eyeball Posted February 23 Report Posted February 23 3 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted February 23 Author Report Posted February 23 22 minutes ago, eyeball said: Obviously you're right and i'm wrong but I don't want to admit it out loud so i'll simply respond as all lefties do in this situation and behave like a 5 year old Yeah. Sure kid. Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 On 2/19/2025 at 6:59 PM, Army Guy said: Or maybe we should increase current standards, and enforce them, new, and much higher standards' are need and need to be maintain...If your 350 lbs now you have a problem both mental and physical you should be put on a program until you can meet those standards... The question each of these obese people should be asking is who is going to carry me of the battle field...pull me out of a burning Armoured vehicle, plane or helo, not only are they Not fit, but will put the lives of others at risk be it trying to save the big person, or having to do more work because they are not fit enough to keep up in a march, run, or advance to contact...each trade has it's own standards to meet for many reasons.... Stop recruiting fat people....those that become obese during service should be told lose it or find another occupation... Every occupation in the service will eventual come a time when your fitness will be required to save another's life...want to be round find another occupation we want warriors not diversity in the weight category... There were standards but all were lowered to make more people eligible. Also, you keep insisting on battlefield things whereas most Canadian military folks will never see a battlefield. Even most Army folks will never see an actual battlefield. They may be deployed but most will serve the logistic back end of the deployment. Who is recruiting "fat people"? People who meet the standard get in. Lastly, the Canadian military does not want "warriors". Where did you even get that assumption. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 On 2/20/2025 at 2:31 PM, Army Guy said: BMI is not the standard the CF uses to access obesity, it may be a tool that some may use but it is not the standard, because to many factors in false positive readings... We know a good portion Canadians are overweight, Before when there was standards, during your first doctors exams if you were obese, you be told lose some weight come back later...Now every Canadian must be able to attempt joining they take almost anyone....during the first PT test if you can't make it your sent to fat camp, the standard is very very low.......here your given a diet plan and do PT several times a day until you can pass...after a full year, your given the heave hoe....released for failure to achieved basic pt test...BTW during your training PT are a regular intervals to ensure in the end you can maintain or achieve CF minimum standard.... You know fully well the standard the Military uses is the BMI. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Army Guy Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: There were standards but all were lowered to make more people eligible. Also, you keep insisting on battlefield things whereas most Canadian military folks will never see a battlefield. Even most Army folks will never see an actual battlefield. They may be deployed but most will serve the logistic back end of the deployment. Who is recruiting "fat people"? People who meet the standard get in. Lastly, the Canadian military does not want "warriors". Where did you even get that assumption. To which i said standards should be increased.... Yes i said battlefield, any time they issue you live rounds your on the battlefield be that army/ air force, or navy... WTF are you talking about never see a battlefield....everyone in Afghanistan seen the battlefield at least a couple of times, same as while they were deployed in MALI...Iraq, Syria, Libya,Somalia, Bosnia,the list goes on and on... If you have or subject to rules of engagement, then your involved in a conflict, get issued a weapon with live rounds your involved in a conflict....In Afghanistan most logistic troops were involved in supplying each FOB or canadian troop concentration...meaning going outside the wire a few times every week....convoys lasting 12 to 16 hours were not uncommon...Getting shot at while on a convoy was also a common thing..Not sure where you get the facts of there would be lucky to see a battlefield...But almost every mission or tour that i have been involved with i have been issued a weapon and live rounds and was subjected to rules of engagement...If what you say is true no battlefields why issue weapons, why the requirement for armored vehs like LAVs etc.... I also mentioned the ability to extract persons from vehicles / aircraft and or below decks on ships, you were a sar tech have you ever tried to rescue an obese person out of a confined space ....it is not an easy task at the best of times, now add the stresses of combat/ fire/ sinking in water etc to that and now your putting people in danger... The CF is recruiting FAT people, The standards to be sent to basic training is ridiculous low and could be meet by most people once at basic. Upon arrival at boot camp That's when they test everyone to see if they can meet these low standards, failure to meet these standards you place on what was called fat camp, where you will be given dietary advice and attend PT classes several times a day, until they can meet the minimum standards..each candidate is given a full year to meet these standards.. Not sure what military you served in but the military needs warriors, it is full of warriors...shit more than 1/2 of all the sar techs are from the warrior side of the house....being a warrior is more than being combat arms it includes every trade in the military, with very few exceptions...it is also a state of mind, ANYONE in any trade could get involved in a shooting war....everyone has to have the ability to defend themselves in a combat theater....or you don't belong there....from medics, to clerks, to supply techs, drivers, all of them get exposed to the battle field. Military does not issue everyone in theater a pistol and long arm because they want them to look cool...Army has a saying , everyone is a soldier first , tradesmen second....for a good reason... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 38 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: You know fully well the standard the Military uses is the BMI. It was a long time ago, BMI is one of many tools in the medical worlds tool box , but BMI index is not used on a regular basis to categorize troops,at one time we had fitness tests, and BMI readings fail one and you were placed on Piggy parade.... .like it once was... Fitness tests is how they determine fitness levels..if you pass you can be as fat as you want....fail and you keep doing it until you pass....fail enough times then your sent to the MIR, where they will put your on a diet, and ordered on a PT program to lose your weight...fail that and you will be given a release....But BMI is not the only tool in that tool box...nor is it the main tool to determine your body make up....they don't care about your size, just your fitness levels. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Venandi Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Lastly, the Canadian military does not want "warriors". Where did you even get that assumption. I'm thinking there might be a disconnect between what the Military actually wants and what Roboduh, Herb and Doggiedoo insist on voting for. I'd invite you (and them) to stay the course to Crazy Island though, it's fascinating to watch. My interest is casual and purely clinical now, I only want to see at what point Roboduh and the boys tap or snap. 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: You know fully well the standard the Military uses is the BMI. Yoda says: "so sure that right you are... hmmm? "Flying yesterday's aircraft tomorrow you are," and seriously dating yourself in the process. Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 (edited) 20 hours ago, Army Guy said: To which i said standards should be increased.... Yes i said battlefield, any time they issue you live rounds your on the battlefield be that army/ air force, or navy... WTF are you talking about never see a battlefield....everyone in Afghanistan seen the battlefield at least a couple of times, s.... The CF is recruiting FAT people,.... Not sure what military you served in but the military needs warriors, it is full of warriors...shit more... Army has a saying , everyone is a soldier first , tradesmen second....for a good reason... A little over dramatic LOL. 40K personnel were in Afghanistan in the 13 years we were there. Canada's role was primarily logistical and aid (training Afghan police, humanitarian etc). Yes, some actually went into the "battlefield" but, most did not. Yes, everyone that went was issued weapons...as a matter of course. I am not demeaning or diminishing Canada's participation in Afghanistan but the Canadian Armed Forces is way more than soldiers. Interesting to know that more Air element personnel have been deployed than Army. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191204/t002c-eng.htm Tradesmen are what enabled the soldiers to do their thing. Oh and yes, some SAR techs have come from the arms trade because it was their way out Occupational transfers happen all the time. I had a lot of soldiers that remustered to aero engine and airframe and safety equipment and other Air trades too. Escaping combat arms seemed to be a thing to do. I am extremely proud of my time in the Military. I had issues with some things but I sure did not $hit on it every opportunity that came up. Being a critic is one thing but constantly demeaning because it is not your way is totally another. The Military, like all other things in todays society change. I cannot and do not expect it to be the way it was but some have great difficulty to accept change and do nothing but complain. You and I both served full term in the Canadian Armed Forces. Clearly in different branches and it seems we saw very different things and had very different experiences, as it should be with 3 arms of the military. I have been fortunate to have transported and worked with Army personnel to exercises, training and return as well as spending time with Maritime Air so, not all my time was exclusively SAR or Airforce eccentric. Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 2 hours ago, Venandi said: I'm thinking there might be a disconnect between what the Military actually wants and what Roboduh, Herb and Doggiedoo insist on voting for. I'd invite you (and them) to stay the course to Crazy Island though, it's fascinating to watch. My interest is casual and purely clinical now, I only want to see at what point Roboduh and the boys tap or snap. Yoda says: "so sure that right you are... hmmm? "Flying yesterday's aircraft tomorrow you are," and seriously dating yourself in the process. Yes, there are some here that think the only thing the Canadian Military is are soldiers in combat arms. Me, I done my 35. In service to Canada and Canadians on Canadian soil. Oh? And what aircraft do we have that cannot do what is demanded of them? Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Venandi Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 (edited) 32 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Oh? And what aircraft do we have that cannot do what is demanded of them? Oh? he asked with a surprised countenance... The CP 140 comes instantly to mind and I could entertain you with other scenarios at some length. Hight of the mechanical era with E-handles that pull out 2 1/2 feet, parts that are scarce at best, a level of serviceability that puts the H in horrid and a level of task complexity and threshold of experience required that defies easy maintenance / replacement... not to mention an existing shortage of crews sufficient to make a damn billygoat puke. By the sound of it, you probably think manning the P8 with purple haired Wiccans is easy peasy... right? I wish you the best of luck with it. Edited February 24 by Venandi Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 (edited) 3 hours ago, Venandi said: Oh? he asked with a surprised countenance... The CP 140 comes instantly to mind and I could entertain you with other scenarios at some length. Hight of the mechanical era with E-handles that pull out 2 1/2 feet, parts that are scarce at best, a level of serviceability that puts the H in horrid and a level of task complexity and threshold of experience required that defies easy maintenance / replacement... not to mention an existing shortage of crews sufficient to make a damn billygoat puke. By the sound of it, you probably think manning the P8 with purple haired Wiccans is easy peasy... right? I wish you the best of luck with it. I know many people that work on and fly on the CP 140 and are doing just fine. Yes, it is old but, it is still a very viable aircraft for the tasks it is assigned. The Canadian Air Force has always kept aircraft for over 40 years so, the CP-140 age is not unusual. If we took care of our cars as much and as well as we do our aircraft, we would still be driving Model T's . E-handles??? Considering anti sub work is barely being carried out nowadays or needed, it's main tasks have been fisheries patrols and drug interdiction and it is doing that successfully. Serviceability and availability data is classified so, I am assuming you are making stuff up ? I have no idea what your comment about "purple haired Wiccans"means? Edited February 25 by ExFlyer Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dougie93 Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 3 hours ago, Army Guy said: ...it is also a state of mind volunteer professional soldiers of the Crown, mercenaries for the Sovereign resolved to suffer hardship gladly with the brothers to the left & right of them bound by solemn oath to kill & die as necessary for the British Crown in North America even unto the forlorn hope 1 Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 24 Report Posted February 24 5 hours ago, Army Guy said: everyone is a soldier first , Leftenant Colonel John McCrae Guelph Highland Cadet Corps Bugler, Gunner & Quartermaster Sergeant of the Guelph Field Artillery Section Commander, D Battery, Canadian Field Artillery, Boer War 1899-1900 in 1914, at 41 years of age, volunteered to be Medical Officer, 1st Brigade, Canadian Field Artillery "I am really rather afraid, but more afraid to stay at home with my conscience." died of pneumonia, while commanding No.3 Canadian General Field Hospital at Boulogne, 28 January 1918 UBIQUE QUO FAS ET GLORIA DUCUNT 1 Quote
Army Guy Posted February 25 Report Posted February 25 22 hours ago, ExFlyer said: A little over dramatic LOL. 40K personnel were in Afghanistan in the 13 years we were there. Canada's role was primarily logistical and aid (training Afghan police, humanitarian etc). Yes, some actually went into the "battlefield" but, most did not. Yes, everyone that went was issued weapons...as a matter of course. I am not demeaning or diminishing Canada's participation in Afghanistan but the Canadian Armed Forces is way more than soldiers. Interesting to know that more Air element personnel have been deployed than Army. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/191204/t002c-eng.htm Tradesmen are what enabled the soldiers to do their thing. Oh and yes, some SAR techs have come from the arms trade because it was their way out Occupational transfers happen all the time. I had a lot of soldiers that remustered to aero engine and airframe and safety equipment and other Air trades too. Escaping combat arms seemed to be a thing to do. I am extremely proud of my time in the Military. I had issues with some things but I sure did not $hit on it every opportunity that came up. Being a critic is one thing but constantly demeaning because it is not your way is totally another. The Military, like all other things in todays society change. I cannot and do not expect it to be the way it was but some have great difficulty to accept change and do nothing but complain. You and I both served full term in the Canadian Armed Forces. Clearly in different branches and it seems we saw very different things and had very different experiences, as it should be with 3 arms of the military. I have been fortunate to have transported and worked with Army personnel to exercises, training and return as well as spending time with Maritime Air so, not all my time was exclusively SAR or Airforce eccentric. Dramatic, I'm not the one that said the military does not want warriors...When the entire organization is comprised of nothing more than warriors....How stupid was that comment...Every member signs onto unlimited liability...our primary mission is to defend the nation, that includes every member of the forces...even SAR techs ... You need to do some research on what happened in Afghanistan, what Canada's roles were, and who carried them out...The primary role for the Battle group was to fight an insurgency war...Had nothing to do with logistical support, RCMP were responsible for training ANP(police), Humanity aid was given out by another team (PRT) made up of many trades form all elements....... You need to talk to some logistical guys who served there because if you think they never went outside the wire you're mistaken...Anyone that went outside the wire faced the dangers