# All things joining the military (but not wanting to deploy) - merged



## John_44 (16 Sep 2009)

I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.

Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?

(Moderator edit to clarify thread title.)


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 Sep 2009)

I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into Carpentry.

Let's say I completed apprenticeship, Journeyman, trademanship, etc and at some time down the line my union was called to a jobsite and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with carpenters that have no intentions of going to a Job site?


Hoped you can see where I plugged in the words....


dileas

tess


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2009)

Reserve, or Regular? There is a significant difference, as you'll see if you search around here.

But why pass up a chance to do the job for real...?


----------



## kincanucks (18 Sep 2009)

Don't know if this is still the process but you should be asked a series of questions about your ability to be deploy and your ability to harm someone else if ordered to do so (paraphrasing).  If you say you have a problem then the process will stop and you will be told to have a nice day.  If you have no problem then you will sign a form stating so.  If you have a problem later on then you will be.........!

Honestly, if you are even thinking about that now then don't bother applying and wasting the resources whether it is for the Regs or Reserves.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Sep 2009)

John_44 said:
			
		

> I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.
> 
> Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?


If you are slated (eg: ordered) to deploy to Afghanistan, and you refused to go, then you would most likely be released.  When people join the military, they subordinate themselves, and their lives (google "unlimited liability") to the whims of the people of Canada.  Yes, the orders must be lawful, but in the end, just remember that as a military, we do not set foreign policy (eg: pick and choose where to go), we simply enforce foreign policy as determined by lawful government legislation.


----------



## Jammer (18 Sep 2009)

Why was bandwidth even wasted answering this question?


----------



## FDO (18 Sep 2009)

"88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.

Pretty clear to me!


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Sep 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Why was bandwidth even wasted answering this question?



I think it's a fair question, coming from someone who is not a member of the Forces and isn't yet familiar with the requirements of the job.

Edit: typo correction


----------



## Franko (18 Sep 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I think it's a fair question, coming from someone who is not a member for the Forces and isn't yet familiar with the requirements of the job.



Yes it was very fair IMHO.

Also, as a side note, if you were to get in complete your BMQ/ SQ/ DP1 and all TMST and make it all the way to KAF and then decide not to/ refuse to deploy forward to a FOB...it would be a very bad decision on your part.

Regards


----------



## Jammer (18 Sep 2009)

That's my point...It's not a "job".
Why would you join the military if you (possibly) had no intention to deploy?


----------



## FastEddy (18 Sep 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I think it's a fair question, coming from someone who is not a member for the Forces and isn't yet familiar with the requirements of the job.




That only brings three points to mind.

1:  WTF.

2:  What do they think the Army does. (no Civy can be that dense).

3:  That the result since they turned the CAF's into a EMPLOYMENT Agency.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Sep 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I think it's a fair question, coming from someone who is not a member for the Forces and isn't yet familiar with the requirements of the job.



I dont know what a firefighter does all day but i can figure out that they have to fight fires every now and then.


----------



## FDO (18 Sep 2009)

I think the problem is not that he doesn't know I think the problem is the general work ethic of the Canadain populace. People (in Toronto) tend to wander in for a meeting whenever they want 10 -15 minutes late or not show at all and demanding an other appointment. The best excuse is "the subway was late"  Alppicants come in between 0815 and 0830 for an 0800 CFAT and say "well I'll just do it now. What's the difference" Difference is it started at 0800 and they were told to be here at 0745. There is a general attitude "I don't feel like doing that so I won't" Unions had a big hand in this. Try to get anything done in a government office. "Not my job", "I'm on break" "that person is away" Apparently no one else can do that job.

Sorry for the rant I'll stop now before I offend anyone further. But suffice to say todays youth have an "all for one and that one's me" attitude!


----------



## Neolithium (18 Sep 2009)

FDO, that's a disturbing note that people can't even be decent enough to show up on time for anything.  I suppose I belong to a generation that is getting lazier by the minute.  Personally I can't do that, I was raised to be half an hour early and if you're going to do soemthing do it right or don't bother doing it at all.  That being said, there's a lot of truth to what Aviator said.  I can't quite fathom someone wanting to join the forces and expect that they can refuse to be deployed.  It's the Canadian Forces for crying out loud!


----------



## FDO (18 Sep 2009)

Never mind on time how about showing up at all. We have people who don't show up and don't call except to say "I forgot" , I didn't feel like it"  and a whole list of excuses I won't get into. The kicker is they call and want another appointment. Here in the Center I've taken a 3 strike rule. Miss 3 appointments with no call your done.

 Like you Neo. I grew up in a "10 minutes early means your 5 minutes late" atmosphere. It used to drive my kids nuts. "Why do we have to leave sooooo early?" 

Ahh the leaders of tomorrow. Scares the hell out me!


----------



## Mojo Magnum (18 Sep 2009)

John_44,
I'm sure you can tell from the previous posts here that refusing to go on tour without a good reason is strongly frowned upon.  The CF does make allowances for members to "not participate" in a tour due to circumstances that would hinder their ability to function on tour like relational/marital, financial, or physical issues. However, if a member sat through months and months of training knowing full well that they never intended to deploy, this would raise the question, "Why did you join in the first place?". 

