# Correcting the continuing ignorance regarding the NDP (& shots on the Conservatives)



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

This isnt gonna be a good first post but I think its time someone stood up to the banter here a bit. Simply put the continuing ignorance regarding the role of the NDP in the degradation and missmanagement of the military is astounding. Dont any of you realize its successive conservative and liberal govs who have done this? Dont you know by now the Tories would choose a tax cut over properly giving you guys more than 5 measly bullets a year for rifle training? Or enough armor vests or helmets so returning troops dont have to hand them over to incoming troops? The ndp had nothing to do with this situation. We only ever were able federally to effect some small changes during minority govs only as of late. 

How about those afghan training workups for troops about to go into theater? Apparently theres no training to recognize ied's? This from an ex marine corps guy who joined the forces recently and is horrified at the lousy pre deployment training... What about those dark green armor vests on tan camos? We can afford billions for aircraft (wholeheartedly support any and all purchases as we need just about everything we can get our hands on at this point) but we cant afford basics for the boots on the ground?  

Dont get me started on unions some of you guys just dont realize where the middle class in this country came from. If it wasnt for unions we'd all be competing with cheap labor. Trust me on this one you WILL see a major influx of immigrants who WILL take your wages to the bottom on civvy street under the libertories.   

Alberta is giving its oil away. Look at Norway with its 200 billion in its trust fund and get back to me. And yes its as hard to get oil out of the north sea as it is from the tar sands. 

Im a big supporter of the military. And a long time NDP supporter who knows many vets in the ndp.  There is no reason we cant spend 30 billion a year on the military today. Its not a choice between social programs and the military. Its a choice between tax cuts for billionaires, oil firms ect... and program spending. Are there some in the ndp who are anti military? Of course as there are in all parties.  Itd be a whole lot smarter to get informed about who supports you in all parties.  Rather than ignore the corridors of power in favor of simplistic propaganda from the right. That same right that sold the chinooks and gutted what little was left in the forces that the libs hadnt already gutted. 

As a 2 time candidate for office (provincially) I will continue to support the forces and especially the little guys.  Hillier has a hell of job ahead of him to reform the stagnation in the forces and ass backward thinking that has also led to a lot of the degradation. I just hope the men and women under arms will realize where their real support lies. Its not just in one party.

As for afghanistan there is reason to be concerned. A war against the taliban has become a war against opium. Thus against a vast swath of the afghani population.   At the very least we need to buy that crop to turn it into cheap meds on the world market. We shouldnt be in the US boat on this they are paranoid about anything "drugs".   Recent election wont likely change that.  If not the mission could very well be fubared. Nato and press reports are not very optimistic here. From kids starving less than a couple miles from base camp in Kandahar to reports of the taliban massing now less than 100 miles from Kabul... I doubt those handful of leos can overturn a badly managed campaign.


----------



## GAP (11 Nov 2006)

And your point being?  ???


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> This isnt gonna be a good first post but I think its time someone stood up to the banter here a bit.



Good start...  ^-^



> Simply put the continuing ignorance regarding the role of the NDP in the degradation and missmanagement of the military is astounding. Dont any of you realize its successive conservative and liberal govs who have done this?



Of course we do.



> Dont you know by now the Tories would choose a tax cut over properly giving you guys more than 5 measly bullets a year for rifle training?



You don't _seriously _think we get five rounds a year for training?



> Or enough armor vests or helmets so returning troops dont have to hand them over to incoming troops? The ndp had nothing to do with this situation. We only ever were able federally to effect some small changes during minority govs only as of late.



No, but the NDP has - for many, many years - made repeated demands for cuts to defence spending.  Worse, the NDP has demonstrated - repeatedly - a profound ignorance of defence matters that they have broadcast to a wider Canadian audience in a deliberate effort to _destroy_ Canada's military potential.



> How about those afghan training workups for troops about to go into theater? Apparently theres no training to recognize ied's? This from an ex marine corps guy who joined the forces recently and is horrified at the lousy pre deployment training... What about those dark green armor vests on tan camos? We can afford billions for aircraft (wholeheartedly support any and all purchases as we need just about everything we can get our hands on at this point) but we cant afford basics for the boots on the ground?



Again, check your sources.  The IED training manual is on my desk as I type.  "Ex marine", eh?  Does he know how the USMC trains now?  What equipment they're issued for Afghanistan?  Our "basics" are probably the best of any country currently with troops deployed in Afghanistan - including the US.  We issue NVGs in numbers unlike any other army, have much better body armour, and personal weapons are the equal of anyone.  The CF has nothing to apologize for regarding the issue of personal equipment - quibbles regarding specific items aside.



> Dont get me started on unions some of you guys just dont realize where the middle class in this country came from. If it wasnt for unions we'd all be competing with cheap labor. Trust me on this one you WILL see a major influx of immigrants who WILL take your wages to the bottom on civvy street under the libertories.



No one said such.  We're asking why unions are spending their members' money on far left political activities that we're convinced the bulk of the membership wouldn't support.



> Alberta is giving its oil away. Look at Norway with its 200 billion in its trust fund and get back to me. And yes its as hard to get oil out of the north sea as it is from the tar sands.



*ahem* Heritage Trust Fund  *ahem*



> Im a big supporter of the military. And a long time NDP supporter who knows many vets in the ndp.  There is no reason we cant spend 30 billion a year on the military today. Its not a choice between social programs and the military. Its a choice between tax cuts for billionaires, oil firms ect... and program spending. Are there some in the ndp who are anti military? Of course as there are in all parties.  Itd be a whole lot smarter to get informed about who supports you in all parties.  Rather than ignore the corridors of power in favor of simplistic propaganda from the right. That same right that sold the chinooks and gutted what little was left in the forces that the libs hadnt already gutted.



I can only imagine the screaming from the NDP should the defence budget be increased to $30 billion...  Get real.  The NDP has _opposed_ every major defence purchase within recent memory.  Witness Ms Black's recent completely ill-informed comments regarding Excalibur artillery rounds.



> As a 2 time candidate for office (provincially) I will continue to support the forces and especially the little guys.  Hillier has a hell of job ahead of him to reform the stagnation in the forces and ass backward thinking that has also led to a lot of the degradation. I just hope the men and women under arms will realize where their real support lies. Its not just in one party.



And certainly not in the NDP.  "Support our troops, withdraw from Afghanistan!"   :



> As for afghanistan there is reason to be concerned. A war against the taliban has become a war against opium.



Oh, how so?  Have Canadian troops been directly engaged in counter-narcotics operations?  Or have I missed something?



> Thus against a vast swath of the afghani population.



And you get this conclusion from where?  Gallup take a poll in Kandahar/Helmand province?



> At the very least we need to buy that crop to turn it into cheap meds on the world market. We shouldnt be in the US boat on this they are paranoid about anything "drugs".   Recent election wont likely change that.  If not the mission could very well be fubared.  Nato and press reports are not very optimistic here. From kids starving less than a couple miles from base camp in Kandahar to reports of the taliban massing now less than 100 miles from Kabul... I doubt those handful of leos can overturn a badly managed campaign.



"Kids starving".  You have a single source on this - the Senlis Council, a group that's been thoroughly debunked here, but is still quoted by the more politically motivated.  Afghanistan is a poor country - very poor.  Some villages in the mountains would be even more shocking.  Why do you think we're there?

"Taliban massing".  Again, an unsubstantiated press report.  You realize, of course, that the Taliban has _always_ been "less than 100 miles" from Kabul and has always operated in Kabul province. 

"Badly managed".  An interesting blanket statement, with no supporting proof.  In the light of the Taliban military threat, what would you and your NDP supporters have done?  Oh yeah, I remember - pulled the pin and withdrawn in shame...   :


----------



## GAP (11 Nov 2006)

You have far more patience than I TR....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Nov 2006)

I would say Fez is a drive by hoping for an anti NDP rant from some of our more passionate members. Excellent reply TR.


----------



## exsemjingo (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Dont any of you realize its successive conservative and liberal govs who have done this? Dont you know by now the Tories would choose a tax cut over properly giving you guys more than 5 measly bullets a year for rifle training? The ndp had nothing to do with this situation.


The NDP are only useless in terms of the things they do accomplish, not in terms of being able to accomplish nothing.  Keep your revisionist lies of non-influence for the party convention.



> How about those afghan training workups for troops about to go into theater? Apparently theres no training to recognize ied's? This from an ex marine corps guy who joined the forces recently and is horrified at the lousy pre deployment training...


Yeah!  The Army should change gears overnight, strait from a mostly Peacekeeping force (another NDP influence) to a force so hard and tough even the USMC can't keep up.  If only Gen. Hillier wasn't such a softy...



> What about those dark green armor vests on tan camos? We can afford billions for aircraft (wholeheartedly support any and all purchases as we need just about everything we can get our hands on at this point) but we cant afford basics for the boots on the ground?


Why don't you look at the Afghan countryside?  Sparse (green) vegetation on tan soil.  But I see your point: If the NDP ran things there would be a lot more capital and material not tied up in private investment. 



> Don't get me started on unions some of you guys just dont realize where the middle class in this country came from. If it wasn't for unions we'd all be competing with cheap labor. Trust me on this one you WILL see a major influx of immigrants who WILL take your wages to the bottom on civvy street under the libertories.


Why not?  Because someone here might shoot you down?  Check my last posts, and tell me if you want me to expand my sarcasm to a comprehensive indindictment. But you've gotta hate those damned job-stealing immigrants.



> Alberta is giving its oil away. Look at Norway with its 200 billion in its trust fund and get back to me. And yes its as hard to get oil out of the north sea as it is from the tar sands.


We'd put more into the Heritage trust fund if NDP endorsed transfer payments weren't so high.  But for now we can look at non-hypothetical cases, where Conservative Alberta's oilsands are a great economic engine, and NDP dominated Saskatchewan's are a bedrock covering.  



> I'm a big supporter of the military.


Because it's conconvenient to say so for now?


> And a long time NDP supporter...


This contradicts the above.


> There is no reason we cant spend 30 billion a year on the military today. Its not a choice between social programs and the military. Its a choice between tax cuts for billionaires, oil firms ect... and program spending.


You'd better show some numbers if you think these two groups have $30 billion of additional profit available for tax payments.  Not to mention some reasoning as to why they would stay in this country if we leveled such punishing tax hikes on them.



