# British MP: Canada complicit in Iraq war



## MPIKE (19 Sep 2005)

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/17/1221619-cp.html


> British MP: Canada complicit in Iraq war
> By MIKE OLIVEIRA
> MISSISSAUGA, Ont. (CP) - Despite its refusal to fight in Iraq, Canada is complicit in the U.S. war on terrorism and should withdraw from Afghanistan, an outspoken left-wing British MP said Saturday.
> "I'm amazed that so many people in Canada believe they're not a part of this crime," George Galloway said at the sixth annual conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and the Muslim Association of Canada.
> ...



Looks like another modern version of Hanoi Jane.  Does anyone know how he is recieved in the UK?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Sep 2005)

:boring:

Galloway is a complete prat.  He was hand in glove with Saddam Hussein years ago and was widely regarded as his patsy.  He visited Baghdad routinely to "protest" UN sanctions and to schmooze with the Baathist elite.  His claim to fame was to violently oppose any action against Saddam's regime, for which he was summarily ejected from the Labour Party.  There were (unproven) allegations of Iraqi bribe money, but nothing's been seen on that front for some time.

He was elected in the last British election as a member of the "Respect" Party, conveniently running in a very Muslim part of London and on a very anti-war platform.

Lots of blah, blah, blah, which appeals to the far left and the sympathizers out there.  All very dull and I've already wasted 5 minutes of my valuable time typing on this wanker.  ;D

TR


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2005)

He's a certified fruitcake.

As the article said he was booted out of the Labour Party, unlike, say, the late Robin Cook or Clare Short who, while being effective, vehement and coherent and   critics of the Iraq war and the UK's involvement in same managed to stay sufficiently 'onside' to remain _in the fold_.

He is now tied into a hard-left, pro-Arab 'part' called Respect - http://www.respectcoalition.org/elect/index.php 

Galloway is popular, very popular, with a large (and, sadly, growing, I think) segment of British society â â€œ one which is ill-educated, ill-informed, anti-Semitic, anti-American (envious, actually, of what the Americans have and what the Americans do, because they can), lazy and greedy; all-in-all rather like an equally large (and also growing, I fear) segment of Canadians.   He was able, in the last election, to handily beat back a Labour challenger in a formerly 'safe' Labour seat.

Galloway, like Carolyn Parrish here in Canada is, himself, intelligent and experienced but is driven by _heart_ rather than _head_.   He cannot get past the baggage which his completely uncritical support for the Palestinians creates and so he digs himself deeper and deeper into positions which are devoid of moral r intellectual merit but which, counter-intuitively, bring him more and more support.   Ask Ms. Parrish; I'll bet her support grew each time she slagged the USA and George Bush.

(Now, I don't much like George W. Bush, I think he's a second rate president (but better than Al Gore would have been) and I think many (most) of his foreign and economic policies range from stupid to just ill-considered; none of that means that he deserves to be called names and it also doesn't mean that Canada should change its foreign policy (as it did under Chrétien and Martin) just because a great many people wait, hopefully, for the arrival of Bush's successor â â€œ almost any successor.)

P.S. On point  - *Galloway is quite right: Canada is complicit in the Iraq war.*  We escorted convoys during the invasion and an important aspect of our growing strength in Afghanistan is that we 'free up' Americans for Iraq â â€œ at least that is what Frank McKenna _et al_ are telling anyone in Washington who will listen.


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

:  He'd look good in an orange jumpsuit on Al-Jareza


----------



## Jungle (19 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> :   He'd look good in an orange jumpsuit on Al-Jareza


It won't happen anytime soon... he's too useful to them as it is.


----------



## laser_taser_blazer (19 Sep 2005)

OMG these crazy nut job left wing fruit cakes should be administered to a mental hospital right away, for the sake of public health. What a god damn retard. I bet this moron has never been to Afghanistan, nor has he ever talked to a good many of it's citizens. 

I love it when ppl speak on behalf of an issue they have no direct relation to, nor the support of the group they are speaking on behalf of, or the popular consense of the group.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (19 Sep 2005)

George Galloway is on Al-Jazeera all the time anyways. If any of you get a chance and can maybe get over your own rhetoric it is possible that you may appreciate his many speaking engagements he takes part in across Canada.

 With respect to the allegations of collusion and corruption, there is no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing. All Mr. Galloway has done is take a stand against a very powerful foe, which is admired by many. Another important factor to note is that Mr. Galloway has always opposed Saddam, traveled to Iraq with the blessing of the British parliament and has given valuable intelligence to the authorities. It is not simply a matter of anti-americanism but rather his steadfast opposition to a return to Imperialism. He has pointed out quite rightly, that years of sanctions against Iraq did little more than hurt the innocent and frail. Years of oil for food never stopped the bombing of Iraq.

 The words of Mr. Galloway reflect the opinions of many, not simply the "left". His words are simply more important due to his involvement on the ground with more than just tea parties at Saddam's and lawn bowling on the Tigris.


Just remember Piper, it's easier to lick your masters boots than it is to cast them off your back.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2005)

And so another has opened his mouth to erase all doubt.


----------



## mdh (19 Sep 2005)

> George Galloway is on Al-Jazeera all the time anyways. If any of you get a chance and can maybe get over your own rhetoric it is possible that you may appreciate his many speaking engagements he takes part in across Canada.



If you want to see what George Galloway has actually said about Saddam and his recent buddy Assad try this link:

http://hitchensweb.com/GallowayLeafletFINAL.pdf

I think you'll find it - - instructive.

mdh


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

FWIW - I dont like it when ANYONE comes to Canada and tell us what to do.

 Be it French or English...

I dont think the US has ever done that (other than that crackpot loone Michael Moore) -- they have asked, and left politely if they did not get their way.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Sep 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> I dont think the US has ever done that


not since about 1811 - 1813, anyway  ;D


----------



## sheikyerbouti (19 Sep 2005)

Sallows? was that a crack at me? If so please expand, I was under the assumption this website expected a certain calibre of posting.

In response to MDH: I know what George Galloway has said, as I was sitting in the back row of lecture hall A122 at Langara college when he did so. Those remarks posted are mostly in concert with Galloway's central position that  National sovereignty is inalienable and not subject to the intercessions of (mostly) Western powers. This is not to say he supports criminality and dictatorship but rather he recognizes that the culture of government in the Middle East cannot be circumvented in favour of better governance by outside powers. In order to change things, Galloway understands that one must work within the present system regardless of its' fallibility.

