Jump to content

A few words from a retiring General


Army Guy

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Moonbox said:

I think it's noteworthy that many of the attending officers and servicemen did not applaud his speech, and that numerous senior military leaders have heavily criticized it.  Even the CDA, the organization handing the award out to Maisonneuve has publicly distance itself from him and made clear it didn't approve of his speech.  For a guy who ostensibly was trying to show the need for unity in Canada and the armed forces, his speech promoted anything but.  

I was talking to a buddy who recently left the CF (he was a logistics officer) about this speech and he pointed me towards a magazine he follows run by a former Canadian infantryman.  His take on the Maisonneuve speech couldn't have been much closer to my own:

http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4

 

Please tell your friend to get out of the military.  It’s got enough problems.  The Marxist-Nihilists are destroying Canada.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Are you sure we read the same article, i get a much different read than you do. Here are some quotes from the article. Apparently, the crowd awarded him with a stand Ovation.... No mention on who just a mention of The crowd...

What are you contesting?  There was undoubtedly a crowd that gave a standing ovation, but it wasn't the whole crowd and plenty have voiced their displeasure about both the speech and the ovation.

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

then this Lt Gen Carignan and Minister of DND did condemn the speech considering they are the gate keepers for the reputation of DND these two would have been expected. So they disagreed with the speech, it was after all political pressure that brought on the dress code changes in the first place. But it is strange they did not list any other military that thought the speech was in bad taste. 

They didn't list who applauded it either, so I don't really see what's strange about this.  Are we supposed to tally up the yays and the nays to determine who's right?  ?

I don't think the Minister's opinion is remarkable.  She's going to parrot Trudeau, so we can ignore her, but Jennie Carignan's voice matters and she undoubtedly has the support of Eyre and others in the upper leadership, else she'd have said nothing. It's not just the brass either.  I can't remember the guy's name but I'm sure I could find it, but some colonel working with NATO in Europe was tweeting the speech was disgraceful or something to that effect.  

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

This article is his opinion, on what happened, nothing more. Just like all the other stories on this topic some are flattering some are not. 

Of course it was his opinion, just like you're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine.  What I thought was interesting was how closely Scott's feelings matched my own.    

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What are you contesting?  There was undoubtedly a crowd that gave a standing ovation, but it wasn't the whole crowd and plenty have voiced their displeasure about both the speech and the ovation.

They didn't list who applauded it either, so I don't really see what's strange about this.  Are we supposed to tally up the yays and the nays to determine who's right?  ?

I don't think the Minister's opinion is remarkable.  She's going to parrot Trudeau, so we can ignore her, but Jennie Carignan's voice matters and she undoubtedly has the support of Eyre and others in the upper leadership, else she'd have said nothing. It's not just the brass either.  I can't remember the guy's name but I'm sure I could find it, but some colonel working with NATO in Europe was tweeting the speech was disgraceful or something to that effect.  

Of course it was his opinion, just like you're giving your opinion and I'm giving mine.  What I thought was interesting was how closely Scott's feelings matched my own.    

Yes if you're going to throw around words like most or plenty to convince readers what really happened. 

Well if you get a standing ovation, normally it means the majority of the room stood up and clapped. it would be different if only one or two stood up or the majority disagreed with what he said and remained seated. . 

It is the Generals job, to disagree with these things it is what she does. And yes, I'm sure there are some that are going to say the same thing, but the majority of military members are not fans of the new dress code, and think it is a huge mistake, if not embarrassing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Yes if you're going to throw around words like most or plenty to convince readers what really happened. 

That's an interesting take on my statement.  Here I was trying to tell that not all of the folks at the gala were tone-deaf dinosaurs, and you're now challenging me on that! ?

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well if you get a standing ovation, normally it means the majority of the room stood up and clapped. it would be different if only one or two stood up or the majority disagreed with what he said and remained seated. . 

How do we know they got a standing ovation though?  Who were they?  I need names if you're going to convince people what really happened..... ?

2 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It is the Generals job, to disagree with these things it is what she does. And yes, I'm sure there are some that are going to say the same thing, but the majority of military members are not fans of the new dress code, and think it is a huge mistake, if not embarrassing.

The General's job is to just disagree on these things?  That's what she and her office are set up to do?  Oof.  

