that I think we may face is the misconception by many civilian people of what traits military people acquire (I listed a few...) I fear that some employers may be overly influenced by US tv/movie images that depict Army life as psycopaths shrieking at each other from two inches away, and think that a military person will automatically relate to people around him in that manner. I have often found that when civvies really get to know military people up close and personal, they are usually amazed by how "human" we are. Cheers.




Heh-heh. Little do they know  > :rage: :skull:


----------



## Danjanou (13 Oct 2004)

PBI is bang on.

Those are the skill sets I brought to my present career and thay are a lot more valuable then the "technical ones" I picked up at higher reading and writing school. At least's that what my boss seem to think ( and probably why they put up with me, I get the job done, no matter how hard it gets)

Before he retired, My father used to look at resumes for new hires with his company. If he had two identical candidates and one had military experience, any military experience, on his resume, guess who git hired.

I worked until recently as an employment counsellor (still do a bit in additon to my other duties) and I can tell you, those with military experience including us poor  dumb grunts, have a better shot at getting jobs because of these highly desired soft skills. Sometimes it's just a matter of showing you how to market them on your resume for a layman employer.


----------



## pbi (13 Oct 2004)

Thanks for that Danjanou. On the subject of military experience on a resume, there is an excellent little book I picked up in a US PX a few years ago, called "_Does Your Resume Wear Combat Boots_". It was written by a retired Sgt Major of The Army, and basically it teaches you how to translate your military experience into "business talk" to let an employer understand what you did. It's great and I highly recommend it: anybody who can check out a PX could probably pick one up.

For example, instead of saying:

"I was the Squadron Commander of an Armoured Squadron including a tour overseas", you can say:

"I managed and led an organization of 100 employees of 12 different skill groups including junior managers, foremen, and skilled technicians, with 30 million dollars worth of capital equipment, four buildings and an inventory on hand of approximately 500,000 dollars value. I was responsible to train, lead, manage and discipline this organization for two years. I was also responsible for moving the entire organization with all of its equipment and personnel from Canada to Kosovo, employing it there and bringing it back to Canada. The possible consequences of error in my position were death, serious personal injury, catastrophic property damage, finncial loss and severe damage to the international reputation of Canada."

When you put it that way, it looks quite different, doesn't it? Some people have told me that they think this type of interpretation borders on dishonesty, but I do not see it that way, because its all true. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2004)

> Some people have told me that they think this type of interpretation borders on dishonesty



What kind of people pbi? People that can't put the same kind of statement on their own resume?


----------



## pbi (13 Oct 2004)

Strangely enough, the couple of people who made this comment were both in the military. I rather suspect they didn't think much of their own abilities, or could not ever imagine Life Outside. Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2004)

More fool them.


----------



## LowRider (13 Oct 2004)

Well i'm gonna present a different point of view here guys.I have found that putting military service on my resume,has actually been a detrement to getting a job.In my case it might be because i am in the reserves,but most employers want nothing to do with a reservist who is currently serving.
They don't consider the obvious assets of hiring someone with military experience,all they think when they see resevist is...This guy is gonna want a lot of time off.
Anyway that's my two cents.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2004)

I'm going to wade in here with my own experience, I would have to say that those with military experience are held in a higher regard by most employers.
When I got out in 88 I thought like CFL, what kind of job can I get with the knowledge I have? Not much call for artillery on the street, well in the end it turned out I had to make choices of which job I should take. As it was I whittled it down to two choices, the Toyota factory in Cambridge or Corrections, well the rest is history. ;D 
When I started there were 6 others starting at the same time and I was the only one who didn't have some post-secondary education [ I have a GED] and years later when I was talking to one of the interviewers he stated the military was the reason that I earned enough points to overcome the education thing.
And one more thing I have noticed, the effort that your used to putting in with the military to get the job done would normally be well beyond the call of duty in a civilian job. 8)


----------



## pbi (13 Oct 2004)

LowRider said:
			
		

> Well i'm gonna present a different point of view here guys.I have found that putting military service on my resume,has actually been a detrement to getting a job.In my case it might be because i am in the reserves,but most employers want nothing to do with a reservist who is currently serving.
> They don't consider the obvious assets of hiring someone with military experience,all they think when they see resevist is...This guy is gonna want a lot of time off.
> Anyway that's my two cents.



I'd be very interested to know if the employer actually told you this, and what reason he gave for considering military service as a negative. Or, did you come to that conclusion yourself? How many employers are we speaking about here? As I mentioned, there probably are some employers who, because of misconceptions, think that military types might not be desireable. In your case as a Res, it may be that the employer is not keen to give the time off you will need, rather than that he is against the military itself.  Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt (14 Oct 2004)

The recruitng team at my current department view military members as "drunks" and are not looked upon favorably. It varies from place to place....


----------



## pbi (14 Oct 2004)

Aaron White said:
			
		

> The recruitng team at my current department view military members as "drunks" and are not looked upon favorably. It varies from place to place....



Since these fine individuals seem to have no problems judging us as a group, nor of letting their ill-founded opinions be known, perhaps you could tell us what organization they belong to, so none of us bother applying there? (If you can do so without compromising yourself, of course.) Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt (14 Oct 2004)

Im slowly trying to change that. We have a couple of military guys- none of us are big drinkers. I know that Alberta Corrections had a team that had a similar opinion , one said it right to me......it always depends on the individuals on the recruiting team.....it doesnt appear in Canada that its not looked upon as well as in the states....


----------



## clasper (14 Oct 2004)

Military experience was definitely a huge asset for me getting a civvy job.  I work in the oilfield (which is unrelated, but also prizes the ability to get the job done under adverse circumstances).  When I hired on in Grande Prairie, there were 16 engineers in the shop, and half of us had military experience.  Talking to the other engineers who hired on at the same time, they all had difficulty during their interview explaining why their university thesis was relevant to the job, and how their university experience would help them.  In my interview, the first sentence out of the guy's mouth was basically: "Yep, you've got a degree.  So what did you do in military intelligence?"  The rest of the interview was a breeze.

As for the "dishonest" description of the sqn commander's job, I think it's pretty accurate.  If you look at a lot of resumes, you'll see some of them padded with outrageous lies: "As a squadron commander, I negotiated a cease fire between warring factions, and brought peace to the Middle East..." :blotto:  pbi's description is more realistic, and any inaccuracies will come out in the interview, anyway.


----------



## bossi (14 Oct 2004)

When I applied to law school at York University, I knew my interview was going poorly when the first question out of their long-haired mouths was "had I ever killed anybody?"

As for ex-military having the reputation of being drunks, I can verify that this opinion permeates certain ministries in the Ontario provincial government.  Sadly, from first-hand experience, I've met the cause for this opinion - as always, a few bad apples spoil it for the entire basket (in other words, a few prominent senior ex-military with drinking problems have spoiled it for many others - worse, they're doing it down at Queen's Park where the scrutiny extends into the Legislature).  Ironically, their drinking problems are probably the very reason they're now EX-military.

Based on my 27 years in, the Army is certainly improving vis-a-vis drinking and over-drinking.  That's all I can say (outside the Mess) without getting myself into an even deeper hole.


----------



## ghazise (14 Oct 2004)

During my time in Winnipeg last year I really did not see a positive view of the CF,
My first hand experiences
- outside of Bestbuy, I saw an overweight old Warrant Officer in his Cadpats, with one boot unbloused? 
- at a Riverside brewery saw an officer in OD combats with long hair just drinking at bar waiting to pick up food?
- the recruiters at my U of M were visibly overweight(except for the Medical Doctor)
- downtown I often saw overweight members walking around in Cadpat
- talking with my neighbor in Fort Garry Horse and my cousin with 2 PPCLI, they stated the lack of authority the junior ranks had (ie corporal) and the absence of training

A secound hand story told to me after the christmas break was that on a bus in southern manitoba a Arab man demanded to have the bus stopped so he could get off, when the bus driver refused the man threatened that he was Arab, and do you know what we do?  The girls stated that the bus was scared, but two uniformed CF members did not confront the man and the Bus driver ended up taking care of the situation.

My point is that if I was only to see these scenarios in Winnipeg, and here these stories, that my view of the Forces would be diminished?

As a Marine Corporal, if I saw that a Marine was actually overweight or had a unsat military appearance I had the power to put him on weight control and within 6 months if the Marines condition did not meet standards I could forward the paper work for him to be seperated 

Marines also are not permitted to wear Marpat (Combats) in any of the situation above

After OEF I had very high view of the CF especially the Infantry, but the public does not distinguish between Infantry and rest of the Armed Forces,,,


----------



## pbi (15 Oct 2004)

Actually, 2Ft, since we're talking about whether Canadians care or not, I'd have to challenge you. I'm in my third year of being posted in Winnipeg,and it is one of the most supportive communities I have seen for the military, both Air Force and Army. On a number of other threads I've related some of my positive experiences in the 'Peg, and described how reaffirming these have been for a Canadian soldier. So, I would have to say that as far as 'Peggers are concerned, the CF does create a good impression and they DO care.

Now, as for the fat, sloppy, cowardly or otherwise disgraceful bags who admittedly do crop up in our Forces (jncluding the Army) I think all of us here admit that these rats exist. There is no excuse for them, and most posters here agree with you 100% that the USMC provides   a very fine example of strong _esprit de corps _ and pride in bearing and appearance. Having spent some time at Quantico (and seeing USMC types here daily at Bagram), I wish we had the same high standards. We did once, but IMHO Unification destroyed them, little by little.

Finally, I disagree with you completely about wearing CADPAT in public. I lived through the years during which you couldn't wear combat dress off the base, and had to wear Service Dress for just about everything. Glad they're gone. A fit, proud soldier, turned out in CADPAT looks like a combat soldier and IMHO this is an image we very much need to depict, both to our public and to ourselves. Although the USMC may not permit MARPAT to be worn off base, I know that is not the practice of your Army-they wear combat dress all over the place back in the US-I've seen them.

Cheers.


----------



## bossi (15 Oct 2004)

I'll weigh in with some stories of "talking to civvies" in Toronto ...

Shortly after September 11th, when we were ordered to not wear our uniforms in public, a couple on my street (average folks) approached me one day and asked me if I was still in the Army.  When I answered "yes" I didn't even have the opportunity to carry on and explain why I was in civvies - the two of them pressed close, shook my hand, and explained they just wanted to say "Thank you".

Once when riding the subway a young person was playing "offensive" music very loudly, much to the dismay and consternation of a majority of riders in our car.  Gradually, more and more sets of eyes turned and looked at me as if to say "aren't you going to do something about that?"  

