# Fighting at St-Jean



## P-Free (9 Apr 2005)

Does it happen? 

If another recruit is giving me trouble, can we step outside and settle it or is that taboo?

Are there any consequences if two recruits fight?


----------



## kincanucks (9 Apr 2005)

That is exactly what they want to teach you on the BMQ, teamwork.  What do you think?  Give your head a shake.


----------



## Gill557 (9 Apr 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> Does it happen?
> 
> If another recruit is giving me trouble, can we step outside and settle it or is that taboo?
> 
> Are there any consequences if two recruits fight?



This is no longer the "good old days" you know.   Thankfully the CF does not allow that kind of garbage to happen anymore, that and no blanket parties, code reds, shower parties and other crap/hazing.








Mod Edit

Sorry, turn of phraze, nothing moire all is good. carry on. 

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Theoat (10 Apr 2005)

P-Free said:
			
		

> Does it happen?
> 
> If another recruit is giving me trouble, can we step outside and settle it or is that taboo?
> 
> Are there any consequences if two recruits fight?



I had a real problem with a roomate on my basic. He would take items from within our roomates kits such as going into others drawers and taking shirts, gas masks, etc when he couldn't locate his own. I called it stealing but he found it offesive when I said that so I refered to it as "borrowing with out asking". This guy was the platoon's pain in the a#$. One day I sat down with him and had a talk with him about it. That didn't help so I had my other 2 roomates sit down with myself and the guy to have a chat. None of that helped so I mentioned it to our instructors who put a little scare into him. 
I would have liked to have resolved it without instructors, but in the end the trouble maker really isn't worth your time and worse getting charged with assault over. He was still an odd one, but he seemed to improve.

If you are having problems with him then perhaps others are as well. If they are then maybe you should discuss the issue with them and approach the guy in a constructive and non-confrontational way.

It may sound like the wimpy way to deal with it, but it's the best way to deal with problems nowadays without getting yourself in in a world of trouble.


----------



## P-Free (10 Apr 2005)

Thanks, Theoat. Exactly what I wondering.


----------



## Armageddon (10 Apr 2005)

I would love to say that violence is never the answer......but I know that isn't true and if it were then there would be no need for you to go on basic training.  That being said I would have to agree with Theoat's approach, it is far more mature and you never need to fight with somebody who might be sitting beside you someday when you are in a real rough spot.


----------



## Theoat (10 Apr 2005)

No problem. Basic is a course where you can feel built up since the course is so anally retentive and you don't get much time away from your coursemates...some of whom you can't stand. 

Turns out the guy I didn't like is likely on my 3's this summer. I can only pray they don't house us alphabetically again..... :

Armageddon also has a really good end point there.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (10 Apr 2005)

I recall on my basic there being a certain individual (from another platoon) who kept picking fights with people, deliberately trying to get them mad so they would start a fight. Now, various stories went around as to what ended up happenning, but the words "charge," "summary trial," and "RTU" came up a lot. 



			
				Theoat said:
			
		

> Turns out the guy I didn't like is likely on my 3's this summer. I can only pray they don't house us alphabetically again..... :



They will. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Apr 2005)

Living in close proximity to someone, particularly someone you don't like, for long periods of time, is something you're bound to run into. Try to deal with it maturely. I found in my basic, I alway wanted to beat the crap out of a certain individual who had no drive, no team concept, and a lot of bitching... but the instructors did a pretty good job of keeping us too tired to bother fighting.

Things will generally sort themselves out, and you don't want to end up being charged just because of some thudf**k


----------



## paracowboy (10 Apr 2005)

we fought. We settled a few things between ourselves, and everyone left the staff out of things. We had a few scraps in Battle School as well, between ourselves, other courses, and civvies. 

But that was a different time, it seems. Now, you'd be charged. After all, violence simply has no place in an army that doesn't train for war.