> Are there some in the ndp who are anti military? Of course as there are in all parties.  Itd be a whole lot smarter to get informed about who supports you in all parties.


You are the ignorant one.  Also, save your dogmatic rhetoric for when you call AM talk radio shows. :


> That same right that sold the chinooks and gutted what little was left in the forces that the libs hadnt hadn'tdy gutted.


Have you been sleeping for the past 15 years?  Our current government is mostly ex-Reform party, not lingering Red-Torries 


> As a 2 time candidate for office (provincially) I will continue to support the forces and especially the little guys.  I just hope the men and women under arms will realize where their real support lies.


Maybe we will be as thoughtful as the voters in your riding.


> As for iAfghanistan there is reason to be concerned. A war against the taliban has become a war against opium. Thus against a vast swath of the afghaniAfghantion.   At the very least we need to buy that crop to turn it into cheap meds on the world market. We shouldnt e US boat on this they are paranoid about anything "drugs".   Recent election wont likely change that.  If not the mission could very well be fubared. Nato and press reports are not very optimistic here. From kids starving less than a couple miles from base camp in Kandahar to reports of the taliban massing now less than 100 miles from Kabul... I doubt those handful of leos can overturn a badly managed campaign.


Would any returning vets like to refute this one?  Or is this not worth the time?  I'll leave it to those in the know... 


> ...From kids starving less than a couple miles from base camp in Kandahar


Maybe thier parents could find work in Canada.  Oh wait, you wouldn't like that.


>


Don't patronize us, you walking argument against freedom of speach.
By the way, welcome to army.ca.  You will generally find more intellignet discourse than what you have presented here (except for in Radio Chatter), and might also find that few here share any of your delusions.
Maybe you will learn a thing or two.


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Simply put the continuing ignorance regarding the role of the NDP in the degradation and missmanagement of the military is astounding.


. . . but, we are bang-on with our view of the federal NDPs in the current deception of the Canadian public as to the role of the Canadian Forces and the military contribution in Afghanistan.  (I only assume because you failed to address this issue, yet fed us some of the misinformation that we often lament on this site)



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Dont any of you realize its successive conservative and liberal govs who have done this?


We are aware and it has been posted in many threads.  However, I don’t recall ever hearing the NDP oppose reductions to the defence budget or capabilities of the Canadian Forces.  Can you give me an example?



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Dont you know by now the Tories would choose a tax cut over properly giving you guys … enough armor vests or helmets so returning troops dont have to hand them over to incoming troops?


I still have my helmet.  My armour went back to clothing stores, but it will be available as soon as I need it (but I don’t need it right now).



			
				fez said:
			
		

> The ndp had nothing to do with this situation.  We only ever were able federally to effect some small changes during minority govs only as of late.


So (again) show me where the party opposed defence capability reductions.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> How about those afghan training workups for troops about to go into theater?


What about it?



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Apparently theres no training to recognize ied's?


Yes there is.  I did IED trg before deploying last Jan.  The guys that replaced us did it aswell (and the guys that will replace them have done & are doing this training).



			
				fez said:
			
		

> What about those dark green armor vests on tan camos?


My armour was arid CADPAT (the same brown pattern as my combat uniform).  I have never had any item of kit referred to as “camos.”



			
				fez said:
			
		

> We can afford billions for aircraft … but we cant afford basics for the boots on the ground?


You need better information to support this.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Dont get me started on unions some of you guys just dont realize where the middle class in this country came from. If it wasnt for unions we'd all be competing with cheap labor. Trust me on this one you WILL see a major influx of immigrants who WILL take your wages to the bottom on civvy street under the libertories.


How does this make it okay for a union (without consulting its membership) to provide membership dues to a political agenda that has called our soldiers war criminals & is fully divorced from labour issues?



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Im a big supporter of the military.


Thank you.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> There is no reason we cant spend 30 billion a year on the military today. Its not a choice between social programs and the military. Its a choice between tax cuts for billionaires, oil firms ect... and program spending.


Why do I never hear this in the NDP platform.  I do hear the exact opposite often.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Are there some in the ndp who are anti military? Of course as there are in all parties.  Itd be a whole lot smarter to get informed about who supports you in all parties.  Rather than ignore the corridors of power in favor of simplistic propaganda from the right.


It seems to me that the NDPers at the top are the anti-military types, and the party policy reflects that.  It is hard to belive this thinking does not go all the way to the bottom (especially when riding associations bring forward motions to accuse soldiers of terrorism).



			
				fez said:
			
		

> As for afghanistan there is reason to be concerned. A war against the taliban has become a war against opium. Thus against a vast swath of the afghani population.   At the very least we need to buy that crop to turn it into cheap meds on the world market. We shouldnt be in the US boat on this they are paranoid about anything "drugs".   Recent election wont likely change that.  If not the mission could very well be fubared. Nato and press reports are not very optimistic here. From kids starving less than a couple miles from base camp in Kandahar to reports of the taliban massing now less than 100 miles from Kabul... I doubt those handful of leos can overturn a badly managed campaign.


Lots of really bad information in here.  You need to go visit Ruxted.ca and get your facts right.  We are not involved in poppy eradication.  The US is not the lead for international military efforts in Afghanistan.  But, maybe you would answer the one question we would like to hear from the NDP?  What does the NDP think should be done in Afghanistan?  Should we abandon the country to civil war?


----------



## jamesromanow (11 Nov 2006)

it's a nice rant, but the NDP is the refuge of the traditional Cdn pacifist:  people who believe that war is a plot by rulers to keep the peasants busy.  Haven't yet spoken to a pro-military NDP member.  Mind you I live in hope that one day someone in the NDP will concede that occasionally the guy who throws the first punch is not necessarily acting out of love for his fellow proletariat.


----------



## TCBF (11 Nov 2006)

Unfortunately, the Left in Canada suffer from a collective form of 'Penis Envy.'  They want to be like the REAL Left - in the USA - but they can't be.  We didn't fight in Vietnam, but the Left in our country treated the Canadian military as if we did (remember catching a city bus in short hair and a uniform in the '70s?  Not fun...).  We didn't invade Iraq, but they ascribe to the Afghan mission all of the perceived evils of the Iraqi campaign.  We don't have a whole hockey-sock of domestic war criminals, so we have a radical feminazi lawyer hoping to find 'War Crimes' in the daily activities of the CF in Afghanistan.  

Even their "We support the troops" lies are tinted with Americanisms, from sympathising with military issues that exist in the USA but not here, to the stock photos used that often show US soldiers in an article on the Canadian military.  You see, the Left are not really Canadians, they are "Internationalists" who take their treats from their "Internationalist" masters south of the 49th. 

Look at the Alberta Veteran's insert the other day in an Edmonton paper:  Picture of a US  Soldier inside, and some guy in a bus driver's uniform (back to us, so no accoutrements visible) on the cover saluting, superimposed on a picture of a Canadian flag.  They had to do it that way, as they don't really know what a Canadian uniform looks like.  They burned all of the photos that didn't have Blue Berets in them. At least they got the flag right.  But they should, as it replaced our 'colonial' flag.

It all makes me want to just spit.

(ptui!)

There, I feel better now.

Tom


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

I get my info from a master bombardier with 10 years service in the forces. He left the forces for the marine corps and has kept in touch with his buds in the forces since and hes related that and many more instances of missing essentials and bad policy. Isnt it true you are limited in the number of ammo clips to take into combat? Whereas us forces take as many as they can carry? The 5 bullet limit was for the yearly rifle tests I was told.  With only infantrymen allowed more. They have again no such limits in the US forces... The ied ref was told me this summer and he said his unit hadnt been properly trained in its workup to deployment and was in fact wasting time doing typical european theater training like crossing large rivers... 

Isnt it irrelevant about whether our small contingent is involved poppy eradication? Its the current US policy who are the bulk of the mission and when pashtun farmers are obviously supporting the taliban as a move against this anti opium program we can only question how well the overall mission will be.

Of course the NDP is the pacifist party.  But if you think socialists are all anti military you dont know jack, remember the warsaw pact? They were spending  far more of gdp on the military than the west ever did.   

If the ndp is not properly showcasing the failings of the afghan mission then you neednt worry with the 2 large mainstream parties and all their air time they can correct any errors. I find the ndp is a bit more on the money than you guys care to admit. No party wants to be caught in a gross error. I seriously think you need to see where the real errors lie. 

As for those who think freedom of speech is a waste I think it best when my own family who served in 2 ww didnt fight for those who also thought the same. Your condescending BS attitudes wont get far with me.  I can salute the flag even with emoticons if I choose. Being in the NDP doesnt make one less of a canadian. But maybe being a bad canadian does.  

I notice some of my so called errors are uncorrected by 8 posts so far... I wonder how much more bile vs "facts" Ill be presented with.

Alberta and Canada has far lower royalty rates than Norway which charges 31%. This has nothing to do with transfer payments.  Tax cuts = program spending cuts and yes that will include bad choices and compromises for military spending.


----------



## Trinity (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> I seriously think you need to see where the real errors lie.



I have no doubt we do.  It seems to be in your posts.

But I'll let TCBF and MCG correct you because we don't need a dogpile.

It's hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you start off saying we only
get 5 rounds per year training.... your friend was telling you lies to see if you'd believe it.


----------



## Pte_Martin (11 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I have no doubt we do.  It seems to be in your posts.
> 
> But I'll let TCBF and MCG correct you because we don't need a dogpile.
> 
> ...



By the looks of it he does believe the lies


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2006)

> But if you think socialists are all anti military you dont know jack, remember the warsaw pact? They were spending  far more of gdp on the military than the west ever did.



I was trying not to join the dogpile but with this one line you have managed to give me the best laugh of the day.  Joe Stalin and Brezhnev as exemplars of the NDP and apparently we don't know Jack so presumably he is comfortable in that company............Thank you, and thank you and thank you. ;D


----------



## scm77 (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> This from an ex marine corps guy who joined the forces recently





			
				fez said:
			
		

> I get my info from a master bombardier with 10 years service in the forces. He left the forces for the marine corps



Care to clarify?


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2006)

> He left the forces for the marine corps and has kept in touch with his buds in the forces since and hes related that and many more instances of missing essentials and bad policy





> The ied ref was told me this summer and he said his unit hadnt been properly trained in its workup to deployment and was in fact wasting time doing typical european theater training like crossing large rivers...