What's actually embarrassing is that our officers are getting themselves worked up because someone's uniform or hair might not perfectly conform.  These things are so important in a combat zone.  It's a wonder the Ukrainians, with their beards and ad-hoc assembled kits are able to manage to put up a fight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonbox said:

What's actually embarrassing is that our officers are getting themselves worked up because someone's uniform or hair might not perfectly conform.  These things are so important in a combat zone.  It's a wonder the Ukrainians, with their beards and ad-hoc assembled kits are able to manage to put up a fight.  

If you read the title of the general's department then you might understand why it is her job to discredit issues like these, so yes it was expected, just as the MDND job to do the same, after all this was a political decision to change the dress regs, as it makes no sense at all in a military environment to do so.   

The same officers and men that have been doing the JOB in and out of combat for decades, who should know what is beneficial or what is not, proven time after time from centuries of combat. Yes, i would prefer to take their opinions over a few that either don't have that combat experience or understand why the original rules have stood for decades. I've already explained this to you a few times now, and you're not listening. 

WOW,  first off Ukrainians don't have a standard uniform, most are buying them out of pocket as well as all the rest of their gear, so there is no standard, to solve that problem they also mark each arm and in some cases legs with bright yellow ribbons or tape to identify friend or foe, kind of defeats the whole camouflage concept but sure they do what works for them. it does not translate into the same problem we face here in Canada.

 

 

Edited by Army Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

The same officers and men that have been doing the JOB in and out of combat for decades, who should know what is beneficial or what is not, proven time after time from centuries of combat. Yes, i would prefer to take their opinions over a few that either don't have that combat experience or understand why the original rules have stood for decades. I've already explained this to you a few times now, and you're not listening. 

and yet plenty of their peers and/or seniors disagree with them.  As a soldier yourself (and I imagine a student of military history), you are likely aware of all of the times going back millennia that stubborn military tradition and inflexibility has led to dysfunction or outright disaster.  From the Legions mauling the Phalanx, to the Cavalry mauling the Legions all the way to the outdated pitched assaults of WW1 and beyond, we have too many examples of the Old Guard leading their armies to disaster to point to decades or centuries of established tradition as unquestionable. 

If you can put forth a reasonable argument on why petty things like hair color, beards or uniform flexibility actually cause real problems, rather than silly and made-up ones, perhaps I'll listen.  In your case, you've obviously not even read the new rules.  If you had, you wouldn't worry about bright hair being spotted by enemies in combat, that piercings will get infected or that beards will end up lice-ridden.  All of the new rules make allowances only to the extent that they do not negatively effect operational or safety standards.  Rest easy, because you're not going to see rainbow-haired dandies with jangly earings and long dirty wizard beards in operational environments. 

34 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

WOW,  first off Ukrainians don't have a standard uniform, most are buying them out of pocket as well as all the rest of their gear, so there is no standard, to solve that problem they also mark each arm and in some cases legs with bright yellow ribbons or tape to identify friend or foe, kind of defeats the whole camouflage concept but sure they do what works for them.

and yet they're fighting both effectively and impressively, aren't they?  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

and yet plenty of their peers and/or seniors disagree with them.  As a soldier yourself (and I imagine a student of military history), you are likely aware of all of the times going back millennia that stubborn military tradition and inflexibility has led to dysfunction or outright disaster.  From the Legions mauling the Phalanx, to the Cavalry mauling the Legions all the way to the outdated pitched assaults of WW1 and beyond, we have too many examples of the Old Guard leading their armies to disaster to point to decades or centuries of established tradition as unquestionable. 

If you can put forth a reasonable argument on why petty things like hair color, beards or uniform flexibility actually cause real problems, rather than silly and made-up ones, perhaps I'll listen.  In your case, you've obviously not even read the new rules.  If you had, you wouldn't worry about bright hair being spotted by enemies in combat, that piercings will get infected or that beards will end up lice-ridden.  All of the new rules make allowances only to the extent that they do not negatively effect operational or safety standards.  Rest easy, because you're not going to see rainbow-haired dandies with jangly earings and long dirty wizard beards in operational environments. 

and yet they're fighting both effectively and impressively, aren't they?  

Thats your answer that becasue history has records of where the old school professionals have caused dysfunction and out right disaster, that they should always be disregarded, or in times of conflict with others just forgotten.