 For what it's worth, I never saw George make such convenient and short media savvy quotes. For the most part, he was very long winded.

I appreciate KevB's assertion that Canadaians should not be told what to do or where to go but it must be acknowledged that the Canadian public is woefully unaware of our involvement in overseas matters. This lack of awareness cripples our (national) ability to cope readily with any potential shortcomings of the process of democratizing Afghanistan. Canada is inevitably a target, albeit mid level and unfortunately  we need to recognize this fact. If it takes an outsider  to make it more obvious then so be it. 

The public needs to be informed more fully of the potential for our actions to be mis-construed by sympathizers or terrorist groups. Gen. Hillier saying we're out there to kill scumbags may sum up our efforts but it certainly sends the wrong message to the people we are supposed to be helping.
If it is actually informative, tomorrow's MND briefing may help things along. Canada needs to make up its' mind with respect to its' actions overseas.


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> The public needs to be informed more fully of the potential for our actions to be mis-construed by sympathizers or terrorist groups. Gen. Hillier saying we're out there to kill scumbags may sum up our efforts but it certainly sends the wrong message to the people we are supposed to be helping.




Uhm, I dont know about you - but I am out to kill the sympathizers and terror groups -- they can misconstrue it all they want - dont make them any less dead.  I dont know you a hole in the ground, but several us here have walked the ground in Afghan - we make no bones about that and the attempt to make the Canadian public understand that while we are helping the Afghan people we are also there to kill a bunch of people that don't like us so much.

 These people in Canada you want to illuminate to Foreign Affair issues need to understand a lot of things - but they dont need some pompous ass academic to lecture us on our global responsiblities.


----------



## cgyflames01 (19 Sep 2005)

We have Carolyn Parrish, the British have George Galloway, take what he says with the same salt.


----------



## mdh (19 Sep 2005)

> With respect to the allegations of collusion and corruption, there is no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing. All Mr. Galloway has done is take a stand against a very powerful foe, which is admired by many. Another important factor to note is that Mr. Galloway has always opposed Saddam, traveled to Iraq with the blessing of the British parliament and has given valuable intelligence to the authorities



If you've read them then it's time to withdraw this - he has in fact supported Hussein in the past and is now consorting with Assad in Syria praising insurgent operations against the US.

mdh


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Sep 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> If you've read them then it's time to withdraw this - he has in fact supported Hussein in the past and is now consorting with Assad in Syria praising insurgent operations against the US.
> 
> mdh


Hmm if he had and does as you have stated why then has he not been punted from Westminster and been arrested for abetting Terrorism?


----------



## TCBF (19 Sep 2005)

Is it not odd that we only hear about these so-called 'public' appearances by the toffs AFTER they have happened?   It is no bloody wonder these cumbubbles get standing ovations - none of the NORMAL people even know they are visiting, or they would tar and feather them to the podium.

I am beginning to wonder how long Canadians will be fooled by the canned rentacrowd/VIP visits news release.   "Local representative to the National Canadian Revolutionary Command Council, The Right Honourable Rodney Forestock-Backsite spoke in front of a large crowd today who gave him several standing ovations during his speach at the sod-turning for the new Ministry of Mental Cruelty Regional Sub-Office."

Do normal people ever hear about these visits?

Tom


----------



## mdh (19 Sep 2005)

> Hmm if he had and does as you have stated why then has he not been punted from Westminster and been arrested for abetting Terrorism?



He was punted out of the Labour Party for what was widely perceived as incitement against coalition forces.



> From a BBC profile:
> 
> He was expelled from the Labour Party in October 2003 in the wake of his outspoken comments on the Iraq war - comments which Labour chairman Ian McCartney said "incited foreign forces to rise up against British troops".
> 
> ...


----------



## sheikyerbouti (19 Sep 2005)

I would like to clarify one thing to KevB... Bomb the living crap out of every malfeasant that stands in the way of liberating the people of Afghanistan. In fact, while you are taking out the garbage make sure you remind them who we are and why we're there   doing it. The problem is, the taxpayers who are supporting your actions don't have the slightest idea of the full magnitude of the situation.

My lack of participation on the ground does not in any way detract from my position that the Canadian public needs to be better informed of our actions in support of Afghan sovereignty. In my opinion, this responsibility does not rest solely on the shoulders of the CDS.It is the responsibility of all interested parties to enhance the transparency of our role particularily when it involves combat situations. The Government plays this role alongside the media, NGO's, her majesties loyal opposition and activist groups.

 In response to MDH, Sapper Earl makes a valid point exclusive of my stance. Why has he not faced criminal repercussions? The British government most certainly has scrutinized Mr. Galloway, probably on numerous occasions. WRT your last post, those are the words of one individual and not representative of the whole government.

 To Mr. Tom, as always the information is out there for any and all to find. Unfortunately, most of us care very little and only pay attention once it hits the fan (especially when it involves the 'normals').


----------



## mdh (19 Sep 2005)

Well, what can I say - if you want to champion George Galloway as one of your own - knock yourself out.


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

I dont think anyone who's boots are not currently on the ground fully understands the situation...

 BTW We don't bomb - we excise with precision   ;D

FWIW - I dont think the Canadian public wants to know.   They enjoy writing to soldiers and offering support - but deep down I think they prefer not really to know what we are doing over there.   

 We are at war, the time for debate and arguing transparency was prior to that - so It behooves all Canadians to support the war and the troops not to attempt to snipe from the sidelines or cower behind tinfoil hat prophesies by some foreign boob.   Honestly I would love to shoot that guy for sedition...


----------



## paracowboy (19 Sep 2005)

yep. Kneel down, face the ditch.


----------



## Spr.Earl (19 Sep 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> Well, what can I say - if you want to champion George Galloway as one of your own - knock yourself out.


I'm not a champion of his but have followed his controversial Political career.
He championed the plight of the Iraqi people due to the sanctions and yes he met Saddam as any member of another Gov. would.There is no proof of him being complicit in any Terrorism Organisation,he got labeled because of his outspokenness which has happened many times in polotics and he up set the ruling parties of both Nations and yet in the last election unseated the incumbent Labour M.P. so that says something there don't you think?


----------



## sheikyerbouti (19 Sep 2005)

MDH: As one of my own? I certainly don't champion the man as some messiah for Western society but I do appreciate his opinion especially given the fact I have seen him present his position credibly and compassionately in defence of the people of the Middle East. He has a concern for the human price of war that is often overlooked. It is very important to the process of Democracy to allow for the input of people like Galloway who challenge conventions, be they political or sociological. He could not have acquired his stature without the complicity of the public, which includes you and me.

