Canadian Forces Recruiting ads

[M.Dancer]

.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?

Exactly. Why would the CF mention accidental deaths......should Inco mention they also have work place fatalities in their help wanted ads?

[M.Dancer]

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

But not unique among altar boys?

I was in a training accident that killed 6 cadets and wounded a few dozen.

[Remiel]

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

There is a huge difference between revenge and retaliation. If someone in government that has a hand in calling the shots is being primarily motivated by the desire for revenge, they should be pulled, immediately. Revenge will, sooner or later, lead to irrational decision making that will jeopardize a calculated retaliation.

[Figleaf]

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

But not unique among altar boys?

I was in a training accident that killed 6 cadets and wounded a few dozen.

Well, that makes my attempt at humor pretty badly timed. Sorry.

[M.Dancer]

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

But not unique among altar boys?

I was in a training accident that killed 6 cadets and wounded a few dozen.

Well, that makes my attempt at humor pretty badly timed. Sorry.

Oh I was also being buggered royaly by the CO....but that wasn't as traumatic in the long run.....

[AndrewL]

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.

I think there are many different groups operating in each war. I define an insurgent as a group of people that are nationalist or tribal in origin and attack an occupying force and their collaborators.

The goal of terrorism is primarily to cause chaos, shock, and fear, and to do this you attack civilians primarily.

I think there has always been a difference between AQ and the Taliban. Sometimes they may work together to achieve common goals, just as a state actor might form temporary alliances with terrorists to achieve common goals.

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

That is not clear to me. I hear a news bits every once in a while that CFs killed x number of militants, then there are conflicting stories that these are just villagers loyal to whatever side, and so on. We don't know who they are fighting and if they are actually protecting civilians.

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.

Not true. There are various different groups in iraq who all have different agendas and goals. And these groups go about achieving these goals differently. It is far too simplistic to just lump them all into one group.

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.

I would not say that Canada is the cause of this violence, but in some cases our presence might be exasperating an already bad situation, and at best we cant do anything at all about the constant flow of AQ type militants from east pakistan.

Andrew

[Figleaf]

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.

Sometimes I am only explaining, not justifying. In this case I will justify. I think the ethics of 2 and 3 are not as bad as you suggest. Political cover may not be glorious, but if it was needed to keep us out of Iraq, then its better that it was there than not. The military's institutional desire to be deployed is shared by all the ranks including the regular soldiers. Deployments pay better, create opportunities to prove oneself for promotions, and allow them to discharge the sense of purpose that motivated their enlistment.

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.

But the ads are promoting the Forces, not the mission. Specific missions, good or ill, are selected politically. The overall purpose of the Forces, and the principle(s) on which they aspire to be judged, are fairly represented in the advertisement.

Don't get me wrong. We can both abhor the extent of violence that drives countries to spend resources on raw power. I'm just an advocate of careful distinctions and fine lines being held to protect our pragmatic ability to make correct choices under real conditions.

[AndrewL]

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.

No you don't have my views right at all.

Combat missions are only just and proper under a very limited definition; self defense (of oneself and ones allies), and only when the mission is achievable should it be supported. The Afgan mission turned from just war (self-defense) to nation building, and it has lost all hope of success (mainly because pakistan cannot and will not do what needs to be done). Hence the current misison in Afghanistan is primarily a waste of life, and secondly it will invariably lead to corruption and disgrace.

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.

Really? What exactly is there to discuss with religious fanatics who want a medieval society? Nothing. We will never ever discuss anything with those lunatics, nor should we.

Then we are left with an impossible military mission.

Our only choice is withdrawal or long term indefinite occupation that will result in nothing except wasted lives, wasted dollars, and who knows what else.

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

We are building new fighter jets, buying new transport planes, and handing out new military research grants for weapons development. This totals about 10 billion so far. And the purpose is obviously to partake in war, for dubious reasons, but certainly tied into the economic benefit of large corporations.

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 ?

Well, what else do they do? Im listening.

Here is what the CFs say to this question:

[/b]Q: What does the Army do?

A: The combat-capable, multipurpose Land Forces are designed for the following duties:

· defending Canadian territory and helping to maintain Canada’s sovereignty by providing land surveillance and combat-ready forces

· contributing to the collective defence of North America

· providing armed and unarmed assistance to civil authorities when needed to maintain public order and security or to assist in emergency relief

· supporting Canadian interests abroad, a task that may include providing forces for UN, NATO, and other multilateral contingency operations, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assistance

What would you add to this?

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.

Does our history justify everything we now do or will do in the future?

Andrew

[White Doors]

We don't know who they are fighting and if they are actually protecting civilians.

