babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Military Reservist that didn't

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Military Reservist that didn't
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 13 October 2008 08:21 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Has this been posted? If so delete, if not read for the LOLZ.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/513548

quote:

Soldier says it's time to end Afghanistan war
Letter to the editor, Toronto Star, 8 Oct 08


I love my country just like anybody else. But when I hear of things our troops have done in Afghanistan, I have to ask, "What kind of legacy do we wish to leave behind?" Some examples: we respond to hostile fire by indiscriminate bombing and shelling of villages, killing innocent men, women and children; we fire white phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon outlawed by the Geneva Conventions due to the horrific way it burns human beings) into vineyards where it was known Afghan insurgents were deployed; we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan authorities, who torture them; and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister. Do we want to be remembered for hating, killing and destroying, or caring, healing and helping with reconstruction?

The war in Afghanistan is a lie. How can we inspire the Afghan people to respect liberty, democracy, equality for women, education for children, human rights and respect for life when we are maiming and murdering them and destroying their homes, communities, the economy and their country? If mothers and fathers keep on sending our youth to Afghanistan, then our sons and daughters will keep on fighting and dying and will keep on killing and injuring the sons and daughters of the Afghan people. And mothers and fathers of Canada and Afghanistan will keep on crying. Soldiers are trained to operate military equipment and vehicles. A weapon is put in one hand and ammunition in the other, and we are taught the fine art of killing our fellow human beings. If we wish to end this cycle of death, injury, destruction, hate, sorrow and despair, then we must stop war. So, when in future, our maimed soldiers walk down the street and our children ask, "Why?" we will say "Afghanistan" and mean a place where Canada turned against war and for peace, and not an obscene memory.

My fellow citizens, help me and soldiers like me end the war. Let's hear your voices. Let's do something we can all be proud of. If we achieve peace in Afghanistan, then the deaths of 97 of my "comrades in arms" and of unreported thousands of innocent Afghans will not have been in vain. Support the troops. Support peace. Bring our troops home now.

Corporal Paul Demetrick, Canadian Army (Reserve), Penticton, B.C.


Kicker is he's never been to Afghanistan. Wether you support the war or no, making these kinda comments when you've never been there seems a little brash. Someones talking out of their ass


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 October 2008 08:30 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wether you support the war or no, making these kinda comments when you've never been there seems a little brash. Someones talking out of their ass

Bullshit. Are you saying that the only people who have a legitimate right to put voice to their opposition are those who have been there? That is pure nonsense. I've heard no opposition from those who've been there or are there. Those soldiers lack the courage and morality to oppose what they obviously want to do, which is destroy Afghans. You do hear their joy at the opportunity to "use their training" (which means shoot people), or to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" (completely irrational, illogical, and just plain stupid), or to "fight for our country" (commanded by Americans, for American geopolitical goals), or "protect freedom and democracy" (in a country run by hand picked drug warlords).


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 13 October 2008 08:54 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think in order for someone to have a solid opinion of whats going on in your back yard they should have at last been over for a BBQ.

Hearing what is going on in your back yard from a friend who knows a guy who knows your neighbour isn't that solid IMO.

In anycase I bet the army slaps his pee pee for it.


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 October 2008 09:02 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
I think in order for someone to have a solid opinion of whats going on in your back yard they should have at last been over for a BBQ.

But Afghanistan isn't in our backyard. And contrary to what I've heard in recent weeks from the lunatic right-wing fringe, the Taliban are not threatening Canada's sovereignty.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 13 October 2008 09:11 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

But Afghanistan isn't in our backyard. And contrary to what I've heard in recent weeks from the lunatic right-wing fringe, the Taliban are not threatening Canada's sovereignty.


Agreed, not in our back yard.
The media would be a much better source than I heard from a friend, don't you agree?

As for the Taliban threatening Canada's sovereignty, agree again. Can you provide examples of government right wingers suggesting our sovereignty being threatened?
Or were the lunatic right wingers dudes from a message board?