 In criticism of Galloway, it must be noted that he served as a propagandistic tool which was shaped to many uses. For Saddam, he was a westerner who constantly voiced opposition to ongoing policies in Iraq. This can be inferred as incitement to terrorism or treachery to the state but unfortunately western, democratic institutions must respect   the right to freedom of self-expression. His ejection from the Labour party was probably long overdue, but as long as he serves in office he is entitled to represent the office as he sees fit.

To KevB, I understand a bullet is way cheaper to deliver than   a bomb but you know what I was getting at. I think with respect to public opinion, it depends on your locality to a great degree. In all the major urban centres there is always a focus of opposition from activists and the like simply due to concentration of numbers but in my opinion the groundswell is largely positive or in favour of CF actions overseas. the problem is how do you sell that message on   a larger scale? ie: National as opposed to Regional news coverage of the CF. 

 That problem has got to be figured out, when it does it will mean alot in terms of long term stability in planning for the forces and their capabilities.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (19 Sep 2005)

It's not really bad mouthing but rather vocal opposition to developments that impact the lives of many more than just Saddam or the other baddies.

 Was there another way to resolve the issue of Iraq? Probably,  but not necessarily within a time frame acceptable to the powers that be. I am positive that Mr. Galloway knew and understood the potential for his image being exploited and with that in mind it can be reasonably assumed that he has factored this into his public personae.

 He may be a horrible messenger but don't fault the message he has tried to deliver.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I have seen him present his position credibly and compassionately in defence of the people of the Middle East. He has a concern for the human price of war that is often overlooked.



Oh please...   Did you read his recent remarks?



> "You should raise the demand to end the Canadian occupation of Afghanistan."



"Canadian occupation of Afghanistan"?   This is typical of the rhetoric used by far-left apologists and sympathizers, of which Galloway is a shining example.   IMHO, he has absolutely no concern for the "people of the Middle East" but is interested in opposing for the sake of opposing and in his own self-promotion.   He's become the darling of the university coffee-protestor set simply because he "opposes" and uses inflamatory language to pander to his very limited political constituency.   Muslim fundamentalists, professional protestors and readers of Socialist Worker may value his point of view, but he's so far out in left field that he begins to make very little sense very quickly.

Speaking as a former "occupier of Afghanistan", he's a nutbar of the first order and should head back to the rock he crawled out from under as quickly as we can get him on the aircraft.   Of course, this won't appeal to the Simon Fraser University "Spartacist" organization or his clutch of fellow-travellers, but, frankly, I could care less.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Sep 2005)

Lets all be open minded and just say there is wheat amongst the chaf.
The man has good and bad points.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Sep 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Lets all be open minded and just say there is wheat amongst the chaf.
> The man has good and bad points.



Normally, I'm fairly middle of the road, but this apologist presses my buttons, particularly when he so obviously takes sides.   I currently have friends in Iraq and my brother served there in 2003.   The uneducated, smug, holier than thou comments on Afghanistan got to me too... Time for me to pop smoke on this thread.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Sep 2005)

Lets not our own feelings interfear with open and free debate which has and does often happen here on our site.
I have friends right now in the Sand Box but I don't let those on the out side get me angry.
I know my buds are doing good for the locals,did we not have the same when we were in the Balkans?
Yes Terrorism is a scourge and must be stamped out but lets not let our hearts poisen our minds to open and free thought from others not matter what the say as long as it does not hurt our own.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

I think there is too much of a focus on the term "occupier". There is a much greater historical context to the term tha most people wish to acknowledge. The presence of non-Islamist troops in a majority Muslim society has long been opposed (the Crusades anyone) and as such, the presence of armed non-muslims in an Islamist state  can be construed today by some people as an occupation.

 Provided we do little to constructively inform the Canadian and Afghan public about our efforts, then we have a lesser chance to remain involved in the long term, sustainable fashion that is central to rebuilding a society torn by war and strife for far too long.

 The CF has an uphill battle on its hands in terms of public relations as long as there is little recognition of our growing footprint in the Middle East. The Balkan conflict is exemplary of CF efforts going largely unrecognized when much good is done by the hands of so relatively few.

On a personal level, greater openness of our involvement can only reinforce the CF and its requirements to sustain itself operationally be it in terms of materiel, personnel or financing.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Sep 2005)

I agree but 99.99% of what we do is never made public.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

This begs the question, can more be made public?

If so, then what? And whose responsibility/decision is it to disclose such information?


----------



## TCBF (20 Sep 2005)

"I think there is too much of a focus on the term "occupier". There is a much greater historical context to the term tha most people wish to acknowledge. The presence of non-Islamist troops in a majority Muslim society has long been opposed (the Crusades anyone) and as such, the presence of armed non-muslims in an Islamist state  can be construed today by some people as an occupation."

- Or even un-armed Christians.

- And I think the reverse is true as well.  More so in Europe, but increasingly in North America, there is an undercurrent of frustration and dismay in the gradual 'occupation' of our western institutions to those acting in fear of or as apologists for the Islamo-fascist resistance to our civilization in the west.

Tom


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

Too true, so how does one mitigate such reactionism? It seems to me that the best way is to fight back with information. If the enemy says "X" happened then we should say that it was really"Y" that occurred. This is classic propaganda but so what, if it serves the purpose of disseminating a positive message about your efforts then take your lumps with your sugar.

 The public will listen but you will have to shout hard to get heard over all the other noise. Persistence is key to effective media.


----------



## TCBF (20 Sep 2005)

"The public will listen but you will have to shout hard to get heard over all the other noise. Persistence is key to effective media."

- And effective propaganda as well.   Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it.   That is why the CBC is so critical to the liberalist hold on power.   If an election was called tomorrow, how much do you want to bet all of those striking workers would put down their picket signs and return to serving the greater cause of defeating That Guy From Alberta With The Scary Hidden Agenda?

Tom


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Too true, so how does one mitigate such reactionism? It seems to me that the best way is to fight back with information. If the enemy says "X" happened then we should say that it was really"Y" that occurred. This is classic propaganda but so what, if it serves the purpose of disseminating a positive message about your efforts then take your lumps with your sugar.
> 
> The public will listen but you will have to shout hard to get heard over all the other noise. Persistence is key to effective media.


