# Would you Join Up in the current environment?



## DMeNTED (1 Oct 2002)

Underfunding, mismanagement, and a general lack of respect of all things military by the ruling party...

Do you still join up?


----------



## Drummy (1 Oct 2002)

I joined the Canadian Army(Reg) in 1956 and my monthly pay was $96.00. All non-fitting uniforms and equipment was free of course. Winter field gear consisted of Battledress, Greatcoat, coveralls, our garrison(parade) boots, and an extra "Grey Blanket". I loved every minute of it for 27+ years. Would I join up today? - Not on your life.

Drummy


----------



## BestOfTheBest (1 Oct 2002)

hi


----------



## Harry (1 Oct 2002)

Make sure when you punch in ‘Packing my bags right now‘, you realize that means joining, not leaving.


----------



## DMeNTED (2 Oct 2002)

Harry is correct ---

By ‘I‘m packing my bags‘ I meant to suggest that you‘d be joining, are joining, or have already joined.

Wait 6 mos. is more if you think the feds will actually do something productive... like upping the budget... in the next 6-12 months.

I‘ve been giving some serious thought about looking at joining up, either as an officer or trade, but it seems that everyone else is getting out, or thinking about it.

I have a relatively cushy -- if mind numbing -- job. Hate to give that up, join up, and then find out it was a bad idea.

DMeNTED


----------



## toms3 (2 Oct 2002)

I love my country and the military is how I choose to serve it.  It might not be the best of times right now and the future looks to be a bit rough.  However, I feel the awarness of the adverage Canadian in regards to the forces is higher than its ever been.  We are also hearing rumblings within the liberal Gov itself, that more should be done for the military.  I feel that over the next few years this will translate in some good new.  I will not leave.  Hey...I guess I am just a die hard....kinda like a Leaf fan.


----------



## Harry (2 Oct 2002)

Uh Huh, those rumblings within the Grit caucus existed under P.E.T. as well.

It was believed some of the draconian measures of his day dealt more with showing the backbenchers who was boss, than real necessity.

The CF was a lame duck for social engineering (good source of additional budget monies), hence the cut backs then.

Look closely at the Grit history, and you will see the future.

Mulrooney got nailed to the cross, but unfortunately, some of the debt he was chastised for was the result of the Liberal plans of the ‘70‘s as the bills came due or the monies owed matured.

After this throne speech I see the same pattern, they will blow a load of money, get kicked out, the incoming government gets stuck with the soon to mature deficit and the Grits kick their mouth organs into high gear.

The incumbents look horrible after a term or two and in comes a Chretien Lt.

What a political cycle.


----------



## humint (2 Oct 2002)

Hey, I like the current gov for its fiscal and social program management, but they don‘t seem to realize just how *underfunded* the military really is. I also think that they are ignoring the longterm impact this underfunding will have on the people in the military as well as its operational capabilities. 

This is just going to cause trouble -- a lot of trouble -- in the long run in terms of managing the militaries reactivity to natural disasters and other emergencies, national security and defence obligations, and international conflict. 

The only way this current gov will increase defence spending is if they are forced to by its UN and NATO partners -- and the US has already voiced its concern. The big question is: will Ottawa listen?


----------



## toms3 (2 Oct 2002)

Well...I guess I will just hold out until my C7 is replaced by a sling shot or when they chain the doors and put out the "Closed for business" sign.


----------



## onecat (2 Oct 2002)

Mulrooney, he was just as bad as any liberal in terms of military spending.  I supported this run in 84 ( although I was just 14 at the time)  and their big promise was more money and new stuff.  And what happened, this first budget.....  were cuttung defence and reducing the number troops.  Or one can look to the arrow project.  Super hi-tech fighter, that would of kept jobs and people here; instead they cancel it.  And Canada had lots of cash then and real voice.

So I won‘t my breath for more money, but I don‘t think they will take any more.  Which is good as I‘m joining this winter for Regs, and hoping that things aren‘t as bad on the inside as they seem on outside.