While everyone needs a paycheck, the Canadian Forces is a career and will challenge you in ways you can't imagine.  It is this challenge, and your willingness to test yourself in the face of adversity that together can make for a life changing experience.  
Perhaps the real question you should be asking, (and more to yourself than to an online forum) is "If I was to join the CF what would I want to accomplish personnally and proffesionally?".  By joining the CF you would leave the "where and when" up to the will of the Canadian people.
I have a wife and three sons, I went to Afghanistan and some days I was very worried that I would not return to them.  But I joined the CF for an adventure, and the CF did not disappoint.  While I was there I was continually driven by the desire to conduct myself in a manner that would make myself and my family proud.  If it was to be my only tour, and my only exposure to a "war-like environment", then I wanted to make damn sure that I did my country, my family and myself proud. 
I do not regret my decision to join and I have no doubt that if you choose to join you will make life long friends, improve your physical condition and be fired up about getting wherever it is they decide to send you so you can prove to yourself and others that you are all that and more!

Hazaa


----------



## Neolithium (18 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> Never mind on time how about showing up at all. We have people who don't show up and don't call except to say "I forgot" , I didn't feel like it"  and a whole list of excuses I won't get into. The kicker is they call and want another appointment. Here in the Center I've taken a 3 strike rule. Miss 3 appointments with no call your done.
> 
> Like you Neo. I grew up in a "10 minutes early means your 5 minutes late" atmosphere. It used to drive my kids nuts. "Why do we have to leave sooooo early?"
> 
> Ahh the leaders of tomorrow. Scares the hell out me!


Well, I suppose that leaves some extra room at least for those of use who are absolutely serious about the whole task of applying and making it into the Canadian Forces.  Seems like some of those things that you recruiters have to deal with....throw me in front of the enemy instead, any day of the week.  

At least when I was at the CFRC in Winnipeg, there were a few other individuals in there who were at various stages of the process as well (Some in for CFAT, some in for medical, etc) all of them had a respectful and serious attitude.  I still have hope for the future!


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Sep 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> That only brings three points to mind.
> 
> 1:  WTF.
> 
> 2:  What do they think the Army does. (no Civy can be that dense).



It's got nothing to do with being dense.  It's reasonable for someone to be entirely unfamiliar with the CF when the great majority of Canadians don't live anywhere near a military installation bigger than the local armoury (and even that is only visibly operating some evenings and almost no days).

If you're familiar with the Forces you understand the roles of the different arms and elements, and understand the conditions of service and the unique nature of the military career.  To someone looking at it from the outside it's just a big green wall.

He had a question, so he asked.  If you don't like his question then you don't have to answer it.  Too easy.



> 3:  That the result since they turned the CAF's into a EMPLOYMENT Agency.



Fair point.  At some time in the past it was found that "do your duty to Queen and Country" wasn't bringing in the numbers, and more recently "there's no life like it" has been tried, apparently also without satisfactory results.  So recruiting methods have more and more resembled those used (successfully, we can assume) in the civilian workforce.  I suppose the recruiting establishment does what it has to do to attract applicants, and in recent years that's tended to go a certain way.

However, there's no denying that a person needs a job and if they didn't pay us then most of us would be doing something else all day.


----------



## Conscript (20 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> Never mind on time how about showing up at all. We have people who don't show up and don't call except to say "I forgot" , I didn't feel like it"  and a whole list of excuses I won't get into. The kicker is they call and want another appointment. Here in the Center I've taken a 3 strike rule. Miss 3 appointments with no call your done.
> 
> * Like you Neo. I grew up in a "10 minutes early means your 5 minutes late" atmosphere. It used to drive my kids nuts. "Why do we have to leave sooooo early?" *
> 
> Ahh the leaders of tomorrow. Scares the hell out me!



When I was 12 I was 5 mins late comming out of a friends house.  My oldman left me stranded 2 towns over.  I'm alwas 10 mins early now haha


----------



## FastEddy (20 Sep 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> He had a question, so he asked.  If you don't like his question then you don't have to answer it.  Too easy.


[/color

By the same token, if you didn't like my answer, you didn't have to reply to it.   Too easy

You don't have to have a Colledge Degree (but it might help in some cases), to know what a Army or Soldier does, just ask any 10 year old kid who watches TV.

If a 18 year old, today hasn't got a clue, then in my books, they are Dense.


----------



## RCDtpr (20 Sep 2009)

There are big repercussions for refusing to go on tour.  You may get in trouble, you may not, depending on how you go about it.  That doesn't mean there aren't other consequences.  Let me tell you a story.....

We had a guy who pretty much went through all of workup training etc etc.  Last minute he went to the padre and gave some nonsense excuse why he couldn't deploy.  He was pulled off tour and he thought he got what he wanted.  He has since been swept under the rug by the regiment and getting looked over for course after course.  

All of his friends, not the leadership, but his actual friends labeled him a coward and none of them will even so much as say hi to him in the morning.  He now comes to work and pretty much sits by himself all day.  He says getting himself removed from tour was the biggest mistake of his life. 

So in short, yes, you can "refuse" to deploy if you join.  But expect to have a lonely unsatifying career with a handicapped chance at advancement.


----------



## Nauticus (20 Sep 2009)

I don't agree that the union, job specific attitude is a youth thing. I find it's usually the older crowd who are these hardcore union types. Even the government workplace that you described is populated by the older crowd, as opposed to the younger.

I don't see that attitude that you described as being a youth problem at all.


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Sep 2009)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> There are big repercussions for refusing to go on tour.  You may get in trouble, you may not, depending on how you go about it.  That doesn't mean there aren't other consequences.  Let me tell you a story.....
> 
> We had a guy who pretty much went through all of workup training etc etc.  Last minute he went to the padre and gave some nonsense excuse why he couldn't deploy.  He was pulled off tour and he thought he got what he wanted.  He has since been swept under the rug by the regiment and getting looked over for course after course.
> 
> ...