What it is: how does one open peoples narrow mindedness from the present cultural foibles (racist attitudes)
I traveled the world before I joined the C.F.,I was down in Mindanao in the P.I. back in 73 when the Muslims were doing what is going on still to day,it is not a new world story about Muslims in certain country's wishing for their own home lands and wishing for autonomy,what is new is the total abstract of Islam effecting the World by those who have twisted the Koran.
In the Koran it states in so many words that all Muslims will respect Christains and Jews as we are all childran of Abraham if I remember right.

Yet of late I have learned that the Saudi's are putting out a new version of the Koran which makes all Cnristains look bad.Oh yeh a fact.
Yes I have a Koran,printed in Pakistan in 1975 and have read it,it's just like our Bible,giving spiritual guidance and prayer's,
Islam in the true sence is not evil,its just those twisted shit pumps who are giving Islam a bad name.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (20 Sep 2005)

I wasn't going to post on this subject again (having presented my point of view), but thought that this editorial from today's Halifax Chronicle-Herald summed my position up nicely:



> IS CANADA "occupying" Afghanistan?
> 
> Absolutely, according to radical left-wing British MP George Galloway, who lashed out at Canadians in a speech at a conference of the Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim Association of Canada in Toronto on the weekend.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Sep 2005)

>Sallows? was that a crack at me?

You need a map?  Don't feel badly for yourself.  Recent history is littered with the reputations of people (thought intellectual by many) who were apologists and supporters of mass murderers.

Galloway is good at seeing to Galloway's ego and Galloway's wallet.  It isn't really any more complicated than that.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

Ruxpin's editorial hits the nail on the head but I feel the debate had evolved beyond the words of one man to that  of the long term implications of our involvement in overseas affairs.

 Our presence is an irritant to some, certainly not all, but let's face it by becoming involved we have invited trouble to our doorstep. Canadians have an excruciatingly short attention span when it comes to this sort of thing. If it doesn't involve health care or education, then the issue slowly disappears in the mind of the Candian public. With the military being increasingly called upon to act then it behooves the powers that be to inform, to educate the masses of our involvement and any potential repercussions we might face as a result.

How can the forces demand the recognition they deserve without letting the taxpayer know what they are doing, how they are doing it and what they are doing it with. In other words, why the hell should I (as a taxpayer) pay for equipment and personnel when I am not being informed as to its uses.

 All the public gets to see is the bad news, ie: Seakings dropping out of the sky, subs that burn or armour that never left the country. The good work that is done is often overlooked simply due to the anachronistic approach the CF has taken to inform us of its duties. A perfect example of this strategy would be Camp Mirage, somewhere in the Middle east until of course one googles the name and can come up with sat photos, maps, blogs, news reports, etc.  We live in an info-centric age that shapes our expectations, I can turn on the Tv and watch insurgent attacks against Brits or watch Chechens blow up Russian APC's or watch some 'martyr' declare his love for Palestine before he goes and takes out Sbarro pizza. 

 The question is, why don't the requisite leaders step up to the challenge of media awareness and fight fire with fire? If the insurgents of heywood-jablowmistan use the media to fight their battles, then why don't we?

Cold War leaders and ideas stand in our way, not the media as they simply present the news as it is delivered. Now if that news came in the form of constant reporting from in theatre or updated open source net locations then arguably the position of the CF is strengthened. Don't blame the CBC or CTV or any of the other mass media guys as they have a deadline that waits for no one. The enemy we are fighting uses these tools more effectively than we do, as they recognize the importance of feeding our appetite for information while serving ancillary roles of cultivating support and awareness for their own causes.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

sheik,
not quite accurate, in some of the detail. The media has long since departed from the idea of impartially reporting facts. They now have agendas, and choose the 'news' they will report, and the slant they will give it. CBC is the Standard in propaganda. Goebbels could take lessons.

But, yes, we should be more proactive in putting our stories out there, and putting our spin on it. Which I think General Rick is on top of.


----------



## oyaguy (20 Sep 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Galloway, like Carolyn Parrish here in Canada is, himself, intelligent and experienced but is driven by _heart_ rather than _head_.  He cannot get past the baggage which his completely uncritical support for the Palestinians creates and so he digs himself deeper and deeper into positions which are devoid of moral r intellectual merit but which, counter-intuitively, bring him more and more support.  Ask Ms. Parrish; I'll bet her support grew each time she slagged the USA and George Bush.



I must be the only one who thinks this, but I think that is a little unfair to Ms. Parrish. 

She shot herself in the foot an alarming number of times and embarassed herself, and the Liberals (when she was a member), But I honestly cannot mentally equate Carolyn Parrish with George Galloway. 
So while she may have said stupid anti-americanisms, she was always relatively harmless. She never seemed to go out of her way in that reguard(though she probably should have gone out of her way not to, too.), the way George Galloway has, and Carrolyn Parrish has never come across as an apologist for mass-murder, as George Galloway has. 
They both shoot off their mouths in dumb ways, but Carolyn Parrish does not add up to a Canadian Galloway.

Though Mr. Edward Campbell does call it right when he says she is driven by heart more than mind. I just think comparing her to Galloway is little unfair. 

I think for me, it comes down to me thinking Galloway is malicious in what he says and does, where Parrish said dumb things.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

Hey para, I never meant to imply that there was an an absence of bias but rather that there are people better able to capitalize on our refusal to catch up with the modern world in terms of communications.

 I am going to step off a limb here and suggest that Public Affairs has probably been given short shrift in todays CF simply due to its' lack of relevance to core capabilities. How does one counteract such an eventuality? 

Personally I feel the CBC has done a better job than most would admit  simlpy due to its' mandate of reporting Canadian events from a Canadian perspective. Now if General Blowhard D. Numbnutz says screw the CBC or other media and passes that down the chain, it affects the perspective given by the media outlets with respect to our efforts.

 For starters, there should be an outward focus on things like Truth, Duty, Valour (the show) or simply saturating media with better information about our activities. No innocuous statements like "we killed some Taliban, but I am not going to tell you how many".

 I will give you an example: For the funeral of Smokey, there was a flypast by CF-18's in the missing man formation. That same day I was asked by most people I saw what the hell that booming sound in the morning was. Now, you tell me was this ineffective reportage by the media or was it an abrogation of the CF's duty to better inform? Upon whose shoulders does this responsibility lie?


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

didja miss the second part of my post, dude?





			
				paracowboy said:
			
		

> But, yes, we should be more proactive in putting our stories out there, and putting our spin on it. Which I think General Rick is on top of.


I agree, we need some serious PsyOps to counter-act that of Pravda the CBC.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

I have read and appreciated your posts. I don't feel we are diametrically opposed in our stance it's just that as a civilian I reflect on the information I receive coupled with that which I actively seek out. Hence my participation on this website. 

