Canadian Forces Recruiting ads

[AndrewL]

But that is not the Canadian Army's main purpose.

The Army has many purposes. Fighting for/with our allies abroad is just one.

As for kid I meant a teen.

We rank near the very bottom of peacekeeping nations, the great bulk of our force is gathered in a nation building/colonial exercixe in afghanistan, and we are buying brand new offensive weapons designed for the specific purpose of troop deployments in far off places.

Besides disaster relief, that is all they do. And there is no end in site.

That is why there is a recruitment drive, and young teenage boys are the main target. I simply can't support that.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Asking an adult to understand the context of advertising is valid. My major concern is children, specifically my own. Children are very influenced by advertising at a very young age, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to shelter them from ads. Children cannot approach ads from a more mature context, as you and i can.

My personal opinion is that children are more robust in this respect that they are given credit for. But since you think differently, obviously your solution is to shield them from media.

You can shield them from the media at a very young age, but not when they get older. I am not sure what the solution would be, or even if there is one.

Andrew

[Drea]

Andrew, do you know anyone who has been/is in the military -- 20 something person?

You can spot them right off. They walk with an air of confidence of knowledge and understanding.

Not in the mess of gunfire in Iraq --- but there, walking down the sidewalk right beside the baggypants gangsta wannabe with the guntotin' swagger.

Which one of those twenty somethings is going to make something of his life?

Which one is going to get killed first?

How many young twenty somethings have been killed in Canada in 2006?

How many young twenty somethings have been killed in the military in 2006? (A bad year admittedly)

Seems it's more dangerous to walk the streets here at home... sad really.

[AndrewL]

Of course, our army is not, in fact, involved in colonialism or occupation at this time.

???

[Figleaf]

Asking an adult to understand the context of advertising is valid. My major concern is children, specifically my own. Children are very influenced by advertising at a very young age, and it is very difficult, if not impossible, to shelter them from ads. Children cannot approach ads from a more mature context, as you and i can.

My personal opinion is that children are more robust in this respect that they are given credit for. But since you think differently, obviously your solution is to shield them from media.

You can shield them from the media at a very young age, but not when they get older. I am not sure what the solution would be, or even if there is one.

1. Why can't you shield them from media later on?

2. You responded quite quickly, so I don't know if you noticed the questions I added to that post by editing. I'd be interested in your response.

3. May I recommend that you use the signature function thru the 'My Controls' link to tack your name to your posts. When you type it, it is included when your post is quoted, which is inconvenient.

[Figleaf]

Of course, our army is not, in fact, involved in colonialism or occupation at this time.

???

Colonialism and occupation are terms with actual meanings. They do not apply willy-nilly to any foreign deployment. Currently none of our foreign deployments fall within the concept of colonialism or occupation.

[AndrewL]

Andrew, do you know anyone who has been/is in the military -- 20 something person?

You can spot them right off. They walk with an air of confidence of knowledge and understanding.

Not in the mess of gunfire in Iraq --- but there, walking down the sidewalk right beside the baggypants gangsta wannabe with the guntotin' swagger.

Which one of those twenty somethings is going to make something of his life?

Which one is going to get killed first?

How many young twenty somethings have been killed in Canada in 2006?

How many young twenty somethings have been killed in the military in 2006? (A bad year admittedly)

Seems it's more dangerous to walk the streets here at home... sad really.

I also walk with confidence, knowledge, and understanding. And the only time i would ever consider joining an army, or supporting my childs interest in it, is if the nation was in direct danger.

In fact I know many confident and very knowledgeable people in the world, not one of them in the army.

The thug who is a disgrace to society is not such a pathetic slouch because he didn't join the army, he is a 'loser' because of many circumstances, some of it media, most of it his incapable parents, or lack thereof. How sad is that?