Yup, shunned like an Amish crack dealer.  Right and proper thing.


----------



## Steve_D (20 Sep 2009)

Gotta say, Nauticus has a point with his comment on age.  The younger ones who have this 'union' attitude probably learned it from the older ones.

Guess there is attitude issues with all generations.


----------



## Roy Harding (20 Sep 2009)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> I can't imagine why somebody wouldn't want to go on tour, if they were in the military. That's basically the point of the military, and if that's an issue, then that person should simply find employment elsewhere.



WAY back, I requested to not go on a tour.

Our youngest son was born VERY pre-mature - he weighed less than 2 lbs when born (in 1985 - when the technology was VERY good, but not quite what it is now), and spent the first three months of his life in the ICU.  After we brought him home, he didn't grow much at first.  The five bones that comprise your skull were beginning to "fuse" pre-maturely (any medics present feel free to correct my terminology), and the Doctors involved said he had to be scheduled for surgery to basically "break his skull", so that his brain could develop normally (baby's skulls are "soft" for a reason).  The surgery was scheduled right smack dab in the middle of the tour.

I was excused from the tour - no repercussions - everybody (friends and leadership both) accepted that I had a good reason to stay home from that particular tour.

I bring it up only to illustrate why sometimes one DOES need to stay home - and the individual involved doesn't necessarily need to find employment elsewhere.

For the curious:  That was the one and ONLY time I was ever on a Rear Party - it sucks big time.  The baby in question is now full grown, is a Registered Nurse, and curiously enough - employed in a major ICU in Edmonton.


----------



## Steve_D (20 Sep 2009)

Roy

One of the things that make us Canadians such wonderful people is that we hear your story and don't give it a second thought.  There are justifiable reasons to do or not do many things and yours is definitely justifiable.

Glad to read all is good now.

Steve


----------



## owa (20 Sep 2009)

I would be pretty upset if I couldn't get the job I wanted and I knew there were people who had that job who were not planning on accepting deployment.  Don't join if you won't deploy.  If you're not prepared to do what's expected of you, don't take spots away from people who would be more than willing to do the job.


----------



## brihard (20 Sep 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Yes it was very fair IMHO.
> 
> Also, as a side note, if you were to get in complete your BMQ/ SQ/ DP1 and all TMST and make it all the way to KAF and then decide not to/ refuse to deploy forward to a FOB...it would be a very bad decision on your part.
> 
> Regards



I imagine there's some sort of precedent for this?

What consequences resulted?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> "88. (1) Every person who deserts or attempts to desert is guilty of an offence and on conviction, if the person committed the offence on active service or under orders for active service, is liable to imprisonment for life or to less punishment and, in any other case, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to less punishment.
> 
> Pretty clear to me!



Not according to the Lieberal Party's Gerard Kennedy:



> TORONTO — Canadian Parliament will consider a bill introduced Thursday that would allow American and other war resisters to stay in Canada.
> 
> The bill, introduced by the Liberal Party's Gerard Kennedy, would allow other countries' military deserters to stay in Canada if their refusal to serve is based on sincere moral, political or religious objections.



How can they allow another country's deserter, without penalty, and penalize their own under the NDA?


----------



## c4th (20 Sep 2009)

John_44 said:
			
		

> I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.
> 
> Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?
> 
> (Moderator edit to clarify thread title.)




Well then you would be a coward.  I'm sure there will be recruiters or people who might encourage you to join and wear our uniform anyway, saying that there are lots who don't deploy etc etc...  That somehow being reg or reserve makes a difference.  I'm not one of them.  If you are willing to watch you 'friends' go to war while you cower safe at home we don't want you.  

I will make this easy on you and everyone else in the CF and artillery and I will try to be clear:  If you are having doubts about serving overseas DO NOT JOIN THE MILITARY IN ANY CAPACITY.  Ever!  If you do not want to go to war, armies, defence contractors and tim horton's are not the place for you. 

Please do not take a single training position, one ration, one penny, one dot of printer ink, or one second of any soldier's time if you are planning to bail at this very early stage.

And please find another forum to troll.


----------



## FDO (21 Sep 2009)

Just so meveryone is clear, we ask all applicants if they are ok with spending ling periods of time away from home on training or deployment and we ask if they are ok with using a weapon to defend themselves or harm others. Of course like I said Padres don't get this. So before anyone is enroled they are asked if they will deploy when told. If they say no we stop the process and walk them out the door. 

We had one person say they would deply if necessary but only to the USA or UK or anywhere in Canada. Yep 3 of the worlds greatest "hotspots" Needless to say we didn't save a spot for that file on the "active" side!!

Bottom line is we do try to thin the herd but if someone lies to us we have no way of knowing. I like the shunning part. We get the same thing in the Navy. Always seems the samne people have "famliy issues" when it's time to deploy. MInd you there is a big difference with someone who's left behind once


----------



## Neill McKay (21 Sep 2009)

FastEddy said:
			
		

> By the same token, if you didn't like my answer, you didn't have to reply to it.



Absolutely right, and if you hadn't resorted to name-calling then I probably wouldn't have.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> How can they allow another country's deserter, without penalty, and penalize their own under the NDA?



Don't give it another thought: private members' bills typically stand the proverbial snowball's chance in hell of getting passed (which is probably for the best, as it's not uncommon for them to have some pretty strange provisions).


----------



## Neolithium (21 Sep 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> So before anyone is enroled they are asked if they will deploy when told. If they say no we stop the process and walk them out the door.