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 09:55 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, great.

Just what we need.

Another warmongering soldier-troll.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 13 October 2008 09:55 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't quite see a problem with what the reservist wrote at all.

You don't need to go to a war to know that it is still a war. Everything that he said there is happening. It has happened in pretty much every war this century.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
helpistwosided
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15493

posted 13 October 2008 04:11 PM      Profile for helpistwosided     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well Mr. Reservist who has not been there, I have. Your facts are half truths but you are not fully informed. The Taliban had attacked the 2 towers in New York which started all this. America, and Canada invaded with the help of Northern Afghanistan. The Taliban have lost the rights to the land. But yes there is still a war. For years as we tried to rebuild their country, 3 remaining provinces, also the poorest have had much resistance. Schools and clinics get built by us, destroyed by the taliban. Farmers are forced to grow poppies, or be killed by the taliban. Any reconstuction done by us, usually gets attacked by the taliban. There are always, innocent people caught in the middle, its war, its ugly, it happens. But as a professionally trained Canadian soilder that has been there twice, I can say we do not go out of our way to harm innocents. Our mandate is reconstuction of the country, hearts and minds of the people, and it is getting better, the people are getting fed up with hostage taking, night letters, murder, and threats by the taliban. The taliban are getting desperate, even getting kids to blow themselves up with the threat that their families will be harmed if they don't. The Afghan army is getting better, and more professional, even with the watchful eye of UN, CIDA, and other organizations. Indiscrimenant bombing? Most bombing is done with laser guided weapons, as all things mechanical, they are not perfect, the taliban used to make the villagers flee when we arrived, now they make them stay, making our job much tougher, they always fire the first shots, its the taliban's choice to fight us. You have heard much of what the media has said, but what story sells advertising in tv or newspapers better, death and carnage, or humanitarian work and rebuilding? I really suggest you go there and see for yourself the good work that is being done, instead of focused on the less of 1% of bad that happens. Of course if you are too scared to risk your life to make this world a better place, why are you in the military, stay in your home and hope the world will get better by not getting involved. Of course, you have that freedom to do so, tell that to about 3 000 000 afghan people that do not, but then again, 22 000 000 afghan people now do.
From: patriotic heart | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 October 2008 04:20 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Taliban from Afghanistan attacked the twin towers? Last I heard, it was a bunch of Saudi Arabian guys in al-Qaeda, not Afghani Taliban.

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412

posted 13 October 2008 04:24 PM      Profile for A_J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
You don't need to go to a war to know that it is still a war. Everything that he said there is happening. It has happened in pretty much every war this century.

If he is simply writing about what is allegedly general knowledge re: Afghanistan, then he shouldn't be signing his letter as a member of the Armed Forces. By doing so he is falsely holding himself out as a knowledgeable commentator, or someone with a specialist's insight when in reality he is neither.

From: * | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 04:34 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
helpistwosided

I would re-check some of your facts.


A_J

I like the fact he signed his name, that took couarge.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 13 October 2008 04:48 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A_J:

If he is simply writing about what is allegedly general knowledge re: Afghanistan, then he shouldn't be signing his letter as a member of the Armed Forces. By doing so he is falsely holding himself out as a knowledgeable commentator, or someone with a specialist's insight when in reality he is neither.

Allegedly general knowledge?

It is rather silly for one to assume that he is claiming he isa specialist, but I must say that with basic military training, and the magic of widely dispersed information it isn't hard to see what he means.