And to add to Scotty's query: 

Was it before or after he left/joined the Marine Corps/CF that he didn't get the right training?   You seem to be saying that your buddy is ex-CF and was disgruntled at CF training so he joined the US Marines whereupon he discovered they were teaching Euro theater tactics and not prepping them with the right kit or properly prepping them for IEDs.  Perhaps he should come back to the CF.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Scotty said:
			
		

> Care to clarify?



2 diff people. One left the forces a few years ago this guy (also a friend of the one still in the marines) went through his workup recently.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I was trying not to join the dogpile but with this one line you have managed to give me the best laugh of the day.  Joe Stalin and Brezhnev as exemplars of the NDP and apparently we don't know Jack so presumably he is comfortable in that company............Thank you, and thank you and thank you. ;D



LOL I knew some of you would jump at this.  Of course there's a world of diff tween the stalinists and the social democrats. Your ignorance of the differences is palatable.  Then again is there a difference between the nazis and todays western capitalists? Both enjoyed good relationships with the corporations of their day.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> By the looks of it he does believe the lies



Well if its a lie Ill ask him to come on here and clarify. And also expose the other complaints he had and has been told about the forces...


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

> My armour was arid CADPAT (the same brown pattern as my combat uniform).  I have never had any item of kit referred to as “camos.”



Do you watch the news? 

Im not familiar with all military terms.  But that of course irrelevant. We have been seeing and continue to see you guys with dark green armor vests (paint a target on them why dont ya!) on top of tan shirts on tv. 

I find you guys extrapolate the BS from fringe elements in the NDP (and yes every party has them to a degree) vs the actual motions that get presented and carried at our recent conventions. 

Which btw explains the union spending for peace activists. No union $ is spent without a motion. I should know Im a cupe local pres. We dont spend 10$ without a motion at a union meeting. Be nice to see you guys rant on the billions spent by right wingers and corporations trying to plug our collective skulls with BS.


----------



## Pte_Martin (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Well if its a lie Ill ask him to come on here and clarify. And also expose the other complaints he had and has been told about the forces...



Sounds good I'd like to hear from him, considering 3RCR had been running ranges for over two months, we've had a lot more than 5 rds per soldier. We've done C-7, C-6, Carl G, Grenades


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> Sounds good I'd like to hear from him, considering 3RCR had been running ranges for over two months, we've had a lot more than 5 rds per soldier. We've done C-7, C-6, Carl G, Grenades



I specifically exempted infantrymen. I said I was told you were limited to 5 bullets a year as the annual workup for other force members.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Nov 2006)

> I notice some of my so called errors are uncorrected by 8 posts so far..



And here I thought a line-by-line dissection would have sufficed.  I guess not.  Somehow that's typical of your ilk.  So, here we go again:



			
				fez said:
			
		

> I get my info from a master bombardier with 10 years service in the forces. He left the forces for the marine corps and has kept in touch with his buds in the forces since and hes related that and many more instances of missing essentials and bad policy.



Was he regular or reserve?  Did he have a previous tour?  Has he been to Afghanistan?  MBdrs are typically not in a position to comment on "policy" - or at least shouldn't.  Again, the IED training standard is on my desk.



> Isnt it true you are limited in the number of ammo clips to take into combat? Whereas us forces take as many as they can carry?



This is BS.  The Americans have a combat load, same as Canada.  It's a planning figure, and you'll see that our infantry carry much more than the by the book combat load.  Check photos on Combat Camera if you don't believe me.



> The 5 bullet limit was for the yearly rifle tests I was told.  With only infantrymen allowed more.



Total crap.  Your "friend" has no idea what he's talking about and neither do you.



> They have again no such limits in the US forces...



The US has training standards, just as we do, including limits on the number of rounds required for qualification.



> The ied ref was told me this summer and he said his unit hadnt been properly trained in its workup to deployment and was in fact wasting time doing typical european theater training like crossing large rivers...



Oh, and your "friend" deployed to Afghanistan, which is how he's in a position to comment?  Again, see my comment on IED training.



> Isnt it irrelevant about whether our small contingent is involved poppy eradication?



But our "small" contingent _isn't_ involved in eradication. 



> Its the current US policy who are the bulk of the mission and when pashtun farmers are obviously supporting the taliban as a move against this anti opium program we can only question how well the overall mission will be.



And how do you know this?  You're extrapolating your opposition to eradication to support to the Taliban without empirical proof (Senlis Council doesn't count).  Back it up, or shut up.



> Of course the NDP is the pacifist party.  But if you think socialists are all anti military you dont know jack, remember the warsaw pact? They were spending  far more of gdp on the military than the west ever did.



So why would we support them?  How do they support us if they're pacifist?  You're defeating your own argument.  As for your reference to the War Pac, you seem to be comparing the NDP to a totalitarian system bent on taking over the west by military means.  Taliban Jack = Stalin?  



> If the ndp is not properly showcasing the failings of the afghan mission then you neednt worry with the 2 large mainstream parties and all their air time they can correct any errors. I find the ndp is a bit more on the money than you guys care to admit. No party wants to be caught in a gross error. I seriously think you need to see where the real errors lie.



Yup, and we've been pointing them out to you - you just don't want to listen.  Again, I'm hardly surprised.



> As for those who think freedom of speech is a waste I think it best when my own family who served in 2 ww didnt fight for those who also thought the same. Your condescending BS attitudes wont get far with me.  I can salute the flag even with emoticons if I choose. Being in the NDP doesnt make one less of a canadian. But maybe being a bad canadian does.



So why are you here, posting on a site frequented by military personnel, trying to convince us of things we know aren't true?  Many here (myself included) have significant time in Afghanistan.  Do you think we're all dupes of the Neo-Cons?



> I notice some of my so called errors are uncorrected by 8 posts so far... I wonder how much more bile vs "facts" Ill be presented with.



You've been presented with facts (see above).  You've just elected to ignore them.



> Alberta and Canada has far lower royalty rates than Norway which charges 31%. This has nothing to do with transfer payments.  Tax cuts = program spending cuts and yes that will include bad choices and compromises for military spending.



NDP economic policy - proven a failure many, many times (I'm from BC - don't get me started)...  :boring:

So here it is in a nutshell:  your "friends" are wrong and don't know what they're talking about.  You've come here to argue with soldiers and officers that have many years of experience in these matters, including substantial time in Afghanistan.  Yet you've chosen to ignore our views in a misguided attempt to "convince" us that the NDP supports the military - when the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

Why are you here?


----------



## RangerRay (11 Nov 2006)

Of all the days you choose to come here and spout this ideological bile...

If the NDP are friends of the military, then why does everyone in the military roll their eyes whenever a Dipper comments on defence matters?  Especially when it's Jack the Used Car Salesman or Dawn Black?  Or their friends at the Polaris Institute?

Your reference connecting national socialism with captialism is completely unfounded.  Although they did not control the means of production that regular socialists advocate, they still interfered to a great extent to the economy just like regular socialists.  National socialism has more in common with socialism just by their prediliction towards statist policies.

Since the Province of Alberta, the Province of British Columbia, the Province of Saskatchewan, etc., own their oil and gas resources, it is up to them how much they sell the royalties for, although for their sake, it should be fairly close to the market value of the resource.  If Alberta wants to sell at a discount, bully for them.

And please, lets tax the coporate sector and higher income brackets some more.  :  In case you haven't noticed, capital knows no boundaries.  When capital leaves, so do jobs, which means tax revenues drop.

I don't know where you got your "5 rounds" info from, but it's crap.  When I was in the militia during the dark days of Chretien, we had alot more than 5 rounds for range days!

As for your ingnorance on training and the situation in Afghanistan, I'll leave it to those who have served in theater to comment.

EDITED for spelling.


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> I get my info from a master bombardier with 10 years service in the forces. He left the forces for the marine corps and has kept in touch with his buds in the forces since and hes related that and many more instances of missing essentials and bad policy.


Your friend is oblivious to his surroundings, lying, or fictitious (given that his identity changed between posts, I suspect the third option).



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Isnt it true you are limited in the number of ammo clips to take into combat? Whereas us forces take as many as they can carry?


Untruths.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> The 5 bullet limit was for the yearly rifle tests I was told.  With only infantrymen allowed more. They have again no such limits in the US forces...


and we don’t have these limits in the Canadian Forces (more bad information from your friend).



			
				fez said:
			
		

> I specifically exempted infantrymen. I said I was told you were limited to 5 bullets a year as the annual workup for other force members.


Still wrong.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> The ied ref was told me this summer and he said his unit hadnt been properly trained in its workup to deployment and was in fact wasting time doing typical european theater training like crossing large rivers.


What was his unit?  Did you know that my unit did have to deal with large rivers in Afghanistan? 



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Isnt it irrelevant about whether our small contingent is involved poppy eradication?


Is it?  You raised the subject.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Its the current US policy who are the bulk of the mission and when pashtun farmers are obviously supporting the taliban as a move against this anti opium program we can only question how well the overall mission will be.


The US is not the lead in Afghanistan and they are most certainly not the bulk of the force in Kandahar or the neighbouring provinces.  The democratically elected Afghan government is in charge of the country, and NATO is leading the international efforts.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> I find the ndp is a bit more on the money than you guys care to admit.


. . . that is not saying much given that you seem to be oblivious to the reality on the ground in Afghanistan.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> I seriously think you need to see where the real errors lie.


They exist in your information sources.





			
				fez said:
			
		

> I notice some of my so called errors are uncorrected by 8 posts so far... I wonder how much more bile vs "facts" Ill be presented with.


Are you reading the article?



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Do you watch the news?   We have been seeing and continue to see you guys with dark green armor vests (paint a target on them why dont ya!) on top of tan shirts on tv.


Do you not understand the concept of a first source?  I was there last winter/spring.  The armour is not green.

General reminder for all: Tone and Content on Army.ca


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Im here to get information just like pother politicians and reporters. I never claimed ot be all knowing. But that doesnt mean everything presented here is factual and not open to scrutiny. Such as the claim of tan armor vests when media is full of you guys wearing dark green ones. 

We get concerned when we hear shit like you guys having to beg mri's from americans in bosnia back in the 90's. Or being forced to use compromised armor kits because of "shortages". We dont have to like each others politics. But can we avoid trying to BS each other off the site?

Ill re read your posts later tonight but other than some denials I dont see counter "facts" to all my points.


