Moonbox

Nope, but it's moronic to blame the people defending themselves from invasion, or the folks helping them do so. The simplest and most reasonable solution is for Russia to...stop invading! Here's an offer to the Russians that will work for everyone: Leave Ukraine. Don't come back. The war is over. ?

It's not. I'm going to have to go with Army Guy on this. Considering the lifestyle sacrifices you make, the danger in which you put yourself, and the training requirements and standards that are expected of you, our servicemen and women are being underappreciated compared to their civilian counterparts. Ignoring diversity and not at least encouraging it doesn't work either. Despite what everyone seems to portray, there is a huge amount of nuance and gray area we can aim for. This was a very interesting and timely read: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-military-shortage-crisis/ Written by a navy commander who retired back in 2019. Here are some of his observations: 1) Support for our troops is certainly necessary, but it doesn’t deal with the fundamental problem: The Canadian Armed Forces no longer reflect the principles and values of the Canadian populace, or of a modern Canadian work force. 2) Successful modern businesses understand that employees want to feel valued. They also understand that, if they want to access a higher quantity and quality of talent, they need to become an employer that people actually want to work for. This thinking should drive military reform. To start, the CAF should substantially increase members’ pay. No profession is as uniquely demanding, in physical and psychological terms, as military service; wages should reflect that. And just as work-life balance is an important consideration in a modern workplace, military leaders should recognize that deployment time is not the equivalent of working from a different office: It is a high-demand period that requires meaningful rest afterward. Post-deployment time off should be equal to the time of deployment, as is the policy in the Danish navy (and elsewhere in offshore industries). This has helped keep Danish enlistment high, and attrition low. 3) Marching in lines, stamping feet on parade grounds and keeping with traditional uniforms – these should also be done away with. These rituals are simply not relevant to the citizens who must make up the force of the future; they reflect the reality that Canada’s military is stuck in the past. Nobody wants to work in an old, tired organization that draws its culture and values from a museum; people want to be part of an agile organization that rewards modern values. The Canadian Armed Forces needs to abandon its sternward perspective on legacy force structure and missions – or it won’t be able to bail out the sinking ship.

Where Russia annexes 20% of Ukraine, or whatever they're up to now, which is just letting them take what they can/want. Best way for Russians to stop dying is for them to leave Ukraine. ? Like you're "howling and screaming now", because your wishes aren't coming true ?

So...let Russia have what it wants then. That's your solution. ?

The only thing you've proven here is how strongly opinionated you can be about something without knowing a damn thing about it. I shouldn't be the one quoting military regs to the retired army guy, but you made up your mind on this topic before reading anything whatsoever about it, and then fed us a line of emotional bullshit easily proven wrong just by lining your own quote up against one from the new regulations. I'd want out of this thread after that too. ? Not as silly as this thought. I suppose in your mind the soldiers are just sitting inside a chopper all day waiting to deploy on a second's notice. In reality, they're usually allowed enough time to put their boots and gear on and, if absolutely necessary, don a hat or a headscarf...for all of those neon-haired special forces on standby for rapid deployment...?

I've spoken negatively about Trudeau plenty, and I think he's a clown. That doesn't mean Pierre can't say stupid things and shouldn't be criticized for it. ?

It wasn't trivial. It was a direct public attack on an institution fundamental for a properly functioning economy (central banking). He made the comments because he knew it was popular to criticize the central bank, and all there were votes to find among the crypto bros and the conspiracy theorists. The fact that he owns bitcoin is just a side note.

None of those are my favorite sources, but I understand mentioning them is part of your programming. Probably because it's not really even real news.

It's REVOLTING! I like using EMOTIONAL LANGUAGE wherever I can to provide EMPHASIS. I don't like Trudeau either, but Pierre deserves to be criticized for his crypto natter, and he looks pretty stupid promoting it while trashing the central bank shortly before all the bitcoin he owned torpedoed -75% in value. Easy political points are scored against pointing at Pierre's mouthing off about this.