The NATO forces in Afghanistan have been utilizing failed counter-insurgency tactics that have engulfed the local population into a 'devil we know' hopelessness. The troops go there culturally unprepared and are there to wage a war - not reconstruction. Why is it that the US intelligentsia, such as in last summer's issue of the American Interest, prefer to refer to soldiers as 'warriors'? They indeed are warriors, but in those terms, they are fighting a war that is full of all those lovely niceties of war. It is complete with an air campaign. Do you know much about those? It doesn't require one to be in the military forces or to have a doctorate in military sciences to tell you that when the human body is in an explosion it basically becomes a shrunken, charred crisp - a mocking doll of blackened flesh. And it doesn't matter a lick whether it is Coventry, Berlin, Guernica, Hanoi, or Jalalabad.

While it is comforting to assume that the casualties of fighters will mean that the war effort has been successful, one mustn't forget the necessary nature of collateral damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure that bombing causes. The simple fact is that Afghanistan is being operated in much the same was as the Vietnamization policies of the Nixon administration. The Coalition forces are putting pressure on the Afghan National Army to 'pick up the slack' that exists, and shifting their resources into an air-surge. That means that a lot of funds that ought to be moved to reconstruction efforts are going to have to be put into logistics for a sustained air campaign. That means support structures for the massive amount of maintenance that war planes require, the consistent shipping of armaments to ensure that those planes aren't merely deadly peacocks (more on display, less on doing), plus fuel and probably a million other things that can hardly be fathomed. Air Forces are as much bureaucracies as anything else, and bureaucracy has the effect of increasing costs and slowing down 'results'. It is going to be quite astonishing to see the actual costs of an increased air campaign in Afghanistan.

Anyone can ramble on for hours and hours and hours about this, and argue a million different points about why the war is wrong. However, I think it is quite easy to simply point out the costs of an air campaign because they are readily accessible to anyone. There are books upon books and thousands of articles standing at your finger tips to research - the government tells you their plains about a surge. Do some research on 'surges' and 'gaps' in the past and then make some decisions.

He may have been foolish in tossing in his military credentials, but he knows what he WILL see, because everyone SEES it. He will simply be unfortunate enough to have to directly experience it.

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Papal Bull ]


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
A_J
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15412

posted 13 October 2008 04:54 PM      Profile for A_J     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal Bull:
. . . he knows what he WILL see, because everyone SEES it. He will simply be unfortunate enough to have to directly experience it.

He's a reservist. He doesn't have to go to Afghanistan if he doesn't want to, and based on his letter, I highly doubt he'll be applying.

From: * | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 13 October 2008 04:55 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
How does that address the quoted statement?
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 13 October 2008 05:02 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A_J:

If he is simply writing about what is allegedly general knowledge re: Afghanistan, then he shouldn't be signing his letter as a member of the Armed Forces. By doing so he is falsely holding himself out as a knowledgeable commentator, or someone with a specialist's insight when in reality he is neither.

Well, calling himself Corporal doesn`t hold aout a lot of expertise. It is notionally possible to be a corporal with less than two years of training in the military, and none of that at a tactical or strategic level.

My greater concern is about the propriety of CF members commenting AS CF MEMBERS. Admittedly the lines are a deal fuzzier for a reservist. But when I have commented, I have tried to be clear that I comment as an individual. I don`t hide the fact that I am a reservist, but I also don`t hold out that I am speaking in any way for the military or for CF pers.

I suspect that Prometheus is correct that the corporal will be getting his pee pee slapped, as they say.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 13 October 2008 07:36 PM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Again because our military hates any from of decent to authority even if it lays the truth out about us not upholding human rights granted under THEIR geneva convention. The funniest is when the military hawks call suicide bombers 'cowards' yes because strafing a village is oh so brave from 2000 feet. But they always call someone killed by anything(even from friendly fire) a hero because he died protecting his country...so why aren't their deaths to repel an invader any less heroic. I guess it will weaken our resolve. Stupid military mentality and their supporters.

If we are doing something important like stopping a genocide in Rwanda then you can support the troops in their mission. The present mission is wrong, they don't want us their.