As far as I'm concerned, this leaves some room for the rest of us who are willing to be ready to go, anytime, anywhere.  This is part of the reason I'm 27 and only applying now- my children are older, their health problems (which were numerous when they were first born) are now very well in check, to the point where it's not a concern for may of their specialists.  I can be confident that I won't need to back out of any training, or step away from a deployment because of something I knew might happen. Of course some random emergency or family circumstances may arise, but that can be said for any individual, and I still view having to step out as an *absolute last resort*, God willing, I"ll never need to consider that at all.


----------



## FDO (21 Sep 2009)

The people you work with know that if you have a family problem it needs to be dealt with. But my issue is the guys who have a family issue everytime. We left one guy back because his girlfriend threatened to leave if he went away. That one was our fault for leaving him back. It also started a whole thing with him. It was always one thing after another. We finally released him. but it took two years.  Sometimes you need time to deal with family before you deploy. It's not going to do you or anyone else any good if your mind is not in the fight.  Sometimes poop happens!


----------



## Steve_D (21 Sep 2009)

I agree with FDO.  You need to ensure that your family is on board or at least respect your decision to be a member of the CF and all that it entails. If not, then you could be in for a world of hurt. But remember, it is for you that you make these decisions.

When I was asked at my interview what my wife thought of me re-joining, I had to respond honestly. "she wants to know how soon she can help me pack" because she is 100% behind me and wants me to be happy again and have my career going again.


----------



## RCDtpr (21 Sep 2009)

I don't buy the whole my girlfriend, wife, partner, etc. will leave me if I deploy nonsense.  If my wife told me that she was going to leave me if I deployed, I'd hand her a suitcase and show her to the door.  If she was willing to break off a relationship over a measly 6 months then it was doomed from the start.

Unfourtunately a lot of the younger guys don't see it like that and give up their career, friends, tour money, and dignity because little Sara Beth can't handle half a year of him being away.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Sep 2009)

RCDtpr said:
			
		

> Unfourtunately a lot of the younger guys don't see it like that and give up their career, friends, tour money, and dignity because little Sara Beth can't handle half a year of him being away.


Wow.  Just "wow".
 :endnigh:


----------



## Steve_D (21 Sep 2009)

And then when he does go away, end up cheating on him anyway.

And the circle goes round and round.


----------



## FDO (21 Sep 2009)

For whatever reason some people don't see the big picture. I got out when I was going through a rough time. I thought if I got out I could save my marriage. Needless to say it wasn't the CF that was the problem. A couple of years after I  met a great woman, who after watching me lookout over the lake at a ship going by one day said "why don't you get back in" At the time we had a 5 year old and she had never been to Halifax. I went through the process and got back in. I was posted to a ship so went from Toronto to Halifax with a 6 year old and 1 month old. Got to Halifax and had 7 days to prepare for NATO. 6 months away. Not once did she complain or even give a hint that she was not happy. It's been over 20 years and since then we've gone through some things that would tear a normal family apart. It only made us stronger. She has since joined the CF and so has my son. 

Joining the CF is as much a way of life as it a state of mind. It is NOT for the faint of heart or weak of mind. If you join with the idea that this is a 9 - 5 job you are not going to make it.


----------



## cotea (17 Oct 2009)

FDO said:
			
		

> I think the problem is not that he doesn't know I think the problem is the general work ethic of the Canadain populace. People (in Toronto) tend to wander in for a meeting whenever they want 10 -15 minutes late or not show at all and demanding an other appointment. The best excuse is "the subway was late"  Alppicants come in between 0815 and 0830 for an 0800 CFAT and say "well I'll just do it now. What's the difference"...



Don't mean to bring back old posts but I went in for my CFAT last thursday and everyone who had an appointment were on time. Actually we were mostly all 15-20 minutes early. Half of the applicants were around 18-20 years of age. Only two applicants forgot to bring ID (yeah that's a bit of a DUH moment) but they went and got it or had parents around I believe. Overall, everyone showed alot of respect for the CF and everyone working there (We were at the Toronto recruiting center).

Here's the kicker though. The subway on thursday morning actually WAS late, and that's because a huge part of the subway line was down for unknown reason and I had to take two transfers to get back on track. I was also coming from Oakville by train which meant I had to wake up at 5 to make sure I had some spare time in case something happened (which it did). 

All I'm saying is, sometimes it IS the subways fault. Sometimes it isn't. But I wouldn't generalize an entire generation over some incidents. As far as I remember there are unpunctual people from all ages and from everywhere.  

( I have a younger cousin who's a real pest though, but I blame MTV for that  )


----------



## delaney1 (21 Oct 2009)

cotea said:
			
		

> Don't mean to bring back old posts but I went in for my CFAT last thursday and everyone who had an appointment were on time. Actually we were mostly all 15-20 minutes early. Half of the applicants were around 18-20 years of age. Only two applicants forgot to bring ID (yeah that's a bit of a DUH moment) but they went and got it or had parents around I believe. Overall, everyone showed alot of respect for the CF and everyone working there (We were at the Toronto recruiting center).
> 
> Here's the kicker though. The subway on thursday morning actually WAS late, and that's because a huge part of the subway line was down for unknown reason and I had to take two transfers to get back on track. I was also coming from Oakville by train which meant I had to wake up at 5 to make sure I had some spare time in case something happened (which it did).
> 
> ...



I was just about to say the same thing. I had my cfat on monday (oct 19). I was told to be there for 0745. I left my house at 0630, thinking there would be more traffic(toronto recruting center) and I arrived at 0700. One person was about 5 mins late and he was an older gentleman (probably between 40-45). 