----------



## humint (2 Oct 2002)

I totally agree -- the Arrow fiasco was a black day in Canada‘s history -- not just military history -- and it was a conservative gov that sold the nation out. There was simply too much pressure from the States and other private business to cancel what would have been the benchmark in modern aviation. The result was the loss of experts and experience from the hi-tech area to the US. 

But, all of that is another story. 

My point is this: The Gov (not just this one, but all in recent history) just doesn‘t care about the military. Sure, they talk and talk and talk about how important the forces are, and they appreciate the military when they come through in the pinch, but in reality the military is an after-thought. It is truly sad. The people who serve deserve so much more.


----------



## Harry (2 Oct 2002)

Come on, the Arrow.  That is a pretty lame example.  The evidence will indicate that it was scrapped at a MUCH higher level than budgetary constraints.  Anyone recall the story of a fishing trip with a then PM and a US Prez?

Mulrooney and his government.  Where did you get your figures.  The Tories (and no I am not a supporter) were the first government in a long time to put money back into the CF.

Do you recall the Frigate program, Coastal boats for the reserves,  additional Herc‘s, the touchy Airbus trilogy to replace the aged 707‘s, Reinforcement of 4 CMBG, the establishment of various specialty organiztions like 4 AD Regt, 4ADR, FUMSU and what not.  

Then there was the two helicopter programs, killed outright and at what cost.  The termination for a RoRo Vessel initiative, tank modernization/replacement plan, need I say more.  Was this the Tories or Grits?

Under the Tories the CF went through a resurgence of strength, capabilities and manpower.  Yes CFE was set to scale back, but it was being done in consort with our Allies.

Do you call the Forces Restructure under the Grits a good thing.  Maybe, but the true cost of all the closeures and new infrastructure will never be known.  The Grits initially stated that there would be a real cost saving, the last estimates I saw indicate forecasted losses extending 15 years plus.

Go back, review your histrorical facts and then come back and try again.

  :rage:    If you are going to step up to the plate, come prepared to play...


----------



## onecat (2 Oct 2002)

Ok you bring up good points.  The Mulrooney gov‘t did do a lot of forces.  I‘ll have to check and see where they made the cuts.  I just remmber that in 1984 they made a big point of support and they started cutting.  But they did do a buying as well.

My point was that governments in Canada have never been very good at support for military.  The grits are the worst by far, and that just doesn‘t go with military spending but their whole outlook on they run things here.  Not this is the place for it, but I like the first past the post form of government is the problem.  If we could ever get proportional repesentation, like they have in gremany or in the eu things would be better.  As it stands a party only needs get 37 to 40+ % of teh vote to get in power that just isn‘t working any more.

As for the arrow it still happen on the Tories watch; they could of said no to the US and held their gound.  Once it was in production I‘m sure we could worked out a better deal to please our "friends" down south.


----------



## humint (2 Oct 2002)

Again, I have to say that respect of the military by any modern Canadian gov. is lacking. Sure, Mulroney (as you correctly point out) may have put more money into the forces than previous govs, but that‘s not the point -- he only looks good when you compare him to the other CDN leaders of the time. It is important to note that, when Mulroney was kickin around, defence spending in the US and other NATO countries was going through the roof. The real problem is that all CDN govs (whether Liberal or Tory) have neglected the forces.

I‘m not saying that we need to throw money at the forces, that doesn‘t work for this day and age. What I am saying is that money needs to be spent in a wise and effective manner and put into areas that will develop and maintain experts in their field. I am of the opinion that you don‘t need a military force of a million men and women, but what you do need is a highly trained, highly expert force of moderate size with the best equipment around. 

And, the Arrow is a perfect example of how CDN leaders capitulate to US political pressure and the tremendous impact such innane decisions have on both the military and hi-tech industries.