 As a result of this congruence of info, many flaws become readily apparent in the way things are done.

 BTW screw this CBC bashing, would you rather that we just rely on Yank media? The fact is, and I have seen Bossi lament this fact before, as long as we hide our soldiers from public view in bases that are not well positioned to service media interest then we are not going to effectively counter the negativity that the CF arouses.

 Most of this negativity is newfound and very recent simply due to the CF being forced to look inwards and  introspect on their navels while they had their budgets slashed as a result of fiscal constraint from Ottawa. We don't need PsyOps, what we need is Public Affairs, honest to god, boots on the ground, pipes on parade sort of Public affairs. People whose job it is to ensure the CF never leaves the public eye.

 I use the SOMNIA website as my base expectation for CF news and it is not even funded by the bloody forces. Extra- curricular media sources should not be more prevalent than official CF source materials.


----------



## KevinB (20 Sep 2005)

PAO's are usually nto interested in getting the news out there - they are principally employeed to cover the Brass's ass in the last decade.

 I think there is a HUGE change in policy with Gen Hillier - however that trade is a dinosaur...

 Besides unless the mainstream media covers it the PAO's are left to the Maple Laugh or the Western Sniveller (or your local area rag)


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2005)

Lack of public affairs and spotlight on military news???? Most certainly not.... If the average Canadian was actually interested in finding this out...it's all out there in the public domain...the good, the bad and the ugly...updated daily for their convenience.

I recommend the below site:

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2005)

Ah yes, General Hillier....most of the pers I know are actually quite surprised (and extremely pleased ;D) that he has not been fired. Must be the Newf in him...maybe they can't figure out if they should take him seriously or not yet. THAT IS WAY GOOD FOR US!!


----------



## paracowboy (20 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> BTW screw this CBC bashing, would you rather that we just rely on Yank media?


I don't rely on any "nation's" media. I find my own news on several different websites, in several different newspapers, several different radio stations, and several different TV channels. Somewhere in that mess is the Truth.
 And if the CBC were fair and impartial I wouldn't bash 'em. But they ain't, so I do. 


> The fact is, and I have seen Bossi lament this fact before, as long as we hide our soldiers from public view in bases that are not well positioned to service media interest then we are not going to effectively counter the negativity that the CF arouses.


 the more civvies are involved in my beloved military, the more screwed up it becomes. We are a seperate sub-culture, and we need to remain that way in order to function. They don't need to know what I do, or how I do it. They don't need to appreciate me. They don't need to like me. They need to give me the money I need in order to defend them. When I screw up, they need to slap me down. That's it. Treat me like a teen-ager: gimme money and punish me when I wreck the family sedan.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> ......  the more civvies are involved in my beloved military, the more screwed up it becomes. We are a seperate sub-culture, and we need to remain that way in order to function. They don't need to know what I do, or how I do it. They don't need to appreciate me. They don't need to like me. They need to give me the money I need in order to defend them. When I screw up, they need to slap me down. That's it. Treat me like a teen-ager: gimme money and punish me when I wreck the family sedan.



Actually, even when you do tell them what you do, quite often they don't comprehend what you do.  Quite a few have their own preconceived misconceptions of what we do, and won't change their minds for all the explanations in the world.....sort of what we have going in that "Civi Protestors.... " thread.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (20 Sep 2005)

Armyvern: I agree with your assertion that there is freely available info to those who actively seek it out. I visit the website you mentioned on a daily basis and find it very relevant and informative. My concern is not for those who are actively informed but rather for the preponderance of the "unwashed masses" that rely on conventional sources.

I also agree with KevB that PaffO's are a joke, largely employed as stated to make sure the excremental output of the Brass smells as flowery as possible.

 But what can be done to change the system? To make it more viable in the face of a fluid media climate? 

My suggestion would start with more civic involvement, be it in the form of Senate inquiries like the tour Mr. Kenny made of Canada or things like the Khalsa parade that was held in Surrey in April. With tens of thousands of spectators in attendance, having a couple of Sikh men in Cadpats and turbans to lead the parade was certainly an eye opener that made some heads turn. We just need more of it.

 Just read your post Para,   and would like to note that I am not pushing for greater Civvy involvement but rather greater information. The better informed we (the public) are, the more capable the CF can become. To put it in your terms, a teenager doesn't just get an allowance they have to earn it. Now, how do we know you earned it? How do we know you need more money? Will it be put to good use? If I was your Pa there is no chance in hell I would just open up my wallet to you simply because you felt entitled to more.

To George: the people you bring up are a very small minority, they just happen to know how to work the system to their advantage. Go to a  series of protests and you wil begin to see the same faces time after time. They just marshall their resources more efficiently and in a far more timely fashion than our Federal monoliths.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Just read your post Para,   and would like to note that I am not pushing for greater Civvy involvement but rather greater information. The better informed we (the public) are, the more capable the CF can become. To put it in your terms, a teenager doesn't just get an allowance they have to earn it. Now, how do we know you earned it? How do we know you need more money? Will it be put to good use? If I was your Pa there is no chance in heck I would just open up my wallet to you simply because you felt entitled to more.


problem is, the more info is released on us, the more dumbasses feel they have to stick their noses into how we do things. Which inevitably means more civvie involvement, which means a further reduction of our capabilities. I earn my allowance by volunteering to die for you. Now, increase my allowance so I don't have to unnecessarily.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

Somehow I just think the idea of "COMBAT CAMERA" covering a hit (DA, not a mob execution) would not go over well with us or the public...


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

Exclusive of military actions, there is still much that can be done without causing public aversion.

Eg: The Naval contribution to La. and Miss. relief efforts. This in itself is important for demonstrating capabilities.

With specific regards to military actions, I am not saying broadcast the hit and show all the naughty bits but rather when you guys do "excise with discretion" then why not be a little more informative than "yup, we took some prisoners and none of us got hurt"

How about "In the course of exercising our mandate, components of X troop or Y battalion undertook a series of operations with the intent of dislodging the enemy from a series of strategic routes". "As a result of this series of actions Joe B. got an american gong and his unit will be honoured by Gen. Huffnpuff of the Task Force Kick Ass and Take Names".

Do you understand what I am driving at now?