And its not so much how many people die every year in the military compared to street murders or what have you, if anything that stat proves we have much more work to do domestically rather than waste time fighting the constant and unchecked flow of taliban and AQ from Pakistan into Afghanistan. The only people who can solve that problem are Pakistanis and Afghanis, and they cannot and will not. They have tried and failed, and have given up, and most of them are inclined to the religious rule we hate and won't support. We are involved in colonialism for the first time since we slaughtered the natives, and i hate to see it promoted.

Andrew

[Wilber]

We are involved in colonialism for the first time since we slaughtered the natives, and i hate to see it promoted.

Are you maintaining that Canada wants Afghanistan as a colony?

[Figleaf]

Imperialism. Not colonialism. Colonialism is establishing your own people or sovereignty over territory not your own.

We are (arguably) involved in imperialism by having troops in Afghanistan or (arguably) on peacekeeping missions of any kind.

[Canuck E Stan]

In fact I know many confident and very knowledgeable people in the world, not one of them in the army.

Andrew

And I too know many confident and very knowledgeable people in the world, not one of them is named Andrew.

So what does that mean?

[AndrewL]

Of course, our army is not, in fact, involved in colonialism or occupation at this time.

???

Colonialism and occupation are terms with actual meanings. They do not apply willy-nilly to any foreign deployment. Currently none of our foreign deployments fall within the concept of colonialism or occupation.

We have our military employed in a country for the purpose of building a compliant and obedient economy and trading partner for our own interests. That is why greater powers build other nations. NATO is a collection of powerful allies who are engaged in modern day colonialism. You can call it what you want, but Afghanistan is not and has never been a threat to Canada, yet we are out there killing the villagers who want no part of our presence. We do this to support an increasingly theocratic kabul government. In a few years this will be nothing less than a failed state, and we will have wasted countless lives, as well as dollars.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

We are involved in colonialism for the first time since we slaughtered the natives, and i hate to see it promoted.

Are you maintaining that Canada wants Afghanistan as a colony?

Not in the traditional sense. Nations no longer need to gather foreign resources and bring them back home. Nations do need to install cooperative leaders who will allow for exploitation of land and resources for the promotion of global trade and economies. And it matters little to the more powerful nations if the civilian population agrees or not. This is the history of modern colonialism in the ME, Asia, and Latin America, we would be foolish to think it is any different now. As if we all of a sudden became altruistic.... not likely.

Andrew

[Figleaf]

We have our military employed in a country for the purpose of building a compliant and obedient economy and trading partner for our own interests.

Our Canadian foreign policy is not so sophisticated. We deployed the forces to Afghanistan initially because {a} treaty obligations did appear to require it; {2} being deployed in Afghanistan gave political cover for the absolutely right choice to stay the f... out of Iraq; and {3} the military has an instititutional desire to be deployed.

NATO is a collection of powerful allies who are engaged in modern day colonialism. You can call it what you want,

Okay, that would be 'imperialism', if it applied in this case.

... but Afghanistan is not and has never been a threat to Canada, yet we are out there killing the villagers who want no part of our presence.

Afghanistan was harboring a demonstrated threat to our ally the United States, and thus a threat capable and perhaps inclined to apply itself to us. Canada's participation in the overthrow of the Taliban regime was, in my view, 100% legit.

Our presense there now is approved by the internationally recognized government which, though it is beholden to western states, is certainly no less legitimate than any other claimant to government. So, still legit.

We do this to support an increasingly theocratic kabul government. In a few years this will be nothing less than a failed state, and we will have wasted countless lives, as well as dollars.

That is a better argument, I think. The futility, the infelicity, the cost; all make further participation wrong for Canada.

[White Doors]

Will the real figleaf please stand up?

[PolyNewbie]

"Fight fear. Fight distress. Fight chaos. Fight with the Canadian Armed Forces."

.... but they don't gussy it up with chrome and flags

ROTFLMAO !!!!