----------



## Theoat (10 Apr 2005)

Sig Bloggins said:
			
		

> I recall on my basic there being a certain individual (from another platoon) who kept picking fights with people, deliberately trying to get them mad so they would start a fight. Now, various stories went around as to what ended up happenning, but the words "charge," "summary trial," and "RTU" came up a lot.
> 
> They will. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...



Ahh, the pain I forsee for this summer....with any luck he will be the forth in one room and I will be the first in the next room....but knowing my luck..... :  haha


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (10 Apr 2005)

Theoat said:
			
		

> Ahh, the pain I forsee for this summer....with any luck he will be the forth in one room and I will be the first in the next room....but knowing my luck..... :   haha



Well, you can always wait till buddy's up on the roof of the pod screwing in the whips, and... ;D 

(Note: that was a joke. Don't actually do that, someone on another course did that and it burnt the guy pretty bad, didn't throw him off the truck the way we've always been told happens though.)


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Apr 2005)

I didn't hear of any fights on my course or the concurrent recruit/ocdt courses. That kind of behaviour is just stupid and counterproductive. You're not going to build morale and teamwork with your platoon mates by punching them but you WILL look like an ass and invite charges. I never understood people that start fights - all you're demonstrating is that you're underdeveloped and lack the mental acuity to solve problems without unnecessary recourse to violence.


----------



## 2 Cdo (11 Apr 2005)

G-man, not to advocate beating the crap out of everyone on course but, there are some people who are definitely in need of a punch to the head to get them back on track. But I realise that we are a kindler, gentler army now and heaven forbid if the boys get a little bloody now and again. By the way paracowboy I almost choked with laughter when I read your last line. Seems most of the people on this site now just want to sit and sing Kumbaya rather than get down in the muck!
G-man just a quick question were you the one kid in school who took names of kids acting up when the teacher left? I'm betting you were!


----------



## Infanteer (11 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I never understood people that start fights - all you're demonstrating is that you're underdeveloped and lack the mental acuity to solve problems without unnecessary recourse to violence.



Umm...isn't that what the Army does?


----------



## Glorified Ape (11 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> G-man, not to advocate beating the crap out of everyone on course but, there are some people who are definitely in need of a punch to the head to get them back on track. But I realise that we are a kindler, gentler army now and heaven forbid if the boys get a little bloody now and again. By the way paracowboy I almost choked with laughter when I read your last line. Seems most of the people on this site now just want to sit and sing Kumbaya rather than get down in the muck!
> G-man just a quick question were you the one kid in school who took names of kids acting up when the teacher left? I'm betting you were!



No, I was actually the kid in school busy punching everyone (elementary school, that is). I was both underdeveloped and lacking in the mental acuity to solve my problems without unnecessary recourse to violence, I kid you not.  

A healthy dose of segregated learning in a full-time behavioural class cured me of that particular ill. I can identify with your desire to beat the crap out of people - I still have the same urges as when I was a kid but I've learned to control them. I've gone the "beat up the annoying guy" route and I've found it rarely, if ever, works. Usually it just generates severe hatred in the beatee and exacerbates whatever problems there were. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Umm...isn't that what the Army does?



Ah HA! I knew someone was going to call me on that, which is why I said "unnecessary" violence. It can be argued that a mentally acuitous military will not apply force unnecessarily, a la Sun Tzu's statement to the effect that the most effective warrior is one which can defeat his enemy without force.


----------



## Zombie (11 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape: I don't think 2 Cdo was refering to you, there's a post from G-man earlier in the thread...


----------



## Gill557 (11 Apr 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> G-man, not to advocate beating the crap out of everyone on course but, there are some people who are definitely in need of a punch to the head to get them back on track. But I realise that we are a kindler, gentler army now and heaven forbid if the boys get a little bloody now and again. By the way paracowboy I almost choked with laughter when I read your last line. Seems most of the people on this site now just want to sit and sing Kumbaya rather than get down in the muck!
> G-man just a quick question were you the one kid in school who took names of kids acting up when the teacher left? I'm betting you were!