Well I'd say that the soldiers on this forum and in this thread may just have a wee bit more of an understanding than you. One is just freshly back from Afghanistan.

So it would be more accurate if you just spoke for yourself.

ie: stop saying WE when expressing YOUR opinion. You are projecting YOUR ignorance on the population as a whole. Very self-centred 'style' of debate.

[AndrewL]

Sometimes I am only explaining, not justifying. In this case I will justify. I think the ethics of 2 and 3 are not as bad as you suggest. Political cover may not be glorious, but if it was needed to keep us out of Iraq, then its better that it was there than not.

Honestly, id rather kill any one of our politicians than be killed covering for one. Regardless, i don't think Canada needed political cover to not go to iraq, we need not be afraid to tell the americans that we want no part of their imperialism.

The military's institutional desire to be deployed is shared by all the ranks including the regular soldiers. Deployments pay better, create opportunities to prove oneself for promotions, and allow them to discharge the sense of purpose that motivated their enlistment.

This is the reason why i do not support a standing army. Eventually their existence is used to justify their deployment. This is why the founding fathers of the US did not support a standing army, and it is the real danger now posed by the military industrial complex.

But the ads are promoting the Forces, not the mission. Specific missions, good or ill, are selected politically. The overall purpose of the Forces, and the principle(s) on which they aspire to be judged, are fairly represented in the advertisement.

But the current push for recruitments, tied into the ad campaign, is essentially for the indefinite commitment we seem to have made to not only Afghanistan, but wherever else our government, liberal or conservative, wiashes to see us tag along with the americans.

Don't get me wrong. We can both abhor the extent of violence that drives countries to spend resources on raw power. I'm just an advocate of careful distinctions and fine lines being held to protect our pragmatic ability to make correct choices under real conditions.

Fair enough. You are certainly promoting a realist view, whereas i am promoting a ideal one.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

We don't know who they are fighting and if they are actually protecting civilians.

Well I'd say that the soldiers on this forum and in this thread may just have a wee bit more of an understanding than you. One is just freshly back from Afghanistan.

So it would be more accurate if you just spoke for yourself.

ie: stop saying WE when expressing YOUR opinion. You are projecting YOUR ignorance on the population as a whole. Very self-centred 'style' of debate.

I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that we are not just killing villagers who are partial to the taliban and a fundamentalist islamic way of life.

This is not just my opinion, this is a worry that i have heard expressed by many people with intimate experience of the situation on the ground. Any soldier who was there is certainly able to give me their opinion on the matter.

Im not saying AQ and the Taliban are not in Afghnaistan, im just saying that its not as simple as saying over there is taliban and over there is drug lords, and over there is this tribe, over there is that tribe, and so on. Outside of Kabul and Kandahar there is not blanket support for NATO against the Taliban....

Andrew

[White Doors]

Im not saying AQ and the Taliban are not in Afghnaistan, im just saying that its not as simple as saying over there is taliban and over there is drug lords, and over there is this tribe, over there is that tribe, and so on. Outside of Kabul and Kandahar there is not blanket support for NATO against the Taliban....

But that is exactly what you are saying when you say this:

I have yet to see any proof whatsoever that we are not just killing villagers who are partial to the taliban and a fundamentalist islamic way of life.

But thank you for changing it to I

blanket support? How about an overwhelming majority of Afghan civilians support Nato and what it is doign and has done?

Would that change your opinion or it really already made up and you just want others to think as you do?

Please advise.

[PolyNewbie]

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."- Henry Kissinger

Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14

I don't think military men are dumb but this reflects the attitude in the White House.

[Wilber]

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.

I submit that we are not engaged in either imperialism or colonialism in Afghanistan. The purpose of both is to impose ones dominion over another nation. We are doing neither. We are trying to prevent that nation from being taken over by a repressive regime that has a history of brutalizing its own people and actively supporting terrorists groups who have attacked our allies and would either like to attack us or get to our allies through us. The present government may not be our friends but AQ and the Taliban are our enemies.

[M.Dancer]

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.

Not true. There are various different groups in iraq who all have different agendas and goals. And these groups go about achieving these goals differently. It is far too simplistic to just lump them all into one group.

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.

I would not say that Canada is the cause of this violence, but in some cases our presence might be exasperating an already bad situation, and at best we cant do anything at all about the constant flow of AQ type militants from east pakistan.

Andrew

A shovel is needed for this kind of sloppy thinking....it doesn't matter how many dofferent groups there are in Iraq when all for one reason or another they all target civilians......

