Why are these freaks allowed to wear the uniform?
- Thread starter reccecrewman
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Lance Wiebe said:This problem has been around for a while. I was posted to Germany (RCD), and was back in Canada on course when Ronald Reagon was elected president. I remarked to one of my coursemates "One way or another, this means a showdown with the USSR. We may be putting our training to use soon."
He looked at me, all bug-eyed, and within a week had put in a request to LOTEP to another trade, and putting in a VW from the course.
[/quote
One day during that time you mentioned I thought of my car parked at the Fiat plant. Don't know if you were back in Germany when we received a SNOWBALL and thought "Here we go" but turned out to be nothing but it was the most realistic one since I had been there.
I won't comment on the guy who wants to try to DAG Red to avoid going to Afghanistan. I'd just like to praise the ones who serve their country whatever the mission is. My son is a Engineer with more tours then his old man and I can only say I'm very proud of him and all who go and serve.
1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
Well, there are people in uniform, in all services, that are missing something that we had pounded into our heads in Cornwallis in '89; "Learn to Serve"...or they have learned to serve "themselves". I think "careerism" is one of the terms used these days.
As for the Reg Frce soldiers who are trying to DAG red, shoudn't the same apply to Reserves in full time positions who get whiney when they have to do anything as well? Last summer, we had an ex-Reg Frce Snr NCO (Navy) who threatened to "put in his 30 days" if he got sent to ARCON...as EXCON on Base no less! And guess what? They didn't send him! (They being Reg Frce senoir offcr). We couldn't believe it. I looked at a well-respected Inf MWO in our HQ and said "well Sgt-Mjr, I guess thats the standard." Pathetic.
Same as the PT test. I hear people whining about the new policy of min Expres-test every year...umm, its not a new policy folks...just actually being enforced now. You want to see a collection of PT misfits? Come to the Stadacona gym in Halifax any day of the week and see all the butterballs on remedial PT...playing indoor soccer and looking like they are going to die.
"It" (IT being big green machine, and the people in it) has let some people become weak, let their dedication waver, let their personal discipline go to pot. Supervisors are SUPPOSED to make sure their people are up to snuff. There is supposed to be ramifications for not passing DAGs, PT tests, etc etc. There is a system. It a matter of if its employed. Some people look for the easy way out so they don't have to do all the paperwork on their people that are below standard. That is part of the problem too.
Reg or Res force, servicemembers should be held to the standards across the board, and when it comes down to it, who wants someone that is not dedicated or weak in character and conviction in their foxhole or turret? Not me. No thanks.
Now to go out on a limb and compare to a movie, does anyone remember Pte Blithe from Band of Brothers? Eventually, he got himself sorted out. Maybe, the "Pte Blithe's" in the CF will sort themselves out, or get out.
I just try to make sure that my own troops aren't "Pte Blithe's". And myself.
Give me a spot on the plane to A-Stan, and I am there. Not to proud either, you need a Res Snr NCO to be part of Admin Tp, slingin' jerry cans? Done. Everyone has a part. Step up and do it. Thats what counts in the end.
"Learn To Serve"
As for the Reg Frce soldiers who are trying to DAG red, shoudn't the same apply to Reserves in full time positions who get whiney when they have to do anything as well? Last summer, we had an ex-Reg Frce Snr NCO (Navy) who threatened to "put in his 30 days" if he got sent to ARCON...as EXCON on Base no less! And guess what? They didn't send him! (They being Reg Frce senoir offcr). We couldn't believe it. I looked at a well-respected Inf MWO in our HQ and said "well Sgt-Mjr, I guess thats the standard." Pathetic.
Same as the PT test. I hear people whining about the new policy of min Expres-test every year...umm, its not a new policy folks...just actually being enforced now. You want to see a collection of PT misfits? Come to the Stadacona gym in Halifax any day of the week and see all the butterballs on remedial PT...playing indoor soccer and looking like they are going to die.