Nope, I stayed pretty much out of the limelight in school.  If the teacher left the room, I usually went to sleep. 
As for people needing a good kick/punch in the head, I'm all for that, I only wish we could have done that to one or two guys I was on course with.  Ah well you win some you loose some


----------



## Infanteer (11 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Ah HA! I knew someone was going to call me on that, which is why I said "unnecessary" violence. It can be argued that a mentally acuitous military will not apply force unnecessarily, a la Sun Tzu's statement to the effect that the most effective warrior is one which can defeat his enemy without force.



Ha, I knew as soon as I read it that you would use "unnecessary" as a caveat.  

Try finding a mentally acuitous (where the hell did you get that word from?) military or state or a group of people who agree on where "unnecessary" lies.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ha, I knew as soon as I read it that you would use "unnecessary" as a caveat.
> 
> Try finding a mentally acuitous (where the hell did you get that word from?) military or state or a group of people who agree on where "unnecessary" lies.



How the heck did this go from "fighting in st-jean" to using words like acuitous and quoting Sun Tzu ??


----------



## Strike (11 Apr 2005)

Look's like Ape's verbal abilities will be lost in the infantry.  I'd suggest you OT to Nav or something but when they speak no one listens anyway...or is that ATC?  Just kidding guys.

Ref: Dealing with the idiots, if you decide to approach the annoying one make sure you have someone there to back you up.  Not saying this person is muscle, but the last thing you need is the clown going and whining to the staff that you are harrassing him.  At least you have an "honest broker".  Therefore it's best to get someone to come along that doesn't care for either of you or hang out with you.


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Apr 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Look's like Ape's verbal abilities will be lost in the infantry.   I'd suggest you OT to Nav or something but when they speak no one listens anyway...or is that ATC?   Just kidding guys.



Not at all - I can regale my troops with nary-used and oft-forgotten words from days of yore in their free time! I'll open their minds to the wonders and glory of verbosity! I'll occupy down time with vocabulary tests! I'll probably get "accidentally" shot on tour.  



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> How the heck did this go from "fighting in st-jean" to using words like acuitous and quoting Sun Tzu ??



Because I'm an idiot and inadvertently redirected the thread. Apologies. 



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ha, I knew as soon as I read it that you would use "unnecessary" as a caveat.
> 
> Try finding a mentally acuitous (where the hell did you get that word from?) military or state or a group of people who agree on where "unnecessary" lies.



Agreed. I searched "acuitous" before using it and couldn't find any official uses but said "wtf" and used it anyway. I like it - it should be a word... "acuteness" just looks and sounds so sloppy and inarticulate. 




			
				Zombie said:
			
		

> Glorified Ape: I don't think 2 Cdo was refering to you, there's a post from G-man earlier in the thread...



Yeah, my bad... I thought G-man was mdh from the avatar and assumed it was just another ad hoc abbreviation of my user name.


----------



## airforcedave (12 Apr 2005)

I do recall being told about an altercation during IAP.  It was after we got back from the grizzly tasking and some people decided to celebrate passing the course.  Happend in the mess Sgt's and WO's mess (as this is the mess they tell us to use while on course).  MPs had to break it up, heard some charges were laid.  

But you'll have to get the rest of the details from someone who was there.  I decided to rest my eyes a bit in bed before I headed down. But when I was finished, it was morning.   ;D


----------



## 043 (12 Apr 2005)

G-Man said:
			
		

> This is no longer the "good old days" you know.   Thankfully the CF does not allow that kind of garbage to happen anymore, that and no blanket parties, code reds, shower parties and other crap/hazing they used to do.



Sounds like you might have been on the recieving end of a few blanket parties, Sir.

If you think there is something wrong with 2 soldiers who have a disagreement to take out behind the monkey bars, your not Combat Arms. There is a time and a place for everything.