History also shows us that experience and wisdom developed through doing the task over thousands of times, as saved more than it has taken. It is also easy for citizens to stand on the side lines and make armchair decisions if that was me, when not in their shoes, or knowing all the context behind the decision that led to disaster are unknown...sometimes all decisions led to disaster sometimes there is no happy ending. 

perhaps we should be looking at the problem with what benefits does this bring. and if recruiting a few is the only benefit, then there it is not much of a solution.  As more are leaving than they are attracting, and it is only going to get worse as time goes by. Ask yourselves what type of person normally joins the military and stays. someone that colors their hair purple, and wears body piecing's, not sure what gender they are, looking for attention.  or the jock type, likes the outdoors, hunting and fishing, takes part in sports, wants to be part of a larger team or organization, likes adventure, likes to blow stuff up...

It takes 4 years to become a fully functioning soldier, at the cost of millions of dollars, this is just the basic building blocks, your career is just starting, our military is not an employment agency, it is a branch that signs on to unlimited liability, meaning anyone within that structure can ask you to lay down your life in need for the greater good of others. You think that a person who dyes their hair purple and wears countless body piercings, who is only looking for attention, do you think they fit that description. be honest lives are on the line here. 

they are petty things to you, the military is not made up of a bunch of individuals it is made up of soldiers all dressed the same all part of the same machine, it is part of the discipline, it's culture, it's history, it ties in all the many other things to mold a soldier into a killing machine. to train a soldier to unnatural acts, like to take the life of another human being, to reduce the enemy to just another paper target, or a uniform. and to cope with the realities of war. This is not your average downtown job, where even they have dress codes, restrictions on hair color, jewelry, clothing restrictions on your opinions, online presence, your day to day activities. And you are are all right with all of that, except when it comes down to the military

you think you can have a huge ball of purple hair at a prestigious lawyer's office as a employee. Think you can wear a tutu as a garbage man, wear a dress around machinery, do you need shirt and shoes to get into most stores... all forms of dress codes, all for a reason. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats your answer that becasue history has records of where the old school professionals have caused dysfunction and out right disaster, that they should always be disregarded, or in times of conflict with others just forgotten.

History also shows us that experience and wisdom developed through doing the task over thousands of times, as saved more than it has taken. It is also easy for citizens to stand on the side lines and make armchair decisions if that was me, when not in their shoes, or knowing all the context behind the decision that led to disaster are unknown...sometimes all decisions led to disaster sometimes there is no happy ending. 

perhaps we should be looking at the problem with what benefits does this bring. and if recruiting a few is the only benefit, then there it is not much of a solution.  As more are leaving than they are attracting, and it is only going to get worse as time goes by. Ask yourselves what type of person normally joins the military and stays. someone that colors their hair purple, and wears body piecing's, not sure what gender they are, looking for attention.  or the jock type, likes the outdoors, hunting and fishing, takes part in sports, wants to be part of a larger team or organization, likes adventure, likes to blow stuff up...

It takes 4 years to become a fully functioning soldier, at the cost of millions of dollars, this is just the basic building blocks, your career is just starting, our military is not an employment agency, it is a branch that signs on to unlimited liability, meaning anyone within that structure can ask you to lay down your life in need for the greater good of others. You think that a person who dyes their hair purple and wears countless body piercings, who is only looking for attention, do you think they fit that description. be honest lives are on the line here. 

they are petty things to you, the military is not made up of a bunch of individuals it is made up of soldiers all dressed the same all part of the same machine, it is part of the discipline, it's culture, it's history, it ties in all the many other things to mold a soldier into a killing machine. to train a soldier to unnatural acts, like to take the life of another human being, to reduce the enemy to just another paper target, or a uniform. and to cope with the realities of war. This is not your average downtown job, where even they have dress codes, restrictions on hair color, jewelry, clothing restrictions on your opinions, online presence, your day to day activities. And you are are all right with all of that, except when it comes down to the military

you think you can have a huge ball of purple hair at a prestigious lawyer's office as a employee. Think you can wear a tutu as a garbage man, wear a dress around machinery, do you need shirt and shoes to get into most stores... all forms of dress codes, all for a reason.