----------



## Trinity (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Im here to get information just like pother politicians and reporters. I never claimed ot be all knowing. But that doesnt mean everything presented here is factual and not open to scrutiny. Such as the claim of tan armor vests when media is full of you guys wearing dark green ones.



Um... stock footage mean anything to you?  It's used all the time.


----------



## Pte_Martin (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> *Im here to get information just like pother politicians and reporters. I never claimed ot be all knowing*. But that doesnt mean everything presented here is factual and not open to scrutiny. Such as the claim of tan armor vests when media is full of you guys wearing dark green ones.
> 
> We get concerned when we hear crap like you guys having to beg mri's from americans in bosnia back in the 90's. Or being forced to use compromised armor kits because of "shortages". We dont have to like each others politics. But can we avoid trying to BS each other off the site?
> 
> *Ill re read your posts later tonight but other than some denials I dont see counter "facts" to all my points.*



Wow this guy doesn't get it, He's here to get info.. everyone here has been telling him the "info" and he doesn't believe it, even if it's from people that have been to Afghanistan. And he's still saying that all the other posters replys are just B/S and not Facts I'd like to see what makes him know so much more than the guys that have already been overseas.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

I guess its pointless to reference you to Gwynn Dyer or other military analysts. I guess he's just another lefty malcontent eh? But obviously when I hear you say all members of the forces roll their eyes when hearing an ndper I know the kind of ideological nonsense can also flow from your own perspective.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Um... stock footage mean anything to you?  It's used all the time.



How old is that "stock footage"? You saying you didnt spend years in afghanistan with greeen vests. Heck green shirts? How about telling me when you got the full set of both tan clothes and armor vest?


----------



## Trinity (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Ill re read your posts later tonight but other than some denials I dont see counter "facts" to all my points.



See... what scares me is it seems you consider your opinion as fact.
But the first hand opinion of those over there aren't facts according to you... it's just denial.


There have been plenty of counters to your argument... especially to the drivel of
5 rounds and ied training.. but you fail to acknowledge this and try to deflect the
fact you were proved wrong by attacking something else.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Oh yeah Im "hiding" all right. You have my email. What do you want my steet address? It sad to see there isnt a varied slate of opinion here. I guess you  scared off other 'lefties'. To your detriment. If this is to be the paramount canadian military website you better start allowing other views in here. Canada is not a right wing country. Hasnt been for a long time. I wouldnt want the next election see any kind of alienation of concern for the canadian forces just because some right wing malcontents took over a website.

My old army friend hopefully should be on later tonight.  Maybe we can then clear the air a bit more. I get the feeling however not all army units are run or treated the same.


----------



## Trinity (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> How old is that "stock footage"? *You saying you didnt spend years in afghanistan *with greeen vests. Heck green shirts? How about telling me when you got the full set of both tan clothes and armor vest?



Good question.  

I saw 105's being used as stock footage the other day when they were talking about the sandbox when
we had been using 155's for how long now???  A good while. The point is the media isn't interested
in getting footage correctly or even current if its just a quick blip for a story.  They use what they have
on hand.

  I never said we didn't spend year with green vests did I?  No.. I said stock footage, but thanks for proving 
my point and trying to deflect the issue *by putting words in my mouth.*

I believe you commented on our boys being over there presently with wrong camo.... we stated
they aren't.  I'm sure someone can pull up recent pictures from combat camera to prove the point
if having members who just came back tell you so isn't enough proof.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Nov 2006)

> Ill re read your posts later tonight but other than some denials I dont see counter "facts" to all my points.



Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what you want...  Do you want the entire shooting programme for MLOC/DLOC published?  We could do that.  Photos of ourselves carrying the equipment you so casually dismiss?

So, smart guy, here's a photo of me wearing a CADPAT AR flak vest.  Good enough? 

For the rest of you - yeah, I know, no tac vest/helmet.  You had to have been there...


----------



## spud (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Oh yeah Im "hiding" all right. You have my email. What do you want my steet address?



Good grief man I don't want your street address, I don'twant anybody's address on this board. Unless they have cold Alpine. 

Perhaps just more of an explantion of what your true motives are in coming here, on who you'll give your information to, what's it going to be used for, etc?

If you haven't noticed, this a pretty important day for the vast majority of people on this board. And are we proctective of our own, especially when it comes to your  dis-information...damn straight. 

Edited:  On this important day I'm not wasting one more second reading this thread. However annoying, I'm ignoring the "FEZ troll".

potato


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what you want...  Do you want the entire shooting programme for MLOC/DLOC published?  We could do that.  Photos of ourselves carrying the equipment you so casually dismiss?
> 
> So, smart guy, here's a photo of me wearing a CADPAT AR flak vest.  Good enough?
> 
> For the rest of you - yeah, I know, no tac vest/helmet.  You had to have been there...



NO not really good enough. When did they start replacing the green vest with tan ones? Im not asking for a full accounting.  Im just wondering how many years it took to get what shouldve been done at the outset.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Nov 2006)

Ok, the photo was taken in late 2004, so we've had the equipment for at least two years.

We first deployed to Afghanistan in February 2002, when we did not have AR CADPAT.  It was procured when we reengaged in Afghanistan in 2003 with the deployment to ISAF.  No tour since has been without desert uniforms.


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> Good grief man I don't want your street address, I don'twant anybody's address on this board. Unless they have cold Alpine.
> 
> Perhaps just more of an explantion of what your true motives are in coming here, on who you'll give your information to, what's it going to be used for, etc?
> 
> ...



 Lets see how many posts does it take to say im an NDPer who ran for public office and is also a strong supporter of the military (my first post)  if not the right wing views of some of its members. What other info do you need. What are you so afraid of that you need to hunt me down  like a rabid dog fo asking some simple questions.


----------



## warspite (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> As for those who think freedom of speech is a waste I think it best when my own family who served in 2 ww didnt fight for those who also thought the same. Your condescending BS attitudes wont get far with me.  I can salute the flag even with emoticons if I choose. Being in the NDP doesnt make one less of a canadian. *But maybe being a bad canadian does.  *


So are you implying that those who don't agree with you are bad Canadian's.....?

Teddy Ruxpin  

And as for you fez..... my impression so far is that you are calling many on this site closed minded because they don't agree with your beliefs....

_*Hypocrisy*- The claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess. _


----------



## Pte_Martin (11 Nov 2006)

OK so we gave you what you wanted and proved that we have CADPAT AR, and that's still not good enough for you. You do know that when  you try to order over 2,000 pieces of kit it does take a little bit to make and send to Afghanistan. or does it just magically appear


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Ok, the photo was taken in late 2004, so we've had the equipment for at least two years.
> 
> We first deployed to Afghanistan in February 2002, when we did not have AR CADPAT.  It was procured when we reengaged in Afghanistan in 2003 with the deployment to ISAF.  No tour since has been without desert uniforms.



So your telling me youve ALL had tan armor vests for over 2 years while all news networks in this country still showed you (or some of you) with green vests? Ive watched everything from global to ctv to cbc... It begs to wonder why they would refuse to show you guys with tan vets after all this time.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> So your telling me youve ALL had tan armor vests for over 2 years while all news networks in this country still showed you (or some of you) with green vests? Ive watched everything from global to ctv to cbc... It begs to wonder why they would refuse to show you guys with tan vets after all this time.



Rule #1:  Don't believe everything you see on Kanuckistani TV!


----------



## George Wallace (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Do you watch the news?



Why, yes we do.  We watch the news quite often and see stock footage of soldiers taken in action over the last twenty years.  We are often pissed off as hell when we see news on Canadian soldiers with photos and video showing American soldiers.  We get upset when the News person goes on talking about tanks and they show us a wheeled APC.  

I do have a question for you.  Do you think that CBC and CTV have cameramen covering every action that is taken place in Afghanistan, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?  Get real!  They shot some film years ago and rerun it everytime they need to.  



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Im not familiar with all military terms.  But that of course irrelevant. We have been seeing and continue to see you guys with dark green armor vests (paint a target on them why dont ya!) on top of tan shirts on tv.



Back to stock footage.  After being told by a soldier who has come back from Afghanistan recently, you still believe in stock footage.  :  My God you are gullible.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> I find you guys extrapolate the BS from fringe elements in the NDP (and yes every party has them to a degree) vs the actual motions that get presented and carried at our recent conventions.



Exactly!  Unfortunately most of the NDP are fringe elements, just look at the motions your party was trying to pass in Montreal, until the word became public and the public outcry caused them to do an awful lot of tap dancing to save face.  Still that Vancouver Island riding stuck to their guns.  We do look down on the NDP.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> Which btw explains the union spending for peace activists. No union $ is spent without a motion. I should know Im a cupe local pres. We dont spend 10$ without a motion at a union meeting. Be nice to see you guys rant on the billions spent by right wingers and corporations trying to plug our collective skulls with BS.



Really?  Did the Unions really ask their membership to vote on supporting the CPA and all those Socialist and Islamic groups in their Day of Protest on 28 Oct 06?  Seems that it was news to a lot of Public Civil Servants.


Oh!  On the matter of 5 rounds per year, as told by your MBdr friend.  The minimum that any member of the CF, no matter what Trade, will fire in a qualification shoot is 50 rounds (if I am correct on PWT 1).  I am sure from your statements that your friend may have been a MBdr, not in the CF, but in the Cadets.

I am still confused with who your friend is, as now you seem to have said it is now two different people; one who was in the CF and has now joined the Marines, and one who was a Marine and is now in the CF.  

Your story is becoming rather convoluted.  Your spelling and grammar is going out the window.  You are not listening to people who have actually been in Afghanistan and others who have done much of the work at home, favouring video impressions interpreted by people ignorant of what they are talking about on the news.  Do you ever wonder how easy it is for subversives to infiltrate this nation and bend the populace to their will with BS?  Perhaps you should save up and make a trip outside of Canada and visit some of the places that we are sent to and see for yourself what we have done.  I know it will take some time as I think you are too young to hold a job, nor will your parents apply for a passport so that you can do so.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> Lets see how many posts does it take to say im an NDPer who ran for public office and is also a strong supporter of the military (my first post)  if not the right wing views of some of its members. What other info do you need. What are you so afraid of that you need to hunt me down  like a rabid dog fo asking some simple questions.