----------



## Gill557 (12 Apr 2005)

CHIMO!!!!! said:
			
		

> Sounds like you might have been on the recieving end of a few blanket parties, Sir.
> 
> If you think there is something wrong with 2 soldiers who have a disagreement to take out behind the monkey bars, your not Combat Arms. There is a time and a place for everything.



Yeah there is a time and place for everything, and true the combat arms may be one of them, but St-Jean is not one of them, at least in my humble opinion.  I figure guys could wait until you do hand-to-hand training, or those padded sticks, I can't remember the name of them today, more to the point do we still use those?  

Besides here at the Mega, the MP's got f*ck all to do, they'd just love to catch guys fighting with each other, it'd give them a purpose, or at least amusement for an hour.

And as for me, never been code reded, seen it happen to one guy.  Then of course there's the movies, (ex. Full Metal Jacket) and the stories I've heard from the older guys, the ones with time in and the CFR officers here, former Sgt's, WO's, MWO's and CWO's, (no offense to the navy guys, same ranks for the navy) who've mostly got 15 years in already.  

Other then that I try to keep out of trouble, lol as much as that's possible. But seriously, there's no sense pissing off people I'm gonna have to work with and train with.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Apr 2005)

While indiscriminate nuckle busting is not the way to sort things out(quiet, all you guys that knew me back in the day),  sometimes a level of slack adjustment is required that negotiation just doesn't achieve.  In that case, a short, sharp shock, and they never do it again...I mean good manners don't cost nothing, do they.......Apologies to Roger Waters

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## 043 (12 Apr 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> While indiscriminate nuckle busting is not the way to sort things out(quiet, all you guys that knew me back in the day),   sometimes a level of slack adjustment is required that negotiation just doesn't achieve.   In that case, a short, sharp shock, and they never do it again...I mean good manners don't cost nothing, do they.......Apologies to Roger Waters
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat



CHIMO


----------



## paracowboy (12 Apr 2005)

> I figure guys could wait until you do hand-to-hand training, or those padded sticks


it's all training   They're called pugil sticks. And I'd rather have young hellions who can't wait to mix it up, than someone with no aggression. I can bend an over-aggressive troop to my will, but I can't instill that drive in someone who doesn't have it to begin with. Give me ferocious young attack dogs. I can control them as long as I keep them more afraid of me than I am of them. And I have pretty big teeth (they're getting a little long, but they still have enough bite to deal with even the fiercest puppy   ) 


 ;D


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

I've seen a few guys sort things out with fisticuffs - not in training but in general Army stuff - sometimes its good that guys settle things.   Paracowboy is right - if you expect guys to be aggresive, it may sometimes spill over.   Expecting everybody to be a tee-totler or buddy buddy in the Army is setting yourself up for disappointment; if you think "we don't do this anymore", you've got your head in the sand.   Personally, I would rather give a couple troops extras for fighting then deal with two soldiers lighting up the sheets at night in todays touchy-feely Army.

Before going into a raid (ok, cordon and search, but raid sounds much cooler), my section commander told us "it's better to hold back the dogs then to prod the sheep forward" or something like that.

Remember, we sent 5 Divisions of Canadians who fought against hardened German soldiers and liberated Europe, and they resorted to this often, so don't tell me that it destroys cohesion and morale.


----------



## 043 (12 Apr 2005)

"It's really not an issue with me, I am not a politician or a policy maker, just an old soldier.  Any doubts on my part could get someone killed."  Sgt. First Class John Marshall - KIA Iraq, 08 April 2003

Love the quote Infanteer. Read the book, thought is was well done. Read another one just after that one about the Marines advance. Brutal!!!!!


----------



## Fusaki (12 Apr 2005)

Scrapping and Blanket Parties still happen on certain courses. Not that I've ever been involved or even seen anything like that...