----------



## sgtdixon (3 Oct 2002)

Now i know im goning to be harshed upon by the older generation and mabye some of the younger ones but heres how i see it.
1) No matter who gets elected (Excluding Paul Martin) they will lie there way into office, cheat, sleep around, fund golf courses and the like, and of course pull money from the military and give it to Artsy Fartsy groups.

2) Paul Martin is an exception based on the fact that he was asked what his thoughts on military underfunding were and he responded that he thought that the Canadian  _ARMED_ Forces should bve brought back to pre-cold war size and should be as equally funded as education and health care, as well as eliminating unneeded departments in the military (Eg. PR).

3) I am personally joining the military for three main reasons. One - Its a Dixon family thing, 
Two- Its better than civvie life, and Three- To serve my country and make my family proud.  
I really dont care about pay and living conditions or bad equipment, as long as im enjoying what im doing. I am concerned with the genrals lining there pockets but oh well life is a corrupt thing,   :crybaby:  Deal With it...

Anyways i know im gonna get chewed for those comments, but hey come on im just a 17 yr old Cadet Sgt. who isnt gonna be disillusioned by somee corrupt schlubs.

Paratrooper in four years, oh yea


----------



## Ian (3 Oct 2002)

Personally, I‘d take all statements with a grain of salt. One has to remember that Paul Martin is trying to get elected right now.. and the notion that the CF would have equal footing with Education and Health, well it isn‘t going to happen. 

I agree that the Forces need to simply take what is given to us and make the most of it. If the public truly wanted a larger military, they wouldn‘t continue to re-elect the liberals. 

Certainly, joining the military is a great thing to do irregardless of the current political climate.


----------



## Harry (3 Oct 2002)

Paul Martin.

In Three words or less.  Canadian Steamship Lines.  Do some research and then tell me honestly if you still think he is an upfront guy.

Here is a tid bit to get you started.
 
Holders of public office such as the finance minister, Paul Martin must file a public declaration according to the Conflict of Interest and Post Employment Code for public Office Holders.

Paul Martin has declared the following:

I own: 