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> How about "In the course of exercising our mandate, components of X troop or Y battalion undertook a series of operations with the intent of dislodging the enemy from a series of strategic routes". "As a result of this series of actions Joe B. got an american gong and his unit will be honoured by Gen. Huffnpuff of the Task Force Kick *** and Take Names".


that's the sort of thing that gets released at press briefings. Those things are feeding-frenzies. But, it doesn't make for a good sound-bite, and most of it gets cut. Having been quoted by the press, I know first-hand all about sound-bites. A patrol on which I answered some questions turned into THE cheesiest article ever. It sounded like a Mack Bolan book.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

Roger that - but our operations in Afghan where hampered by EuroCorps as until recently.


 Despite what is alledged by the media etc. the US does not just hand our presentations to units for doing their job - 3VP got one for going above and beyond (and somewhat cynically as a unspoken appology for Dufus the Pilot and his Asshat wingman)

The US allows us the freedom to honour and award our own personnel and units (and rightly so).

I would more admonish the Canadian Press for NOT showing the CF contribution to Katrina - the PAO's are there their stories are not being picked up (and their journalitic skill is not exactly noted anyway)


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

So it seems with our current approach there is a disconnect between the information providers(you guys), the information services(media) and the consumer. There are people employed to deliver the message but they are hampered by an ineffective delivery mechanism.

There has been success with some efforts, I thought "Christmas in Kabul" was well thought out. That must have involved creative input by all parties concerned. Do we need a more collaborative approach? I want to suggest something like an "embedded" journalist team(s) for overseas activities but that idea is probably not looked upon too kindly by the powers that be.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> There has been success with some efforts, I thought "Christmas in Kabul" was well thought out. That must have involved creative input by all parties concerned.


 I thought it was a joke and a nightmare. But then, I saw it from the other side. Nice idea, huge pain in the posterior and a violation of OPSEC/PERSEC on several accounts.


> I want to suggest something like an "embedded" journalist team(s) for overseas activities but that idea is probably not looked upon too kindly by the powers that be.


 what are you talking about? We've had embedded journalists for years. Also, we have a policy wherein any clown with a laptop and a notepad has almost unlimited access to all of our Camps and Bases. Where the then proceed to tell half-truths, exagerations, and out-right lies. The spin they put on them is dependant entirely on their own political bent, and that of their Editors.


----------



## mdh (21 Sep 2005)

Public affairs is akin to the weather - everybody has an opinion about it and no one is ever satisfied. That's especially true in the military which -- as Paracowboy pointed out is a "sub-culture" -- and as such stands in exact constrast to every single journalistic ideal: reporters are dedicated to openness, transparency and free of information. 

We place a premium on discipline, following orders, and restriction of information. Reporters are trained to ask tough questions and refuse to take no for an answer; we demand that orders be obeyed with a minimum of debate and argument. Journalists believe that debate and argument are the hallmarks of reaching some conclusion about the truth of whatever story they are covering. Newsrooms are anarchic and unruly and place an emphasis on extreme individual initiative. Military units emphasize collective effort and responsibility and place limits on individual initiative (except in the command sense - and even then there are caveats)

Journalists have romantic role models like Woodward and Bernstein in All the President's Men; our romantic models are more akin to Band of Brothers. 

So on almost every count military culture is almost diametrically opposed to media culture. Public affairs officers need to navigate between the two - not an easy task. The potential for disagreement and conflict between the two are omnipresent and inescapable.

The good news is that the CF is improving its PA capabilities with an eye to enhancing its image and reputation. As noted there have been media successes - everything from TDV to Christmas in Kabul - and those have a tendency to be forgotten when the latest negative piece comes out. Embeds have been - by and large - very successful in achieving a bond between platoons and reporters. It's not perfect but what's the alternative? (Letting reporters roar around the battlefield in helicopters a la Vietnam didn't work very well either.)

But you can't have it both ways. Reporters are not going to do a story _your_ way - we can only work to get our message highlighted in the story -- and that's the best we can do. There is no way to dictate copy or insist on certain information being included or excluded (except for OPSEC reasons of course). FWIW every profession believes that the media never gets it right - but "getting it right" is an unrealistic expectation in the first place.  The media is only taking a snapshot in time of the military profession when it reports on the CF - not a comprehensive study.

Through patient explanation, clever strategizing, and making the effort, we can make a real difference in the way a reporter approaches a story.

The CF is not always going to win the PR battle - but we're not always going to lose either.   

mdh


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

With respect to the issue of the military being a sub-culture, I think this is a relatively new phenomena that has been spawned by the regionalism that has been applied to the forces particularily over the last decade or so. An example would be the closure of CFB Chilliwack, I am not saying whether it was a good thing or bad thing but what it did do was serve as a spotlight on military events in the Lower Mainland. That focus is subsumed by other local events and personalities. 

If I turn on the news from Vancouver Island, I am more likely to see reports about what's going down with the navy be it a parade or a homecoming. This is because the local media serves the appetite of its viewers, if Mom and kiddies want to see Hubby's boat coming in on the 6 o'clock news then they might simply because they expect it to appear and the TV stations understand this.

So how do you counteract this? 

BTW I agree with your assertion that there is individual initiative in abundance to be found in a local newsroom but I absolutely disagree with the assumption that Newsrooms are anarchistic and unruly. I had the pleasure of working for a local rag as some of you may call it and found that there was much debate over Editorial policies and the like. You may disagree with this but the simple truth is these operations are businesses, they need to sell their product to survive. If the consumer likes the product, they come back time and again. 

So it is up to the forces to better serve the media consumers. Having poorly informative press conferences held in awkward locations doesn't help nor does shutting  doors on the fundamental processes (like procurement) that govern the CF. This is where the concern over transparency arises.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> With respect to the issue of the military being a sub-culture, I think this is a relatively new phenomena that has been spawned by the regionalism that has been applied to the forces particularily over the last decade or so.


absolute rubbish, my good man! The military has been a sub-culture of the society which spawned it from the time of Ancient Greece. The rules of the military are entirely seperate, distinct, and different from the rules of it's society. They have to be. You are required to behave in a specific manner while in the Service. Read mdh's post again. Substitute Society for newsroom. Same thing.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (21 Sep 2005)

I was speaking more the reality that our forces were everywhere. In Legion Halls, Businesses and at Sunday dinners talking with Grandpa REME and Grandma WRN. They aren't anymore, period.

 I have participated for many years alongside veterans of numerous foreign conflicts and one thing I have come to recognize is their innate passion for their community, This in my opinion, is sorely lacking nowadays.

Part of it is numbers, and part of it is a distinct unwillingness to participate as in years before. As an example I would suggest lack of Canadian participation in civic events outside of military affairs. For years at the PNE there was a small display by the CF, not this year at least not that I saw.