Here's a hypothetical scenario, that never actually happened, and any similarities to actual events are purely coincidental:

You've got Pte Bloggins, 4 weeks into his BIQ in Meaford. Then You've got Pte. Smith, just recoursed into Pte Bloggin's platoon. For whatever reason, Bloggins and Smith just don't get along. Smith thinks Bloggins is a cocky little SOB and Bloggins thinks Smith is an asshole who just likes to throw his weight around. One day, after an exchange of words Bloggins and Smith decide that they'd better take it outside. After a few minutes roughing each other up, Pte Jones comes outside for a smoke, sees the commotion and calls over some other troops to break up the fight. The result? Smith and Bloggins don't talk to each other outside of work, but still have a certain level of respect for each other for having the stones to get out and fight. There's no more smart ass comments between them, talking behind each other's back, or anything else. The entire platoon knows where both Smith and Bloggins stand with each other, so we can reasonably say that everything is out in the open.

Fast forward 3 weeks. Its the final BIQ field ex: Pro Patria 1 and 2. Smith and Bloggins end up building a snow defence together. Its 0330 hours, the boys haven't slept for a few days, and they're not looking forward to the next day's advance to contact. They are now put in a position where one man shovels snow while the other rests, and each trusts the other to warn him when the Platoon Warrant is coming so that they can both look busy. If either of them gets caught slacking, the WO will start launching paraflares, a stand too will be called, and the boys getting their precious few minutes rack will be forced back to the fighting positions. The stakes are high, but you do what you gotta do, right?

By the time grad day rolls around, Smith and Bloggins might still not like each other, but at least the TRUST each other and RESPECT each other as SOLDIERS. They might never talk again, but they know that if shit happens, they'll be there for each other.

And thats all that matters. If Smith and Bloggins didn't scrap it out early on, the beef between them would fester and divide the platoon. If the course staff ever caught on, the entire platoon would pay the price in one form of "Group Therapy" or another. Scrapping man - to - man is often the quickest, quietest, and most effective means of settling dispute.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Very Good post, Ghostwalk.

I especially like this part:



			
				Ghostwalk said:
			
		

> And thats all that matters. If Smith and Bloggins didn't scrap it out early on, the beef between them would fester and divide the platoon.



It is like a pack of girls who are fighting and continually talk, spread rumours, snipe, and connive about eachother.  After most rounds of fisticuffs, its a nod and move on; both have put up and shut up.


----------



## Kat Stevens (12 Apr 2005)

But, back to the original question.  If you go to Boot with an "anyone f*ucks with me gets dead" kind of attitude, you may find yourself on the bottom of a pile of very unhappy recruits. Nuckles are a useful tool, not the only tool....

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## paracowboy (12 Apr 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But, back to the original question.   If you go to Boot with an "anyone f*ucks with me gets dead" kind of attitude, you may find yourself on the bottom of a pile of very unhappy recruits. Nuckles are a useful tool, not the only tool....
> 
> CHIMO,   Kat


very true. At the very bottom line, it's about teamwork.


----------



## Gill557 (12 Apr 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> it's all training    They're called pugil sticks. And I'd rather have young hellions who can't wait to mix it up, than someone with no aggression. I can bend an over-aggressive troop to my will, but I can't instill that drive in someone who doesn't have it to begin with. Give me ferocious young attack dogs. I can control them as long as I keep them more afraid of me than I am of them. And I have pretty big teeth (they're getting a little long, but they still have enough bite to deal with even the fiercest puppy    )
> ;D



Can I ask how you keep them more afraid of you?  No offense intended I'm just trying to see how section commanders act and how they lead, I'm working towards command of an infantry platoon myself, hopefully I can measure up to the men/women I am supposed to lead and I'm trying to learn all I can in advance.  I've been told I'm not supposed to yell or anything like that, they tell me that's why I've got a WO and Sgts.
Actually that leads to another question.  What exactly do I do as an infantry platoon commander?  (So sue me I didn't ask when I first signed up, I just wanted to serve my country.)




			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> very true. At the very bottom line, it's about teamwork.