 a condominium in Ville de LaDalle, Quebec;  
 13 MURB units in Edmonton, Alberta managed by a third party:  
 a membership share in the Knowlton Golf Club and in the Mount Bruno Golf and Country Club;  
 Valleystream Farms located in Cowansville, Quebec, managed by a third party which raises livestock;  
 2,529 Preference Class B shares (98.53% vote) and 22,764 Preference Class C shares (0.89% vote) of Sheilamart Enterprises Inc., an Ontario incorporated holding company which owns open-ended mutual funds, Treasury Bills, shares of Big Splash Water Slides Inc. (ceased operations - no assets)  
 a contingent interest in a property with building on Muskoka Bay;  
 15,028 Preference Class A shares (99.6862% vote) and 47 Preference Class B shares (0.3118% vote) of Nellmart Holdings Inc., a federally incorporated holding company which owns Treasury Bills  
 Nellmart Limited, a private Alberta incorporated investment holding company which in turn owns the Plaza, Dunbar and Varsity theatres in Vancouver,  
 a building on Hastings Street in Vancouver, rented to the Royal Bank,  
 22 MURB units in Edmonton  
 one MURB unit in Calgary,  
 open-ended mutual funds, Treasury Bills, Ontario Hydro, Province of PEI bonds, Alberta Treasury Branches Deposit notes  
 a property located on Ontario Street in Windsor:  
 1,155 Preference Class A (no vote) 6008 Preference Class B (98.99% vote) and 1,226 Preference Class C (0.02% vote) of Passage Holdings Inc. a federally incorporated investment holding company, administered blindly for me under a Supervisory agreement (copy attached) which owns Federal Government Treasury Bills and, directly or indirectly, shares in the following other companies in the percentages indicated:  
 Passage Holdings Inc  
 Passage Marine Holdings Inc. - 100%  
 The CSL Group Inc. - 100%  
 Canada Steamship Lines Inc. (fleet of bulk vessels) - 100%  
 Superior Shipping Company (1993) Inc.  (inactive) - 100%  
 Intercan and Marine Services Limited (inactive) - 100%  
 Cargobec Inc. (inactive) - 100%  
 GLBC Inc. - 50.196% and Great Lakes Bulk Carries Limited partnership - 49.25% (bulk vessels)  
 Quebec Tugs Ltd. (50,000 non-voting shares)  
 The Commercial Coal and Coke Company (Ohio dispatching services) - 100%  
 CSL Equity Investments Limited (holding company) - 50%  
 160901 Canada Inc. (trustee of Ontario real estate properties of CSL Equity Investments Limited) - 100%  
 Hamilton Marine Inc. (vessels repairs) - 50%                             
 North Water Navigation Ltd. (inactive) - 33%  
 Canarctic Shipping Co Ltd. (shipping) - 49%  
 Canadian Marine Transport Group Inc. (dormant winding up) - 16-6%  
 Oceanex Holding Inc. - 25% and Oceanex Holdings Limited Partnership - 25%  
 Oceanex Inc. - 100% and Oceanex Limited Partnership - 100% (water transportation of cars and containers)  
 Cygnus Management Incorporated - 25% and Cygnus Partnership - 25% (in the process of being wound up)  
 Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. (shipyards) - 50%    
 Pictou Industries Limited (N.S. shipbuilding) - 100% Hamilton Marine and Engineering Ltd. (tugs) - 100%  
 CSE Marine Services Inc. (marine design eng.) - 100%  
 Canadian Marine Transport Group Inc. (dormant-winding up) 16.6%  
 Ontario Shipbuilders Inc. (inactive) - 50%  
 Lansdowne Integrated Systems Inc. (consulting) - 90%  
 Simetra Inc. (inactive) - 10%  
 Ocean Lines Limited (Bermuda-inactive) - 100%  
 Argyle Energy Corporation (inactive, formerly engaged in oil and gas exploration and production - 10%  
 Baca Petroleum Corporation (oil and gas  exploration and prod.) 4.6%  
 Canadian Marine Compensation Management (mgt. of compensation claims) - 20%  
 Self Unloader Investments Limited (Bermuda - water transportation of bulk commodities - 100%  
 Atlasco Shipping Inc. (Liberian)  
 Innovatorco Shipping Inc. (Liberian)  
 Atlantic Superior Shipping Inc. (Liberian)  
 CSL International Inc. (commercial mgt., Liberian)  
 Atlantic Erie Shipping Inc. (Liberian)  
 Canada Steamship Lines Limited (U.K. - inactive) - 100%  
 Coastal selfunloaders Limited (U.K. - inactive) - 100%  
 Continental Selfunloaders Limited U.K. - inactive) - 100%

 A supervisory agreement has been entered into between Paul Martin and A. Stuart Hyndman, Q.C. and the Canada Trust Co. This enables Paul Martin to comply with the requirements of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders.                 

Flags of Convenience for Deep Sea Registration

Flags of Convenience are usually located in third world countries. Two of the well-known flags are Liberia and Panama. Shipping lines throughout the world are faced with similar costs. The rates of taxation vary from one country to another. Heavy taxes and the high cost of shipbuilding, after the Second World War forced many shipping lines to relocated to third world flags. In 1970 one-fifth (forty-million-tons) of shipping were registered in places like Liberia and Panama.

Third world flags of convenience often lack even the basic operating rules and inspectors that are part of the everyday environment of today. The rest of us only become aware of the lack of standard operating procedures of third world flagged ships, when disaster strikes and these ships founder in heavy seas. 

More often than not these ships carry large volumes of crude oil. Many of these ships are single hull vessels whereas modern oil tankers are built with a double hull. The damage to our water and air is usually of immense proportions. These shipping lines usually employ third world crews, paying very low wages, without the benefits enjoyed by even the poorest of the G-7 countries. 