of combat, most of the time it was not IF you would be hit by enemy forces but rather when in your trip...You do them a disservice by saying they didn't see combat...As soon as you left the front gate you were on the battlefield... which is why everyone was armed and trained to defend themselves... Ya it was way more than soldiers, we had Navy EOD guys, plus NAVY purple trades, we had air force guys pilots , crew, etc...all went on the battlefield, everyone of them were and are warriors... You can judge me all you want, I did not write that article i just agree with it.....and if you somehow see this as the way forward then good for you,thats your opinion.....but in the job i was doing these standards could get someone killed or injured... it is obvious we had much different career paths, and you know very little of the Army life and what is expected of each soldier....and what is expected today according to your standards or believes , is not nor will be acceptable for combat, nor would it be acceptable standards as a SAR tech... And most that i talk to agree the standards need to be raised considerably, for the jobs that they may be required to fit in to... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted February 25 Report Posted February 25 1 hour ago, Army Guy said: Dramatic, I'm not the one that said the military does not want warriors...When the entire organization is comprised of nothing more than warriors....How stupid was that comment...Every member signs onto unlimited liability...our primary mission is to defend the nation, that includes every member of the forces...even SAR techs ... You need to do some research on what happened in Afghanistan, what Canada's roles were, and who carried them out...The primary role for the Battle group was to fight an insurgency war...Had nothing to do with logistical support, RCMP were responsible for training ANP(police), Humanity aid was given out by another team (PRT) made up of many trades form all elements....... You need to talk to some logistical guys who served there because if you think they never went outside the wire you're mistaken...Anyone that went outside the wire faced the dangers of combat, most of the time it was not IF you would be hit by enemy forces but rather when in your trip...You do them a disservice by saying they didn't see combat...As soon as you left the front gate you were on the battlefield... which is why everyone was armed and trained to defend themselves... Ya it was way more than soldiers, we had Navy EOD guys, plus NAVY purple trades, we had air force guys pilots , crew, etc...all went on the battlefield, everyone of them were and are warriors... You can judge me all you want, I did not write that article i just agree with it.....and if you somehow see this as the way forward then good for you,thats your opinion.....but in the job i was doing these standards could get someone killed or injured... it is obvious we had much different career paths, and you know very little of the Army life and what is expected of each soldier....and what is expected today according to your standards or believes , is not nor will be acceptable for combat, nor would it be acceptable standards as a SAR tech... And most that i talk to agree the standards need to be raised considerably, for the jobs that they may be required to fit in to... Yup, we certainly saw and lived very different military lives. And, yours was no more important or functional than mine. I do not and will never judge another military member. I know fully well what we signed up for and did, especially those that made a full career of it. No matter how you try and twist it, not all military are "warriors" by your small combat arms definition. I think that I may have gotten a much more diverse look at the military. I saw a lot more than the confines of a regiment. Standards are what they are because of the lack or enrolment and something had to be done to get more people, even for the Army. You may not kike it and oyu may have difficulty accepting it but todays military is not your military. Living in the oast only makes you an old timer, not todays military. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Army Guy Posted February 25 Report Posted February 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Yup, we certainly saw and lived very different military lives. And, yours was no more important or functional than mine. I do not and will never judge another military member. I know fully well what we signed up for and did, especially those that made a full career of it. No matter how you try and twist it, not all military are "warriors" by your small combat arms definition. I think that I may have gotten a much more diverse look at the military. I saw a lot more than the confines of a regiment. Standards are what they are because of the lack or enrolment and something had to be done to get more people, even for the Army. You may not kike it and oyu may have difficulty accepting it but todays military is not your military. Living in the oast only makes you an old timer, not todays military. I don't recall every saying my career was more important than yours, several times i have applauded your career and the SAR tech profession. You have judged me, many times in this post alone. As you have judged other trades as well. Thats your problem you think only combat arms can be considered warriors, but your wrong....warriors exist in all elements and in all trades...Not sure how to describe those that signed onto unlimited liability, and have put their life's on the line to defend this nation and our foreign policy..And while we don't have an Air force band like this one, hard not to listen to this and say there are no warriors in the air force... While in Afghanistan i worked with navy clearance divers who cleared IED's , worked with the Air force Tactical