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

At the time of 9.11 the Taliban were being pressed on all sides by the Northern Alliance. They won the Civil War. With our help and the help of our allies the Government of Afghanistan may be able to achieve some sort of stability. The issue regarding Pakistan is irrelevant because it can't be dealt with until the interior is stablized.

[kimmy]

But the ads are promoting the Forces, not the mission. Specific missions, good or ill, are selected politically. The overall purpose of the Forces, and the principle(s) on which they aspire to be judged, are fairly represented in the advertisement.

Of all the comments in this thread, I like this one the most. I personally agree that the ads depict what we hope and expect that our Armed Forces should be about. And I agree with the sentiment that our politicians have a great trust placed upon them in choosing when and how to put Canadian military personnel at risk.

If our armed forces become involved in something wasteful or unjust, it is not the fault of the military personnel themselves, and it is not the fault of the institution of the armed forces. It is the fault of the politicians who chose to engage in that mission.

I think that most Canadians from across the political spectrum agree that it's important for Canada to have the ability to perform certain kinds of missions. Canadians might disagree with each other as to what kinds of missions our armed forces should actually engage in or which circumstances merit Canadian involvement, but I think the general premise, that sometimes Canada should be involved in some capacity, is widely agreed upon. And I think the types of duties demonstrated in the ad are the kinds of duties that many Canadians do support our armed forces performing.

I also agree that it is good that the ads do in fact show the soldiers in tense and dangerous situations. I would think that someone watching the ads would recognize "gee, that looks like it could be scary and dangerous." It is quite a contrast with other military recruitment ads that aim to leave the viewer thinking "cool! I could drive a tank!" or "cool! I could get a college degree for free!" while completely omitting any mention of combat duty or hazardous situations.

This most recent campaign does portray that aspect of military service, rather than showing soldiers morphing into medieval knights via computer graphics or similar nonsense.

This thread is a pleasant surprise, in that it largely stayed away from the sort of "ARMY = BAD" drivel that these sorts of things often degenerate into.

Well, aside from the usual suspects, at least...

What is fighting fear? What is fighting distress? What is fighting chaos? What are the "right" kind of recruits?

How does one fight fear? How does one fight distress? How does one fight chaos? Are they fighting for it, or against it?

Fighting creats fear, fighting creats distress, fighting creates chaos, so in truth our military would be creating the things the ad says fight. So then in truth it would be:

Fight for Fear, Fight for Distress, Fight for Chaos. Fight for the Canadian Armed Forces.

These ads smack of the disasterous fight comments of the CPC's 2005 election campaign revamped for the Canadian military recruitment campaign. So, maybe they will target the "right" type of people.

Pathetic, really.

-k

[Catchme]

What is fighting fear? What is fighting distress? What is fighting chaos? What are the "right" kind of recruits?

How does one fight fear? How does one fight distress? How does one fight chaos? Are they fighting for it, or against it?

You ask those questions as if you think they have no answer, but in fact they do. Ways that the forces fight fear, distress, and chaos are exemplified in the ad.

Fighting creats fear, fighting creats distress, fighting creates chaos,...

I'm afraid I don't find this sort of sloganeering very persuasive. It's a simplistic sort of moral relativism that fails to acknowledge that resistance to injustice is just.

The ads didn't answer anything talk about simplistic moral relativism. How does and armed convoy driving past a women with her arms outstreched in an area of copmplete devatation answer anything? How does a combat unit running up the stairs in a building, weapons in hand answer anything?

Fear is a commodity of the unknown, people fear what is unknown to them, war certainly does not create "known" it creates more unknown.

Distress is a creation of chaos, creating more chaos, does not alleviate distress.

There is MORE chaos now in Afghanistan, than there was prior to any "imperialistic" forces present. The civilians certainly are not in a reduced state of fear, distress and chaos..

The military is certainly not in a state of reduced fear, distress and chaos.

Canadians are certainly not in a state of reduced fear, distress or chaos.

So again, what does the military in a war situation have to with alleviating any of these things? Nothing. The ads are a lie, in as much as depicting "good times" are a lie.

Brainwashing 13 year olds into a war mentality, is criminal as far as I am concerned.

Those who profess themselves to be "Christians" while war mongering had better take another look at the teachings of Jesus. Especially those who are of a "Christian" sect that affords them the ability not to have to go to war as it would be against their religion, and who seem to be quite vocal about the need the for war, "over there".

[Figleaf]

Sometimes I am only explaining, not justifying. In this case I will justify. I think the ethics of 2 and 3 are not as bad as you suggest. Political cover may not be glorious, but if it was needed to keep us out of Iraq, then its better that it was there than not.