Take the long view. If say...China invaded canada to free us of capitalist war mongers like Harper, I would be grateful, however as soon as they wouldn't leave, or they kill even one of my conservative friends, they then become my enemy . And I would resist them with my every fibre. SO how are the taliban any different in this regard. And nothey said they would hand over Bin Laden if they were presented with any evidence. WOW Talk about evil. Rule of law really sucks when it applies to us. So whlie I don't want to see our soldiers killed in any way, neither do I want to see innocents killed for no reason. Bring the troops home.


From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 October 2008 08:42 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course if you are too scared to risk your life to make this world a better place, why are you in the military, stay in your home and hope the world will get better by not getting involved. Of course, you have that freedom to do so, tell that to about 3 000 000 afghan people that do not, but then again, 22 000 000 afghan people now do.

Ah, the well-informed soldier who has all the answers because he's "been there".

I'd say this is rather compelling evidence that the opposite of the opening conjecture is true: that those who have been there are so blinded by ideology, a sense of entitlement, bigotry, propaganda, and plain stupidity that they are the last people to trust for information.

Taliban attacked New York? Jesus. I hope you didn't train this guy, Webgear. It doesn't bode well for the quality of your instruction.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 08:51 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:

Ah, the well-informed soldier who has all the answers because he's "been there".

I'd say this is rather compelling evidence that the opposite of the opening conjecture is true: that those who have been there are so blinded by ideology, a sense of entitlement, bigotry, propaganda, and plain stupidity that they are the last people to trust for information.

Taliban attacked New York? Jesus. I hope you didn't train this guy, Webgear. It doesn't bode well for the quality of your instruction.


I have never used the words Taliban and New York in a sentence before nor would I.

I do not know him, if I did he would get a history lesson.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 08:52 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm:
My greater concern is about the propriety of CF members commenting AS CF MEMBERS. Admittedly the lines are a deal fuzzier for a reservist. But when I have commented, I have tried to be clear that I comment as an individual. I don`t hide the fact that I am a reservist, but I also don`t hold out that I am speaking in any way for the military or for CF pers.
I highly doubt that anyone is going to think Corporal Demetrick was speaking in any way for the military!

I see nothing wrong with someone identifying themselves as a member of the military reserve when making a public statement of opinion on military matters. Hell, generals, both active and retired, do that all the time. Nobody ever complains about the propriety of that; and its far more likely that a reader could conclude the general is speaking on behalf of the military than he would if the writer were a lowly corporal.

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 08:55 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I do not know him, if I did he would get a history lesson.
It's "she", BTW.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 08:55 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree.

I rather listen to the Cpl than most Generals.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 08:57 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
It's "she", BTW.

Ohh, sorry. My mistake.

How do you know she is a she?

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 09:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Check the profile:
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 October 2008 09:05 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by helpistwosided:
Well Mr. Reservist who has not been there, I have.

Houston we hav e a problem...

quote:
just for the sake of ppl who may doubt how I know what I know I'll tell you about myself. My husband has served 2 combat tours in Afghanistan in less then 2 years. I and our children have hardly seen him since Oct. 2005 due to work up training for the 06 tour and then work up training again for the 08 tour.
What I do have is a different husband and father to our children.

Posted by helpistwosided Sept 13 at 620here

So unless helpistwosided's husband is home and using her account, without being straight up about it to us, whatever 2sided has said needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 13 October 2008 09:10 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Check the profile:

Opps two mistakes in one night, that is it, I am going to bed.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 13 October 2008 10:33 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
I see nothing wrong with someone identifying themselves as a member of the military reserve when making a public statement of opinion on military matters. Hell, generals, both active and retired, do that all the time. Nobody ever complains about the propriety of that; and its far more likely that a reader could conclude the general is speaking on behalf of the military than he would if the writer were a lowly corporal.



I look at this as more of a broad principle. The military and members of the military commenting on public issues as such constitutes a blurring of the lines. I don't think serving officers or other members should be advocating for or against the Afghan mission, for example. (Retired officers etc., of course, are free to do as they please.)