I hear that.   That was one of the biggest things they stressed to us both at BIQ and at IAP/BOTP.  Any weak links in the chain means the possibility of people getting turned into pink mist and bone chips, so I've been told.


Also, I think some people think that I'm saying that troops shouldn't use violence or something like that.  Totally untrue, I'm not entirely crazy about this, what was it somebody said, the "touchy feely army".  If you wanna go out there and beat the crap out of each other to settle your differences by all means, go ahead.  Just do two things: 
1) Don't get caught by the MPs that's all I'm saying, especially at St-Jean.
2) Make sure it ends there, don't bring it back into the barracks. Do the deed, shake hands and tell the Sgt. you both got hit by a door or something.


----------



## Glorified Ape (12 Apr 2005)

I can see confrontation being useful in sorting out problems, I just don't see the utility of violence in the situation. You want to have it out with someone, go somewhere and have it out with them. Tell them what you think, what your problem is, and what you want them to do about it and let them do the same. So many stupid conflicts get blown out of proportion because the two parties involved simply misunderstand each other on something. Beating each other up isn't going to solve that - the underlying issue/misunderstanding is still there waiting to boil over again. If the argument was about who would win in a fight, fine, but other than that I can't see a scrap being the optimal solution. It's like taking a sledgehammer to your engine block because your car won't start - what's the point?  It doesn't solve anything, it just lets you act like some distempered boob. 

I'm not saying it won't happen, but to endorse it, either implicitly or explicitly, just doesn't make sense. I also don't see how having no desire to engage in unnecessary, aimless violence equates to somehow being less capable in the combat arms. I would think the control and discipline you demonstrate by not engaging in such juvenile behaviour would be more useful.


----------



## paracowboy (12 Apr 2005)

G-Man, to prevent hi-jacking, I've sent you a pm.


----------



## DogOfWar (12 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I can see confrontation being useful in sorting out problems, I just don't see the utility of violence in the situation. You want to have it out with someone, go somewhere and have it out with them. Tell them what you think, what your problem is, and what you want them to do about it and let them do the same. So many stupid conflicts get blown out of proportion because the two parties involved simply misunderstand each other on something. Beating each other up isn't going to solve that - the underlying issue/misunderstanding is still there waiting to boil over again. If the argument was about who would win in a fight, fine, but other than that I can't see a scrap being the optimal solution. It's like taking a sledgehammer to your engine block because your car won't start - what's the point?   It doesn't solve anything, it just lets you act like some distempered boob.
> 
> I'm not saying it won't happen, but to endorse it, either implicitly or explicitly, just doesn't make sense. I also don't see how having no desire to engage in unnecessary, aimless violence equates to somehow being less capable in the combat arms. I would think the control and discipline you demonstrate by not engaging in such juvenile behaviour would be more useful.



I dont see it as juvenile at all. Once the deed is done most guys move on. In fact I would say that Ive been in more than my share of scraps. and I always shake hands and buy them a drink after. Win or lose. Once your both licking your wounds the issue seems pretty small. Maybe Im a  caveman- but I dont trust a guy who doesnt believe in his point of view enough to knuckle up. I dont talk behind peoples backs and I expect the same from others- point the issue out to me and we'll work on it from there. Doesnt always mean we fight but if it happans it happens. While in BMQ that stuff happens on weekend leave. Certainly dont do it on the base. The MP's are bored and would love to get ahold of that.

And as for the attitude in the forces Ive come accross towards it- I was involved in a "thing" that left me with 3 gaping holes in my face from having a ku-baton shoved through it and when I reported for course the next day my instructor pulled me aside and said "thank god- I was getting worried about the forces today. No one on your course had shown up drunk or bloody. I hope you got 'em good"

This is an aggressive business. You are either or aggressive or your the other guy- I had a guy on boot camp who didnt want to go to the range because he didnt like violence. Which are you?


----------



## dc445 (12 Apr 2005)

So no fighting, what happens if this certain individual is threat to the safety of yourself and the others around you (through certain 'soldiering' incidents)? Can't deal with it yourself then?