How about this one:

"Fight for IMF, World Bank, global hedgemony for the banks and for globalism that will ultimately lead to your own enslavery"

[M.Dancer]

Turns out it was a Canadian recruit who shot and killed Canada's most recent CASUALTY in Afghanistan.

I bet the TV adds dont mention Canadian soldiers shooting and killing fellow Canadians.

But then again, I havnt seen the comercials

In an unrelated event, the Latest Ford commercial doesn't mention hit and run traffic fatalities......

[M.Dancer]

If you signed up, then yes, the ads are good.

But if you didn't sign up, then you are in no position to praise the ads (indeed you are suggesting the ads don't work very well).

The ads ought to be judged on 'sign-up metrics' or not at all.

What's more, who's to say that recruitment is the only goal of the ad. Explaining what the CF does is rather important, considering the disinformation out there.

[M.Dancer]

Neither insurgents nor state armies aim at civilians (with some exceptions), but civilians are always killed at a higher ratio. Terrorists are the ones who taget civilians directly.

That is patently false. Look up definition of terrorist.

The best definition of terrorism is as follow:

The use or threat of violence against civilians for political, ideological, or economic purposes.

Terrorists targets civilians directly, almost exclusively. Some actions by states and some actions by insurgents can be considered terrorist.

But far and away, insurgents and state armies attack soldiers and infrastructure. But with the modern machines of war, and the general cowardice of modern warfare, more civilians get killed in the crossfire (over the last century and into this one) than at any other time in history.

What exactly do you disagree with?

Andrew

But far and away, insurgents and state armies attack soldiers and infrastructure.

The two wars right now where there could be what is called an insurgency, the insurgents by a wide margin favour attacks against soft civilian targets. You can't say because the Taliban attacked a Afghab Army convoy on tuesday, and a girls school on thursday that as insurgents they are avoiding civilians casualties but as terrorists they arenot.

The enemies that the CF are fighting are terrorists and the CF is protecting civilian lives.

In iraq over 1000 civilians are being killed each month. They are being targeted directly by the same folks who are also targeting the Iraqi army and US coalition troops.

What I object to mainly is the inuendo that Canadian Forces are somehow responsible for the spirraling death count in Afghanistan, when they are not the ones planting bombs in bazaars.

[White Doors]

Yes. good post Morris.

Incidentally, recruitment targets are expected to be achieved this year. First time in years.

[Army Guy]

AndrewL:

I did not interpret it that way. To me it certainly made an attempt not to glorify, but it still did not show the reality of war or of military life. It can't. Just like MacDs cant show the reality behind fast food, and just like a car ad does nto show the reality of me spending most of the time in my car inching forward in a maddening and pathetic commute to and from work. Ads are no reality, they are a fantasy of what we all wish reality was. The Armed Forces are no exception to this.

At the beginning of your post you admit that there is no attempt to sugar coat the depiction of military life. and for 45 seconds they have shown the reality of war, insurgent warfare, combat rescue , and search and rescue and Humanitarian relief. you just have to look for it...Alot of ground to cover in 45 seconds.

As for showing the reality of WAR, one must see it first hand, to take it in with all your senses sights ,sounds, smells, touch something you can't do in 45 seconds, something you can't do on TV period regardless of how much time you have.

But as for showing military life it's a great start, it's a hard, dirty, thankless job, one that takes a certain person with certain qualities that is whom the ads are targetting. One thing everyone has to remember we have a volunteer army and no one is forced on any mission, and quiting is always an opition.

[M.Dancer]

Cadets is an organization that teaches youngsters (ages 12 to 18) discipline and self control. It teaches them to use their minds to think before they act.

Cadets honour and respect those who are in or have been in the armed forces. They also learn how to respect adults and authority. Two things which are sadly lacking with the youth today -- much more so than any other recent generation.

IMO, All teens should have to spend two years in the military. From age 15 to 17. To learn that they are not the centre of the universe.