Sighing to myself (unarmed and un-armoured ...), I stepped over to the offending miscreant and very clearly but politely explained that transit regulations forbade the playing of recording devices unless the user was wearing headphones (he wasn't), and would he please turn the volume down to a reasonable level.  

Well, this young fellow must have been "English-challenged" (no - actually he wasn't - I'm being sarcastic) because his response was to crank up the volume another couple of notches.  Did I hear "big mistake" from the audience?  Yup.  Unimpressed myself, I simply reached over with my ashplant and switched off his boom box.  He  tried to turn it on again, but this time I stepped closer and turned it off (resisting the temptation to turn if off permanently ... sigh ...).

The crowning glory came at the next stop, when this punk exited the car.  When the doors closed, he started doing some weird-assed dance that he probably imagined was some sort of martial art (intended to send the message that he'd have gladly engaged me in some off-ice dance ...).  All of a sudden, almost as if the train conductor was watching ... the doors suddenly opened again!  Unable to resist this opportunity to avail myself of some fresh air, I stepped outside in the direction of this young urban hero.

Well, he couldn't pick up his ghetto blaster fast enough and hightail it to the exit ...
The subway car burst into laughter, and the taxpayers apparently felt their tax dollars were well spent on this occasion.

Okay - enough yarn-telling (although I hope some of you were entertained).
Here are the serious points I'd like to make:
First of all, we understand that "animals sense fear".
Also, we preach that "respect is earned".

Thus, in the context of whether or not the Canadian populace cares about us any more, we must constantly remind ourselves to NOT become disgusted with the ignorance of the civilians - otherwise, they'll sense it ... and the romance will go downhill from there ...

Coming at it from another direction - we don't curse at a one or two-year old child for doing something by accident, because they simply didn't know any better.  Instead, we demonstrate patience and educate them in order to avoid a reoccurrence (and work out our frustrations at the hockey rink or at the gym ... chuckle).

When you're in public, you ARE the Canadian Army to those civilians who "don't know any better".
If you deserve their respect, they'll give it to you - that's a fact, not just a promise
(remember what we always say?  Repect is earned ...).

So, do Canadians even care anymore?  Do they still respect us?
Deserve their respect and care, and you'll earn it.
(By the way - we wear our CADPAT in public for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is an overr teminder to external/uneducated observers that we're soldiers, with the subliminal message that the ultimate duty of a soldier is to go into situations where survival depends upon camouflage ...).

Okay - enough ranting from me - I couldn't sleep, so I'm taking it out on the rest of you ... (ha!)


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2004)

Good post bossi.

It kind of parallels another thought I have been thinking of late.  Are we in danger of becoming like the dog that has been kicked to often?  Incapable of recognizing when a friendly hand is offered, biting it and requiring being "put down" (Ok so I don't mean being lined up against the wall or all being fired...)

I get a sense from a lot of posts that most folks on this site want change.  They would like to see change soon.   The only trouble is nobody can agree on what that change should be and nobody TRUSTs anybody that can implement that change in case the end result isn't, or doesn't appear to be, the same as that which they envisage.

Who to trust? The civilians that ignored us and occasionally scorned us? The politicians that followed their lead?  They Liberals that starved us?  The bureaucrats that got fat on us?  NDHQ that failed to protect us and get us the tools that we needed?  Field grade officers that were looking for promotion?  The Senior NCOs that were waiting for retirement?  The REMFs that only wanted to learn a trade?  The newbies that don't take their training seriously?

Short answer is ALL OF THEM have to be trusted.  Or should I say that every individual in the system has to be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they can be trusted, no matter how they or their predecessor acted previously.  Because there are no alternatives - you can't distrust everybody.  And if you do end up biting every hand that tries to feed you and demonstrate that you can't be reached, and are uncommunicative and uncooperative.....maybe you do end up like that dog.


----------



## ghazise (15 Oct 2004)

pbi,   our two differences in the way the public view the CF probably stem from our different social groups, (mine was the U of M) and from that I do not think the public understands the capabilities of a modern military,   when I was high school in Manitoba when we did a section of the class about the military we didn't study the PPCLI, Royal Winnipeg Rifles or even the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, we studied the US Marines, because of the perception the Marines put forth that they were the best, 

It is my view two of the easiest ways you could improve the publics perception of the CF is that you enforce strict height / weight standards, and you have high standards of dress and deportment,

With such a small Army, and with proper direction, I think the Canadian Army has the potential to be trained to standards above that of the US Marines,   probably at par with the Royal Marines.


----------



## Canuck_25 (15 Oct 2004)

I will vote liberal next year for one reason. They have kept canada leaning into U.S. arms. Its was diefenbaker's conservative goverment that cut the avrow arrow. It is again the conservatives supporting a missile shield around U.S., which is a waste of money. You have to understand, this country has a 512 billion dollar deficit. The liberals are trying the get this paid off. I dislike america and its foreign policy, i dislike steven harpers anti monarchy stance and i dislike the modern conservatives. I would like to see this country fully independant, not a puppet of the puppet master of the world. Now i dislike Martin, i found chretian did play tough with the yanks a few times. He did cut many cival servant staff and the military took a beating under him, but under him, canada went into a economic boom.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Oct 2004)

I problem 2FtOnion is that many in the CF view it as a 9-5 job.


----------



## Scratch_043 (15 Oct 2004)

does anyone here even know what the US debt is?

Answer: a heck of a lot more than they can dismiss easily, and their economy will begin to suffer because of it, do we really want to go towards the same thing they are??


----------



## Scratch_043 (15 Oct 2004)

Update,

To see the US national debt, check out http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2004)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> pbi,  our two differences in the way the public view the CF probably stem from our different social groups, (mine was the U of M) and from that I do not think the public understands the capabilities of a modern military,  when I was high school in Manitoba when we did a section of the class about the military we didn't study the PPCLI, Royal Winnipeg Rifles or even the Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders, we studied the US Marines, because of the perception the Marines put forth that they were the best,
> 
> It is my view two of the easiest ways you could improve the publics perception of the CF is that you enforce strict height / weight standards, and you have high standards of dress and deportment,
> 
> With such a small Army, and with proper direction, I think the Canadian Army has the potential to be trained to standards above that of the US Marines,  probably at par with the Royal Marines.



2Ft Onion: I agree with you that the Canadian public probably doesn't understand the capabilities of their military, but that really isn't the point and I don't think it has a huge bearing on their respect for us. The public don't really understand the capabilities of their fire department either, but they still resect them. I understand that your class learned nothing about the Canadian Army, but I can assure you other students do (including Manitoba...).

I agree 100% with you that we have far too many sloppy, baggish looking people who destroy the image of the Army in particular and the CF in general (I have seen a disproportionate number of these people at NDHQ) We do not deal well with them (we lost the court fight over BMI standards a while back) but I think that more demanding PT standards, tested more often, would clean out a few of them. Cheers.


----------



## Acorn (16 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> I agree 100% with you that we have far too many sloppy, baggish looking people who destroy the image of the Army in particular and the CF in general (I have seen a disproportionate number of these people at NDHQ) We do not deal well with them (we lost the court fight over BMI standards a while back) but I think that more demanding PT standards, tested more often, would clean out a few of them. Cheers.



The BMI thing was badly implemented from the start. We all have stories of colleagues who pegged out over 30 BMI, despite being body-builders and not fitting the "profile."

Yes, image has some importance, but should it be the the most important? I know guys who don't cut a fine figure in CADPAT, yet they pass BFT, and they have brains which are of great use to the CF of today. There are other issues, but I'll leave off for now.

Acorn


----------



## pbi (16 Oct 2004)

I agree about BMI: it was born to die young. Unfortunately, the BFT is a lowest common denominator PT test: I can assure you that anybody who is in any shape at all can throw on the ruck and stumble through it once a year. Sharp appearance is, IMHO an important part of military culture: we need to re-instill this in folks. Unfortunately, as you point out, we have confronted ourselves with a dilemma of our own making by allowing otherwise competent people to neglect their fitness and their military bearing. Cheers.


----------



## rounder (16 Oct 2004)

pbi,

   I think you're wrong. The BFT is not something anyone (in somewhat shape) can pass. It does take some build up requirements, six weeks I believe. Yet, and I'm ranting here, Pl Comds will take you on a 10km run without a second thought or any build up. Studies show that marching is more effective in developing physical (strength, and cardio) than running. Yet we preach running as gospel... why sir?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Oct 2004)

what build up???


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

Buildup of six weeks for a 13 KM jaunt?

I'll accept a buildup for the RM "30-miler", but the minimum requirements of the BFT march are not that demanding.  Considering it is usually done in non-tactical conditions, on a road, etc, etc.  I remember some NCO's arguing to our combat-proven Officer on workup about how he was throwing us into route marches; the Officer in question responded by saying that "If the Romans could march across the Empire with marching order in sandels, you can be damn sure we'll be marching out to the ranges in the morning!"  And march we did, and we were better for it in that we winnowed the wheat from the chaff.

As for running vs marching.  I'd like to see the studies you mentioned out of interest.  As well, it is important to think of different forms of running.  Going to the track for 100m sprints is going to offer a vastly different exercise then jogging the loop around the golf course in formation.  I think that any commander who simply takes his troops on the same running route every day for PT, 5 days a week, is just being unoriginal and should put some more thought into developing a training schedule.

Personally, I think a mix of calithetics/weight training, sprinting, running, rucking, and team sports should be used over a month for training.  Helps to keep PT interesting and gives troops well rounded approach to exercise and fitness.


----------



## rounder (16 Oct 2004)

Well apparently there is a BFT work up program that exists. Beginning with webbing marches and graduating to a light ruck march and finally "building up" to the required weight and distance.

This sounds like news to you, and if you're 031 then it probably is. My first experience with the "build up" was with an armoured unit.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Oct 2004)

I think this "buildup" is reflective of the low outlook on physical fitness that the Army holds.   Asking someone to walk for a couple hours with their sleeping bag in their ruck is not too much.

Personally, I think all soldiers should have to do some sort of long-distance, tactical   March-and-Shoot (and pass) every three months.


----------



## rounder (16 Oct 2004)

> Personally, I think all soldiers should have to do some sort of long-distance, tactical  March-and-Shoot (and pass) every three months.