But you're not asking questions.  You're posting tripe as "facts" in an effort to prove your point, and are getting upset when you're called on them.



			
				fez said:
			
		

> So your telling me youve ALL had tan armor vests for over 2 years while all news networks in this country still showed you (or some of you) with green vests? Ive watched everything from global to ctv to cbc... It begs to wonder why they would refuse to show you guys with tan vets after all this time.



Yes - the flak ("armour") vests are tan.  Period.  You might be seeing the load carrying vest - the small vest worn over the armour to carry ammunition - some are green.  Or, as others have pointed out, you might be seeing old footage.  We don't much care, why do you?


----------



## fez (11 Nov 2006)

warspite said:
			
		

> So are you implying that those who don't agree with you are bad Canadian's.....?
> 
> Teddy Ruxpin
> 
> ...



No but those who tell me Im an arguement against free speech might be. Im not kidding myself that your all angels and democrats in the forces either. Lots off good men in the forces and lots of lousy officers from what Ive heard more busy with politicking than running an army.  If you can degrade me with slander and perverse innuendo and not expect equally harsh replies then maybe the kitchen is too hot for you. 

Thats it for now... Hopefully my bud will come in later tonight and tell me why his last phone call to me couple weeks ago is so off the mark as some of you are saying.


----------



## Trinity (11 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> And here is what Im talking about. The perversion of my intent because you guys cant stand that an NDP'er is actually pro military. Sad really that you have to resort to this kind of bs. And very low of you. *How many other lefties did you chased away with this kind of dirty, ugly and lowballed approach I wonder.*





			
				fez said:
			
		

> Lets see how many posts does it take to say im an NDPer who ran for public office and is also a strong supporter of the military (my first post)  if not the right wing views of some of its members. What other info do you need. What are you so afraid of that you need to hunt me down  like a rabid dog fo asking some simple questions.



So... instead of responding to fact, experience of opinion....

you want to resort to insult and taunting?

As my philosophy teacher taught me...* Insults and mockery is not argument.*  I haven't
seen you state anything new in a few posts... or respond to any claims such as stock footage
which is a perfectly legit explanation.  

We can't provide you with exact dates of delievery of arid kit overseas or when a specific
piece of footage on TV was taken.  What do you expect in the way of proof?  Your burden
of proof on us is much higher than the burden of proof that you expect us to give you.

We're not hunting you down for being NDP.  There are many people here, myself included, that support or supported
NDP but their military policy is not in line with our belief.  

As


----------



## Harris (11 Nov 2006)

OK.  Things are getting a bit worked up in here.  Time for a breather.  I'll unlock it in the morning.  Everyone else please enjoy the remainder of the day and think about what this day really means.


----------



## McG (11 Nov 2006)

Not much green here:


----------



## paracowboy (11 Nov 2006)

All right, everyone listen up.

Yes, this guy's a clown. But a dog-pile of everyone spouting off that he's a clown is not gonna let him realize that he's wearing a bright red ball on his nose, and over-sized shoes.

The facts (let's all say that together: the FACTS) will. Some members have gone to the effort of going through his kife and, point by point, showing his mistakes, errors, and general foolishyness-es. 

When it gets unlocked, try to keep that going. NOT the "You're a poopy-face" style of rebuttal.

That is all.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Nov 2006)

> I specifically exempted infantrymen. I said I was told you were limited to 5 bullets a year as the annual workup for other force members.



Sorry to be putting this in when its locked but as a member of the Navy I have to rebut this right away. I manage to get to the range at least twice a year and I mamange to put more then 5 rounds downrange. We also shoot onboard ship and we also manage to put more then 5 rounds down range a shoot. I have been able to do this for over 12 years now since I switched over to the Navy. Please get your facts straight before commenting on "other force members".


----------



## Harris (12 Nov 2006)

OK.  Unlocked.  Please just discuss the issue and not, as was mentioned above dog-pile the author.


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2006)

More pictures:


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

I am making this post to clarify some information, which might have been accidentally misrepresented, and to come to the defense of Fez who is new to this forum.

You have all had a chance to flame him to death and since the topic is inflammatory, I’m not surprised at the results.  One thing we need to remember is that civilians do not make the distinction between many military terms or branches of service or some equipment.  They can only act on the information they have received from outside of the CF culture.  They are not privy to the same information or experiences that we have had.  Additionally, it is my understanding that this forum is open to anyone who wants to post a comment/opinion in an attempt to learn more or to share their knowledge.  I really don’t think that attacking someone because of his or her ignorance (through no fault of their own) is going to be conducive to having an intelligent exchange.

1.  Fez’s Background:

I have known Fez for the last 25 years.  We are very good friends and very much a part of each other’s family.  He has one of the best analytical minds that I know.  He has run for the NDP at the provincial level twice in the last six years.  I know this because I was his communications director for the last campaign. His entrance into this forum is driven by a desire to learn more about the CF in order to evaluate as well as to validate the information that is presented in the media.  He is not a big fan of the media, but when it is one’s only source of information, where else can you go?  I’m sure no one here has read as many books about our society as he has.  He has a very clear understanding of the underlying political agendas that our leaders don’t want us to really know about.  Ask him about medicare and brace yourself.

2.  Five Rounds for Qual

I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.

We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.  Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.

3.  The Ex-Marine Story

One of my good friends is currently going through work up training for the next rotation in December/Jan.  He is a former Marine who later joined the CF and was in the RCR and went through jump school.  He is now a reservist on a class C contract for the next roto.  I met up with him on Labor Day weekend.

He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing.  He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre.  He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc…  He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training.  Before anyone gets any bright ideas about slamming the reserves, the Regular Force is conducting the training.

Another issue is that of leadership.  He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior.  He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with.  Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.

In an attempt to validate this information, I spoke with a Captain friend of mine who went over and asked him some of these questions.  I also read some reports on CF casualties on CBC and spoke with Marines who have served in Afghanistan with Canadians Soldiers. 

Some of the problems stem from the fact that the Canadian mission has shifted from security and reconstruction to counter insurgency 

(see http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2003/12/23/afghan031223.html ).  

This is a major doctrinal shift and it is no surprise the CF is suffering a casualty increase 

(see http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/09/18/report-soldiers.html  and http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Canadas_Fallen.pdf ).

The Canadian public is not overly aware of this shift.  All they know is CF troops are in Afghanistan.  That may help to explain the layperson’s views on this subject.

4.  How Many Magazines does it take….

A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.

5.  Gunny Says…..

My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand.  Again, the doctrinal shift.  Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them.  His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.

As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.

6.  The NDP-the party you love to hate…..

The NDP is not a monolithic organization.  Party members are entitled to have their own views.  I know that Fez is not trying to flaunt his opinions in this forum but rather offer up some views to be discussed.  Frankly, I am annoyed at the childish responses to his statements and questions.  How often do you have card carrying NDP party members actually try and engage into a conversation in this forum in an attempt to learn more and validate information?  You should be happy that someone in politics actually cares as opposed to just ranting and raving amongst yourselves.

If the politicians in this country would listen to the actual CF members before making policy, then you would all be ahead of the game.  Remember that it is the politicians who decide where you will deploy, for how long and what gear you will use.

Now, I will only be too glad to entertain questions you may have.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## paracowboy (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> One thing we need to remember is that civilians do not make the distinction between many military terms or branches of service or some equipment. They can only act on the information they have received from outside of the CF culture.  They are not privy to the same information or experiences that we have had.


yeah, thanks, we know. But, when given the info to correct their mistakes, and they choose to ignore it, they deserve to get a kick in the junk. If told BY the serving mmbers that they're wrong for the following reasons, and then choose to continue making an ass of themselves, they deserve to get dog-piled.



> Additionally, it is my understanding that this forum is open to anyone who wants to post a comment/opinion in an attempt to learn more or to share their knowledge.  I really don’t think that attacking someone because of his or her ignorance (through no fault of their own) is going to be conducive to having an intelligent exchange.


then they can shut their yaps, and listen when being told facts by serving members, can't they? Civvies are tolerated, even welcome, but they don't get to come on here, spout kife, and the...

screw it. He's been an assclown of the finest kind from his first post. And I have serious doubts about many of the claims in your post as well. 5 Rounds? When we're now spending more ammo in a month than we used to in a year, previously?

Naw, fez is on the hot seat because HE PUT HIMSELF there by spouting kife and refusing to listen. He's under the watchful and tender eye of the mods now. As is this thread.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> And I have serious doubts about many of the claims in your post as well. 5 Rounds? When we're now spending more ammo in a month than we used to in a year, previously?



You can have all the serious doubts in the world that you want.  I got this information first hand from people who went through it.  The thing to understand here is the fact that your experience may not be the same as another soldier's experience due to when you went over or what was being done in training.  You might want to take that into consideration and also realize that your personal experience is not absolute.  There differences in training at different locations.

Here is another example.  I work at the Marine Corps Security Forces Battalion's training company.  We are a school house who train Marines who are slated to go to either the FAST companies (Fleet Anti-Terrorism Strike Team) or a PRP command or Marine Barracks 8th & I.  Over the last year, our curriculum has changed.  From one course to the next, Marines were getting a different variation of training than those who came before.  It even got to the point where there was a short fall in shot gun ammo and one class did not qual with that weapon whereas other classes did.  It's still the same school and still the same course (Basic Security Guard-BSG) but with some variations due to changes in the structure.  The same thing could be happening with work-up training in the CF.  My two cents worth.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Nov 2006)

> And I have serious doubts about many of the claims in your post as well.



+1  So here goes:



> We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.



And how are you in a position to make this judgment?  Do you (or your mental health buddy) know what 99% of soldiers do for predeployment training now?  Frankly, if your Major got five rounds, that tells me more about the internal organization that would have allowed him to deploy with such abysmal training (AF, CFHS, that says it all.  I wonder what the predeployment standard for USAF mental health officers is....oh yeah...  : ) than it does about the Army's predeployment training.



> He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing.  He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre.  He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc…  He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training.  Before anyone gets any bright ideas about slamming the reserves, the Regular Force is conducting the training.



Oh?  Has he been through his CMTC rotation yet?  Has he seen the standard? Has he met the standard? Since he hasn't been deployed to Afghanistan, I would suggest that he has no idea of what skills will or will not be required in theatre.  As MCG pointed out, fording drills _are_ used.



> Another issue is that of leadership.  He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior.  He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with.  Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.



Good for him.  Sounds like bullshit whining to me.



> A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.