while all that is true

the Government of Canada is converting the military from an elite fighting force into an armed civil service

the whole point is to make the military into generic public employees

the Canadian Army of the 1950's to the 1980's : the best small army in the world,  is no longer the model desired

the idea that the Canadian Army was the finest, most professional, most versatile fighting force of the 20th century

that is not something the bureaucrats who run the country embrace, nor are likely even aware of at this point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

while all that is true

the Government of Canada is converting the military from an elite fighting force into an armed civil service

the whole point is to make the military into generic public employees

the Canadian Army of the 1950's to the 1980's : the best small army in the world,  is no longer the model desired

the idea that the Canadian Army was the finest, most professional, most versatile fighting force of the 20th century

that is not something the bureaucrats who run the country embrace, nor are likely even aware of at this point

While I admire and respect those Canadian military members that did participate in conflicts but, the fact is that the majority of Canadian military personnel have not been to conflicted areas in well over half a century, maybe longer. Yes, some got ordered to go into areas but it is a very few that in fact went.

I cannot agree nor  contest that Canada had the "best small army in the world" or "the finest, most professional, most versatile fighting force of the 20th century". I suspect there are a lot more active militaries in the world that could claim that.

The Canadian military has been "public servants" all along.  They do what the reigning government tells them to do, as all other public servants.

Yes, there is tradition but, tradition is only something that has been done for a long time and those traditions are challenged and changed over time.

What is most important to the military, besides training, is discipline.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I cannot agree nor contest that Canada had the "best small army in the world" or "the finest, most professional, most versatile fighting force of the 20th century". I suspect there are a lot more active militaries in the world that could claim that.

Army Guy knows

4 CMBG was the best troops in NATO

better than the Americans, better than the British

4 CMBG was the finest most professional military formation in the world

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Army Guy knows

4 CMBG was the best troops in NATO

better than the Americans, better than the British

4 CMBG was the finest most professional military formation in the world

Like I said, I cannot agree nor contest because I was not in the Army and not dispatched to a disputed area.

Like I also said, I admire and respect those Canadian military members that did participate in conflicts.

Best, Finest, Most professional are very hard to define and prove. I suspect many NATO troops also felt the same.

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I respect your opinion, sir

you are a CWO with 35 years time in after all

rest assured tho, while I was a rowdy barracks room lawyer, with two Section 129's for brawling off duty

I was never insubordinate

while an Infantry Section Commander will give his opinion if asked

once the officer issued his orders

I saluted and executed, no hesitation, by stealth & guile and/or with maximum speed, violence & aggression

state sanctioned mass murderer for the British Crown in North America

within the confines of national, international law & the laws of armed conflict

Regiment, Corps. Commander-in-Chief

Ducimus

 

Not sure what your point is?

My statement, "What is most important to the military, besides training, is discipline." is what I believe to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Best, Finest, Most professional are very hard to define and prove. I suspect many NATO troops also felt the same..

at the time, most NATO forces were conscript armies which were not even close to being in the class of 4 CMBG

the only competition was the Americans & British

the Canadians were more versatile & professional than the Americans or British

4 CMBG was at the Special Operations Forces level of quality for the Americans & Briitish

yet in the Canadians Forces at the time, it was a conventional forces  unit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

While I admire and respect those Canadian military members that did participate in conflicts but, the fact is that the majority of Canadian military personnel have not been to conflicted areas in well over half a century, maybe longer. Yes, some got ordered to go into areas but it is a very few that in fact went.

I cannot agree nor  contest that Canada had the "best small army in the world" or "the finest, most professional, most versatile fighting force of the 20th century". I suspect there are a lot more active militaries in the world that could claim that.

The Canadian military has been "public servants" all along.  They do what the reigning government tells them to do, as all other public servants.

Yes, there is tradition but, tradition is only something that has been done for a long time and those traditions are challenged and changed over time.

What is most important to the military, besides training, is discipline.

I disagree, you go to a Army parade you'll not have to look hard for the Afghan medals, not to mention the recent ones Iraq ,m, Syria that includes support trades, even the Helo air force guys, ten tag they used to be called all for the most part have one or two Afghan medals, or other conflict medals like Mali.

Today we have troops in Latvia, Syria, Iraq, with the latvia mission supposed to be expanding to no one knows, and a stronger Naval and air presence in the pacific... all of them are as close to a war footing as one can get without shooting the shit our of bad guys. 

It was not all that long ago that the Army use to be in the field 8 months out of 12, consider x-mas, march break, and your leave tahtas a lot of training days, even the shi* pumps were good at their job. that has dwindled to next to nothing maybe a month and a half if your lucky. 