"It" (IT being big green machine, and the people in it) has let some people become weak, let their dedication waver, let their personal discipline go to pot. Supervisors are SUPPOSED to make sure their people are up to snuff. There is supposed to be ramifications for not passing DAGs, PT tests, etc etc. There is a system. It a matter of if its employed. Some people look for the easy way out so they don't have to do all the paperwork on their people that are below standard. That is part of the problem too.
Reg or Res force, servicemembers should be held to the standards across the board, and when it comes down to it, who wants someone that is not dedicated or weak in character and conviction in their foxhole or turret? Not me. No thanks.
Now to go out on a limb and compare to a movie, does anyone remember Pte Blithe from Band of Brothers? Eventually, he got himself sorted out. Maybe, the "Pte Blithe's" in the CF will sort themselves out, or get out.
I just try to make sure that my own troops aren't "Pte Blithe's". And myself.
Give me a spot on the plane to A-Stan, and I am there. Not to proud either, you need a Res Snr NCO to be part of Admin Tp, slingin' jerry cans? Done. Everyone has a part. Step up and do it. Thats what counts in the end.
"Learn To Serve"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
17th Recce Sgt said:
17th Recce Sgt,
Please excuse my abbreviation of your former post. I simply wanted to encapsulate the elements that struck me as being absolutely pertinent to the current business of soldiering. The CF is not a "McJobs" organization. We have a national imperative to satisfy foreign policy objectives. More often than not these days, we must achieve that mandate by "doing the business" in the field. Anyone who joined the CF under false pretences with different expectations is more than welcome to seek alternate employment.
Everyone currently serving at the pointy end of Canadian foreign policy deserves our utmost respect. But more importantly, they deserve our collective readiness to step up to the plate in their place if required. Reg F or Res F, we have a duty to be prepared to cover them off.
Anyone who joined under misguided pretenses is now faced with the "put up or shut up" connundrum. Those who mistakenly joined the CF thinking that they "would never go to war" now need to seriously reconsider their motives and current service. If the response is that the ongoing campaign is something they didn't "sign up for", then those people wearing the uniform under false pretences need to do us all a favour and quit. Now. Because their personal "services" are no longer required. The rest of us are busy fighting a war, and "dead weight" is counter-productive.
You are correct in stating that personnel in leadership positions at all levels need to pony up and do their jobs - especially where it concerns initiating administrative action against unsuitable subordinates who can't or won't deploy. We have collectively accepted such "dead weight" for far too long, under the self-delusional guise that they fulfill otherwise essential functions when employed in adminstrative positions. Bull-crap. Anyone in uniform who refuses to deploy is a waste of rations. It is well past time for them to go. There ought to be no such thing as a "non-deployable" position.
Having said that, our injured soldiers who are unable (as opposed to unwilling) to deploy are a different case deserving of due consideration and compensation. We have permanently injured soldiers who can continue to serve in useful functions that take full advantage of their professional training and experience. And where those circumstances occur, we ought to take full advantage.
But when it comes to the so-called "civvies in uniform" that serving soldiers all know and universally despise? They ought to be shite-canned ASAP with no mercy. Time to cull the herd.....
Just my personal thoughts,
1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
Agreed. 100%.
Very frustrating to hear people trying to duck and cover when there are those of us asking for tours that they don't have place for us to go on...
:threat:
Very frustrating to hear people trying to duck and cover when there are those of us asking for tours that they don't have place for us to go on...
:threat:
Michael Dorosh
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
ArmyRick said:
What makes you think they ever aspired to calling themselves that? They clearly joined the army with no intention of being soldiers. Oxymoron? Not really. Certainly a different point of view. But don't judge them the way you would judge yourself, they obviously have clearly different values (or lack of same).
A
aesop081
Guest
Michael Dorosh said:
Micheal, you make a good point about differing values. But would joining the military and refusing to deploy because "this isnt what i signed up for" be the same as someone joining a fire department and, when the alarm bell sounds, refusing to go saying "fighting fires is not what i signed up for " ?