----------



## Infanteer (12 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I can see confrontation being useful in sorting out problems, I just don't see the utility of violence in the situation.



I take it you've never been in a fight?


----------



## Island Ryhno (12 Apr 2005)

Ah decisions, decisions, when and when not to use violence! I have a dilemma now that I didn't have in my youth and that's conscience. I'm a big guy (5'11" 290lbs) and I'm also a trained martial artist (Judo, TKD) on top of that I fought all through my hockey career, still do. So for me, it comes down to knowing that I could really hurt someone bad maybe even a death, and would I want that on my mind? In this grown up world, we all have jobs, wives, kids and we would look ridiculous if we showed up at work like we just came from fight club. I believe what we need is controlled agression, my sensei always says be assertive until you need to be aggresive, so state your problems to the person, make it clear that it is bothering you and then if talking like normal human beings doesn't help, well have at er' and show them what an armbar or choke feels like from the ground, they may just come around to your way of thinking


----------



## DogOfWar (12 Apr 2005)

dc445 said:
			
		

> So no fighting, what happens if this certain individual is threat to the safety of yourself and the others around you (through certain 'soldiering' incidents)? Can't deal with it yourself then?



If an individual is a threat to your safety they will find themselves on a fast plane to the business end of a boot by the instructors. This is one area where the instructors are verrrry proficient. They wont let any safety violations go unpunished.



			
				Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> I believe what we need is controlled agression, my sensei always says be assertive until you need to be aggresive, so state your problems to the person, make it clear that it is bothering you and then if talking like normal human beings doesn't help, well have at er' and show them what an armbar or choke feels like from the ground, they may just come around to your way of thinking



exactly


----------



## JBP (12 Apr 2005)

My personal rule of thumb is lett'm come to you. Don't hit first or make physical contact or attacks first. Speak your mind, tell the A-hole he's f*ckin' pissing you off and warn him that you won't put up with him being an idiot. That approach usually works well because it shines a spotlight on them. I ran into trouble with that approach late in highschool, sometimes they won't start a confrontation or hit you, they just keep bothering you or your pals and being stupid. Then you have to use more drastic measures, which is the first time I attacked someone first...

Generally with human nature, a bunch of army guys are like alpha wolves, it's the natural way of determining the "pecking" order. One guy thinks he's quite tough, the other guy thinks so too and doesn't like his attitude... Fight ensures, one person wins, the other one shuts the hell up... It's like sign language, unspoken communication.

Still solved the problem. Violence is the oldest form of dispute resolution, it's brutal, but effective. After you fight someone, it's almost as if you've shared something, you know where they stand, and generally both folks know who is the man. If you give him a good lick'n he really probably won't bother you again. No need to break bones or draw blood, but if you pop someone a few solid shots to the face and ribs, they won't soon forget it.

As others have mentioned, we're still suppose to be professional soldiers though, and while you've got that uniform and the pay comming into your account, your still a Canadian Forces soldier and don't forget that. So is he/she...

Just make them  :'(


----------



## patt (12 Apr 2005)

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> My personal rule of thumb is lett'm come to you. Don't hit first or make physical contact or attacks first. Speak your mind, tell the A-hole he's f*ckin' pissing you off and warn him that you won't put up with him being an idiot. That approach usually works well because it shines a spotlight on them. I ran into trouble with that approach late in highschool, sometimes they won't start a confrontation or hit you, they just keep bothering you or your pals and being stupid. Then you have to use more drastic measures, which is the first time I attacked someone first...




most kids in highschool will back down if u confront them..its happend to me, im a pretty kinda small and this taller dude asked me to fight and i said sure lets go after school infront of the door...we walked out he kept walkin and never looked back...


----------



## Meridian (12 Apr 2005)

Might I make a slight suggestion:

If you really need to "take it outside"... when you are on course.... recall that you actually do get weekends off...  On such a weekend, the two of you can run off to the nearest boxing gym, and pound the shit out of each other. Dont tell your staff of course, because you'd probably get charged for injuring yourself on purpose or some such craziness, but its just a thought. 