aviation planning Road moves with over head helo protection, or getting our guys to a LZ....All of them have been professional, all credit to their trades, all of them meet the standard for being called warriors...Never meet a door gunner i did not like...all of them warriors...My definition of being a warrior is is not as small as yours, every man women that shared that battlefield with me and my company...are warriors... I've been all across this nation, and worked with every element, to think an infantry soldiers is locked up in a glass case inside the regiment lines is naïve, as me thinking your whole career was as a sar tech... Not that i want to get into a dick measuring contest, but there is plenty of work for an infantry soldier than what's available in the Regitment... The regiment is just down the road i have serving members drop by an a regular basis, might be the difference from working in the air force, and those working in the regiment, the regiment is a life long membership....my opinions describe here are not just mine, but theirs as well, and not many are happy with NEW Army, discipline is lacking, SRNCO are afraid to charge anyone for fear of being canceled...all it takes is one accusation true or not to have a career stopped or ended...it is not just Generals that are getting canceled...lack of training, equipment, and toxic leadership plagues the new military...Ask the last Chief of the military, who clearly said toxic leadership is a major problem with our current leadership... Standards are there for a reason, most of them have been proven crisis or conflict time after time...Changing them just so the military can attract those that like the new hair or grooming standards, or the weight standards...is not a net plus...having some 300 lb soldier is not a net plus, it is waste of resources and training time...when was the last time you seen a 300 lb Sar tech...due to fat not muscle...Our military is a small one quality is what we need not quantity Do i have to like it , these new changes...nope i don't it is not my military anymore as you have said....but it does not make my opinions or the ones that are still serving any less true... Edited February 25 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
ExFlyer Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 (edited) 14 hours ago, Army Guy said: I don't recall every saying my career was more important than yours, several times i have applauded your career and the SAR tech profession. You have judged me, many times in this post alone. As you have judged other trades as well. Thats your problem you think only combat arms can be considered warriors, but your wrong....warriors exist in all elements and in all trades...Not sure how to describe those that signed onto unlimited liability, and have put their life's on the line to defend this nation and our foreign policy..And while we don't have an Air force band like this one, hard not to listen to this and say there are no warriors in the air force... While in Afghanistan i worked with navy clearance divers who cleared IED's , worked with the Air force Tactical aviation planning Road moves with over head helo protection, or getting our guys to a LZ....All of them have been professional, all credit to their trades, all of them meet the standard for being called warriors...Never meet a door gunner i did not like...all of them warriors...My definition of being a warrior is is not as small as yours, every man women that shared that battlefield with me and my company...are warriors... I've been all across this nation, and worked with every element, to think an infantry soldiers is locked up in a glass case inside the regiment lines is naïve, as me thinking your whole career was as a sar tech... Not that i want to get into a dick measuring contest, but there is plenty of work for an infantry soldier than what's available in the Regitment... The regiment is just down the road i have serving members drop by an a regular basis, might be the difference from working in the air force, and those working in the regiment, the regiment is a life long membership....my opinions describe here are not just mine, but theirs as well, and not many are happy with NEW Army, discipline is lacking, SRNCO are afraid to charge anyone for fear of being canceled...all it takes is one accusation true or not to have a career stopped or ended...it is not just Generals that are getting canceled...lack of training, equipment, and toxic leadership plagues the new military...Ask the last Chief of the military, who clearly said toxic leadership is a major problem with our current leadership... Standards are there for a reason, most of them have been proven crisis or conflict time after time...Changing them just so the military can attract those that like the new hair or grooming standards, or the weight standards...is not a net plus...having some 300 lb soldier is not a net plus, it is waste of resources and training time...when was the last time you seen a 300 lb Sar tech...due to fat not muscle...Our military is a small one quality is what we need not quantity Do i have to like it , these new changes...nope i don't it is not my military anymore as you have said....but it does not make my opinions or the ones that are still serving any less true... On and on and on..... I am sorry you feel besmirched. I am sorry you don't like it any more. I am sorry you have a need to complain about it. I am sorry the military standards are not up to your liking. I am glad you realize it is not your military anymore. Living in the past is not becoming of a professional. Understanding the need for change to achieve targets and objectives is paramount. Please do not become a dooogie. I hope tomorrow is a better day for you Edited February 26 by ExFlyer Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dougie93 Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 21 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Please do not become a dooogie. MWO Army Guy could never forsake our Commander-in-Chief ; Elizabeth Windsor heirs & successors, VRI - Pro Patria solemn oath taken before God Himself, hand on the King James Bible, beneath the laid up Colours, by the Book of the Dead Dileas Gu Brath ; Faithful unto Judgment Day Quote