Public servants with a lot of restrictions, that had signed on to unlimited liability. 

For the most part change for the better is good, most of the changes to our traditions are for whimsical reasons, that really is not in the name of progress but rather to make it look like we are keeping up with the times. Like the new dress code.

Discipline in today's military is severely lacking, a lot of people do not want to get canceled, it only takes an acusation regardless of if it is true or not, and you're out of the game. It used to be if the RSM caught any SRNCO ignoring a fault form a Jr rank, you'd be on the shit list for months, no one got away with anything, now you'd be lucky if a SRNCO dressed down anyone, troops know that and are taking advantage of it to the extreme. if that's happening in an Infantry BN you know it is worse everywhere else.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Army Guy knows

4 CMBG was the best troops in NATO

better than the Americans, better than the British

4 CMBG was the finest most professional military formation in the world

I served there from 1988 until 91 with 3 RCR then sent to 2 RCR Gagetown with the other half of the Bn seeing how 3 RCR was converted to a Reserve BN, years later being reinstated in Pet to a light infantry bn. 

We were good as we never stopped training, even in garrison, it was go go go, we did spent a lot of time as enemy force as were attached to a German Army group, not many of us spoke German so comms was a problem. any other was our equipment was much older and much slower. It was the cold war, everything was ready to go to war within 12 hours, and we were always on a war footing, every bug out we did not know if it was real or just another training day. it motivates you a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I served there from 1988 until 91 with 3 RCR then sent to 2 RCR Gagetown with the other half of the Bn seeing how 3 RCR was converted to a Reserve BN, years later being reinstated in Pet to a light infantry bn. 

We were good as we never stopped training, even in garrison, it was go go go, we did spent a lot of time as enemy force as were attached to a German Army group, not many of us spoke German so comms was a problem. any other was our equipment was much older and much slower. It was the cold war, everything was ready to go to war within 12 hours, and we were always on a war footing, every bug out we did not know if it was real or just another training day. it motivates you a little more.

in my opinion, the edge the Canadians had over the Americas & British

was extreme attention to detail:  Never Pass a Fault

versatility, the average Canadian Private Soldier then could perform a myriad of roles, like a Green Beret

and just the Canadian desire to be better than the Americans & British

to recognize the outstanding American & British standards.

then surpass those standards

to go always a little further,  than even the Yanks & Brits could go

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

not to quarrel with you

but I know the 48th Highlanders CO & RSM very well

Jason Morische & Christopher Reesor

even if you & Exflyer view us as being Militia Maggots

Lt . Colonel Morische is the very model of a Canadian Army Officer

RSM Reesor was the Drum Major

so I honestly can't imagine how they would allow any disciplinary lapses in the ranks

I was a barracks room lawyer

yet Jason Morische was my Platoon Commander

Chris Reesor was my NCO brother in arms

I would follow them over the top without hesitation

they are old school, best small army in the world

Drum Major Reesor leading the Pipes & Drums here, at the Fergus Highland Games

Dileas

I'll be honest with your dougie i use to think that way, hard core... After Afghanistan my mind is completely change around, those that i have soldier with have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be soldiers I would proudly go to war with any day. these guys gave up way more than i had to, and less benefits than i had access to. Anyone who took this route to serve i salute you sir. 

When i retired i did not go that route and look at the reserves as a way to extend my Infantry days.  But my mind and body told me no more, your days of running around in the mud is over. I was 50 plus years old, and time to hang up the red sash and combat boots. find some place to relax in front of the fireplace, have a few rums and fall asleep with no one yelling stand to! stand to !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Thats your answer that becasue history has records of where the old school professionals have caused dysfunction and out right disaster, that they should always be disregarded, or in times of conflict with others just forgotten.

No.  You seem to have a bad habit of taking what I say, and then turning it into a straw man you can more easily argue with. 

I didn't say we "should always disregard" our military professionals (old guard or new).  I was trying to explain that rigid old school thinking often turns out wrong and sometimes disastrous, and therefore we should question appeals (like yours) towards "centuries of tradition" when they don't make a lot of sense in today's reality.  

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

perhaps we should be looking at the problem with what benefits does this bring. and if recruiting a few is the only benefit, then there it is not much of a solution.  As more are leaving than they are attracting, and it is only going to get worse as time goes by.

Yes.  Let's do that. That would be nice.  