Honestly, id rather kill any one of our politicians than be killed covering for one. Regardless, i don't think Canada needed political cover to not go to iraq, we need not be afraid to tell the americans that we want no part of their imperialism.

You are speaking in terms of principles, and I am speaking in terms of outcomes.

The military's institutional desire to be deployed is shared by all the ranks including the regular soldiers. Deployments pay better, create opportunities to prove oneself for promotions, and allow them to discharge the sense of purpose that motivated their enlistment.

This is the reason why i do not support a standing army. Eventually their existence is used to justify their deployment.

That's not what my argument says. I say that since we do have a standing army, its institutional motivations (not its existence) favor deployment. I offer that not a justification for deployments, but as a remediating consideration when you judge the decision to put them in harm's way.

This is why the founding fathers of the US did not support a standing army, and it is the real danger now posed by the military industrial complex.

The MI complex is a problem for sure. However, no call-up army is likely to be worth squat in terms of global realpolitik. Hopefully good government confines the former while still serving reasonable military needs.

But the ads are promoting the Forces, not the mission. Specific missions, good or ill, are selected politically. The overall purpose of the Forces, and the principle(s) on which they aspire to be judged, are fairly represented in the advertisement.

But the current push for recruitments, tied into the ad campaign, is essentially for the indefinite commitment we seem to have made to not only Afghanistan, but wherever else our government, liberal or conservative, wiashes to see us tag along with the americans.

The Forces are enjoying a flow of money these days and upgraded advertising and recruitment are bound to be part of that. We simply disagree, I think, that everything Forces is about imperialist agression or Afghanistan. I think we should get out of Afghanistan, but I also think the Forces should recruit effectively. They are not contradictory notions.

You are certainly promoting a realist view, whereas i am promoting a ideal one.

Damn. I thought I was so clever making that observation -- when you already had. :chagrin:

[M.Dancer]

There is MORE chaos now in Afghanistan, than there was prior to any "imperialistic" forces present. The civilians certainly are not in a reduced state of fear, distress and chaos..

More than the civil war prior to the Taleban being ousted? More than the anarchy prior to the Taleban seizing power? More than the state of fear that the Taleban instilled?

I'm just saying cause aside from some sort of God metre...how would you know what kind of terror they have been living these past 15 years?

[Figleaf]

... Fear is a commodity of the unknown, people fear what is unknown to them, war certainly does not create "known" it creates more unknown.

More slogans. But the truth is fear can be all too well known. The Dutch feared the Nazis when they occupied them, and that fear was relieved when Canadian troops liberated them.

So again, what does the military in a war situation have to with alleviating any of these things?

It seems like you are trying to argue that there are no just causes for military action. But look, if individual's have the right to defend themselves, then surely the same analysis extends to groups of individuals and thereby to states.

Brainwashing 13 year olds into a war mentality, is criminal as far as I am concerned.

It's a free country.

[kimmy]

Those who profess themselves to be "Christians" while war mongering had better take another look at the teachings of Jesus. Especially those who are of a "Christian" sect that affords them the ability not to have to go to war as it would be against their religion, and who seem to be quite vocal about the need the for war, "over there".

If this crack was supposed to have been directed at me, it's off the mark. I have never been a Mennonite. My mother was, but she left the faith as a young woman. Nice try, though.

-k

[jenny]

Brainwashing 13 year olds into a war mentality, is criminal as far as I am concerned.

BUt, I seriously doubt, if this..

from a person in the advertising business...

with a 13 year old son in air cadets who runs to the TV every time he sees it come on

is true.

Because if if it is, that 13 year old boy has some serious problems

[Wilber]

Brainwashing 13 year olds into a war mentality, is criminal as far as I am concerned.

Those who profess themselves to be "Christians" while war mongering had better take another look at the teachings of Jesus. Especially those who are of a "Christian" sect that affords them the ability not to have to go to war as it would be against their religion, and who seem to be quite vocal about the need the for war, "over there".

As opposed to the Taliban and AQ, who of course do none of those things.

[jenny]

As opposed to the Taliban and AQ, who of course do none of those things.

Not sure exactly what that means.

But I suspect it means, because these nasty people, the taliban, who are so evil do it, its OK for the good guys, us, to do the same thing.

[Drea]

Seriously Jenny, get a grip on reality.

Canadian forces does not recruit suicide bombers. We do not recruit people on the basis that if they kill someone they will go to heaven and sit at the right hand of god.

A recruiting ad is not a terrorist recruiting camp.

I hope you are never flooded nor a hurricane or tornado ever hit your house 'cause the Canadian forces (that you so vilify) will be there. Will you spout your hatred at them then? When they are airlifting you off the roof of your flooded house?

Pffffffffft.