Those designated (ie, Public Affairs Officers) need to speak to some extent to the why of military actions. But the big why (ie, why are we in Afghanistan) is a political decision by the government, and it is the government that should be answering that.

That said, a military member speaking as a private citizen is another matter. I don't think such a member should dissemble about being a CF member, regular or reserve. I haven't (as we witness from contrarianna's frequent ad hominems). But the lline needs to be clear.

A letter from Cpl Buddy, signed as Cpl Buddy blurs the line of propriety to my mind. Though I concede that the line is not always 100% clear.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
helpistwosided
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15493

posted 13 October 2008 10:42 PM      Profile for helpistwosided     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes my husband used my account and should have said as much but I showed him the post and he wanted to have his say..........My husband has his point of view of Afghan from serving on the frontlines in 2 tours under 2 years I have my point of view on the homefront.
We are totally different ppl but we are on the same team!
Ppl will always have their say and it is not my job to ram down anyones's throat what I think and what I believe. Too each their own.

From: patriotic heart | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 October 2008 10:55 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi ya, helpistwosided, thanks for clearing that up, I had thought perhaps that might be the case. But if you are going to share an account, which I do not recommend, we have other couples here who hold their own accounts, please ask that he clarify just who is posting in the future.

However, it saddens me, as obviously he is not clear on the actual history of why he is there, and has misconstrued a great deal about what lead Canada to be there. As such, he has participated from a wrongly informed position.
Anyhow, hope all is going well with his integration back to a family life.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 October 2008 10:56 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm:
A letter from Cpl Buddy, signed as Cpl Buddy blurs the line of propriety to my mind.
You keep saying that but you don't explain why.

I see no reason why identifying oneself as a Corporal, when the content of the letter makes it clear that it is a military person who is writing, is improper. You yourself said a CF member should not dissemble about being a CF member.

Nor do I think it improper for a person with a professional designation - like, say "APR" - to append that to his or her name when writing an opinion. I would never mistake such a communication as being made on behalf of the entire profession.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 13 October 2008 11:00 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have my point of view on the homefront.

You gotta be kidding.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 13 October 2008 11:14 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
You gotta be kidding.
No, that is the war mentality speaking, life is a battle to be fought, if it is not one battle, it is another, hear it all the time from those I know in the Navy, and the PPCL down in Vic and Esquimalt.

From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 14 October 2008 04:31 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm:
I suspect that Prometheus is correct that the corporal will be getting his pee pee slapped, as they say.

Class A Reservists are not considered to be on duty unless they have signed in with their respective unit. This is accomplished by attending the unit for designated training periods, and signing the Class A Attendance Record. If Corporal Demetrick is a Class A Reservist, then prior to this act of signing his unit's attendance record, and after the training period has been completed, he is actually Mr. Demetrick, and would not be subject to the Code of Service Discipline, and hence not be governed by the provisions of the National Defence Act. The terms of service for Class A Reservists, specifically questions as to when they are considered military soldiers under the authority of Canadian Forces rules and regulations, was tested in recent years at a Court Martial proceeding.
Court Martial

In fact, during one of these training sessions, if they subsequently order him not to communicate in any way with media on military issues, that order would only govern him for the duration of the training, which for the typical Class A reservist is 3-4 hours per week, and the occasional weekend.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 14 October 2008 07:35 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
The Taliban from Afghanistan attacked the twin towers? Last I heard, it was a bunch of Saudi Arabian guys in al-Qaeda, not Afghani Taliban.

[ 13 October 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]



Depends how you see it. The attack was launched by Al quaida. The Al quaida agents were initially trained by the Taliban, trained in and hid in Afghainstan and were supported by the Taliban.
One might argue the first steps to the attck were taken in the mountians in Afghanistan.

quote:
Originally posted by A_J:

If he is simply writing about what is allegedly general knowledge re: Afghanistan, then he shouldn't be signing his letter as a member of the Armed Forces. By doing so he is falsely holding himself out as a knowledgeable commentator, or someone with a specialist's insight when in reality he is neither.