No need to step out into the yellow lined hall and have the MP's come a runnin.


----------



## armyrules (13 Apr 2005)

I htink if your really having a problem then you should try to confront the person without using violence and tel the guy/girl that "Hey we are here to work as a team you don't like me and I don't like you but we will need each other at the front so just try to be civil" Hopefully he/she would grow up and agree with this method hope that helps  comment if you want on this method


----------



## Glorified Ape (15 Apr 2005)

armyrules said:
			
		

> I htink if your really having a problem then you should try to confront the person without using violence and tel the guy/girl that "Hey we are here to work as a team you don't like me and I don't like you but we will need each other at the front so just try to be civil" Hopefully he/she would grow up and agree with this method hope that helps  comment if you want on this method



I think you're bang on. Most people aren't idiots - they can be reasoned with. You'd be surprised how reasonable people can be given calm, 2-way discourse with a person they have a problem with. I've had people I hated and who hated me become people I consort with on good terms simply because we spoke with each other about our problem - most of the time you realise that the impression you had of someone was completely off and vice-versa. They were nowhere near as bad, obnoxious, or stupid as you thought they were and you often end up finding out that you have quite a bit you agree on and share in common. You're not going to find that out and find a lasting resolution to your common problem by pounding the crap out of them. 



			
				BeadWindow said:
			
		

> This is an aggressive business. You are either or aggressive or your the other guy- I had a guy on boot camp who didnt want to go to the range because he didnt like violence. Which are you?



There's a difference between aggressive and unnecessarily violent. The kind of lack of self-control that people who start fights demonstrate indicates to me that they shouldn't be given a weapon. I'm not saying don't fight back if someone scraps with you, I'm saying don't start it.  



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I take it you've never been in a fight?



Sure, plenty, some of which I started myself. Have I been in a fight that *I* started since about grade 7? No. Given my propensity for violence at the time, I wouldn't have given me a weapon then either. I've had fights started with me and intervened in other situations but I don't initiate violence against people pointlessly. If it's the only option (as it would be, for example, if someone's attacking you) then I have absolutely no problem engaging in it, nor do I do so with regret. But to start hitting someone because they annoy me, I don't like them, they don't like me, etc. is just ridiculous. It's the kind of behaviour you would expect to see from school kids, not adults.


----------



## canadianblue (15 Apr 2005)

I've been in my share of fights, but all have been in grades 3-9. I haven't seen the need to fight anybody in high school, even though alot of people piss me off. Their will always be that person in my class, were I'll think, I wish somebody would kick that guys ass and drop them down a peg or two.

But this is high school, if I got in a fight on school property, a suspension, and the school calling in the RCMP. Even if its a small fight. Thats zero tolerance for ya.


----------



## Mojo Magnum (30 Sep 2005)

i like the "find a local boxing ring" answer.   People who take "advantage" just love those who dont' have the balls to stand up to them.

 I enjoyed the payback of an individual who thought it would be a good idea to spar with me at the factory one day.   He threw some hands, and I swiped 'em away,then,  He stepped in to get a grip on me and I swepped his lead foot (and was nice enuff to wait till he got his balance back) then...he felt it would be a good idea to grab my throat  I was shocked at his blindness in not seeing how I could have squared him away during his first two attempts.  So I invited him to the local club (with a huge smile and every sense of assurance that he would be completely safe, and that there would be no risk to himself.)    Beat him so fuckin  hard he stood in the middle of the ring with bloodshot eyes, swaying from left to right.  At that point I leaned over to him and said "Maybe you should go sit down now."   His response was "yeah, I think you're right".  He went home with blood shot eyes and got shit from his old lady for being out drinking all night.  

  Funny thing happend, he remembered his manners after that and has been the nicest guy ever since.

hoo raaah.


----------