So to generalize a whole generation is unfair, although i will agree many people i know, my age (20 yo) including my brother and friends of  have no sense of time or responsibilty.


----------



## slowmode (2 Nov 2009)

If I may I thought i'd give my personal insight to the original question at hand. 



> I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.
> 
> Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?



  Why join the forces if you have no intention of being deployed. The beauty of the military is the fact that a member has the ability to see the world. Your job as a soldier is to protect Canada from all threats domestic or abroad. (correct me if I'm wrong on that point) Part of the job requirement is to be deployed. When that happens than you have to do your job to the best of your ability. If a member joins with no intentions of deploying then I suggest they look else where for a career. 

That's just my two cents on this.


----------



## ballz (2 Nov 2009)

slowmode said:
			
		

> If I may I thought i'd give my personal insight to the original question at hand.
> 
> Why join the forces if you have no intention of being deployed. The beauty of the military is the fact that a member has the ability to see the world. *Your job as a soldier is to protect Canada from all threats domestic or abroad. (correct me if I'm wrong on that point)* Part of the job requirement is to be deployed. When that happens than you have to do your job to the best of your ability. If a member joins with no intentions of deploying then I suggest they look else where for a career.
> 
> That's just my two cents on this.




You are wrong (well, you aren't 100% correct. Obviously those reasons are a large part of the military's existence). The job of the military, as was already said, is to enforce the political will of Canada. The people swing the judge's hammer, the military swings the executioner's axe.

Not everybody is going to be particularly thrilled about every deployment. Perhaps they're being called upon to execute political will that differs from their own political beliefs. It may not have anything to do with protecting Canada at all. 

So maybe for that reason, some people are curious as to if they have a choice in the matter or not. Maybe they are worried that there may come a day when they will be called upon to take another human beings life for reasons they believe unjust, morally wrong. Not everybody is capable of doing that. And since nobody knows what they're going to be called upon to do tomorrow, 5 10 or 20 years from now, that may be the one thing that stops somebody from signing up. And that's fine. It's better that they ask now...

This person never mentioned that they had no intentions of ever being deployed.


----------



## Dean22 (3 Nov 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> You are wrong (well, you aren't 100% correct. Obviously those reasons are a large part of the military's existence). The job of the military, as was already said, is to enforce the political will of Canada. The people swing the judge's hammer, the military swings the executioner's axe.
> 
> Not everybody is going to be particularly thrilled about every deployment. Perhaps they're being called upon to execute political will that differs from their own political beliefs. It may not have anything to do with protecting Canada at all.
> 
> ...



I have a friend who's joining the forces (Regulars) who completely disagrees with "killing" people. I've tried to talk to him but it's a bit odd for a person to say that and to be joining the military.

If you can't agree with what all of the military does then you shouldn't be a part of it even if you aren't involved in combat.

What do you guys think?

In my opinion he shouldn't join not because he could be great for the job or not great but because of that attitude that I would hate anyone to have in the CF.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I have a friend who's joining the forces (Regulars) who completely disagrees with "killing" people. I've tried to talk to him but it's a bit odd for a person to say that and to be joining the military.
> 
> If you can't agree with what all of the military does then you shouldn't be a part of it even if you aren't involved in combat.
> 
> ...



What trade is he considering.  You do know that "killing people" isn't part of the job description for every Canadian Forces trade, right?


----------



## Dean22 (3 Nov 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> What trade is he considering.  You do know that "killing people" isn't part of the job description for every Canadian Forces trade, right?



Well, supply tech but I believe there are two kinds of trades in general in the CF. Those who are in combat arms and those who support the combat arms.

I think if your going to being supporting the people fighting you should be supporting them fully.


EDIT: Never mind he deleted his post.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2009)

I said it's something he might want to mention to his Recruiter during his Interview. But, then I figured you would be sore at me if the Interview did go as well as hoped.
There was an American who applied for Conscientious Objector status in World War One. He was refused, and drafted into the Army. He turned himself around, and went on to kill a lot of Germans and won the Congressional Medal of Honor. 
Goes to show, you just never know about a man.


----------



## Fusaki (3 Nov 2009)

***Tangent Alert!***



> What trade is he considering.  You do know that "killing people" isn't part of the job description for every Canadian Forces trade, right?



Isn't it?

Everyone gets trained to use the C7. Does that not imply that everyone is to be capable of applying lethal force, should the need arise?  I would argue that "killing people" is - at least in a small way - part of everyone's job description.  It is only a question of whether it is explicitly stated or only implied.

And besides, where does the responsibility for killing start and end? With the man squeezing the trigger? The #2 on the C6? The supply tech who brought the ammo?  The Traffic Tech in Trenton who got them there? How about the taxpayer who paid for it all?


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> And besides, where does the responsibility for killing start and end? With the man squeezing the trigger? The #2 on the C6? The supply tech who brought the ammo?  The Traffic Tech in Trenton who got them there? How about the taxpayer who paid for it all?



Reminds me of the story about the guy at NASA. His job was to sweep floors. But, whenever asked what his job was at NASA, he replied - quite sincerely - "I'm helping to put a man on the Moon."


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Nov 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> ***Tangent Alert!***
> 
> Isn't it?
> 
> ...



Yup, I'm sure our Med Techs, Doctors and Social Workers would be happy to hear that their implied responsibility is to kill people just because they are in uniform.  Being trained and prepared to use a C7 does not require you to want to kill people or to want to be in a trade where the core task may be to kill people.


----------



## Dean22 (3 Nov 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I said it's something he might want to mention to his Recruiter during his Interview. But, then I figured you would be sore at me if the Interview did go as well as hoped.