----------



## KevinB (21 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I have participated for many years alongside veterans of numerous foreign conflicts and one thing I have come to recognize is their innate passion for their community, This in my opinion, is sorely lacking nowadays.



Rubbish - we send soliders to read to students at schools weekly - we participate in Rememberance Day ceremoies at schools.  


> Part of it is numbers, and part of it is a distinct unwillingness to participate as in years before. As an example I would suggest lack of Canadian participation in civic events outside of military affairs. For years at the PNE there was a small display by the CF, not this year at least not that I saw.


Part of the reason is most of our kit is overseas...
  Some is massed in training areas (another sore spot) 
Another is we(the CF) have been asked not to attend some venues with weapons...  Hard to show an Infantry section w/o weapons.

We always have volunteers for "Dog and Pony" shows - troops actually typically enjoy interacting with the public.

Several of us did a parade in Kelowna as thanks for when we went and fought the house fires...
We still gets thank yo ucards from family that we helped in the Manitoba flood and the Quebec Ice Storms.

I think you are being a bit myopic in the Civil-Military Interaction.


----------



## paracowboy (21 Sep 2005)

we're out in the Community all the time. 
She's actually cuter than the pic shows. She has no front teeth.


----------



## Dare (22 Sep 2005)

http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2005/sept/video/grapple.rm

I apologise if this video has been posted elsewhere. It is of the debate, in which Galloway is utterly decimated and outclassed. 

Enjoy.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I was speaking more the reality that our forces were everywhere. In Legion Halls, Businesses and at Sunday dinners talking with Grandpa REME and Grandma WRN. They aren't anymore, period.
> 
> I have participated for many years alongside veterans of numerous foreign conflicts and one thing I have come to recognize is their innate passion for their community, This in my opinion, is sorely lacking nowadays.
> 
> Part of it is numbers, and part of it is a distinct unwillingness to participate as in years before. As an example I would suggest lack of Canadian participation in civic events outside of military affairs. For years at the PNE there was a small display by the CF, not this year at least not that I saw.



Our forces were also much, much larger in "years before" and weren't dealing with quite the level of fiscal restraint - and operational commitment - that we have now.  Sorry, but manning a display at the PNE has to take a back seat to doing Level 6/7 predeployment validation in Wainwright - and there is a conflict between the two.  With limited resources, you have to concentrate your efforts and flying soldiers to Vancouver to hang at the Legion isn't a valid use of tax dollars, IMHO.

Frankly, I think we're now doing a much better job than in previous years.  CTV in particular reports on the CF routinely.  Over the past three days, we've seen the Navy in the media returning from Katrina, the operations brief from COS J3 (which received significant amount of attention because he discussed JTF-2 in Afghanistan), press galore surrounding the military's "farewell" to the Governor General, a long story this morning on the Navy in the Gulf, etc, _ad infinum_.  Each one of these is worth 100 displays at a public exhibition or "recruiting" in the local shopping mall...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2005)

Another reason for lack of visibility revolves around parades.  While militia units seem to be free to exercise "freedom of the city" parades annually - usually only a hundred or so bodies, when was the last time that a reg force garrison parade was held or even a reg force unit "freedom of the city" parade was held?

50 part timers in exotic hats (I used to wear Glengarry and Balmoral so don't go there)  does not give quite the same impact as a body of 1000 all digging their heels in together.  The Edmonton parade for 3 PPCLI was the first time I had seen that many uniforms on TV together since the Black Watch stood down in 1970 (? somebody will correct me).


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Another reason for lack of visibility revolves around parades.   While militia units seem to be free to exercise "freedom of the city" parades annually - usually only a hundred or so bodies, when was the last time that a reg force garrison parade was held or even a reg force unit "freedom of the city" parade was held?
> 
> 50 part timers in exotic hats (I used to wear Glengarry and Balmoral so don't go there)   does not give quite the same impact as a body of 1000 all digging their heels in together.   The Edmonton parade for 3 PPCLI was the first time I had seen that many uniforms on TV together since the Black Watch stood down in 1970 (? somebody will correct me).



I think it is more common than you think.  There is always Rememberance Day, and I can remember hearing of a few Freedom of the City marches that PPCLI took part in.  As well, I remember the big hoopla when PPCLI left Calgary.

Now, I know the PPCLI is getting close to 100 - there is probably something big being planned for that (I think the Strats are almost there as well).


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (22 Sep 2005)

Itty, bitty point...   The LdSH(RC) were 100 in 2000.   They did a coast to coast reinactment of their deployment to South Africa as one of the events.   Another example of good PR...     ;D


----------



## Infanteer (22 Sep 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Itty, bitty point...   The LdSH(RC) were 100 in 2000.   They did a coast to coast reinactment of their deployment to South Africa as one of the events.   Another example of good PR...     ;D



Ok, my bad.  The date 1908 is sitting in my head for some reason; I'm trying to remember why.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2005)

I'm glad to hear I am wrong - but why am I hearing I am wrong?

As an ardent militarist  ;D that seems magnetically attracted to such events - howizzit that these events escape my attention?  I don't think they are as well publicized in the general community as you might think.  Not may read your in-house newsletters.

The Strats may had re-enacted their deployment, but apparently Infanteer didn't hear about it either.  On the other hand the Mounties have had movies made, coins minted and re-enactments with news crews following them and politicians as they marched towards Fort Whoop Up.


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2005)

2RCR also just exercised Freedom of the City in St John's Newfoundland this past summer. They spent a week up there and according to the news coverage around here, had a blast. Imagine that. Their Parade co-incided with Armed Forces Day, days spent mingling with the locals, LAV rides for the kiddies, evenings spent at Kitchen Parties and in a few of the "most Bars per Captia" hangouts....oh yes then they came back here for a break, attended the smashingly successful Internationally recognized Nova Scotia Tattoo and Shearwater Airshows and are constantly in Fredericton and surrounding areas doing their bit with the LAV rides at schools and community events, and the DARE Program. Armed Forces Day for Gagetown is hugely popular, with us moving into downtown Fredericton for the festivities with all the kit and caboodles. 
Rememberance Day? Every Canadian knows when it is but it seems to me the crowds are dwindling to almost nil. Seems that it's the Vets and us out there now (along with the Scouts, Guides, Cadets).... where are the civilians? You know those ones we need to get out and mingle with? If they're home, I get the feeling that they are not watching the National Ceremonies on their television sets either. 
A generally apathetic Canadian population...I think it's the average Canadian's mindset that's the problem and certainly not the fault of or lack of effort on the Soldier's or the Military as a whole's part. Don't blame us!! Blame the Canadians who choose to sit on their butts ignoring and despising the fact that we exist until their snow piles too deeply for them to shovel it themselves.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2005)

The in-house newsletter crack was ill advised.  