Don't bother opening the tac vest debate again - there are dozens of posts on it.  The fact of the matter is that all planners - including American ones - have to use a base figure to determine combat loads, full stop.  How else does the Army determine how much ammunition to ship?



> My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand.  Again, the doctrinal shift.  Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them.  His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.



You're on dangerous ground here and I'm rather offended.  I can say [u[much, much[/u] worse about some Americans I've served alongside on operations, including your beloved Marines.   I can provide personal examples where US Forces have been _far too aggressive_ in theatre.   I'd be interested to know with whom your Gunny was serving with...



> As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.


  It just came out.  



> How often do you have card carrying NDP party members actually try and engage into a conversation in this forum in an attempt to learn more and validate information?



Which is not what your buddy did.  He came on to the forum to deliberately troll, spouting complete nonsense that - even when proven wrong - he continued to insist on.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> He has one of the best analytical minds that I know.  He has run for the NDP at the provincial level twice in the last six years.


those two statements are contradictory. If one is analytical at all about politics, one realizes that the NDP are the most ridiculous excuse of a political party in existence, with no basis whatsoever in reality.



> 2.  Five Rounds for Qual
> 
> I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.


I'm currently assisting the Ops NCO for our CS/CSS types deploying on 1-07 and 1-08. He's asking me how many rounds they need to qualify for the basic PWT. I told him. They're getting 200 rounds a man. Not exactly 5 per man, is it? Kinda throws a monkey wrench into that 5 rounds per man story.



> 3.  The Ex-Marine Story
> 
> One of my good friends is currently going through work up training for the next rotation in December/Jan.  He is a former Marine who later joined the CF and was in the RCR and went through jump school.  He is now a reservist on a class C contract for the next roto.  I met up with him on Labor Day weekend.
> 
> He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing.  He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre.  He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc…  He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training.  Before anyone gets any bright ideas about slamming the reserves, the Regular Force is conducting the training.


so, because you friend is pissy about having to practice basic drills before moving on to mission-specific training, the CF is fucked up? Right. Got it. Noted, and changes to doctine will be emplaced immediately.



> Another issue is that of leadership.  He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior.  He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with.  Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.


and he has doen what, to address these percieved faults?



> I also read some reports on CF casualties on CBC


 and that is relevent how? The CBC? Why not Sesame Street, too? REad on here how many times we have corrected the CBC.



> and spoke with Marines who have served in Afghanistan with Canadians Soldiers.


 and I can give any number of negative opinions of the USMC by Canadians, but why would I?



> Some of the problems stem from the fact that the Canadian mission has shifted from security and reconstruction to counter insurgency


 our mission has not shifted. We are still on the same mission, no matter what you choose to believe from the CBC. 



> The Canadian public is not overly aware of this shift.  All they know is CF troops are in Afghanistan.  That may help to explain the layperson’s views on this subject.


then they shold take steps to corret that, or just shut the fuck up and listen when troops talk. Like here.



> 4.  How Many Magazines does it take….
> 
> A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.


and we are currently allowing troops to purchase and carry their own equipment in theatre. And TF 1-07 is spear-heading a test of various chest-rigs. 3 PPCLI is currently spear-heading an initiative whereby every soldier will carry 10 mags at all times.



> 5.  Gunny Says…..
> 
> My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand.  Again, the doctrinal shift.  Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them.  His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.


see above. I can give CF opinions about "robotic, and unable to think for themselves" or "lacking in personal inititative" but, those are jsut opinions. Similar to your Gunny's.



> As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.


where do you think the CF gets a lareg chunk of it's info on enemy tactics? Couple countries: both start with the letter "U". Odd thing...both those countries get info from Canada, too. Wierd how that works.



> 6.  The NDP-the party you love to hate…..
> 
> The NDP is not a monolithic organization.  Party members are entitled to have their own views.  I know that Fez is not trying to flaunt his opinions in this forum but rather offer up some views to be discussed.  Frankly, I am annoyed at the childish responses to his statements and questions.  How often do you have card carrying NDP party members actually try and engage into a conversation in this forum in an attempt to learn more and validate information?  You should be happy that someone in politics actually cares as opposed to just ranting and raving amongst yourselves.


he didn't try to engage in a conversation. He came on here blowing his hot air, and refused to listen when corrected with factual information. So he got dog-piled for being a dumbass.


----------



## tlg (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 2.  Five Rounds for Qual
> 
> I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.
> 
> We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.  Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.



Isn't mental health a desk job? (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong). 

Cutting ammo due to budget restraints? 5 ROUNDS? I'm sure if this was the case every soldier no matter what their trade, would not be ecstatic with ponying up the money for more rounds but would do it anyways if it would give them the chance to bring their shooting skills up another level. (Can you zero a weapon in 5 rounds if it's off?). If it was indeed budget restraints. I think the forces in their infinite wisdom would choose AMMO over something else.

What do I know, I'm just an untrained grunt that sees way too many flaws in this article

//FAIRYTALE: Isn't the whole 5 round thing a fairy tale from back in the day? I've heard it in my younger years and even then screamed blasphemy and heresy. (Again correct me if I'm wrong)


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 1.  Fez’s Background:
> 
> ...His entrance into this forum is driven by a desire to learn more about the CF...



And yet he prefers to forcefully restate his own erroneous opinions rather than taking information away to seek corroboration elsewhere.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> He is not a big fan of the media, but when it is one’s only source of information, where else can you go?



You claim he is not a fan of the media, and yet he upholds it as "truth" in the face of even photographic evidence to the contrary.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 2.  Five Rounds for Qual
> 
> I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.
> 
> We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.  Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.



Was it just the one officer that only received 5 rounds?  Or was it his entire unit?  What unit was this? 




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 3.  The Ex-Marine Story
> 
> ...Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out..



So it's obviously not bad enough for him to try anything except bitching about his lot in life.




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 4.  How Many Magazines does it take….
> 
> A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.



The opinon of one guy that YOU describe as being out of the loop.  I have lost count on how many threads on this board evolved into discussions/arguments on how many mags should be carried by whom.  And there is certainly enough evidence, anecdotal and photographic, to show that the troops are NOT restricted to the "Cold War five magazines."  So, unles you have recent proof to the contrary ....




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 5.  Gunny Says…..
> 
> My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me ....



His is one opinion, others here have expressed theirs.  But you have already decided which you are willing to believe, so it appears your's and fez's minds are equaly closed to a discussion.




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 6.  The NDP-the party you love to hate…..
> 
> The NDP is not a monolithic organization.  Party members are entitled to have their own views.



Sure, just like the local NDP candidate on my doorstep the other night who displayed incredible ignorance regarding "blue beret" missions, and the requirement to have a secure environment within which to permit humanitarian and nation-building efforts.




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> I know that Fez is not trying to flaunt his opinions in this forum but rather offer up some views to be discussed.



Sorry, he is only coming across as a troll, flaunting what he has already chosen to believe is the truth and ignoring any contrary information.


----------



## rmacqueen (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> Five Rounds for Qual
> 
> I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.



Could this be because he in the medical branch with a trade that would confine him to inside the wire and carrying, at most, a pistol?  I haven't been to Afghanistan and even *I* know that the service support are qualifying to a high level but they are not confined to KAF.  It is not just the combat arms.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (12 Nov 2006)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Could this be because he in the medical branch with a trade that would confine him to inside the wire and carrying, at most, a pistol?  I haven't been to Afghanistan and even *I* know that the service support are qualifying to a high level but they are not confined to KAF.  It is not just the combat arms.



Air Force, CFHS - that says it all to me.  There's a reluctance amongst some organizations that haven't force generated for operations in large numbers to take predeployment training seriously.  For all we know, this officer came from Comox or Bagotville...where they haven't had to prepare personnel in large numbers recently.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Nov 2006)

I still don't buy the 5 rounds thing. In order to deploy, you have to complete MLOC/DLOC. Simply by completing that process, ou fire more than five rounds, since yuo have to successfully complete the PWT. Which takes considerably more than 5 rounds to do. You can't even get CS/CSS pers zero effectively with only 5 rounds, unless the moon is right and the stars are aligned.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> His is one opinion, others here have expressed theirs.  But you have already decided which you are willing to believe, so it appears your's and fez's minds are equaly closed to a discussion.



There is only one Marine in my Company who worked with Canadians overseas.  I am only representing one view because it is the only one I have knowledge of to represent.  I have no vested interest in dumping on CF soldiers.  I was one for 11 years.  Just because I moved south of the border doesn't mean I have any anti-Canadian sentiments.  My wife is Canadian, I'm Canadian, my parents are Canadian etc....

So say what you will but the only part of my mind that is closed is the part that has to deal with bull crap that gets spewed out at me.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## George Wallace (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog

You are correct in saying that one soldier's experience is not the same as another's.  I, too, have a hard time believing that an officer heading off on Tour had only 5 rounds to qualify, when the lowest qualification is the PWT 1 and it is 50 rounds.  A person has to have at least PWT 4 (I believe) to go on Tour and that consists of a lot more than 50 rounds.  If this officer only fired 5 rounds, either someone in the system allowed him to squeeze through unnoticed or he, himself, failed to go to the Ranges to qualify when he was directed to do so (How many times have we seen officers, mostly in non-Combat Arms Trades, who feel that weapons handling is not necessary for their job?).

We just ran a PWT 1, as we are not on a deployment rotation, and ran through 28 Fd Amb with our relays.  They all fired more than 50 rounds.

As for 'Book Learning', that is a different story.  'Book Learning' may make a person an intellectual, but not necessarily intelligent.  Sometime it takes some 'Street Learning' and a little less ego and more open-mindedness to really understand the world situation.  Fez is fixated on this one topic, not listening at all to any of the answers given him/her, when (s)he could easily browse some of our other Forums and Topics and see what is being said.  As a matter of fact, PJ D-Dog, you may want to widen your search, as some of these topics have been covered and been either explained or discredited.

If Fez wants to propose questions, then Fez should also be ready to accept answers from "Boots on, or who have been on, the Ground".  If Fez can not, neither you nor (s)he can really maintain credibility in the discussion.


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> I really don’t think that attacking someone because of his or her ignorance (through no fault of their own) is going to be conducive to having an intelligent exchange.


I most certainly agree.  The flaming dog pile was in appropriate (that is why the thread was locked).  However, when someone is told through first hand sources that his facts are wrong (such as the case with the armour), then that someone accept that he is wrong.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 1.  Fez’s Background:


Those of us involved in debating fez did not really care about his background.  So far, his posts have not lived up to the standard your praise should have us expect.  His posts are how we will judge him (and there are other NDP leaners on this site that manage to get by in the debates).