Surely you can't miss the fact that BC has been entirely unhelpful for getting Alberta oil to market, and has pretty much held Alberta hostage on pipeline negotiations.

True North is clown news, and as an outlet does nothing but tell you exactly what you already think and want to hear.

How does this work for you? You're the one raising fears of bright hair affecting "camo efforts", when the new regs specifically address this fear: "...the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. So this ends up just being another post where you're ranting about things you haven't even bothered to read about or think about, preferring to be swept up in your own emotion and hyperbole instead.

It was never "no biolabs". It was "no bioweapon labs". You're not entirely wrong. The MIC certainly has its reasons to push conflict and fear where it can, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't support Ukraine against Russian aggression. It's just something we need to recognize in our decision making.

Agreed. Russian troops should go back to Russia!

It states right in the regs. It's only permitted "unless it inhibits an operational duty." That's the end of your line of reasoning, right there. It goes no further. The language is very clear, and the potential accommodations are suggestions that the member and his/her commander try to find a compromise that removes the concern. If it cannot be addressed, the item in question is not permitted. THAT's how this is written. You don't have to worry that officers are only allowed to meekly request that the member fix his glow-in-the-dark hair dye and his jangly nose chain, and that member just can say, "Naw dawg, my purple hair helps with my anxiety." or whatever other goof scenario you've imagined. Here's another quote for you, just as an example: Can CAF members be asked to shave their facial hair? Yes, Commanders of Commands, Task Force Commanders, Formation Commanders and Commanding Officers retain the right to order restrictions on the wearing of facial hair to meet safety and operational requirements. This instruction does not supersede Federal or National safety codes or regulations. Why don't I answer with a quote from the CAF regs that you totally definitely read. Piercings: the only piercing jewellery authorized are single or single set of stud or single stone earrings (one in each ear) in the earlobe(s) only. Piercings are not permitted on the face. Earrings shall not exceed one centimetre square or diameter. Gauges/spacers shall not exceed 2.5 cm in diameter. So we're really left with the green hair, which I'd probably think looks stupid, but I'm not sure how much it would affect me if the RCMP officer shows up at my house. I'd probably be more worried about why he's there. A more interesting question, I think, is how many people you figure go through with police (let alone army) training intent on coloring their hair bright green. From all the noise you're making about it, I'm certain to see crowds of these folk at the next military parade, right?

You've read them? Really!? ? This would suggest you have, at best, only skimmed them, because there are probably at least a dozen caveats on this page alone: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/caf/military-identity-system/dress-manual/changes-canadian-forces-dress-instructions.html INCLUDING restrictions preventing the specific bullshit fantasy scenario you made up about bright-haired "attention-seekers" giving away combat positions: "...the colouring of hair is permitted in all orders of dress unless it inhibits an operational duty. For example, bright coloured hair may have a negative operational impact during field operations or training. Leaders are invited to discuss with their members to find a simple, suitable accommodation, such as a scarf to cover the hair. Accessories do not have to match the colour of the member’s hair. However, all accessories shall meet safety and operational requirements and must not discredit the CAF." I didn't serve in the military. You did. I shouldn't be able to do 2 minutes of Google research and show that you're BS'ing. If your curiosity and willingness to research came even close to matching your emotional conviction, you'd be crushing this debate.

Oh boy. Now you're referencing Almayadeen - Lebanese mouthpiece for Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. "MSM is fake news...until it's a pro-Arab dictator outlet telling me what I want to hear." ? Too funny.