WestCanMan Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 On 2/14/2025 at 9:14 PM, CdnFox said: Canadian military leaders warned soldiers are overweight | Ottawa Citizen To deal with the problem, military health specialists suggested promoting a culture of fitness through physical activity, injury prevention, sleep and nutrition. 🤣 New rules for the Canadian forces: lower the standards so that everyone can make the cut treat everyone like a princess, and kowtow to their wants and needs politely ask them to work out I think it's a problem if the combat troops are in poor shape. Infantry, etc. The advantages of being fit/the disadvantages of being fat or weak are obvious in the infantry. As far as the navy is concerned, I was never fat there, but if I was, it wouldn't have affected my ability to do my job. The ship I was on was only 365 feet long, and it's not like you ever have to run back and forth on it. Our boarding party used SMGs and pistols, the likelihood of ever engaging in hand-to-hand isn't worth worrying about. One more thing, "overweight" is a meaningless term. Technically The Rock is "overweight". Quote Poulin also stated in her email that Canadian military data on obesity is, in part, based an individual’s self-reported height and weight, which serves to calculate a Body Mass Index or BMI. See, that right there is a flawed calculation. In order to be within my ideal range I'd have to be 188 lbs, which is ridiculous. If I weighed 185 again my cheeks would be sunken like a holocaust victim. I'd have to go vegan and get that weird bird-man physique. I think we can all agree that 6'2, 210 isn't "overweight". That being said, I'm not 210 lol. I'm slightly jollier than that. Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
Dougie93 Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 24 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: I think it's a problem if the combat troops are in poor shape. Infantry, etc. The advantages of being fit/the disadvantages of being fat or weak are obvious in the infantry. As far as the navy is concerned, I was never fat there, but if I was, it wouldn't have affected my ability to do my job. The ship I was on was only 365 feet long, and it's not like you ever have to run back and forth on it. Our boarding party used SMGs and pistols, the likelihood of ever engaging in hand-to-hand isn't worth worrying about. One more thing, "overweight" is a meaningless term. Technically The Rock is "overweight". See, that right there is a flawed calculation. In order to be within my ideal range I'd have to be 188 lbs, which is ridiculous. I was certainly a slack & idle teenager when I joined at 17 not fat, I was too vain for that, but I was butter soft, coming from High School in Forest Hill in Toronto yet as fearsome as the instructors were, it wasn't even them who motivated us to keep up because if you didn't keep up in my day, you'd be torn to pieces by the other troops in the barracks the peer pressure was off the charts ; if you were a bag of shit, you would get subjected to a Blanket Party like no kidding around Full Metal Jacket style, I've seen variations of that happen more than once the junior ranks policed the junior ranks, the instructors kept themselves at arms length from it 1 Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 (edited) 13 hours ago, Dougie93 said: MWO Army Guy .... Blah blah blah from a part time murderer and torturer worshipping basement dweller. Don't start with me again doogie Edited February 26 by ExFlyer Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dougie93 Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Blah blah blah from a part time murderer and torturer worshipping basement dweller. Don't start with me again doogie Reg Force REMF ; 35 years in the rear with the gear Quote
Dougie93 Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 19 hours ago, Army Guy said: Dramatic, I'm not the one that said the military does not want warriors...When the entire organization is comprised of nothing more than warriors....How stupid was that comment...Every member signs onto unlimited liability...our primary mission is to defend the nation, that includes every member of the forces...even SAR techs .. but SAR in Canada serves no actual military role it's not a Combat SAR capability, it can't be deployed outside of Canada there has to be a completely separate ad hoc force stood up for that, MERT in the CH-147 in fact, SAR is a drain on resources which results in Canada having very poor SAR capability the role should be transferred to a civilian agency so the money can be spent on actual military capability Quote
ExFlyer Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 2 hours ago, Dougie93 said: Reg Force REMF ; 35 years in the rear with the gear Part time pretend soldier, full time actual loser. You can only go up Loser. At least I served a full commitment and was disgusted at the military torturers and murderers. You are a pretender, should be reported to Stolen Valour, you wannabe LOL. Quote Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
Dougie93 Posted February 26 Report Posted February 26 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: At least I served a full commitment full commitment to being on permanent coffee break at luxurious air force bases in Canada / shrugs Quote
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
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.