 I agree, but then we would spend all of our time re-testing the failures. We're gutless when it comes to firing the weak. Verbal... C&P... discharge. Isn't that the way it supposed to work?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Oct 2004)

I agree that the process for release of pers that are unfit, unsuitable, or unable to perform the full range of their duties is not used much (at least from what I have seen).
I think the problem lies in that fact that the unit trying to process the release will be the one that suffers more.  Most likely the person being processed will be placed in a non-field ATR position (barrack warden or something similiar) and the losing unit will not get a replacement until the APS after the release happens, and only then if they are lucky.  The remaining pers in that unit now have to do their own job as well as that of person being processed for release.  Meanwhile, they could have kept that member, employed them as they are able and gotten some work out of them.   Push to get them posted and get a replacement.  Might not be nice but real life sucks.
Until the training system is able to provide enough troops to bring every MOC up to full strength (or close to it), the system is going to work against those units that want to winnow out the chaff.


----------



## bossi (16 Oct 2004)

Apparently this thread is going off on a slight tangent from "Do Canadians even care anymore?"

re: BFT - the work-up training is conditioning - very few people normally exercise while wearing 55 pounds of additional weight, including a insulated helmet on the head (oh, except for hockey goalies, of course ...).  Therefore, the work-up training is sensible as opposed to suddenly changing from P.T. in t-shirt and shorts to going for a 13km walk wearing the olive drab equivalent of goalie gear.


----------



## bossi (16 Oct 2004)

Returning to the topic of "Do Canadians even care anymore?" ...
This Edmonton Sun editorial is interesting (and is posted here since it won't be available after today via URL/link):


The vanishing phase 
They are public servants in the truest sense of the word, but they aren't out walking any picket lines. They endure often horrendous working conditions for which even their recently raised wages still don't seem fair compensation. 

Yet they never talk of going on strike. 

They are our Armed Forces, and, as the Sun's Stephanie Rubec has painstakingly (and painfully) documented, they are a proud but vanishing breed thanks to years of government underfunding and neglect. 

Almost every piece of kit in our Forces is 20-30 years old, with the odd exception, such as state-of-the-art Coyote vehicles used in Afghanistan. 

But overall, as our military's rusting, decaying equipment goes, so goes our Forces. 

As defence analyst Howie Marsh of the Conference of Defence Associations told Rubec: "From 2008-13 you're likely to see the disappearance of the air force and half the navy and half the army.... We're into the vanishing phase." 

Sobering words, given that the rest of the world is engaged in the war on terrorism - a war to which Prime Minister Paul Martin has said we are committed. 

How we're going to meet those commitments with a vanishing military is an open, urgent question. 

And Martin's vague promises to build a new peacekeeping brigade are no answer. 

There may be, however, a glimmer of hope in the sad litany of military breakdowns and bad decisions Rubec detailed, which makes it clear this problem goes deeper - no pun intended - than our faulty submarine fleet. 

Last week's fatal fire on the problem-plagued HMCS Chicoutimi has riveted public attention on the problem and forced the government to conduct an inquiry. Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, a father of two, was given a full military funeral in Halifax this week. 

If there is any decency in our now-humbled Liberal minority government, the inquiry - and the public outrage - won't stop at subs, but will extend to how we support and equip all our troops. 

The sub fire may have been a rare occurrence, but it must be viewed as part of a grim pattern for our troops. People are taking notice. The sub fiasco was a tipping point - a signal that Ottawa's neglect has gone too far. 

The navy has announced it is docking all the problem-plagued subs pending the fire investigation. 

But without a full review of our military and a solid commitment to rebuilding it, this temporary move could signal our Forces' future - stalled and headed for oblivion. Unfortunately, given the report that the government is going to cut the Defence budget next year, it would seem that Canada has chosen oblivion.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2004)

> Personally, I think all soldiers should have to do some sort of long-distance, tactical  March-and-Shoot (and pass) every three months.



Like along the Rideau Canal?


----------



## buzgo (21 Oct 2004)

I agree that the BFT is a lowest common denominator test. I've seen plenty of big fat guys (and girls) go out, pass the test by the skin of their teeth, take a couple of days off sick, go on light duties and rest up for the next year's test. Its a load of crap. I just did my first Expres test this year (after doing BFTs for the last 8 or so) and I have to say, it is the superior test. That would really weed people out. Especially if they did 2 BFT AND an Expres test every year. 

Speaking of workup training, at my old unit we were supposed to do 6 weeks of workups prior to doing the BFT. Too many people had complained that it was too hard to just do it. I always thought that the unit should be bugged out with no warning, other than saying "in the next month we will do the BFT."  When I left the unit was starting to follow the army fitness guide and the programs in it, but I don't know if it stuck? Has anyone been following that guide?


----------



## bossi (22 Oct 2004)

Returning to the theme/title of this thread, I just ran across a news item suggesting that SOME Canadians, do indeed care (and, they've got a catchy slogan ...):



> ... National Citizens Coalition is launching a newspaper and radio campaign urging Canadians to rally behind their military with the war cry, "Our military forces have always fought for us, now it's time we fought for them."


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> Returning to the theme/title of this thread, I just ran across a news item suggesting that SOME Canadians, do indeed care (and, they've got a catchy slogan ...):



Good for them. I hope it achieves some results. (you never know--we might be surprised...) Cheers.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2004)

Any positive pressure is good.  We all just have to keep pushing and looking for signs of improvement.

Cheers.


----------



## rounder (23 Oct 2004)

> I just ran across a news item suggesting that SOME Canadians, do indeed care (and, they've got a catchy slogan ...):



Bossi... Do you recall where you came across that?


----------



## bossi (23 Oct 2004)

Yes and no ... It was in a news item about the subs, but right now I can't remember which one
(... there've been so many ...)

So, I just Googled and then visited the NCC website for the first time in my life, and here's what I found:



> The National Citizens Coalition believes Canada needs a strong military defence.
> 
> And to get that message out, the NCC has run newspaper ads, radio commercials and set up special online petitions.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.morefreedom.org/NCCLive/campaigns/campaignsArticle.jsp?ArticleID=166

Their advertisements have the snazzy slogan:


> "Our military forces have always fought for us, not it's time we fought for them"


http://www.morefreedom.org/NCCLive/pdfs/NCCMilitaryAd_REV.pdf


----------



## bossi (23 Oct 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> Yes and no ... It was in a news item about the subs, but right now I can't remember which one
> (... there've been so many ...)
> 
> So, I just Googled and then visited the NCC website for the first time in my life, and here's what I found:
> ...



P.S. (and here's the text of their petition)



> Petition to support the Military
> To Prime Minister Martin:
> 
> For thirty years federal governments have starved Canada's armed forces.
> ...


----------



## RHFC_CPL (23 Oct 2004)

Here's a little story to add to the rants:

This thurdsay night just passed The Fables (a newfie band for those who don't know) where playing at the big horn in Cambridge. now I had to go over after parade...while outside for a smoke a women seen my tags around my neck and asked if i was in the military and to that I said yes. She went on to say she was an american and then quoted that Canadian troops are pussies. This upset me but as the rational guy I am I asked her to explain figuring she would bring up the fact that we didn't go into Iraq...She continued on that 'Canadians aren't as hard core as american troops. Canadian's aren't pushed to the limits, physically maybe they are, but not mentally.'   In a nut shell she tried to say we are undisciplined and undertrained. I tried to explain to her that Canadians look at world issues differently...were american troops are peacemaker's (ie lets go in, guns blazing, and take over.), Canadian's are peacekeepers. We go in and say 'ok what can we do to make things better and try not to have chaos and massive fighting on our hands. Lets help the people instead of controlling them. She once again said...'that's why americans are better...we make our own solution.' And I asked 'is that morally right though? If it was your country, you would much prefer someone to step in between the fighting to stop it, than you would a third faction playing both sides and killing everone to stop the fighting. I know I would. What about you.'....to that didn't reply.

Now is it just me or do most people think that way about the military?....more than one person has said to me that because of the Iraq war and the hurt to Canadian trades with the US, they would rather see our troops over in Iraq fighting and dying so that they could have kept their jobs or that we wouldn't be on america's 'bad side.' And these are Canadians! Like WTF?! I thought our job was to protect people's lives and to make a difference in the world not to keep people employed or to apease the americans. Those are the jobs of foriegn affairs and human resources, not MND.

When will people ever open their eyes and see that the world isn't black and white... that there is more to everything than meets the eye?

_He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you._ - Friedrich Nietzsche


----------



## bossi (23 Oct 2004)

Hopefully you didn't waste too much time, breath or energy debating with this person.

"Still waters run deep."


----------



## axeman (24 Oct 2004)

Well lets see if we were such pussies who stood as part of many of the US {who will be referred to as YOU'ALLS} military actions . I seem to recall standing on the plains in southern Afghanistan , looking at the place where 4 of my friends were killed by a youall pilot who still to this day believes he did nothing wrong. Another friend of mine watched as some of his friends were killed by   a person who believed that he will now be looked after in paradise as he has killed unbelievers . If it wasn't for the youalls overinflated egos maybe some of this wouldn't have happened . Now that they are caught in this mess of the WMD fiasco and have over 1000 of their soldiers killed and numerous members of the coalition forces killed they are trying to get whoever they can to try to save their A++'s and cut down their loses . IMHO the soldiers shouldn't be the ones to shoulder the burden they are forced to over there . its not the soldier that i have problems with its the elephant that controls it and the mentality of it . We are our own country and should not be burdened by the Youalls stupidity   to be pushed into the corner that they are . they invaded on the premise of the WMD , and now they still havent found anything and are still in the country trying to stabilize the beast they have now created..   but hey thats my opinion and every has one and i agree   in hopes that you walked away from her with maybe a small comment if shes so brave why aint she in uniform ?


----------



## bossi (24 Oct 2004)

Inflammatory rhetoric aside, I was thinking of Axeman's signature when I made my previous post ...



> Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the difference.


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2004)

Excellent points, all. The funny thing is that most people I've met in the US military who have had any real contact with Canadian military are full of praise for us. The woman was obviously an ill-informed, narrow minded idiot who has no real frame of reference. If she knew anything about either military she would not have made the comments she did. Cheers.


----------



## axeman (24 Oct 2004)

Sorry that i was a rant Ive kinda given up on that. but every now and then I still do it . but yes  i agree narrow minded and shallow would be a few words that i would use to describe her.  my apologies for my butt hanging out like that . :-[


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2004)

axeman said:
			
		

> Sorry that i was a rant Ive kinda given up on that. but every now and then I still do it . but yes i agree narrow minded and shallow would be a few words that i would use to describe her. my apologies for my butt hanging out like that . :-[



Oh-I don't know- a nice rant now and then does you a world of good, don't you think? Cheers.