11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Ask yourselves what type of person normally joins the military and stays. someone that colors their hair purple, and wears body piecing's, not sure what gender they are, looking for attention.  or the jock type, likes the outdoors, hunting and fishing, takes part in sports, wants to be part of a larger team or organization, likes adventure, likes to blow stuff up...

I thought you were actually going to try to make a serious argument on why these specific things were problematic.  Instead, you conjured up a buffoonish caricature that doesn't exist and argued against that instead.  This is such small-minded garbage that's it's not even worth responding to.  I'm dumber for having read it, but I'll cut my losses here.  

Edited by Moonbox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I disagree, you go to a Army parade you'll not have to look hard for the Afghan medals, not to mention the recent ones Iraq ,m, Syria that includes support trades, even the Helo air force guys, ten tag they used to be called all for the most part have one or two Afghan medals, or other conflict medals like Mali.

....

For the most part change for the better is good, most of the changes to our traditions are for whimsical reasons, that really is not in the name of progress but rather to make it look like we are keeping up with the times. Like the new dress code.

Discipline in today's military is severely lacking, a lot of people do not want to get canceled, it only takes an acusation regardless of if it is true or not, and you're out of the game. It used to be if the RSM caught any SRNCO ignoring a fault form a Jr rank, you'd be on the shit list for months, no one got away with anything, now you'd be lucky if a SRNCO dressed down anyone, troops know that and are taking advantage of it to the extreme. if that's happening in an Infantry BN you know it is worse everywhere else.  

My point in saying "the majority of Canadian military personnel have not been to conflicted areas " is not denying that we do send personnel to those areas but to say that the majority of Canadian Military do not go. Yes, the Army does as do a few Air Force in Tac Hel units, but of the (approx) 60K reg and 25K reserve, the majority stay home.

Change in the Military is, as you say often on a whim but, is also done to be able to retain and recruit. Todays young people are just not interested in Military duty.

Maintaining discipline has always been problematic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Moonbox said:

No.  You seem to have a bad habit of taking what I say, and then turning it into a straw man you can more easily argue with. 

I didn't say we "should always disregard" our military professionals (old guard or new).  I was trying to explain that rigid old school thinking often turns out wrong and sometimes disastrous, and therefore we should question appeals (like yours) towards "centuries of tradition" when they don't make a lot of sense in today's reality.  

Yes.  Let's do that. That would be nice.  

I thought you were actually going to try to make a serious argument on why these specific things were problematic.  Instead, you conjured up a buffoonish caricature that doesn't exist and argued against that instead.  This is such small-minded garbage that's it's not even worth responding to.  I'm dumber for having read it, but I'll cut my losses here.  

You don't understand how warfare is conducted is on par with my understanding the cause and effect of Inflation. Most Military thinking has been developed over the course of decades, most of it as a result of failures and successes mopst military actions require after action reports, from them lessons learned are taken, recorded and taught to the next crowd.

In most cases men and women have died in the course of learning these combat solutions, the same as everyday problems we have faced most of them are based on failures and successes, so why disregard them and just to brush them aside as this type of thinking is OFTEN wrong is stupid in my opinion. Don't fix it if it is not broken, stick with what works. 

A person that teaches say inflation and its effects, is teaching from a teaching plan based on known solutions and techniques from the past, written by the old guard so to speak, are they often wrong? do you use any of what they have taught you in your new job as predicting inflation and its effects. or once you have your degree, you have to start the learning process all over again, and when years go by and it is your turn to show the new guy the ropes d

does he write your experience off as often wrong,  

The military is a world of constant change, it is evolving every day. and not all of them are good or needed changes, prime example is the dress code changes, your pretty good at canceling all of my reason we should not change, and yet have not offered up one solution as why these changes are needed. I talk to serving soldiers every day, i live in a military community, my neighbors are military, and we are of the same opinion for the same reasons, you don't have to agree with my thought or opinions that's your call. Your not interested in a debate or exchange of ideas, your more into telling me why you think i am wrong.

Why is it you feel it is a good idea for the military to change what once was ridge dress codes. when i have provided good examples of trades, professionals like doctors, lawyers, politicians and major / minor corporations having dress codes that dictate what you can wear and what not to wear, how your appearance is to look like, but somehow you have chosen the military as your example to make changes to keep up with the times. When the military is not your typical employer.

It is not my intention to make you dumber, and you should preserve what intelligence you have left for someone else. I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful. 