1
17thRecceSgt
Guest
Michael Dorosh said:
I am not sure I agree totally with you on this one MD...here's why. What exactly do the good citizens of Canada think they are doing when the swear the Oath? I knew what I was doing...aand where it could lead, oddly enough, by a book I had read before Basic called "Urgent Fury", a book on the 82nd AB up to the Grenada operation. It eluded to what being "in the service" was all about in the opening...I have never heard it put any way better since that day in 1989. Almost 17 years later, the same conviction is there, but I base that on one premise; I remember hearing "we are here to defend democracy, not practice it!!!!" (with some other words added for humour ;D) from an old RSM that had been with the Blackwatch when they disbanded.
I would suggest that, these people, from the get-go, were more dedicated to themselves than to the Service. Its a "job" to them, vice a "lifestyle" for those who try to be dedicated professionals. They have no more commitment to the country, its citizens, and comrades -in-arms than the Walmart Greeters have for each other.
Again...
"Learn to Serve". I got that point early in Basic...fortunately it never escaped me...unfortunately...some folks missed it. :-\
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Michael Dorosh said:
The fact that a) I am beginning to understand Michael, and b) I am defending him, disturbs me on soooooo many levels, but I will actually do so: his point (as I understand it) is that "these people" (being the crybabies who don't wanna play soldier when the going gets rough) never planned on being soldiers. They just planned on joing the military and getting a steady paycheck. The rest of us (I would assume everyone reading this post falls into this category) joined the military knowing full well that we would pick up the rucksack and march off to war if that was expected of us. There is a difference. I refer to the other type of people as "civvies in uniform". They may look like us, but they certainly aren't like us.
I think that when somebody like that is "outed", they should be forced to do a march of shame between 2 ranks of soldiers facing each other, and be Tasered by each soldier they pass. And EVERY soldier on the Base/Wing/Ship gets to take part. I don't think the novelty of doing this to someone would ever wear off for me. Make it a Friday afternoon activity, with beer and hamburgers (though the smell of burnt flesh may be a bit much for rookies to this event).
Al
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Yeah!Allan Luomala said:
We can have a Bde Pde and have their Regt'l Buttons and accoutraments, their awards and decorations, and their rank torn off their uniforms.......then the March of Shame to the front gate......it has the makings of a movie or TV Series, don't you think? Oh! Sorry! I am dating myself. Chuck Connors in "The Rifleman". ;D
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,022
- Points
- 1,010
Which of the following best describes service in the Army ....
(A) A 9 to 5 job;
(B) A welfare system with a uniform;
(C) A optional deployment service; or
(D) None of the above
If you need to be told the correct answer, please apply for a release from the CF immediately.
(A) A 9 to 5 job;
(B) A welfare system with a uniform;
(C) A optional deployment service; or
(D) None of the above
If you need to be told the correct answer, please apply for a release from the CF immediately.
- Reaction score
- 3,104
- Points
- 1,160
The show was called "Branded", it starred Chuck Connors as a disgraced cavalry officer..... After The Rifleman met his demise. The coolest part was the opening credits, when he was stripped of his rank, sword broken and returned, and drummed out.George Wallace said:
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Branded....it was. :-[
- Reaction score
- 5,128
- Points
- 1,060
Kat Stevens said:
Actually his boss broke it in half and threw it out the gate. Connors walked out, and they closed the gate behind him. He picked up the top half of the sword and walked away. Later he sharpened what remained, and it was used in many episodes as a weapon. IIRC.
Shit, but I can't remember what I did last week!!! :blotto:
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Just a little cross-referencing here, but this is an example of what we are talking about:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37604/post-361292.html#msg361292
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37604/post-361292.html#msg361292
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
There are a lot of dragoons on this website,how about a name to fit this story?
Similar threads