----------



## rounder (24 Oct 2004)

> but hey thats my opinion and every has one




   You're opinion.... and that of the majority of the CF I hope.


P.S. Loved the "rant"


----------



## clasper (25 Oct 2004)

As an interesting contrast to the original question about Canadians caring about the military, I was in Scotland last week when the announcement was made that the Black Watch were heading to Fallujah.  I took a cab that night in Edinburgh, and the cabbie happened to be the father of a Black Watch soldier, so I thought it was natural we talked about the deployment.  When I walked into the pub, I was rather surprised that everyone around the bar was talking about it.  (OK, it was halftime of the football match, but they were still discussing military matters in a place where you wouldn't normally see that happen in Canada.)  And it was not an isolated incident- for a few days, every pub I walked into (and there were a few, in Edinburgh and elsewhere) people were talking about the Black Watch.  It was really impressive.

From what I've seen, the Canadian public cares more about the military than they did a decade ago, but there's still a long way to go.

(And for the record, the prevailing attitude was essentially: "The bloody Yanks have over 100,000 troops in Iraq, and they still can't clean up their own mess- they need the Scots to do it for them...")


----------



## Slim (26 Oct 2004)

During one ex I was on I was attached to an American field unit and had occasion to get into a discussion with an American Master-Seargent. We wound up talking about what he thought of the Canadian Forces attached to his unit at the time, after spending several weeks with us working in close proximity.

He said: (and I quote) "You guys are real crack troops. I don't remember ever working with troops from another country that were so switched on and ready to get the job done. You all are a pleasure to work with."

More often than not that is the reaction that we get when working with all other countries, not just the US. That American civvie was just trying to stir up trouble and, chances are, if there had been any US servicemen or women present that had worked with us, she would've been told to shut up...very probably by her own countrymen.

Slim


----------



## NavyGrunt (26 Oct 2004)

Last EX I was on the americans were always coming out on our small boats because they loved how we operated. More with less and at a higher speed....we recieved a tonne of praise. Of course I have lots of good stuff to say about Uncle Sams boys as well....even if some Canucks dont like to give them credit.


----------



## RHFC_CPL (26 Oct 2004)

Heh a good rant is always good...problem is with the way the general population seems to view us....we will be ranting alot more until they can see the troops and not the guys doing our paperwork. Anyone who wears the uniform sets an example for the CF. Last i checked there were dress and deportment regulations...maybe it is time to crack down on it. That and people shouldn't bitch about the army....if they think we have it good or what we do is easy...then jump on board and prove us wrong. I can guarantee you though....most of them wouldn't make it...even with this 'new army' and our lighter expectations. But until the time that every civy jumps on our band wagon and joins the army they have no right to say anything. Uninformed opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.


----------



## Guardian (26 Oct 2004)

RHFC_CPL said:
			
		

> But until the time that every civy jumps on our band wagon and joins the army they have no right to say anything. Uninformed opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.



This was a cheap shot.

These "uninformed civilians" have as much right to say anything as we do - whether their opinion is informed or not is totally irrelevant. Protecting that "right," among others, is in fact our reason to wear the uniform in the first place. Furthermore, the "uninformed civilians" pay the taxes that pay our salaries and kit us out, and elect the political leaders who make the decisions about us. They have every right to comment.

The attitude you are displaying, ironically, will only contribute to the "ignorance" you find so abhorrent. Disparaging civilians only contributes to an us-vs-them mindset that will harm our efforts to have the public understand the challenges we face. We are the servants of the Canadian people and the state - a lack of respect on our part will be reciprocated. Why expect them to show an interest in us when we bite the hand that feeds us?

Don't make the erroneous assumption, either, that civilians cannot be informed about military matters because they haven't been in uniform. There are plenty of civilians who have fought hard for us in the public sphere without having any "time in," and who have done their homework and know what they are talking about. I'd like to keep them on our side, thank you very much. And just because someone's in uniform does not necessarily make them experts, either... We've all seen retired / former soldiers say some pretty silly things.

Bottom line, your post will serve to deter civilians from posting on this board. We're trying to encourage an open atmosphere here, in order to foster better relations with the public we serve. You aren't helping.


----------



## dutchie (26 Oct 2004)

Here, here Guardian. Here, here.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2004)

Cheers Guardian


----------



## bossi (26 Oct 2004)

Guardian said:
			
		

> Disparaging civilians only contributes to an us-vs-them mindset that will harm our efforts to have the public understand the challenges we face ... a lack of respect on our part will be reciprocated. Why expect them to show an interest in us when we bite the hand that feeds us?



Good post, Guardian.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Oct 2004)

> Uninformed opinions are like assholes....everyone has one.



Much like *uniformed* opinions...


----------



## bossi (26 Oct 2004)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> "Uninformed opinions are like assholes....everyone has one."
> 
> Much like *uniformed* opinions...



Yup - and just like tactics - if they don't work, first you're full of poop ... and then, you die.


----------



## RHFC_CPL (29 Oct 2004)

True enough...true enough...I will admit I was quite ticked when I wrote that. I am just sick of people saying they would rather see us fight and die then Canadians lose our 'friendly ties' with the US. I think that is a load of bull...I hate the human mindset of 'lets just kill them all...make a huge parking lot and there we go.' That is the mind set I keep hearing....kill them all and be done with it?! Morals...in general people don't sit back and think about what they say...I can admit that to my last post...but the thing i notice is that the civs only really see us all grunged up, or those who are dressed slack. Maybe just by chance...i dunno. It seems they don't see the good side of the army or they wouldn't think this way...and telling us to go fight and die? Sure that is why we signed on the dotted line but you should be sad to see us go...not jump at the chance for us to go get shot and for what? Know the cause...fight for a cause and fight to save lives. I am a big believer in morals...I have no problem going and fighting and even dieing as long as I know that my death prevented someone elses. Thats why I signed on the dotted line. That is what I said to myself when I decided to enlist.

Ya but I will admit I was a little hot headed...and quick with my tongue...just had to get it out...but it is becaue I am sick of bad publicity all the time...I wish that more than just seniors would say. 'heh good job...keep it up.' Even kids say "look cool, an army guy!' But most others just complain about us. But then again thats not why we are in it. I guess for now our sense of pride an honour in what we do will only be shared between those in green...and those who lived when those before us were needed. Ours is not to question why, but to do and die.


----------



## pbi (29 Oct 2004)

RHFC: don't judge all Canadians by the rather inexperienced, narrow-minded crowd who often tend to exist in universities. Once they get some life under their belts, you'll be surprised how their opinions change. My experience (and those of some other posters here.....) has been that the average Canadian is proud of us, and does appreciate us, and does care about us-to a point. Our job, IMHO is not to look inwards and mutter in our beer about "F**** civvies" and tell each other how great we are, but instead get out there and do like the CLS says: Connect with Canadians.

If we don't tell our story, who will?

Cheers.


----------



## bossi (29 Oct 2004)

Ironically, I got a chance to tell our story last night!
Sure, it's only cable TV but ... at least it'll reach some insomniacs somewhere ... ha!
On the show "Fine Print", they were reviewing the book "The Bookseller of Kabul" by Asne Seierstad
(unfortunately, she was a no-show - recalled by her press agency to cover a developing story ...)
Thus, there was an audible sigh of relief when I showed up for the taping session (... chuckle).

If we can believe the show's hostess, her audience will be more than thrilled to hear our version of "live in Kabul" - to paraphrase her, it was an opportunity to tell Canadians about things they'd never otherwise see ... hmmm ... kinda like we've been discussing here, eh?

I'm also booked to speak to a local high school on Remembrance Day, and two Remembrance dinners.
Like we said, if you get the chance to tell Canadians our story, carpe diem!


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Oct 2004)

Well done bossi, brilliant.


----------



## pbi (29 Oct 2004)

Good on you bossi! _Tell it, brother! _ Cheers


----------



## RHFC_CPL (30 Oct 2004)

Good stuff Bossi. An Pbi...it's too true. Cheers boyz and thanx for the words of encouragement...hopefully i'll run into these patriotic Canadian's one day.

Cheers boyz...wouldn't trade the friendships you make in the army for anything though...one thing is true...most civs don't get the comradeship shared between troops and units. It is kinda sad really.

L8r guyz and thanx all.


----------



## RorerQuaalude (25 Nov 2004)

This is my rant post. What really irritates me is those people who refer to people serving their country in a derrogatory way. In high school, there was one Reservist who was always referred to as 'That Army Weirdo' or other, more obscene things that both degraded the individual and the Forces. In addition, on Rememberance Day when the school's reservists would be in dress uniform, they'd often be the source of the most harsh derrogatory comments, especially those wearing a Scottish-style uniforms (i.e. kilt). It's sickening to think that because someone's answered the call to serve their country, and puts their ass on the line to protect what this country stands for, they are degraded. I don't understand why this is. You would think those who have opted to take the challenge and honour of serving would receive the respect that they deserve.


----------



## Long in the tooth (25 Nov 2004)

Rorer - it's one heckuva lot better now than it was in the 70s just after Viet Nam.  We didn't wear our uniforms anywhere near civies if we didn't have to.  One noteworthy prospective employer assumed we were all psychotic baby killers right off the bat.  At least nowadays I have no problem going anywhere in uniform.

Especially after 9/11 we have good support from the public - now to turn that into dollars, manpower & equipment, _that's_ the trick.


----------



## Hylander_ca (25 Nov 2004)

RorerQuaalude - You can't blame the younger generation for not understanding what we do. Both Worlds Wars, Korea, and Vietnam are almost forgotten by the civilian populous. Parents are not taking what I believe is the responsibility to teach their children what price we as soldiers have to pay so that they can live free of tyranny. The schools can't teach appropriately enough because Canadian society on a whole frowns upon "war mongering". School higher archy are bureaucrats, and therefore think it is bad business to talk about armed forces and what we do. Thus doing the bare minimum in history class and on Remembrance Day to "Honour" are soldiers past and present. Granted I get ticked off when somebody young tries to impress   his/her friends with comments about the "army".....but I've learned to calm myself by reminding myself that it is ignorance on their part, and total lack of respect on the part of their parents. And that makes me ashamed of my own countries populous.


----------



## Slim (25 Nov 2004)

If behaviour like that continues to be excused then the situation will never change.