I was a cadet from 13 to 17. Spent 2 weeks at CFB Bagotville, And a total of 8 weeks at Val Cartier. In that time I grew up very quickly. I won't pretend it was the best experiance of my life, but my experiance was somewhat unique amongst cadets.

[Figleaf]

...but my experiance was somewhat unique amongst cadets.

But not unique among altar boys?

[Army Guy]

Andrew:

We rank near the very bottom of peacekeeping nations, the great bulk of our force is gathered in a nation building/colonial exercixe in afghanistan, and we are buying brand new offensive weapons designed for the specific purpose of troop deployments in far off places.

Besides disaster relief, that is all they do. And there is no end in site.

That is why there is a recruitment drive, and young teenage boys are the main target. I simply can't support that.

Man, your polictical colors are showing ....This is what it boils down to, we are not peacekeeping, so this mission must be bad, this is what Canada is known for peacekeeping, and it will hurt Canada's reputation in the future that we are involved in combat. did i get it right ? News flash Andrew, Canada as a nation has put more effort and resources into it's Combat missions and efforts than it has ever put into it's peacekeeping efforts. Our reputation was built on the battlefield, not peacekeeping.

Before a nation can peacekeep, other nations must bring those in dispute to the table of discussion, that is done thru the threat of use of arms, or on the battle field.

As for purchasing offensive wpns, stop it your killing me here, what do you consider offensive wpns ? and which wpns are you talking about.

Besides disaster relief that is all they do, Stop, and think about this just for a minute please, before you embrass yourself. As a Canadian citizen you can only think of 2 things that your military provides you around the clock 24 hours a day. Are you serious ?

young teenagers is not the only target for these ads, , but before you sell this group out, read some of our history and you'll find that these people are the main demographic that have built this nation to what it is today.

[jenny]

.This is what it boils down to, we are not peacekeeping,

This is true.Even the cons biggest war lover said Canada was in Afghanistan to get revenge for the 30 Canadians ( his number, was really 24) who died 9/11

In an unrelated event, the Latest Ford commercial doesn't mention hit and run traffic fatalities......

And why would they?

[AndrewL]

Our Canadian foreign policy is not so sophisticated. We deployed the forces to Afghanistan initially because {a} treaty obligations did appear to require it; {2} being deployed in Afghanistan gave political cover for the absolutely right choice to stay the f... out of Iraq; and {3} the military has an instititutional desire to be deployed.

Yikes. Our soldiers are being killed partly for political cover and an institutional desire to be deployed. That is rather pathetic.

But your first point about treaty and alliance obligations is legit.

Okay, that would be 'imperialism', if it applied in this case.

Sure. But it was always imperial powers engaged in colonialism. Obviosuly Canada is not an imperial power, but i firmly believe that the US is, and without the US imperial history in this region, Canada has no need to be in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was harboring a demonstrated threat to our ally the United States, and thus a threat capable and perhaps inclined to apply itself to us. Canada's participation in the overthrow of the Taliban regime was, in my view, 100% legit.

True enough. I agree that the initial move against the taliban fell under the rubric of just war. The real danger is now in Pakistan, and once again, the Afghan people are caught in the middle. There is no justifiable reason for Canada to now sacrifice our soldiers and dollars for what is essentially a problem not of our making, and not within our ability to solve.

Our presense there now is approved by the internationally recognized government which, though it is beholden to western states, is certainly no less legitimate than any other claimant to government. So, still legit.

This is debatable, IMO. Before the notion existed that all it took was UN recognition to bestow legitimacy on a state, a government actually had to control the resources and security of a territory in its entirety before it was considered to have legitimacy. All we have with Afghanistan, (and Iraq) is UN recognition of puppet governments that controls a diminishing amount of territory. This will certainly fail.

That is a better argument, I think. The futility, the infelicity, the cost; all make further participation wrong for Canada.

I agree. And to bring it back to the topic, i hate to see ads promoting this futility.

Andrew