My original post before the edit was saying how I liked you reply.


Also, to clear up a point I am not talking about killing people himself as part of his job. I believe he disagrees on it as a whole of the entire military. How the hell can you do any job in the military if you don't support what they do. 


The saying "if you do not support our troops feel free to stand in front of them" should not have to be said to anyone in the CF.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Yup, I'm sure our Med Techs, Doctors and Social Workers would be happy to hear that their implied responsibility is to kill people just because they are in uniform.  Being trained and prepared to use a C7 does not require you to want to kill people or to want to be in a trade where the core task may be to kill people.



Well, Med Techs do have to use their rifles to defend themselves and their own patients. I am not positive on Canadian rules of engagement but is it not "to engage only when defending yourself or if it's a hostile force"? 

Why disagree with what the combat arms do if you help enable them to do their jobs? That's my point they shouldn't be in the military if they don't want to support (fully) or do the combat arms.


----------



## Fusaki (3 Nov 2009)

> Being trained and prepared to use a C7 does not require you to want to kill people or to want to be in a trade where the core task may be to kill people.



And likewise, being in a trade where the core task is killing people does not necessarily mean that you have to _want_ to carry out that aspect of the job. But that's besides the point. We're talking about whether an individual is willing to do a job, not whether he should enjoy it.

If our Doctors, Med Techs, and Social Workers are not willing to kill should the need arise, then their weapons should be taken away.  There's no point in giving a guy a rifle if he's not going to use it.

To deny that every man is a rifleman first is a massive failure of mindset.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Nov 2009)

Wow, the logic here is leaping all over the place.  In the few comments we have seen, no one has explicitly stated the individual has explicitly claimed he wouldn't "kill should the need arise" i.e., in self defence, which is the only time some of those trades will ever be expected to do so.


----------



## Fusaki (3 Nov 2009)

> In the few comments we have seen, no one has explicitly stated the individual has explicitly claimed he wouldn't "kill should the need arise" i.e., in self defence, which is the only time some of those trades will ever be expected to do so.



I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise.  

My comments, anyways, are limited to the tangent I started off on: That anyone in the CF may be required to take life in the performance of his or her duties.  

This, I think, we agree on.


----------



## gillbates (3 Nov 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I said it's something he might want to mention to his Recruiter during his Interview. But, then I figured you would be sore at me if the Interview did go as well as hoped.
> There was an American who applied for Conscientious Objector status in World War One. He was refused, and drafted into the Army. He turned himself around, and went on to kill a lot of Germans and won the Congressional Medal of Honor.
> Goes to show, you just never know about a man.



That would be Col Alvin York, right? What a man.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, I find it puzzling that a potential recruit would shun or avoid deployment. I'd be worried about NOT getting deployed and getting stuck in garrison for my entire career. Personally, seeing that our involvement in Afghanistan seems to be winding down, I'm starting to consider the navy or the air force. At least there's the chance to go to sea, or NORAD, etc.


----------



## gcclarke (3 Nov 2009)

The job of those Med Techs, Doctors, Social Workers, and indeed everyone else in uniform (and many of our civilian counterparts as well) is to support the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces to apply violence against the enemy to further the goals of the Government of Canada.

Some people will be more directly involved in the application of violence against the enemy. We call those people "Combat Arms", "Air Crew" or the "Naval Operations Branch". Some are less directly involved, such as health services, and the Padres. But, we're all part of the same team, and for anyone in the forces to view another member as more of a "killer" than they are, just because one is a pilot who's been on a few bombing runs, and the other is a Cook is, frankly, a skewed worldview.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2009)

gillbates said:
			
		

> That would be Col Alvin York, right? What a man.



Yes. 
http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.Vignettes/The.Diary.of.Alvin.York.html


----------



## RandyL (3 Nov 2009)

I'm in a hurry here so I'll quickly explain what was explained to me a couple weeks ago. I just received a call last week for an offer for Medical Technician. As it was explained to me, I will be soldier first, medic second. Med techs are not protected under any Geneva accord or agreements, only doctors are as I understand it. There are instances where the Med Tech is looked as a target in combat. I'm 36 so by the time I'm done my training I'll be 40. It may so happen that I never get deployed into any type of hostile situation, but if I do, and if I need to defend myself, I most certainly will. People may look at the issue as, why join to try and help people only to possible hurt others. The only real answer that I or anyone could probably give is that, thats just the way it is.


----------



## Dean22 (3 Nov 2009)

RandyL said:
			
		

> I'm in a hurry here so I'll quickly explain what was explained to me a couple weeks ago. I just received a call last week for an offer for Medical Technician. As it was explained to me,* I will be soldier first, medic second. Med techs are not protected under any Geneva accord or agreements, only doctors are as I understand it. There are instances where the Med Tech is looked as a target in combat.* I'm 36 so by the time I'm done my training I'll be 40. It may so happen that I never get deployed into any type of hostile situation, but if I do, and if I need to defend myself, I most certainly will. People may look at the issue as, why join to try and help people only to possible hurt others. The only real answer that I or anyone could probably give is that, thats just the way it is.



What?

"*Note: Although they are non-combatants under the Geneva conventions, Medical Technicians deployed on operations bear arms to defend both their patients and themselves."

Source: http://www.forces.ca/flash.aspx#/flash/en/video_link/_VIDEOS/737_en.flv


----------



## ballz (3 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> If you can't agree with what all of the military does then you shouldn't be a part of it even if you aren't involved in combat.



I'm not sure why you quoted me as you clearly don't understand my post.