----------



## RorerQuaalude (25 Nov 2004)

I blame the younger generation. That is to say the up and coming 'I expect everything, but will do nothing in return' generation. These are the snot-nosed pissants that do nothing but be whiny pains in the arse, the ones that expect everything to be spoon fed to them. When sh*t hits the fan, these are the ones that play the blame game, or plain out plead ignorance. It will be up to the exceptions to lead future generations, and prevent them from falling into this rut.


----------



## nULL (25 Nov 2004)

Are you all in this for the recognition or the "support" from the populace? F*** them, I bet all civil servants (like cops/mailmen/maintance crews) could complain equally, and have their own sets of problems.


----------



## pbi (25 Nov 2004)

nULL said:
			
		

> Are you all in this for the recognition or the "support" from the populace? F*** them, I bet all civil servants (like cops/mailmen/maintance crews) could complain equally, and have their own sets of problems.



Null you have a point. Some of my Fire Service friends in Calgary related to me some of the very whiny, nasty "_I'm a taxpayer_" type complaints they get. One complaint was because the crew was enjoying a pleasant summer evening by sitting on deck chairs on the station ramp with the doors open (_I don't get paid to sit on my job-why do they?)_. Another was because on returning to quarters from a particularly hot and dirty summer brush fire, they pulled in at a 7/11 to get slurpees. A citizen sent in a complaint that they were slacking off. To top this, an alderman tried to start a campaign to take the bunk rooms out of the stations, and to have firefighters out shovelling snow or delivering city interoffice mail between calls. 
There are idiots everywhere. Cheers.


----------



## jonsey (26 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> To top this, an alderman tried to start a campaign to take the bunk rooms out of the stations, and to have firefighters out shovelling snow or delivering city interoffice mail between calls.
> There are idiots everywhere. Cheers.



HAHAHA!!!! Right, so, they're supposed to respond quickly and effectively to a fire, if they're out and about using their energy doing "chores"?  

Gah, I'm glad I don't live in that area.


----------



## Slim (26 Nov 2004)

Always some a$$hole who will say and/or do anything for a vote.


----------



## onecat (26 Nov 2004)

I blame the younger generation. That is to say the up and coming 'I expect everything, but will do nothing in return' generation. These are the snot-nosed pissants that do nothing but be whiny pains in the arse, the ones that expect everything to be spoon fed to them. When sh*t hits the fan, these are the ones that play the blame game, or plain out plead ignorance. It will be up to the exceptions to lead future generations, and prevent them from falling into this rut.

I think every generation says the samething about "their" younger generation.  And you know what, it's that generation that grows up and says the same thing about the next.


----------



## Stymiest (29 Nov 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> I don't think Mulroney was light years ahead of the Libs, but the 1987 Defence White paper came out under his government and it was this white paper that stated we should have Nuke subs among other things. Mind you, the end of the Cold War certainly put a damper on that white paper.   Unfortunately, I feel the world is a worse place now.   There's no clearly defined enemy anymore and I don't think anyone in power really knows what direction we should be heading let alone how to get there. It was Mulroney's government that made the deal for the 50 EH101s that was promptly cancelled by Chretien.
> 
> So I don't think he was that much better, it was just different times and circumstances.
> 
> ...



Lol nah if a plane hit a building in downtown Toronto they would probably just blame the United States and have a smoke pot for freedom rally


----------



## NavyGrunt (30 Nov 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> To top this, an alderman tried to start a campaign to take the bunk rooms out of the stations, and to have firefighters out shovelling snow or delivering city interoffice mail between calls.
> There are idiots everywhere. Cheers.



Sweet effing crap. Then there would be complaints because the fire fighters didnt perfrom well because they stayed up all night shovelling snow....


----------



## ArmyRick (30 Nov 2004)

I have my opinions of certain canadian communities who have become complacent with life as they know it.
Their will be cries and wimpers about police brutality and unfair policing until they get beaten and mugged and then they wonder where were the police?
They will complain about property taxes and why should the damn fire fighters have it so easy then their house will catch fire, oh sh*t they can't get here soon enough !
Then they b*cth and moan about spending money on national defence, then these same people wonder why the army doesn't spring into action when third world terrorist manage to kill five thousand people in two towers. 

I mention 9/11 because it is really close to home. The attitude that we are canadians and the world views us different is BS as well. Ask the suicide bomber that killed corporal Murphy almost a year ago or the serbs who took canadians hostage or the croats in the medac pocket who fired on 2PPCLI (hoo-rah my old unit)...
Canadians sooner or later will learn..
COMPLACENCY KILLS....


----------



## Slim (30 Nov 2004)

ArmyRick

Well said Sir, well said...

Now if only they'd listen!

Slim


----------



## Corporal McDill. (9 Dec 2004)

That guy is disgusting.

That's all I have to say.


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Dec 2004)

Check out Corrie Adolph and her group at : http://www.c4mp.org/

Hopefully, they are still busy...


----------



## bossi (12 Dec 2004)

Continuing the theme of "Do Canadians even care anymore?"
This article suggests some do:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2004/12/12/pf-778554.html

*Power of the Maple Leaf*
Flag patch does us proud and nowhere more so than our troops' deeds in Afghanistan

By Licia Corbella, Sun, December 12, 2004 

Much fuss is being made about a U.S. company selling special kits to help Americans look like Canadians while travelling abroad. 

"Americans Traveling Overseas -- Consider Going Canadian!" states the website of www.t-shirtking.com. 

The enterprising company is selling "Go Canadian" disguise kits for $24.95 -- U.S. of course. 

The kits include a Canadian flag emblazoned T-shirt, badge, sticker, pin and a tongue-in-cheek guide book on "How to Speak Canadian, Eh?" 

This story has been covered in newspapers and on newscasts around the world -- like it's something new. 

But anyone who has ever backpacked around Europe or anywhere else, for that matter, knows that Americans have been donning Canadian flag patches and pins for decades now. 

Way back in 1981, I spent a year travelling through Europe and north Africa. 

Even back then -- with no illegal U.S. war taking place -- most Americans I met on the road passed themselves off as Canadians. 

At the beginning of my travels when I saw a Canadian flag on a backpack I assumed (silly me) that they were Canadians and would ask: "Where in Canada are you from?" 

Halfway through my travels, I learned to start asking: "So are you Canadian or American?" 

I actually met one American fella who walked around with a Canadian flag on his backpack but always put an American flag pin on his shirt or coat in restaurants in order to get better service, since Canadians are considered notoriously cheap tippers while Americans are deemed the best! 

But it wasn't just the Americans who had, or at least wanted, a Canadian patch on their packs. 

One time, after engaging in a long conversation with a charming fella on a train, I fell asleep only to wake up minus the gold watch my mother had given me for high school graduation. 

Luckily for me, the guy was a thief but not a liar. He told me which beach in Spain he was planning on going to, so at the next stop I got off the train I was on, headed back in the direction I came from and found the thief relaxing on the beach he had raved about earlier. 

With a chivalrous Spanish gent in tow I marched straight up to my former train companion, held out my hand and said: "Give me my watch." 

He did. He also returned to me the Canadian patch he had brazenly unstitched from my pack, while I was using it as my pillow! 

I asked him why on earth he wanted my patch and he said: "Few people trust Moroccans, but everybody trusts Canadians." 

Ah, the power of the Maple Leaf! 

I recall feeling deep pride about my country that day. 

But I've never felt prouder of Canada than when I was in Afghanistan last year at this very time. 

Last year, 2,000 Canadian forces troops -- working under NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were stationed in Kabul and doing a world of good for the war-weary people of Afghanistan. 

Our soldiers all wore little Canadian flags on their shoulders and you could spot them around town while on patrol waving to the children in the dusty streets. 

While I was there, dozens of Canadian troops donated their days off helping the good folk of Samaritan's Purse distribute toy-filled shoe boxes to needy children in orphanages and displaced persons camps. 

Our soldiers, always professional and kind, became well-known by many of the children in these orphanages over the months of their tour. 

It was because of our soldiers that new wells had been dug, desks, backpacks and supplies provided for their schools, mattresses and heating oil and food provided for their orphanages. 

But most of all, our troops -- 2,000 strong and the largest single contingent in Afghanistan at the time -- brought peace to the beautiful people of that devastated country. 

Now there are some 650 Canadian troops there and even though amazing things are taking place, including last Tuesday's swearing in of Afghanistan's newly elected president Hamid Karzai -- thanks in large part to Canada and the U.S. -- we are not hearing much about it. 

One of the people I met while over in Afghanistan was Alberta rancher and independent film-maker Garth Pritchard. 

Pritchard recently returned from Afghanistan again, where he taped amazing footage of women in burkas, defying brutal husbands and threats of death by hiding Taliban members, to stand in line at polling stations and vote in free and democratic elections not just for the first time in their oppressed lives, but for the first time in their country's history. 

Yes, Garth has documented the story of our troops protecting these people, so why haven't any of us seen it? Why isn't this Canadian story being shown to us? 

I don't have the answer to that. 

CBC won't air his stuff. Instead, watching the CBC, you'd never know we had any troops over there at all, let alone the incredible changes they have brought to Afghanistan. 

For a variety of complex reasons, Garth can't get any of those tens of millions of taxpayers dollars made available to other Canadian film makers because most of that money stays in Quebec and Ontario. 

So, the proudest moments of our flag go unnoticed. Instead, we must make do with stories that are decades old, about Americans disguising themselves as Canadians, rather than stories of real Canadians wearing their flag proudly and at great risk.


----------



## bossi (12 Dec 2004)

... but not the CBC ...

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/12/12/pf-778572.html

*Canada's Afghan mission a success*

By Peter Worthington, The Sun, December 12, 2004 

You won't hear or see it on the CBC, but a case can be made that contrary to the expectations of "experts," Canada's recent military role in Afghanistan has been one of the great success stories of this new century. 

I should add "so far," because one never knows how the future will unfold. 

I mention the CBC because it has proven pretty consistent in knocking the military, tending to highlight failures and ignore successes. 

In the Kandahar phase of Afghanistan, the CBC focused mainly on the four Princess Pats who were accidentally killed by a bomb from a U.S. plane -- though it rejected the only on-the-spot TV record of the incident, done by filmmaker Garth Pritchard, who was there. 

The Pats left Kandahar after six months. The following year then-PM Jean Chretien committed 2,000 troops to a constabulary role in Kabul, much to the dismay of some (me included) who felt this was a sorry role for combat soldiers. 

Election success 

From the start, the Canadians have exceeded expectations. The initial battle group was replaced by the RCR, who were replaced by the Vandoos, who were replaced last August by the Lord Strathcona's Horse, augmented by a company of Patricias. 