Exactly. In signing it a member of the Canadian forces, regardless you're views on Harpers evil storm troopers or not, this man broke the law in that when he joined he willingly put himself under the code of service and discipline. That code does not allow soldiers to make political comments such as he did. (Again agree with it or not).
The average citizen cannot tell the difference between a Corporal and a Captian, nor do they discern a difference between a reservist with 2 years in the army (1 weekend a month)who has never deploed overseas and a soldier with multiple tours overseas considered an expert in whatever subject and who has witnessed what their speaking about.
The average Canadian see's a uniform, period. Soldiers are supposed to remain unbiased and non-politically motivated in the public's view. The military is a tool of the government to carry out their mandates etc..

quote:
Originally posted by thorin_bane:
If we are doing something important like stopping a genocide in Rwanda then you can support the troops in their mission. The present mission is wrong, they don't want us their.

Have you spoke to many Afghanistan locals? I don't mean stuff you've heard on TV or in the news, I mean have *YOU* spoke to many locals who said go home Isaf?

quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
You keep saying that but you don't explain why.

[u]I see no reason why identifying oneself as a Corporal[/u], when the content of the letter makes it clear that it is a military person who is writing, is improper. You yourself said a CF member should not dissemble about being a CF member.



Because he was making a political statement which soldiers by their nature should not do nor are legally allowed to.
You may not see a reason, you may think it's stupid, but it's how it is.
If you're a police officer you enforce the laws, you don't go on TV and tell the country which laws you think are good and which are bad. If you started saying well I don't think drugs are really that big of a deal, I think we should allow people to smoke pot or do E, your job is hanging on a thin thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Slumberjack:

Class A Reservists are not considered to be on duty unless they have signed in with their respective unit.



Perhaps not on duty but reservists still fall under the code of service discipline in a surprising number of ways.

Even if a reservist walks to work and doesn't sign in but is on DND properity he is under the code of service and discipline.
If he is on any military instilation or properity then he is under the code.
If he is wearing his uniform walking TO work and commits a crime, he is under the code of service and discipline.
Not putting his name on a nights attendance paper isn't the deciding factor my friend.
By signing the article as a Corporal in the Canadian Forces and mentioning his (current) military service you can bet that chances are he's going to fall under the code of service and discipline.

quote:
if they subsequently order him not to communicate in any way with media on military issues, that order would only govern him for the duration of the training, which for the typical Class A reservist is 3-4 hours per week, and the occasional weekend.

I am not sure where you've read this but it is incorrect.

From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 14 October 2008 07:59 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because he was making a political statement which soldiers by their nature should not do nor are legally allowed to.
So why was General Hillier not fired?

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 14 October 2008 08:24 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
I am not sure where you've read this but it is incorrect.

I read it here, which is an extract from the earlier link that I posted:

"Class "A" Reserve Service includes proceeding to and returning from the place where the training or duty is performed, but not when that training or duty, including attendance at local parades, local demonstrations or local exercises, is performed at local headquarters."

In that context, being on duty when proceeding to and from work means proceeding on temporary duty outside one's geographical area. Proceeding to and from duty at one's home unit is not considered to be on duty. In that particular case which I posted, the regulations regarding the on-duty status of Class A reservists has been tested and appealed by the Crown and in both instances, and in other cases, the Crown has failed to convince a court that a Class A reservist is on duty, and therefore subject to military regulations, when the person has not been "signed in" to perform military service. In any event, it was clear enough for the courts, and the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, so I'd just as soon take their word on it.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 14 October 2008 09:01 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great post Slumberjack, I appreciate your ability to debate without getting personal. It's always nice hearing counter arguments (and even being proven wrong) without snide comments, good stuff.