A military does what it's told. There is no agreeing or disagreeing with it, you can only do that with the politicians that decide what it does, and at the end of the day that means the people of the country that the said military exists for.

There could easily come a day that the government tells us to do something that you or I don't agree with. You can't see the future, you don't know what they're going to tell you to do. But we still have to go and do it to the best of our ability, whether we agree with it or not... Some people can't/don't want to agree to that. It's a pretty big commitment. You can't fault the original poster for asking if he had a choice in the matter.

As for your friend, well, yeah, if he's so opposed to shooting somebody no matter what the circumstances then he's the biggest walking talking contradiction on earth if he actually signs up for any trade other than padre. Med tech, doctor, nurse, well, that's a grey area. But I believe any of those trades CAN be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, and be ordered to take part in combat and reign destruction on an enemy.... so it's a pretty dark shade of grey...


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2009)

gillbates said:
			
		

> That would be Col Alvin York, right? What a man.



Sgt. York, actually.  
There was also a Mess Attendant ( what we would call a Steward ) at Pearl Harbor who won the Navy Cross:
"When directed to assist in loading a pair of unattended Browning .50 caliber anti-aircraft guns, Miller took control of one and began firing at the Japanese planes, even though he had no training in operating the weapon. He fired the gun until he ran out of ammunition. Japanese aircraft eventually dropped two armor-piercing bombs through the deck of the battleship and launched 5 × 18 in. (457 mm) aircraft torpedoes into her port side. Heavily damaged by the ensuing explosions, and suffering from severe flooding below decks, the West Virginia slowly settled to the harbor bottom as her crew—including Miller—abandoned ship."

There was also in the movie "12 O'Clock High" a Padre who flew a mission aboard a B-17 as an Air Gunner, but I don't know how true that is.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Nov 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Med tech, doctor, nurse, well, that's a grey area. But I believe any of those trades CAN be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, and be ordered to take part in combat and reign destruction on an enemy....



No they can't.  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs.  The minute they start shooting at the enemy and tossing grenades, all bets are off.


----------



## ballz (4 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> No they can't.  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs.  *The minute they start shooting at the enemy and tossing grenades, all bets are off.*



But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.


----------



## Dean22 (4 Nov 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.



I am pretty sure that's against RoE for a med tech to be wearing the internationally recognized red cross on his arm and participating as a combatant (unless he changes uniform?).

This was especially seen in the Gaza strip as militants from Hamas used a single ambulance to escape a battle and then after that the Israeli army began opening fire on all ambulances. It's one of the things the U.N. says the Israeli military did wrong since the militants had the right to evacuate their wounded/dead.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that's against RoE



International law is what governs the actions of those wearing the red cross/red crescent.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> *No they can't.*  Medical personnel are allowed to defend themselves and their patients, depending on the ROEs





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> But they can (I know it's unlikely) be ordered to be a soldier first, trade second, just like any other trade other than padre, right? They *can* be ordered to start shooting the enemy and toss a grenade as part of an offensive campaign, no? Sorry but your post wasn't clear so I'm not sure what you're saying.



What part of "No, they can't" was unclear?  Yes, everyone is a soldier/airman/seaman first and trade second but all medical personnel and padres are covered under the Geneva Convention and International Law (as CDN Aviator stated). So no, they cannot be _ordered_ to throw grenades as part of an offensive campaign.  We can certainly be trained to do so, but to use it against the enemy is contravening the Geneva Convention.

You might want to also check out Laws of Armed Conflict.

See the link for more info, but here is a quote:



> Nevertheless, to enjoy immunity, they must naturally abstain from any form of participation -even indirect- in hostile acts. We saw in Article 21 that *the protection to which medical units are entitled ceases if they are used to commit acts "harmful to the enemy"*. This proviso obviously applies to medical personnel also.



Link:  http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/GC_1949-I.pdf


----------



## gcclarke (4 Nov 2009)

I don't think anyone is trying to argue that medical units would still be entitled to protection their usual protection under the Geneva Convention and other Laws of Armed Conflict. The question is whether or not a medical unit could be ordered to forgo said protection in order to participate in an offensive. Would an order to a field hospital to take off their Red Cross armband, pick up their rifles, and move out to destroy the enemy be a legal order?

I'm not sure if it would be or not. However, I rather doubt that many commanders would even contemplate giving such an order, let alone actually issue it. Our health care personnel are generally a lot more useful in that role than they would be trying to pretend to be an infantry platoon.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2009)

See what happens with "quick" questions?   

IMHO, if you have no intention of deploying, don't join.  Of course, that's just me.


----------



## GAP (4 Nov 2009)

John_44 said:
			
		

> I haven't joined yet but Ive been wanting to get into artillery.
> 
> Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go. In short Im asking how do they deal with soldiers that have no intentions of going to Afghanistan?
> 
> (Moderator edit to clarify thread title.)



This was the original question.....I think we've kinda slipped away from it....


----------



## Dean22 (4 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> See what happens with "quick" questions?
> 
> IMHO, if you have no intention of deploying, don't join.  Of course, that's just me.



That's what I was trying to say originally.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 why don't you consider getting some more time in soldiering before answering questions about what soldiers can and can't do?


----------



## Dean22 (4 Nov 2009)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Dean22 why don't you consider getting some more time in soldiering before answering questions about what soldiers can and can't do?



I was merely commenting on how medics cannot engage in combat unless it's defense of themselves or their patients. If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.



Funny, usualy its you who does the misleading.

Translation..........STFU.