Still there does seem to be a problem in getting the message out at some level - whether its public affairs or the media (aren't these the types of things that the CBC should be broadcasting more of?).

Cheers


----------



## 48Highlander (23 Sep 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 50 part timers in exotic hats (I used to wear Glengarry and Balmoral so don't go there)   does not give quite the same impact as a body of 1000 all digging their heels in together.   The Edmonton parade for 3 PPCLI was the first time I had seen that many uniforms on TV together since the Black Watch stood down in 1970 (? somebody will correct me).



Should have been there for the VE day parade(s) in Toronto then.  Most of 32 brigade was there.  Ends up being a bit more than "50 part-timers in exotic hats".


----------



## sheikyerbouti (23 Sep 2005)

I'm back.. miss me? >

Just to throw a wrench in the works, it seems most of you agree with my assertion that the CF's participation in the civilian community is shaped by its regional focus.

Ruxpin's statement about flying people into Vancouver to hang out in legion's is exactly what I am talking about. Why the hell do they need to be flown out here? Correct me if I am wrong but Vancouver is still one of the largest Urban populations in Canada and we still have to fly people out! wtf? There is more than one Militia outfit that is crippled mostly by manpower and budgetary circumstances to the extent that we look outwards for for numbers rather than inwards for said support.

In response to ArmyVern, I disagree that number are dropping WRT Armistice day and other celebrations. What seems to be dropping is  the Military participation in said events. I need to add some background here, for the last 14 years I have participated in more parades and civic functions than you could shake a stick at. This is where my experience lies, and I can honestly recount that the numbers of civvies involved would boggle the mind. Any Westies on this forum could attest to the numbers that came out for last years Remembrance day, it was crazy there must have been 2 or 3 thousand people with probably 6000 plus for the Vancouver ceremony. It was so crowded people couldn't see the Cenotaph (as recounted by friends who attended).

Now I will give you an example of what I feel is degraded CiMiC and collaboration: No names here, but every year alot of the Mo's do a tour of the local legions to show some respect to those that remain. Some of the locations put on a spread that is to be enjoyed by all, now at one particular branch some of the guys showed up in Uni, enjoyed some drinks, ate ALL the food, then left. That's it..

 I have never heard more complaints in my life about the conduct or lack thereof by these individuals in question. Before you all jump down my throat, I would like to add that the issue was addressed with higher ups (chain of command) and subsequently resolved but that one particular event serves to perfectly sum up my position. It is not the civilian or retired components but rather the appearance of negligence or lack of respect from some in the military arms that exacerbates an ongoing concern.

It's not about dog and ponies but about recognition of the people who are to be served. Respect begets respect.

Please note there is no antagonism or undue criticism intended, just some humble reflections from my own experiences.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> I'm back.. miss me? >
> 
> Just to throw a wrench in the works, it seems most of you agree with my assertion that the CF's participation in the civilian community is shaped by its regional focus.



I believe you wrote earlier in this thread that the average Canadian focus was what?? Regional ie they play the Navy coming home from sea because that is what the wife wants to see in that area. 
Once again...talk to the locals and average Canadians who whined and whined for the budget cuts that took the Victoria Pats etc etc away from there local areas!! Thus, leaving us unable to afford to fly in to visit once we moved out. I don't recall seeing those populations on my television set or in the paper protesting these Base closures and budget cuts. Unlike the uproar now occuring to our Southern border regarding their recently announced closures.  
Point One: I have never attend an "Armistace Day Parade" yet I have never missed a Rememberance Day Parade, Battle of the Atlantic etc etc... 
Point Two: Perhaps you are experiencing decreased Military participation at your location due to the same budget cuts and Base closures mentioned above? 
My experience also attests to the fact that our numbers can't quite boggle the mind when our entire CF fits in the Skydome. So no, we just don't look like muchdue to same said budget cuts mentioned above. But all of us are out there...they are not "optional." 
And last year during our Ceremonies here in Fredericton, I was awestruck at the fact that many many members of the un-uniformed population continue to walk on by, one really lovely middle aged gentleman thought it would be hilarious to crank his car stereo while Oh Canada and the Last Post were played and he and his buddy thought that was really funny. And the vet next to me made the remark as to why couldn't all Canadians be more like us that currently were serving in uniform!!!
And I have have never had more compliments and thanks in my life than from those same vets for having the "courage" to carry on the torch that they had passed to us. A lack of respect is also shown by some of the average Canadian population and I regret the situation that yourself and the honourable veteran's found themselves subject to when those soldier's ate and ran. And I hope they paid dearly for it. But, do not let one negative experience tar your whole picture. 
"Respect begets respect."
I totally agree but it's a two way street vice the one way you seem to be on. From my own experiences, I can attest to the fact that the overwhelming majority us CF pers are indeed out there in the community doing their very best to be ambassador's to the public at home and this of Nation internationally when deployed. As has been said many times in this thread previously, we do our utmost but can not make the media print it...it's again....all subjective....
Perhaps instead of asking us to become more involved in the community (which we already overwhelmingly are) you should be out taking the civilian Community to task for not becoming involved, interested in (despite our best efforts) or supporting their Military, after all "respect begets respect. ". Just my point of view.


----------



## sheikyerbouti (23 Sep 2005)

Armistice day is November 11, same as Remembrance day.


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2005)

sheikyerbouti said:
			
		

> Armistice day is November 11, same as Remembrance day.



Really?? Well I was already well aware of that... the point is I go on Remeberance Day Parades after all:
 I am Canadian!!


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Sep 2005)

I find it interesting that you pontificate about regionalism, but you seem to declare a countrywide "problem", based on your own, local experiences. Methinks also, that I see a trend here, where you like to take an opposing view, all the time, sugarcoat it with "no offence meants" and try to get everyone riled up "miss me?  >" If you're here solely to argue, your stay may be limited.

My experiences have been the exact opposite of yours. My Battery continues to be a mainstay of the Community, and participates in lots of other events besides military-related ones

As a member of the CF, I started New Brunswick's only Unit of ANAVETS, and they continue today.

It seems that no matter how many people, with current experience in other parts of the country, offer views contrary to yours - you keep beating your drum.


----------