I was in Kabul for Afghanistan's presidential elections in October, and it could be argued that the unexpected success of the vote was largely due to the 10,000 troops of the International Security and Assistance Force (ISAF), of which the Canadians are the key element. 

President Hamid Karzai won 55% of the vote (there were 17 candidates) with 42% of voters being women -- both outcomes that few had predicted. As well as a milestone towards the beginnings of democracy, it was vindication for the Canadian military and its security and its superior electronic surveillance capabilities. 

It upsets Afghans to suggest, even jokingly, that perhaps foreign military should leave. People trust our army for security, and like them because they don't interfere. 

Last July on CBC-TV, host Carole MacNeil interviewed two military "experts" who had a very low opinion of Canada's role in Afghanistan: David Bercuson, director of military and strategic studies at the University of Calgary, and Sunil Ram, identified as a teacher at Virginia's American Military University, and who is "affiliated with the Royal Canadian Military Institute." (He is a contributor to its private defence journal, SITREP.) 

According to a transcript of the show, Ram called the Canadian mission in Afghanistan "a failure." He said: "Really nothing has changed. We've reverted back to the period of the warlords ... the drug trade has dramatically risen ... Essentially NATO forces can barely contain Kandahar and Kabul ... so what are they doing? Not a heck of a lot." 

Asked if he thought this was an accurate picture, Bercuson answered: "Absolutely." He called the mission "a restricted success" whose impact on our military will take years to recover from. 

Ram said we'd have been better advised to send troops to the Congo, Liberia or Sierra Leone, since there's "no strategic reason" for Canada to be in Afghanistan. All we've done is "poured hundreds of millions of dollars into that country that is ending up in the hands of knockout criminals who essentially run the country," he contended. 

Bercuson's response: "I absolutely agree with that 100%." He added: "Canada doesn't have enough resources to make much of a difference ... The aim of this mission was not to safeguard the government of Afghanistan. The aim of this mission was to find a place to put 1,000 Canadians troops in the spring of 2003 and hide them so they couldn't be used in Iraq." 

Speaking as "an ex-Canadian Forces officer," Ram called military equipment "substandard, and the bottom line is that we will simply not be able to send more personnel." 

Bercuson added: "We need to get out. We should have gotten out now. We shouldn't have been there in the first place." 

Thus say two "experts" -- neither of whom, to my knowledge, has been in Kabul. I'd argue they misread Afghanistan. 

Our military has had dramatic success at ensuring peace, stability, security, and the possibility of quasi-democratic order. 

Expertise suspect 

Why does the CBC consider these guys experts? Bercuson has reputable credentials, and in November was awarded the prestigious 2004 Vimy Award by the Canadian Defence Associations Institute for "a significant and outstanding contribution to the defence and security of our nation and the preservation of our democratic values." He ought to visit Canadians in Kabul to see for himself. 

Sunil Ram's credentials are more obscure. Those who use him as an analyst generally state that he is an ex-Canadian military officer and worked on developing peacekeeping training for the UN. The American Military University, where he teaches military history, is, according to its Web site, "a non-traditional, distance education institution that offers master, bachelor, and associate degree programs designed to meet the needs of the military community, as well as other interested scholars." In other words, AMU is an online correspondence school that gives degrees and certificates in everything from hotel and restaurant management to athletic training. 

It would seem the CBC indulges in what could be called selective censorship by carefully choosing its "experts." Had Bercuson or Ram spent more time with Canadians in the field, their mutual views might be different.


----------



## gnplummer421 (12 Dec 2004)

Sadly, the press these days seem to concentrate on scandals and such when reporting news, however, the Ottawa Sun's Peter Worthington is definitely pro military and reports regularly on our troops past and present. I have written some letters to the editors on military matters that were posted in the paper in the past, and perhaps an e-mail to Peter would get the ball rolling in regards to pressure on CBC to air this footage. After all, negative comments about CBC in a national paper will probably get a response from them. Any suggestions?


----------



## Inch (12 Dec 2004)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Sadly, the press these days seem to concentrate on scandals and such when reporting news, however, the Ottawa Sun's Peter Worthington is definitely pro military and reports regularly on our troops past and present. I have written some letters to the editors on military matters that were posted in the paper in the past, and perhaps an e-mail to Peter would get the ball rolling in regards to pressure on CBC to air this footage. After all, negative comments about CBC in a national paper will probably get a response from them. Any suggestions?



Just a little info, Worthington is pro-military because his father was MGen Worthington, aka the Father of the Armoured Corps. I have always enjoyed his articles since he has a unique perspective that nearly all other journalists lack.

I'd say go ahead with the email, he's probably one of the few media friends that the military has.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Dec 2004)

To add to Inch's post.  Peter Worthington is also a former PPCLI officer with time in Korea, and also some other adventures in his earlier years as a Reporter in the Belguim Congo.

GW


----------



## pbi (12 Dec 2004)

I am going to pour some cold water here.

I found Worthington's two previous articles that he posted from Kabul to be almost complete rubbish: I have commented on this elsewhere on this site.   Far from crediting the Canadian military, the "FROG" piece made us look like completely ill-informed twits, while the 'Force Protedtion" article made us look like wimpies and also took a very unfair and quite nasty swipe at the contingent commander. The fallacy of Worthington's second piece was highlighted by the three attacks that happened in Kabul shortly after, including upon ISAF pesonnel engaged in the very "military tourism" his article appeared to advocate.

Second, he is greatly overstating the role of ISAF in achieving security and stability outside Kabul Province. ISAF's military presence in the northern provinces is so small (even with the election-period reinforcements that are now gone) that any such claim is patently wrong. The North is calm anyway, for other reasons. Indeed IMHO ISAF could do very little if it was to be otherwise. In the Kabul Province, the ISAF presence in the area outside the city area was larger than that in the North, but still quite weak: it was essentially a single infantry coy and some patrols.

It is in Kabul city where ISAF has really made its mark and has undoubtedly contributed to the security of the capitiol city and thus to the security and effectiveness of the interim govt. Here Worthington's praise is deserved. However, as important as the LdSH(RC) Recce Sqn has been to the success of this operation, it should be remembered that Canadians form only a very small component of the actual deployed ISAF forces. The majority of the 700-odd Canadians (including B Coy/1PPCLI) are there for Canadian force protection, C2 or logistic support. They all do an excellent job, as we would expect, and are IMHO of a higher calibre than the great majority of the other ISAF forces, but to make huge sweeping claims for them is really a bit disingenuous. 

Whether we like it or not, the great burden of making Afghanistan secure and stable, and making the Presidential elections a success, fell on the US-led Coalition forces who were out killing and capturing the baddies before they could reach their objectives, and on the ANA and ANP who assisted in those OEF ops and who actually guarded the polling centres and counting houses. Canadians have done their part but we wuold, IMHO, be false to bask in the glow of praise that belongs to others. Cheers.


----------



## Acorn (12 Dec 2004)

From what I've seen of Worthington's work I question whether he remembers his service at all. He often regurguitates the most ill-informed nonsense.

Acorn


----------



## marlene (13 Dec 2004)

I believe that it's a sad fact of our society that it's those that SCREAM the loudest and act out are the ones that are heard and are taken to be in the majority when I don't believe that's true. I think there are many Canadians who do care about the CF but they simply aren't heard. They're not out there yelling and making spectacles of themselves. Plus I don't think the media helps matters. Correct me if I'm wrong but when the tragedy happened on the sub - the Chicoutimi I heard all kinds of garbage circulating. Blame the Brits for selling us faulty subs, blame the military for lack of training, etc. Just total BS. I didn't once hear the media putting the blame squarely where it belonged in my view - on the government for putting us in a position where we are forced to buy used equipment in the first place.

merlane


----------



## Slim (13 Dec 2004)

I didn't once hear the media putting the blame squarely where it belonged in my view - on the government for putting us in a position where we are forced to buy used equipment in the first place.

I bet that there is a good reason for that...If the media blame the govt. then their sourses might dry up...I don't know, just a thought.

Slim


----------



## armyrules (13 Dec 2004)

venero said:
			
		

> We need to stop buying crap. I Think it's time the liberals take a seat on the bench next election.



        I feel the exact same way they don't give a @#$% about the military and that angers me not only angers but dissapoints me as well


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Dec 2004)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041215.wxmilitary15/BNStory/National/

This guy still cares.  Sgt Barney Danson. One of Trudeau's MNDs, and his best.  Might carry some more weight with His PMness.


----------



## bossi (15 Dec 2004)

I missed the Danson article, but noticed former MND Collenette speaking out (and pointing a finger directly at Papa Doc Crouton, I was pleased to see - I guess "being out of politics" has its' advantages vis-a-vis Cottenelle being able to speaks his mind ... chuckle!)


----------



## commando_wolf63 (15 Dec 2004)

Our Govt looked at the initial cost of buying Equipment for our CF. Sure it was cheaper to buy Used vs New but in the long run did the taxpayers really save money? I dont think so. In the long run we had to upgrade before we were able to put this equipment into service. (Maybe this why the previous owner decided to buy new)

Until the average Joe Canadian wakes up and smells the coffee and starts holding our elected members of Govt accountable. They will continue to get away with buying second hand junk from other Countries( this Equip was discarded to upgrade their Military). Perhaps if the Children of those in office were obligated to serve in the CF. Maybe then the members of the CF would be treated better.


----------



## Acorn (15 Dec 2004)

commando_wolf63 said:
			
		

> Until the average Joe Canadian wakes up and smells the coffee and starts holding our elected members of Govt accountable. They will continue to get away with buying second hand junk from other Countries( this Equip was discarded to upgrade their Military).



Is there a "know what you are talking about" rule? 

Untill the average Joe Canadian has a micro schmic about the CF and acquisitions we'll be assaulted by illl-informed BS from self-appointed critics.

FYI, the subs in question were NOT "...discarded to upgrade [the British] military." Come back when you know WTF you are talking about. Not as just as sock puppet for Scott Taylor.

Acorn


----------



## pbi (16 Dec 2004)

commando_wolf63 said:
			
		

> Our Govt looked at the initial cost of buying Equipment for our CF. Sure it was cheaper to buy Used vs New but in the long run did the taxpayers really save money? I dont think so. In the long run we had to upgrade before we were able to put this equipment into service. (Maybe this why the previous owner decided to buy new)
> 
> Until the average Joe Canadian wakes up and smells the coffee and starts holding our elected members of Govt accountable. They will continue to get away with buying second hand junk from other Countries( this Equip was discarded to upgrade their Military). Perhaps if the Children of those in office were obligated to serve in the CF. Maybe then the members of the CF would be treated better.