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 2.  Five Rounds for Qual
> 
> I recently visited with my cousin who is a Major in the CF. He is in the mental health field as part of the air force.  Prior to his deployment to Afghanistan in Jan 06, he was only allotted a five round magazine for annual rifle qual.  I made it clear to Fez when I recounted this story that this excluded the combat arms as his original post stated.  I asked my cousin many questions about this and he was disgusted at the fact that he was not given more time on the range for qualification.  He enquired as to why there was such a shortage of ammo and he was told that it was due to budget restraints.  It seems that service support don’t need to qualify at the same level as a combat arms unit.
> 
> We both agreed that regardless the branch of service, all deploying CF personnel should be getting a higher standard of rifle sustainement training prior to going over.  Some may not agree with this, but anyone can get caught in a firefight even the mental health guy.


Your friend has failed to meet the standard to deploy.  All soldiers going into the country must do at least PWT 2.  Anyone that will leave the camp must be PWT 3.  If all he has been given is five rounds then he has not even completed PWT 1.  If this is true, someone is being negligent in their duties.    



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 4.  How Many Magazines does it take….
> 
> A buddy of mine was working for a company, which produces CF military gear.  He explained that in order to get a federal contract for equipment, he had to speak with the head of DND acquisitions in Ottawa.  He was shocked to learn that this relic of a soldier was still of the opinion that CF soldiers should only be carrying four mags in the their pouches and one in the rifle.  The DND official was questioning the need to have more mags as he feared an increase in budget costs.  Obviously, he was trained in the good old days of the Cold War and just didn’t understand.  After visiting soldiers in Afghanistan, he wondered whey they would want to carry more ammo.


? Who is your buddy?  Who did he speak to; someone in DLR, ADM(MAT), clothe the soldier?  I don’t understand this procurement process you’ve presented.  It does not sound like how we do business.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 5.  Gunny Says…..
> 
> My company Gunny worked with Canadians in Afghanistan.  He has told me that other than being hard working and easy to get along with, they were not trained to effectively deal with the mission at hand.  Again, the doctrinal shift.  Although their tactics were similar to those used by the Marines, Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them.  His overall assessment was that CF Soldiers should have been given more training before deploying.
> 
> As for IEDs, I would like to see the manual the CF is using in order to compare it to what the Marine Corps is using.


When did your Gunny work with Canadians?  Was it APOLLO?  Kabul?  Except for a few Marines in HQ & comms dets, I only saw Army and Air Force in Kandahar.

How did your Gunny come to these conclusions?  What did he see?  Why/How do we lack aggression?

What were the training deficiencies?

Your comments are so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment in most cases.

 . . . btw, if you have the JIED Defeat handbook, you have the first draft of our book.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> He is concerned that the level of training he is receiving is not up to par with the mission they will be performing.  He recounted how the training was focused on fording drills and other elements that would be included in a classical European theatre.  He was concerned at how they will be operating in desert mountain terrain and wondered why they practiced fording rivers etc…


The Hellmund River: my BG had to deal with it.  His BG may have to do the same.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> He was also concerned about the Cold War drills of a morning stand-to which continued to be advocated by the higher leadership in the work up training.


Well, considering the level of night observation within the Taliban, this does not actually sound that bad a tactic if one were expecting an attack.  Far better than a Mad Minute.  

Your friend has a lot of ideas on what he does not want to do.  Are there no comments on what he thinks is missing?



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> Another issue is that of leadership.  He is very concerned that leadership displayed in the training is inferior.  He is at the point where he has no confidence in both the junior and senior leadership of the unit his is with.  Despite all of this, he is still going to deploy, as he wants to get a tour in before he gets out.


What is wrong with the leadership?  This statement is so general and devoid of detail that it is impossible to comment.




			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> In an attempt to validate this information, I spoke with a Captain friend of mine who went over and asked him some of these questions.  I also read some reports on CF casualties on CBC and spoke with Marines who have served in Afghanistan with Canadians Soldiers.


 and what did the Capt say to that validated any of the training or leadership concerns?  I notice nothing in your CBC links is related/relevant.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> 6.  The NDP-the party you love to hate…..
> 
> The NDP is not a monolithic organization.


I will agree that we see anything from the NDP or the left attacked with ad hominem.  Indeed, attaching the label of “left” or “NDP” is often an attack in itself.  We try to do our part in raising above this, and counter ad hominem is not the solution.  You can help with the “report to moderator” feature where you feel there is a problem.



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> If the politicians in this country would listen to the actual CF members before making policy, then you would all be ahead of the game.  Remember that it is the politicians who decide where you will deploy, for how long and what gear you will use.


You don’t think they are listening to the CDS?


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

Thanks George....I only entered this debate because Fez was acting on information that we had discussed on a few occasions.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## peaches (12 Nov 2006)

Ref the whole 5 rounds issue, as an AF officer I recently qual'd C7 & 9mm with a lot more than 5 rounds, and I am not even deploying yet.  On my Wing, failure to weapons qual hurts your PER.  Weapons quals & mandatory PT in the AF, our culture is changing slowly, for the better, thank you Gen Hillier!!!!

Last night I sat through yet another CBC "Town Hall" meeting ref Canada in A-Stan.  I watched some lefty UBC prof and some CPA audience clowns pile on a wounded PPCLI officer & the A-Stan Ambassador.  Seems they love the CF provide that we de-arm, only Peacekeep, and handout candies & teddy bears.  Gen Hillier has us in A-Stan to save his career, he is bad because he called the T-Ban scum bags and murderers, which will upset them when we have to negotiate.  OH Yeah, we are supposted to lead an invasion of Sudan to save Darfour. 

My point is that this FEZ guy and people like him have preconceived ideas and prejudices, have made up their minds, and no amount of facts and first hand accounts will sway them.

The NDP spending $30 Billion on DND, FEZ your kidding right!!  That could actually be a sign of the Apocalypse  "Socialist are not anti-military, just remember the Warsaw Pact".  Yes, I do remember them from my time in Lahr.  As I recall they had large militaries to keep the citizens in those countries from rising up against there own governments, or from fleeing in droves to the west, a la Hungary 1956 or Czech 1968.


----------



## TCBF (12 Nov 2006)

"... Canadians lacked aggression and were more interested in supervising tasks rather than doing them.  He said they liked to explain things more than actually doing them."

- Well now, it's not like WE haven't noticed a bit of that in our work up training, right?  As an across the board comment, it is inaccurate.  Still, it is hard for leaders who have spent their time administering and supervising their elements to actually get on the ground and lead.  The DS mentality is a hard one to break.  Then, the skill fade becomes a bit noticeable.  

- As for stock footage, an MWO called me from his house the other night telling me he saw me on TV.  It was Op APPOLLO footage.  I would have had green CADPAT, a green frag vest, a green LC vest, and a SAND Coyote.  If you see any SAND Coyotes, the footage is at LEAST four years old.

The media can't tell the difference between our uniforms and vehs and the ones from other countries.  In their eyes, if we aren't wearing a Blue Beanie and have red and white flags on our shoulders, we aren't Canadians.

Tom


----------



## Trinity (12 Nov 2006)

I'm jumping a bit out of my lane here... but it's to see if I can
find a root cause of the 5 round concept.

I recall a UN tour under Gen McKenzie in which he was told his troops could
only carry 5 rounds per mag and 5 mags per man.  They also limited him
on types of weapons, etc...  Bosnia?  Not that it was followed   to my limited understanding.


I seem to recall something like that in the early 90's.  I can't verify that.  If I am
right we might have ground zero for the whole 5 rounds misconception.

If I am wrong.. at worst... it's a minor sidetrack of this thread which I'm sure I'll
be forgiven for.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> I'm jumping a bit out of my lane here... but it's to see if I can
> find a root cause of the 5 round concept.
> 
> I recall a UN tour under Gen McKenzie in which he was told his troops could
> ...



No way.  I was on HARMONY 0, we took the entire 4CMBG  ammo allotment for CANENGBAT and the R22eR.  The force commander at the time was from India, and was horrified at the amount of ordnance we brought with us.

edit for spelling


----------



## Trinity (12 Nov 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The force commander at the time was from India, and was horrified at the amount of ordnance we brought with us.



 ;D

Ok... then in some UN tour...  being told to limit our weapons, ammo, etc...  if this could job
someones memory that might solve the question.  I remember MacKenzie talking about it on
an interview year and years ago.   Anyways.. it's a side track to the convo.. so unless anyone
knows... best to continue on the normal subject.


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2006)

Trinity said:
			
		

> Ok... then in some UN tour...  being told to limit our weapons, ammo, etc...


Cyprus maybe?

In any case, I had 10 mags and all the ammo to go with it in Afghanistan.  It was the same across the Fd Sqn.  I cannot speak for the rifle companies (except that I saw guys carrying far more than just 5 mags) and I can only assume that they were not carrying less than the engineers.


----------



## TCBF (12 Nov 2006)

As far as five rounds go, many possibilities:

1.  PWT done on pistol, had to meet a Grouping Standard only with a C7, did that first group.  Good on 'im.
2.  Qual PWT already, had to Zero new C7 only, did that first group. Good on 'im.
3.  Tour policy varies from element to element, tour to tour, etc.
4.  Para 4, the various screw-ups para:
     a.   Miscommunication: organizers told he would qual later, next week, in theater, etc.
     b.   Initiative: organizers thought the ammo would be better used by somebody who desparetely      
needed the practice; and
     c.   Who knows?

We know that even with 'universal standards' on shooting quals - and other quals - that there will still be exceptions.  Witness the girl on the Level 3 ___  Range who could not fire accurately kneeling because she could not hold the rifle up.  Think she passed PWT?  Think she will still go over?  You know it.

Reminds me of all of the work ups and PT we did before Bosnia 2000, only to see a guy driving a _____ who was bigger than it was.  Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.


----------



## startbutton (12 Nov 2006)

You are right about Bosnia but it was in regards to the type of ammo allowed :
Orders from the U.N. were they could bring Mortars but use only illumination rounds and they could have T.O.W.s but no ammo for them he cheated and brought the exlosive rounds for the motars and rounds for the T.O.Ws .
(source his autobiography and General Mckenzie himself )


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.



