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

[delaney1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[slowmode]

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

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

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

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

That's just my two cents on this.

 

[ballz]

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

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

That's just my two cents on this.

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

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

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

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

 

[Dean22]

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you guys think?

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

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

What do you guys think?

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

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

 

[Dean22]

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

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

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


EDIT: Never mind he deleted his post.

 

[mariomike]

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

 

[Fusaki]

***Tangent Alert!***

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

Isn't it?

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

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

 

[mariomike]

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

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

***Tangent Alert!***

Isn't it?

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

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

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

 

[Dean22]

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

 

[Fusaki]

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

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

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

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

 

[Michael OLeary]

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

 

[Fusaki]

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

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise. 

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

This, I think, we agree on.

 

[gillbates]

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

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

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

 

[gcclarke]

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

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

 

[mariomike]

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

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

 

[RandyL]

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

 

[Dean22]

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

What?

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

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

 

[ballz]

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

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

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

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

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