Apart from these subs, what "_second hand junk from other countries_" have we bought recently? And anyway, before we blame the Govt only, where were the Navy's leaders and technical experts during the very lengthy process leading up to the purchase of these vessels and, eventually, the _Chicoutmi_ fire? If the subs are the horrors that people claim, surely the Navy's people bear some responsibility? Or were they sworn to silence? Cheers.


----------



## bossi (17 Dec 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Apart from these subs, what "_second hand junk from other countries_" have we bought recently?



Good point - virtually everything the Army buys is NOT second hand, ditto for the Air Force - thus, the sub purchase was an exception rather than the rule (hmmm ... and so were HMCS Rainbow and Niobe  ... chuckle)


----------



## gnplummer421 (18 Dec 2004)

Greetings,

As an ex-military person working in a civilian environment (manufacturing plant) Most civiilians just don't know anything about our forces, except those who have family or friends that are serving. When I mention the word Coyote at work, most guys will say " yeah, we had some in our yard the other day" I had to shoot them. You see what I'm getting at. The other thing is, people will respond to articles in the paper, and "feel sorry" for the Army, but given the choice between paying higher taxes or reducing money to Health Care, the Forces always seem to get the shaft. Civilians will scream bloody murder if our Country is ever attacked in one way or another, and we don'r have enough people to fight back, but it will be too late then. Everybody wants an effective well equipped Army, but no-one wants to pay up...the sad truth.


----------



## Slim (18 Dec 2004)

Oh I think that there is enough money around to pay for quite a bit...The LIBERALS just don't want to!

Slim


----------



## commando_wolf63 (19 Dec 2004)

The point I was trying to make was the average Joe doent know what is like to have served in our military


----------



## SHARP WO (21 Dec 2004)

You are right, the average joe civvie doesn't know about the army. The way to get people to know the Army is to teach it, and only by Military pers, if you ask "why", go sit in a History class and see what the current education system is teaching the young kids today.

SHARP WO


----------



## Meridian (21 Dec 2004)

Canada and canadians do not like to think of themselves as a "war-like" people. We do not like to consider the need for a military to be anything more than peace-keeping - we have the US for homeland defence afterall.

Example:  Recent Presidential elections, the military backgrounds of the candidates were front and centre. A deeply patriotic (and military sensitive) people, the Americans support their army to the ends of the earth... and as they should. Without getting into US economic dependency on military force projection, and defence spending, Americans grow up fostering a deep sense of their own history (however fragmented and distorted it may be taught) and thus have a great reverence for their place in the world, and the need for their military to sustain it.

Canada is different. We all come from different places, much of our pop is provided for by immigration. We have become a place for acceptance, and our culture is generally one of open arms (from social programs to immigration to refugees to stranded air passengers, to strippergate, we accept em all). As a result, while many Canadians love our place in the world, many don't feel the need to pronounce it. Because we dont do this, and we did not have a violent independence movement from Britain (at least as compared to the US) we have never fostered the need for a strong military presence to establish ourselves in the world. As a matter of fact, much of this was left up to Britain fairly far into the early 1900s.   We have always depended on someone else to do the work for us on hte regular term... and we only come running when the situation is dire.

Im talking generally here, but from my perspective of a student of law and political science, the general cultural sense in Canada is one of acceptance, diplomacy diplomacy diplomacy, let the other guy do the warring, and then step in when it matters most.


----------



## bossi (21 Dec 2004)

Meridian said:
			
		

> ... Im talking generally here, but from my perspective of a student of law and political science, the general cultural sense in Canada is ...



From my perspecitive, remembering back to when I was student (i.e. before enlisting) ... I had the impression that Canada didn't start wars, but we helped finish a few.  However, decades of revisionist history have taken their toll, with the result that many Canadians have become deluded by the myth of peacekeeping (vice peace-making) and forgotten Canada's real wartime contributions.

Thus, some Canadians have been misled into thinking a peacekeeping constabulary would be adequate instead of a combat capable army.
(as they say:  "you can water the lawn with a fire hose, but you can't fight fires with a garden hose" ...)


----------



## Meridian (21 Dec 2004)

bossi... but even in those wars, Canada was led to them by the British, no? I do not mean to dilute any of our contributions in those terrible times, and I further re-inforce our contributions in them, but Canada wasn't even responsible for its own foreign affairs until post WWI.....  It seems as if we've almost given up the Brits as our "big brother" and traded them in for the even bigger Americans....  

I must note that I find this extremely frustrating, but I find people time and time again (esp conservatives) who tell me we don't need a military, that we should focus on here at home, and leave world policing to the americans....  How do we combat this argument?  People seem to tune out the need for a seat at the world table in favour of a better functioning healthcare system.

Sure Canadians support the great work done overseas... but theyd RATHER have healthcare, if they have to choose between the two....  or is this not the case?


----------



## gnplummer421 (21 Dec 2004)

Ahh the Health care system, definitely the peoples favourite it seems. I agree IMHO, that the population would never trade off any part of it to bolster Defence, or support directing funds to defence if it takes away from our social programs. It is up to military minded/experienced people to educate the masses, I would have liked to have seen ex- General Lou Mackenzie get a seat in the house to start the process, or at least win his riding...always liked that guy.


----------



## 2FERSapper (21 Dec 2004)

After reading through this thread i realized that many among you have come to the same conclusion that i have come to along with many others. That the only event that will really wake this country up is a 9/11 like event. The tragic part of this is that when such a event happens there will be a massive outcry from the Canadian Population screaming about how the government did nothing to prevent it. That the measures taken to prevent and deal with such events were not drastic enough and that our military and other government agencies failed to do their jobs in protecting this country.I don't know if any  of you agree with the second part of my statement but this is my 2 cents.


----------



## bossi (22 Dec 2004)

According to this Toronto Star article, many Canadians DO care ...

http://army.ca/forums/threads/24094.0.html



> ... But during a visit to Edmonton and more recent chats with Toronto businessmen, the defence minister said he was struck by the demands of Canadians that the government step up its support of the military.
> 
> "It was unbelievable. Young people with kids, young women coming up to me and saying, `Mr. Graham, it's so important we support our troops,'" he said of his Edmonton visit.


----------



## Meridian (22 Dec 2004)

Problem is, the PM has said Canadians care. There still is no money.
In the end, it comes down to politics... and a politician who cares little about the forces and significantly more about staying in power will spend his political capital wisely.....  heathlcare packs the biggest bang for buck.....  Id ont know many canadians personally that wouldnt vote for someone because he didnt spend money on the forces...... (look at the recent election as an example).


The prob with the Conservative Party is that they are a deeply divided group right now... While they forcefully support the military, I am wary to see what they would actually do when it was their turn to spend....


----------



## Radop (30 Jan 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I agree that the BFT is a lowest common denominator test. I've seen plenty of big fat guys (and girls) go out, pass the test by the skin of their teeth, take a couple of days off sick, go on light duties and rest up for the next year's test. Its a load of crap. I just did my first Expres test this year (after doing BFTs for the last 8 or so) and I have to say, it is the superior test. That would really weed people out. Especially if they did 2 BFT AND an Expres test every year.
> 
> Speaking of workup training, at my old unit we were supposed to do 6 weeks of workups prior to doing the BFT. Too many people had complained that it was too hard to just do it. I always thought that the unit should be bugged out with no warning, other than saying "in the next month we will do the BFT."   When I left the unit was starting to follow the army fitness guide and the programs in it, but I don't know if it stuck? Has anyone been following that guide?


Since I got to Kingston, the CO has deside that we must pass the BFT if we in a deployment position.  Everyone is required to pass the express test.  In June, I passed the BFT and in Nov had the first express test since 99.  I passed both quite easily.  I think this should be done at all units even in Pet.  The guys here who cannot pass the express test go on a six mos program with retesting every 3 mos.  They must pass by the 6 mos point or they go on C&P.

They keep telling us that they are following the new Army Fitness manual but I am wondering just how.  We go out for 10 Km runs and two marches a week with only one day for circuit training.  The new test has not been adopted here as of yet.  

In reguards to one of your other posts, CFJSR is a 'purple unit' and falls under DCDS.  We are still considered an Army trade and do army training.  We conduct GMTs and PDT training.  We may be a CSS units but we definitely are army.


----------



## pbi (30 Jan 2005)

> Has anyone been following that guide?



I have been using it on my own for about two years now. It is an excellent guide, but IMHO it may go the way that the "Shoot To Live" program went: a super piece of work, but our chaotic system in a unit gives no time to follow it properly. You pretty much have to worlk on it on your own.

Cheers.


----------



## gnplummer421 (31 Jan 2005)

Funny, but I was posted in downtown Ottawa for a spell, and in NDHQ there is definitely no fitness standards, at least there did not seem to be...lots of chubby old soldiers/sailors/airman walking around there...no disrespect intended.


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2005)

gnplummer421 said:
			
		

> Funny, but I was posted in downtown Ottawa for a spell, and in NDHQ there is definitely no fitness standards, at least there did not seem to be...lots of chubby old soldiers/sailors/airman walking around there...no disrespect intended.



Roger that. Every time(thankfully few!!) that I have ever visited that place I have been disgusted by the display of shyte, especially in the public areas around NDHQ itself.  It is almost as if  NDHQ acts as a "sack magnet" and attracts every over-aged, overweight, unpressed, shambling, unmilitary dirtbag in a 1000km radius. I have no idea what a dreadful impression this must create in the minds of citizens and foreign tourists. Most countries keep their sharpest-looking military units garrisoned in their capitol cities: instead (except for the CG in the summer) we offer that display of eliteness. My apologies to anybody in NDHQ who makes an effort to stay fit and look sharp.

Cheers.


----------



## rnrh (31 Jan 2005)

the canadians born here care it is majority of the imagints in the country that would rather us have the social programs made by the federal goverment then put the money into our military, the federal goverment has no buisness running school scholorships and day cares and other non shalont programs as a way to steal money, when the amount they spend on it costs more then if the provinces did. The only thing the federal goverment should be doing is forein affars and defence of our country, dont get me wrong im all for health care but if you want complete controll foot the bill you promissed. they need to get one thing strait the fereral goverment there is no surplus when we have a military using out of date equipment.

As for our history we perfer to do things non violant but if we have too we kick ***.

i dont remeber were in here some one was talking about war records not beiong a factor in our elections that is because we strive to be diffrent then americans, but more so they dont want you to know if they went and server over seas cause then you might put more money into the military heaven forbit (sarcasticly).