Canada‘s present debt now classifies it with Italy, among the poorest of the G-7 nations. This last statistic is a sad reflection of Canada in 1995.

Excerpt from the January 1995 Speaker


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Oct 2002)

"I joined the Canadian Army(Reg) in 1956 and my monthly pay was $96.00. All non-fitting uniforms and equipment was free of course. Winter field gear consisted of Battledress, Greatcoat, coveralls, our garrison(parade) boots, and an extra "Grey Blanket". I loved every minute of it for 27+ years. Would I join up today? - Not on your life.

Drummy"

Ah yes, the good old days where blacks and women weren‘t considered fit to wear the uniform and be treated as equals; where superiors could get drunk and strike their subordinates, where promotion was based on how well you stood in the old boy‘s network...bring back THOSE evergreen years!

Honestly, does anyone really believe the government treated the military with any less hostility or apathy in the Second World War?  Quit whining and get over it.  The Army will always be despised.  People don‘t like the idea of their sons or husbands (or daughters and wives) going out and murdering people with a machine gun.  In a way, I‘m grateful for that - the Germans LOVED the idea of heroic combat, and moral superiority and look what kind of sick demented society they created.

It ain‘t a perfect system, but it‘s not a horrible one either.  Don‘t get me wrong - we need more funding, and I think we have as much respect from the public as we are going to get - which is a fair bit if you watched the news in the last few months.  

I have worn battledress and slept under a wool blanket - not for me, thanks.  We are one of the best equipped militaries in the history of the world as far as personal kit goes - let‘s be grateful for what we have for once.  Although I do admire those who soldiered in wool BD, those days are over.  We have come a long way, and yes, I do like the sensitivity training we receive now,and the idea that men will be treated as men, not children - and expected to treat all others equally.  The world grew up, and the Army is finally growing up with it.

If anyone doesn‘t like serving under this government, turn in your kit, or do something positive to keep the morale up in your unit.  In other words, continue soldiering, and give the government something to be proud of.  Canadian soldiers have always faced adversity - from their enemies and their government - it‘s part of the job.   I wish that were different, but all the internet bitching in the world won‘t change it.


----------



## Drummy (4 Oct 2002)

Mr Dorish,

As you have quoted and reposted my reply to the original poster, I assume that you are referring to my remarks.

I do agree with what you are saying in the first paragraph, except "bring back THOSE evergreen years." We don‘t need those days back.

 In your second paragraph, you talk of the "Second World War". I was far too young to have been there and it was not mentioned in my post. "Quit whining and get over it." Where did I whine in my post?

Last paragraph, "turn in your kit". I did that almost 19 years ago. "but all the internet bitching in the world won‘t change it". I don‘t believe that I "bitched" anywhere in my post. The original poster asked a question, and I gave him an answer. "Would I join up today? - Not on your life."
Not because the "good old days" are any better or any worse than today, but because it seems to me that there is very little direction provided by the goverments of the day and the higher echelons in the forces.

Thank you     Drummy


----------



## Harry (4 Oct 2002)

Drummy,

Thank You.

That is my point and unfortunately some folks just don‘t see the forest for the trees.

UBIQUE


----------



## DMeNTED (4 Oct 2002)

And that‘s mainly what I‘m thinking --- that it appears that the government is not particularly interested in what the military might or might not be doing... nor does it appear to care that our once proud contributions to the international community has been reduced to a joke where we need to beg parts... and I can only assume that what would amount to ‘military brass‘ is more interested in their own brand of politik than they are in doing anything about the matters... otherwise I would expect to see senior people doing stuff like resigning publically...

But the recruiters seem to paint a picture of exciting opportunities, etc.

So I‘m looking for say... the ‘man on the ground‘ to tell me what things are really like in the CF. Not having any other info other than the ramblings of the media and the white-wash of the recruitment site I can‘t really make up my mind now can I?


----------



## Harry (4 Oct 2002)

DM, check your messages.


----------