This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.  Everyone's experience is different whether some want to believe it or not.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Nov 2006)

How to group (by a qualified Small Arms' Instructor.  Namely, me):
You get 25 rounds.  First, at the 100m mark (on a conventional range), fire five rounds at the correct aiming point.  Stand up, shake it out, and then fire five more at the same aiming point.  Do this again.  And again.  There, you have fired 20 rounds.  Then, you go down range and note the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) and the group size.  From the group size, you will get the Permissible Variance (PF) (not telling 'how' to do this, just that the bigger the group, the bigger your PV can be when you confirm your group).  From the MPI, you get the correction to apply to your sight.  Apply said correction and go back to the 100 m mark.  Fire the last five rounds.  If the MPI of this five round group is within the PV to the point of aim, you are zerored.  If not, fire three more five round groups and repeat the process.

Also note that prior to zeroing, you have to be able to consistently fire within a certain size (again, not stating what size this is: it's irrelevant for this forum).
So, "five rounds" does not cut it and does not happen.
Full stop.
Also, re: fording drills (this caught my eye a few messages back): there are indeed rivers in Afghanistan, and even though they may be dry at the time of fording, the drill wasn't invented to fight the Soviets, it was developed in order to effectively cross a river.  I haven't had to do this in Afghanistan, but I think there are those members on this site who may be able to state whether or not they had to do that in theatre.


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> How to group (by a qualified Small Arms' Instructor.  Namely, me):
> You get 25 rounds.  First, at the 100m mark (on a conventional range), fire five rounds at the correct aiming point.  Stand up, shake it out, and then fire five more at the same aiming point.  Do this again.  And again.  There, you have fired 20 rounds.  Then, you go down range and note the Mean Point of Impact (MPI) and the group size.  From the group size, you will get the Permissible Variance (PF) (not telling 'how' to do this, just that the bigger the group, the bigger your PV can be when you confirm your group).  From the MPI, you get the correction to apply to your sight.  Apply said correction and go back to the 100 m mark.  Fire the last five rounds.  If the MPI of this five round group is within the PV to the point of aim, you are zerored.  If not, fire three more five round groups and repeat the process.



Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual.  I've known this guy all my life as he is my cousin.  He has no reason to make up some story.  As I stated in my earlier post, we both agreed that it was not enough but it still happened.

As an earlier post stated, not everyone's work up training is going to be exactly the same.  This can be debated until the cows come home but the facts remain.  I do not post garbage on this forum as some people do in other topics.  No matter where you go in the military world, training is not homogenous.  There will always be those who have done more training or less training for similar deployments.  It is happening here in the Marine Corps and I know it is happening in the CF by virtue of the nature of the organization.

Good input though, keep shooting.  KILL!

PJ D-Dog


----------



## McG (12 Nov 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> 1.  PWT done on pistol, had to meet a Grouping Standard only with a C7, did that first group.


This fails to meet the minimum standard.  Pers deployed must qualify to the PWT standard on all their pers weapons (that means PWT standard is achieved on both the C7 and the pistol).



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Think everyone on tour went through what you did to get there?  HIGHLY unlikely.


No, but there are minimum standards.  Pers that do not achieve these minimum standards should never leave Canadian soil. (and if some how they do, they should not become the argument to make generalizations about the CF).



			
				PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> TCBF said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yet this entire thread is based on second-hand stories of individuals (all relayed through you) that have become generalizations on the CF.  hmmm . . .


----------



## tlg (12 Nov 2006)

Thanks for clarifying that VG. Like my previous post said I didn't think 5 rounds was sufficient enough to zero a weapon. Moreover for a soon to be BMQ recruit, knowing that you dump 20 rounds down range just to find the variance before attempting to zero.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the *Royal Canadian Air Force * deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual.


NEWSFLASH
The Royal Canadian Air Force does not exist.
And, FYI, I am not a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor, so when you say "I too am a...", you are making a mistake.  I have never even been a Marine, nor have I played on on TV or even in a wargame.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> Thanks for the clarification but I too am a Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructor (PMI).  I agree with what is being said but the point that I am making is the fact that a Major in the Royal Canadian Air Force deployed to A-Stan and only shot five rounds as part of his rifle qual.  I've known this guy all my life as he is my cousin.  He has no reason to make up some story.  As I stated in my earlier post, we both agreed that it was not enough but it still happened.


then your cousin is negligent in his duties. Either he allowed someone to send him to Afghanistan without proper training, or he arranged it himself by scammin' off. Either way, he screwed up. Large. Especially as a senior officer. The Standards are no secret, everyone who deploys is made aware of them. Everyone is made aware that they are responsible to meet them. He failed to do so.


----------



## TCBF (12 Nov 2006)

I heareby take full responsibility for this thread going off topic.  Now, lets get back to edjimacatin' the rest of the world as to reality, as we know it.

Q1.  Bill Clinton thanks us - repeatedly - for being in Afghanistan.  This has given the NDP a case of the vapours, and they don't quite know how to handle it.  How do we get Taliban Jack to listen to Bill Clinton?

Q2.  The best predictor of future performance is past performance - ask any HR professional, and they will tell you that.  So, what, in it's PAST few decades, has the NDP done to bolster, or support the bolstering, of Canada's defence?


----------



## PJ D-Dog (12 Nov 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> Yet this entire thread is based on second-hand stories of individuals (all relayed through you) that have become generalizations on the CF.  hmmm . . .



All electronic and print media is based on second-hand stories related through someone.  Any basic journalism course will teach you this.  This forum is a type of a reporting tool.  We have testimonials of those who have first hand accounts of events and we have those who relate "second-hand stories".  This is how information gathering is done.  If this were an actual credible news publication our burden of proof would be based on providing names, dates, places etc to help validate the information.  Due to defamation and privacy laws, we don't name them.  This is a place to pass on and discuss information and events in an informal manner.

As a trained Marine Corps combat correspondent and broadcaster, I try and apply all the standards that I work by when providing information.  Granted our format here is relaxed therefore I do not seek secondary or tiertiary validation sources.  I don't need too as I know the sources personnally.  Additionally, these accounts are probably on the fringes of the CF and do not necessarily represent the main stream.  Having said this, they are still valid accounts.  If you continue to choose to ignore the fact that these types of events are taking place in your back yard, then that is your loss.

It is obvious that many many here have made a super effort to discredit anything that I have said.  This is due to the fact that it does not fall within the realm of their own experiences.  I would suggest that we all store these accounts in our brain housing group for later use and be on the look-out for anything that may come up in the future that points in the direction of what has been presented.

PJ D-Dog


----------



## George Wallace (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog said:
			
		

> It is obvious that many many here have made a super effort to discredit anything that I have said.  This is due to the fact that it does not fall within the realm of their own experiences.  I would suggest that we all store these accounts in our brain housing group for later use and be on the look-out for anything that may come up in the future that points in the direction of what has been presented.



Are you trying to tell us that the 'one percent' comment invalidates the 'ninety-nine percents' comments?  You work with some fairly strange odds.


----------



## TCBF (12 Nov 2006)

PJ D-Dog makes a good point:  Just because there are standards to meet does not always mean that they are always met.  The question here is whether Fez thought those examples were the result of our standards, or of some of us not meeting (or being given the opportunity to meet) them.  If he thought that they represent our current policy, I think by now he might accept that they generally do not.  But: things happen.

Tom


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Nov 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> How do we get Taliban Jack to listen to Bill Clinton?


I never thought that in my life I would ever hear that question, or wonder about it myself!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Nov 2006)

Fez,
I have stayed out of this train wreck of a thread because I saw nothing I could add.  However I just have to wonder if you conduct your electoral procedure and your union business in the same manner as you blustered onto the scene here.

Did you read anything on this huge forum about things like training standards, ammo allotment, etc., before you told us our problems?
When you conduct union business do you tell the workers what their problems are or would you research first?  Did you tell the electorate in your riding what exactly they needed based on a couple of second-hand accounts and then dig in your heels about what their problems were also?

Might explain the failed attempts...........

I know very little about the training standards our soldiers are doing right now and my post count in those threads reflect exactly that.....and you?


----------



## Matt_S (12 Nov 2006)

fez said:
			
		

> This isnt gonna be a good first post but I think its time someone stood up to the banter here a bit. Simply put the continuing ignorance regarding the role of the NDP in the degradation and missmanagement of the military is astounding. Dont any of you realize its successive conservative and liberal govs who have done this? Dont you know by now the Tories would choose a tax cut over properly giving you guys more than 5 measly bullets a year for rifle training? Or enough armor vests or helmets so returning troops dont have to hand them over to incoming troops? The ndp had nothing to do with this situation. We only ever were able federally to effect some small changes during minority govs only as of late.
> 
> How about those afghan training workups for troops about to go into theater? Apparently theres no training to recognize ied's? This from an ex marine corps guy who joined the forces recently and is horrified at the lousy pre deployment training... What about those dark green armor vests on tan camos? We can afford billions for aircraft (wholeheartedly support any and all purchases as we need just about everything we can get our hands on at this point) but we cant afford basics for the boots on the ground?
> 
> ...




If you are trying to drum up support for the NDP by portraying them as friends of the military you have a serious uphill battle my friend.
The NDP is no friend of the military,and is most certainly an ememy of freedom and democracy.If I wanted live under the control of a Statist totalitarian regime I would move to North Korea or another country of it's ilk.
It's funny how you are trying to compare Liberal and conservative ideologues,when in fact it is uber leftist parties such as the Bloc,NDP and LIEberals whose political dogmas are indistinguishable from each other.Even if I had never served in the military I would oppose the NDP and the rest of the socialist hordes who are destroying my Country from the inside out.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Did you read anything on this huge forum about things like training standards, ammo allotment, etc., before you told us our problems?
> When you conduct union business do you tell the workers what their problems are or would you research first?


I gather that his "research" on CF equipment was limited to asking a "trained Marine Corps combat correspondent," who researched diligently by asking his non-operational airforce cousin, and another Marine who had met Canadians once.

I see a potential flaw in the NDP's intellectual validity here, and I see no further use in this thread.  :


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2006)

I too do not think there is any more redeeming information to be covered in this thread. 

It has served as a lesson to those that chose to NOT research their questions, but what happens when they state and stand by biased, incorrect views on this site.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Nov 2006)

Locked,...but if Fez wishes to rebutal then myself or one of the other Mods will open it for him.
Bruce


----------