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2005)

Stand by rnrh: I'm going to throw you to the ground, roughly.



> the canadians born here care it is majority of the imagints in the country that would rather us have the social programs made by the federal goverment then put the money into our military,



I doubt you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. First of all, you make a broad generalization about "imagints" (I suppose this is your rather illiterate version of the English word "immigrant"), but you offer absolutely no proof and do not bother to qualify your opinion (as cretinous as it is....) by the use of the commonly accepted acronym "IMHO". Next, you assume that the majority of people sitting about getting fat on social programs are immigrants. You don't offer any proof for that, either. Let me suggest (IMHO, but based on some experience) that the majority of the immigrants to this country are prepared to work much harder than some segments of native born "trailer trash" who just want to sit on their butts and whine about "imagints" taking their jobs. Finally, I can tell you that the immigrant Canadians that I have met are every bit as proud of our soldiers as native   born Canadians.



> federal goverment has no buisness running school scholorships



If you think education is expensive, try ignorance. And, speaking of school, you might apply your own motto and start paying a bit more attention in your school to things such as grammar, spelling, logical thought and research. If were not for Federal funds many young Canadians could never have afforded to go to post-secondary education at all. Some provinces simply haven't got the resources to help out.



> other non shalont programs as a way to steal money



What? "Non shalont" Then what is a "shalont program?"



> The only thing the federal goverment should be doing is forein affars and defence of our countr



Trade? Railways? Airports and seaports? Communications? Natural resources? The environment? Our legal system? Immigration? Show me one functioning democratic government that does what you suggest.



> dont remeber were in here some one was talking about war records not beiong a factor in our elections that is because we strive to be diffrent then americans, but more so they dont want you to know if they went and server over seas cause then you might put more money into the military heaven forbit (sarcasticly



This is so confused that it is just meaningless rubbish. I think the military will survive quite well without your sort of help, thanks.

Cheers.


----------



## Meridian (31 Jan 2005)

Oh boy..

Well there ARE arguments for the FEDERAL level to be getting out of such things as Natural Resources (by giving it to the provinces) and our legal system actually is primarily run by the provinces

I mean really, this is the old de-centralization debate...  Since we are in a "de-centralization" swing right now (have been roughly since the end of WWII, give or take a few relapses), plus an IMHO!  excessive individualist trend brought on interestingly enough by the Welfare State and class struggle (The rich struggle to avoid taxes, the poor struggle to take more of those tax dollars, the people in the middle just throw up their hands)... .etc.

I recognize I am over-simplifying here, but the general consensus is that government should get out of my life. And your life. And his life. Furthermore, the best way to start us down this road is to kick the federal government to the curb, and let the provinces do more. And then do the same thing at the provinciail level, letting the cities do mor. Etc. When all is said and told, there is very little support for such things as "defence"..

Honestly, most Canadians have nothing to be scared about. Most assume the US would walk over here (and they probably would, with or without our consent) were a foreign force to attempt to place itself on North American Soil. (see NORTHCOM). I mean. If I was the US, thats what I would do... I sure wouldn't permit an EnFOR the option of having a nice big playground to set up in.  But Im digressing. Most Canadians do not even consider it this far.   Our culture talks constantly about the US getting attacked. Never about Canada. and we hear all the time about the mighty US military.  

We also hear all the time about wait times (although, if I go to the ER for a cold, I think I probably should expect to wait for a while, given that head trauma's should take some priority). And so, if someone asks a poorly worded poll. (AKA: "What should have spending priority: Health, Education, Defence, etc)... well, I mean Id say health too. Followed by Education, and Defence.  but I dont get to say the followed part, or say how much priority....


Plus, we are so used to just hiding behind our good semi-wannabe-neutral graces on the IR stage that spending money on defence is just a waste when you really consider it... and there really is little political capital to be gained.

I don't mean to downplay the value or the interests of our serving men and women, and their familities.  What I mean to say here, is really.. if you are the PM, and you only have so many dollars...  and a whole lotta hands out... and you like power - you really really like it...  well, putting that money into a hand that doesnt really make many of the other hands feel good...  well, thats not that great of an idea.

Canadians support our uniforms. They love it when we help out in asia, or Ghani, or Bosnia.  But they quite frankly dont vote for people who spend or not spend money on the forces. It just isnt a major political issue.


(This is why I have argued it will never be a major issue until a Sep11 issue happens here)....

And to be fair, the US military has been downsized as well and was heaidng further downhill pre-9/11.... tankers were being told to kiss their MBT's goodbye post cold-war (See the Armour Blog thread and 1LT Prakash's comments in his blog on this) up until they met Iraq head on.....

Just my PoliScistudentweenie thoughts.


----------



## camochick (31 Jan 2005)

I had a discussion with a fairly well educated friend the other day who felt that we no longer needed a military and that our peacekeepers should not have anything to do with the military. This is not the first time I have heard this and in the circles I run in it seems to be the general consensus. The military has been sold to the people as peacekeepers, they non longer see a need for us to have one since we don't go to war anyhow. To me the new sentiment in canada of identifying ourselves as "not americans" has led to this problem of people not really seeing a need for a military, since we are this big peace loving country. Until the people are convinced that the military needs funding , it won't be there. Sad but true.


----------



## pbi (31 Jan 2005)

> Until the people are convinced that the military needs funding , it won't be there. Sad but true.



IIRC, there is actually some evidence to show that most Canadians DO think we should spend more on the military: the problem is that nobody wants their own pet calf slaughtered to pay that bill.



> Well there ARE arguments for the FEDERAL level to be getting out of such things as Natural Resources (by giving it to the provinces) and our legal system actually is primarily run by the provinces



Not if you regard natural resources as an issue of strategic national importance as (say) the US or many other countries do. As well, it s difficult to imagine how we could present a cohesive national front in economic dealings if we devolved into twelve little sub-entities. OK perhaps for fat arrogant provinces like Ontario and Alberta: maybe not so good for the rest. Our legal systm, IMHO, is deliverd and managed by the Provinces, to a point. Beyond that point, it is clearly a federal issue. This is the case even in the US.



> but the general consensus is that government should get out of my life. And your life. And his life



Yes-everybody says this. Then everybody turns around and lists the 50 things they want the government to do: either "for" them, or "to" somebody they don't like.

Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2005)

The question is "do Canadians Care?"; but as has been noted, they only "care" insofar as it doesn't upset their own private rice bowl. Here in London ON, I can step out of my car in uniform (Cadpat or DEU) and ALWAYS get startled or weirded out looks. (This is becoming a popular pastime for me, I send my children to a private school so this is the first time many high income taxpayers have ever seen a live soldier.) 

London has been a military town since day one ("A" Block in Wolseley Barracks was built in 1864, as the replacement for a barracks in the downtown core...) and the base is right next to one of the busiest streets in town, so the level of ignorance is pretty astonishing. Until that stumbling block is removed, there will be no movement to improve our lot.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Most countries keep their sharpest-looking military units garrisoned in their capitol cities: instead (except for the CG in the summer) we offer that display of eliteness. My apologies to anybody in NDHQ who makes an effort to stay fit and look sharp.



Here's a neat trick - perhaps we should swap, for one day only, NDHQ staff with the "other" unit located in the Capital region.   Wonder what would happen?



			
				rnrh said:
			
		

> the canadians born here care it is majority of the imagints....



Wow...I read this and the first thought that popped into my head was "did April Fools Day come early?"   It must have, and someone tricked PBI into answering!!!


----------



## pbi (1 Feb 2005)

[





> Wow...I read this and the first thought that popped into my head was "did April Fools Day come early?"  It must have, and someone tricked PBI into answering!!!



Hey--wait a minute.....what's going on here.....?

Cheers


----------



## bossi (4 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The question is "do Canadians Care?" ... Here in London ON, I can step out of my car in uniform (Cadpat or DEU) and ALWAYS get startled or weirded out looks. (This is becoming a popular pastime for me, I send my children to a private school so this is the first time many high income taxpayers have ever seen a live soldier.) ...



On the day of the LFCA Change of Comd pde I didn't have time to change into DEU after my son's skating lesson, so ... I changed beforehand (often I go in CADPAT, since Thursday is a parade night).  At the rink, I lost track of how many parents chatted with me about my uniform, and countless kids asked me about it (including one tiny little one who kept skating away from her class and coming over to the boards where I was stanidng - it was really cute).
One parent asked me if I had a few minutes to speak to her child - she was probably only six or seven years old, but knew about the DART (and the correct pronounciation of Sri Lanka ...).  So, yes - at least in one hockey arena, some Canadians still do care.


----------



## Meridian (4 Feb 2005)

On the bus, three airforce NCMs got on the other day (a private, CPl, and a MCpl) all wearing cadpat. (there is a windtunnel here where I work).

Anyway, the whole bus watched them as they walked on, and stared at them as they sat.. a couple people (younger) made some off hand snide comments and "yeah, whatever, Canada's army" looks at them under their breath, and that was that...

I dont really know what my point was, but I guess its that even in Canada's capital, outside of the immediate area of NDHQ, people are not used to the military.


----------



## old medic (4 Feb 2005)

I'm not sure if anyone else caught this poll the on the Globe and Mail website,
but I found the result interesting.  I think it shows an interest in a well rounded military.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.Page/document/polls/pollResults?id=31076&pollid=31076&save=_save&show_vote_always=no&poll=GAMFront&hub=Front&subhub=VoteResult


----------



## Radop (4 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Roger that. Every time(thankfully few!!) that I have ever visited that place I have been disgusted by the display of shyte, especially in the public areas around NDHQ itself.   It is almost as if   NDHQ acts as a "sack magnet" and attracts every over-aged, overweight, unpressed, shambling, unmilitary dirtbag in a 1000km radius. I have no idea what a dreadful impression this must create in the minds of citizens and foreign tourists. Most countries keep their sharpest-looking military units garrisoned in their capitol cities: instead (except for the CG in the summer) we offer that display of eliteness. My apologies to anybody in NDHQ who makes an effort to stay fit and look sharp.
> 
> Cheers.


I was discusted when I went there and was waiting for some paperwork we needed and saw about 10 officers in cadpat when we were waiting in the bde for the stuff.  I think they should be the last ones who get issued kit used for field ops.


----------



## pbi (4 Feb 2005)

To be fair, the guys in cadpat may have been visiting from the LFAs. When I was in LFCA and used to go up to meetings at the Land Staff, we always  made a point of wearing combat to NDHQ.

Cheers


----------