I can see that you really have no skin in this game to you it is just another topic, to me this is and was my entire life, so i am very passionate about it.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

My point in saying "the majority of Canadian military personnel have not been to conflicted areas " is not denying that we do send personnel to those areas but to say that the majority of Canadian Military do not go. Yes, the Army does as do a few Air Force in Tac Hel units, but of the (approx) 60K reg and 25K reserve, the majority stay home.

Change in the Military is, as you say often on a whim but, is also done to be able to retain and recruit. Todays young people are just not interested in Military duty.

Maintaining discipline has always been problematic.

 

I find this hard to believe, we may have different perspectives due to elements or postings, I retired in 2015, and it was uncommon to find someone without at least 4 medals on their chest, and a good number with more than 8 most of them from conflict areas.  I've also attended Brigade parades in Petawawa ont, and seen nothing but a sea of medals with the exception of the rookies. , while in Afghanistan there were lots of air force guys there i say lots maybe a couple hundred per tour. not to mention the navy guys ships divers filling in for Combat engineers EOD guys...and support guys from all 3 elements, considering the amount of people rotated in and put of Afghanistan was in the 40 k or more, not to mention all the other.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

I find this hard to believe, we may have different perspectives due to elements or postings, I retired in 2015, and it was uncommon to find someone without at least 4 medals on their chest, and a good number with more than 8 most of them from conflict areas.  I've also attended Brigade parades in Petawawa ont, and seen nothing but a sea of medals with the exception of the rookies. , while in Afghanistan there were lots of air force guys there i say lots maybe a couple hundred per tour. not to mention the navy guys ships divers filling in for Combat engineers EOD guys...and support guys from all 3 elements, considering the amount of people rotated in and put of Afghanistan was in the 40 k or more, not to mention all the other.

 

You spend your time around Army personnel. I have not spent so much.

I was Air Force. I spent a number of years at NDHQ (where most officers reside :))

I have also done  lot of time with Navy, primarily in their Aviation division and can say, the people I was in contact with spent little or no time in theatre. Getting a medal for being in theatre meant spending a certain amount of time there. In my experience, many air force personnel rotated through with short stays.

While soldiers did go, the many other vocations and trades in the Military did not have to go.

That is all I am saying.

Edited by ExFlyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

It is not my intention to make you dumber, and you should preserve what intelligence you have left for someone else. I don't see this discussion going anywhere useful. 

Nope.  There's really not much point in me trying to debate your fanciful conjurations of purple-haired, tutu-wearing gender-benders invading the military ranks with their "attention seeking".  

Those aren't serious adult thoughts and aren't worth responding to. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Nope.  There's really not much point in me trying to debate your fanciful conjurations of purple-haired, tutu-wearing gender-benders invading the military ranks with their "attention seeking".  

Those aren't serious adult thoughts and aren't worth responding to. 

 

It's an exaggeration, but he's not wrong in that the people most likely to care about such things, i.e., sensitive, progressive, liberal types, are the least likely to want anything to do with the military. The ones who would be interested are Hillary Clinton's deplorables: people with filthy mouths, who tell racist, sexist jokes, and think everyone else is a 'p*ssy'. 

Which presents a problem when you try to fumigate these military and paramilitary organizations of those sorts of politically incorrect sentiments and beliefs. What are you going to have left? And are they going to be capable of charging into gunfire?

Those are also the people most likely to join the police, btw. And yes, I realize I'm using a kind of cliché, here. But I doubt many of those wandering into recruiting centres are impressed with identity politics and political correctness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

It's an exaggeration, but he's not wrong in that the people most likely to care about such things, i.e., sensitive, progressive, liberal types, are the least likely to want anything to do with the military. The ones who would be interested are Hillary Clinton's deplorables: people with filthy mouths, who tell racist, sexist jokes, and think everyone else is a 'p*ssy'. 

Which presents a problem when you try to fumigate these military and paramilitary organizations of those sorts of politically incorrect sentiments and beliefs. What are you going to have left? And are they going to be capable of charging into gunfire?

Those are also the people most likely to join the police, btw. And yes, I realize I'm using a kind of cliché, here. But I doubt many of those wandering into recruiting centres are impressed with identity politics and political correctness.

So the military and the right-wing go together like peas and carrots? I knew it!

That's the best reason for starving the military there is.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...