First, I don't think Fertilizer Canada is a reliable source on this topic, for the obvious conflict of interest it represents. For example, they like to talk about how efficiently Canada uses fertilizer compared to "European Competitors", but it cherry-picks the countries it compares favorably to and bizarrely ignores all of the European countries that do much better, or the the United States for that matter. Though I will agree that government setting arbitrary targets without industry consultation is silly, I suspect that's not exactly how it went down. Regardless, even Fertilizer Canada has acknowledged that a 14% reduction is achievable, and coming from a lobby group invested in promoting fertilizer usage, I think we can reasonably assume they're estimating on the low end. Considering this is essentially the gap in nitrogen efficiency between Canada and the US, it's not hard to imagine that we can improve farming practices beyond that. Finally, the target isn't even mandatory/enforceable. It's voluntary. The whole project is aimed towards educating farmers on how not to waste fertilizer and making sure it gets absorbed by crops, rather than wasted into the atmosphere. Experiments around the world have shown that you can increase yields while decreasing nitrogen use when you're applying it properly and at the right times.

No? Nobody, especially not Russia. That's why Putin should withdraw his troops. ? Tucker Carlson links. Do you have any Alex Jones for us while you're at it? Hundreds of billions? No accountability or audits? Weren't you complaining about there being US personnel in Ukraine? They're there to audit what's going on with their donated weapons. Tell us more how you feel.

Your claim is the one that needs proving, and I provided evidence suggesting it was wrong. Typically, you've provided nothing. I know you're wrong when I can show that you're wrong. You've a worrying tendency towards stubborn opinions with little backing them other than emotion or rhetoric. You've already shown you didn't know what the dress/uniform reg updates were when you lobbed out your fantasy scenarios of blown combat ops (which the regs would still prevent), and you did it again here projecting assumptions about minorities that (for reasons unexplained) apply to Canada but not the US where the opposite observations are shown. That lack of curiosity and research is even more apparent when you're talking about things you know nothing about, like central banking and monetary policy. The 20-year old as a recruitment officer is a make-believe straw-man. The grey-haired sgt isn't, because he's real. 40+ non-comm officers trying to attract millennials who they couldn't relate to with brochures etc. was highlighted as a problem in the outdated recruitment process by RMC research papers from ~5 years ago even, which is really the tail end of the millennial generation as the coveted recruitment pool. That the CAF was only starting to figure things out as this generation was aging out is a worrying sign considering we're already transitioning to Gen Z.

As with many things unfortunately. It’s one of the side effects of pushing unilateral partisan agendas simply because you can. Things aren’t as bad here yet as in the US, but we’re far from immune ?

The Europeans would have beat them just by scale. The advantage was everywhere. From more intense farming and husbandry, to better transport, building and logistics, the settlers would have beat the natives with early medieval weaponry (providing they could cross the Atlantic safely). Guerilla warfare wasn't a uniquely native thing either. I don't really know either. I remember the debates on this forum back in the Harper times were silly things, with left-leaning folk talking about large swathes of urban Ontario and BC being handed back to First Nations etc.

Not as much as you like to bogeyman it out to be, that's for certain. but this wasn't what you were asking. You were asking why merit-based hiring/promotion is bad, which nobody was arguing. So, once again, you're making things up to debate against. Sure, but they don't have to be identical. You offered up reasoning for why minorities don't join the Canadian forces, but they're obviously not true because those same minorities are joining in the US in outsized numbers. Unless you can reasonably explain how American Asians are so much less scarred by colonialism etc than Canadian Asians, this theory falls on its face. This 20 year old you're talking about is yet another another straw man you've invented to argue against. Cop out of what? ?

We're not really debating anything here. The North American natives were thousands of years behind most of the rest of the world in everything. They didn't have horses. They never even worked in bronze, let alone iron, so it goes without saying their weaponry didn't match up, but that's far from the only disadvantage they suffered. They quickly adapted and traded for European weaponry, and that didn't really do much to stem the tide. Yes, perhaps I could have written that better. You obviously can't rip up the Indian act without a new agreement. In the meantime, it would be nice if we could make this a bi-partisan thing that all parties share an interest in fixing. As it stands, like with a lot of things, we just kick the can down the road and send good money after bad.

Not likely the ones you're referring to, and this thread isn't about vaccines. You have several other threads dedicated for that if you want to post some DoD vaccine data documents and the relevant conclusions there, I'll look at it.