----------



## Dean22 (4 Nov 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Funny, usualy its you who does the misleading.
> 
> Translation..........STFU.



Usually.

No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules), also I fixed your spelling errors.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> Usually.
> 
> No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules), also I fixed your spelling errors.



You just don't know when to quit, do you?   :


----------



## aesop081 (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> No MSN talk please (at least those are the rules



I'm sorry. Please let me rephrase.


SHUT THE FUCK UP !


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2009)

Dean22 said:
			
		

> I was merely commenting on how medics cannot engage in combat unless it's defense of themselves or their patients. If you'd like to mislead people then go right ahead.



You're talking out of your ass here and on other threads. People are trying to be polite and steer you on track, but you're ignoring them. People are being direct with you and attempting to help, for lack of a better word, you from getting on the 'warning system' here and ultimately banned but your giving them the big GFYS too.

In the end you won't take any direction because you are to butt hurt to listen and you'll get banned.  Have fun.


----------



## ballz (4 Nov 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What part of "No, they can't" was unclear?



Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.



			
				gcclarke said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is trying to argue that medical units would still be entitled to protection their usual protection under the Geneva Convention and other Laws of Armed Conflict. *The question is whether or not a medical unit could be ordered to forgo said protection in order to participate in an offensive. Would an order to a field hospital to take off their Red Cross armband, pick up their rifles, and move out to destroy the enemy be a legal order?*



Yes, that is my question, thank you.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.



Regarding the part you bolded, what I meant was if the medical personnel start shooting at the enemy for reasons other than protection (of themselves and patients) then they are no longer protected under the GC and the enemy can fire upon them, their equipment and their establishments.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2009)

ballz said:
			
		

> Obviously the part that I bolded... Had you not added that to the end of it, I probably would have taken your comment as black and white.
> 
> Yes, that is my question, thank you.



Legal? Probably, but it's not going to happen. No sane person is going to give that order. Think about it. If you're in a situation where they need to fight as grunts, you are going to need them more in their trade capacity that ever.

Now, let's cut out the outlandish hypotheticals and get back to the original question.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## karl28 (4 Nov 2009)

CDN Aviator
    





> I'm sorry. Please let me rephrase.
> 
> 
> SHUT THE frig UP !



Dude that was so frign funny I damn near spit my coke all over my keybored  thanks I needed a good laugh .


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2009)

This thing has run it's course.

Locked

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## A.R.X-D (27 Mar 2013)

Hi
I am considering joining the Canadian Forces as an *Aircraft Structures Technician.*
I am 32 years old married with 2 kids.

Why Aircraft Structures Technician?
Before I immigrated to Canada, I was an Aircraft Structures & Aviation Systems Technician in the Israeli Air force (Bell 212) *for 7 years*...

Why joining the Canadian Forces?
I want to help & contribute to the Canadian Forces in the skills that I have and mastered.

My questions:
Is an *overseas *deployment mandatory in this job, Can I refuse to been deployed overseas?
If I wish to quit the army, what are the release terms?

Thank you very much.
*English as a second language, viewer "patience" is advised!


----------



## AmmoTech90 (27 Mar 2013)

I'll get the first response out of the way, if you don't want to go where you are told don't join.

Second, more detailed response.  You can refuse, or rather be screened out of a deployment for a variety of legitimate reasons including: illness, severe family hardship, recent return from deployment, and the like.  If it is for other reasons you are basically refusing a lawful command and will face disciplinary action that may result in fines, imprisionment, and/or release.

Third response, don't bother joining if the first question that come to you mind is how you get out of a mission.

Fourth response, don't bother joining if the second question that comes to mind is how to quit.

There are variety of ways to release, the most common of which is your terms of service expire and you and the CF go your seperate ways, sometimes with a pension.  Otherwise you can request release at anytime, it may or may not be granted depending on: a. your reason, b. how long you have served, c. do you have obligatory service.  If you have obligatory service you may still be granted a release but will have to pay back in cash what you have not paid in time.


----------



## Loachman (27 Mar 2013)

Your English is fine - better than many here.

Your motivation and expectations, perhaps not so much.

You can refuse any deployment or posting. This will, however, result in release and perhaps disciplinary or administrative action depending upon the circumstances.

Why even apply if you are not willing to do the whole job? We have a policy known as "Universality of Service", which applies to all serving members - if one cannot deploy for other than short-term reasons (injury or illness from which one will recover, for example), then one can expect to be released in fairly short order.

Your refusal would mean that somebody else, likely with a family of his/her own and who has also likely already done a deployment or two, would have to go again. That is not looked upon very kindly.


----------



## SentryMAn (27 Mar 2013)

You would be awful funny looking, being in the "Army" while wanting to be an "air craft Structures Tech".


----------



## mariomike (27 Mar 2013)

A.R.X-D said:
			
		

> Can I refuse to been deployed overseas?



Some discussion here.

"Quick question about having to deploy after training.":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/89177.0/nowap.html

"Let's say I completed BMQ, SQ, etc and at some time down the line my battalion/unit was called to Afghanistan and I refused to go."


----------



## scorpion147 (10 Nov 2016)

Hi,

Is there a position in the Regular force that is less entitled to deployment on a national scale or overseas? Like a position in the Naval Force or as a social worker?

Thank you


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Nov 2016)

No.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

scorpion147 said:
			
		

> Is there a position in the Regular force that is less entitled to deployment on a national scale or overseas? Like *a position in the Naval Force* or as a social worker?


I might regret this, but I'm curious:  why would you think that a part of the military that _*sends*_ ships to sea may be more likely to have positions that involve staying in one place?


----------