I was unaware of that court ruling, I'm reading that link now.
When I studied basic military law in 2007 it was different. That article is from 2003 (?) so I'm not sure if it's out dated or the material I was studying was incorrect. As far as we were taught a reservist wearing the uniform heading to their place of work was considered on duty. It's quite interesting, it seems with reserves there is a very grey line.
The corporal for instance in this article was NOT on duty at the writing of the article but perhaps since he signed it as a corporal and presented himself as a member of the Canadian Forces[ they may constitute that as falling under the code of military service and discipline.


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 14 October 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
That article is from 2003 (?) so I'm not sure if it's out dated or the material I was studying was incorrect.....since he signed it as a corporal and presented himself as a member of the Canadian Forces[ they may constitute that as falling under the code of military service and discipline.

Any changes regarding terms of service for Reservists would require changes to the National Defence Act, among other articles regarding the employment of Reservists. To date, no such changes have been made. As far as signing off on things as a Corporal on his own time, while not on duty, there is absolutely nothing they can do through the disciplinary system. They can however, undertake processes to Release him from further military service through administrative measures, if they deem that his off duty activities render him unsuitable for military service.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Slumberjack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10108

posted 14 October 2008 09:16 AM      Profile for Slumberjack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
Great post Slumberjack, I appreciate your ability to debate without getting personal.

Well, there have been times.


From: An Intensive De-Indoctrination, But I'm Fine Now | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 14 October 2008 10:48 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Depends how you see it. The attack was launched by Al quaida. The Al quaida agents were initially trained by the Taliban, trained in and hid in Afghainstan and were supported by the Taliban.
One might argue the first steps to the attck were taken in the mountians in Afghanistan.

Putting aside the fact that there is no proof of any involvement by any organization called Al Qaida in 9/11, your argument makes no sense.

By that same...I hate to call it "thinking", the British would have been justified in invading Canada and overthrowing the Trudeau government because the FLQ killed their ambassador.

Likewise, we would be entirely justified in destroying the American regime because of the Fenians.

But that's all irrelevant anyway, since Canada has never been attacked by anyone from Afghanistan, or anyone who trained in Afghanistan, or anyone even remotely connected to Afghanistan. 9/11 is entirely irrelevant to Canada's occupation of that country.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
the grey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3604

posted 14 October 2008 10:55 AM      Profile for the grey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Prometheus30:
As far as we were taught a reservist wearing the uniform heading to their place of work was considered on duty. It's quite interesting, it seems with reserves there is a very grey line.
The corporal for instance in this article was NOT on duty at the writing of the article but perhaps since he signed it as a corporal and presented himself as a member of the Canadian Forces[ they may constitute that as falling under the code of military service and discipline.

The decision contains an excerpt of the relevant provisions. While wearing his/her uniform, a reservist is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. While on duty, a reservist is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. While heading to their place of work, a reservist is subject to the Code because of the former, and not because of the latter, provision.

As a CIC officer, for instance, a significant amount of my time is spent on voluntary service for which I am not paid. While I am not paid, I am not "on duty," but I am quite frequently still subject to the Code because of either where I am, what I'm wearing or what I'm doing. However, if I'm sitting at home in civilian attire not getting paid and doing paperwork or writing news releases, I'm not subject to the Code.

The decision linked to above provides a quite strong argument that the Cpl in question here would not be subject to the Code by reason of using her rank in signing the statement.


From: London, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 14 October 2008 11:08 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slumberjack's comments on the status of a Class A reservist are accurate. Unless one wanted to make an argument based on him having signed the letter as "Cpl," which would be a long bow, he would not be subject to any formal disciplinary or administrative action that I can see.

Of course, getting one's pee pee slapped, as they say, is not necesssarily - or even usually - a formal process. I was thinking more in terms of a chat with the sargeant in which he was advised to use better judgement.

_____


MSpector, my point has to do with the propriety of serving personnel commenting in detail on military policy AS a serving member. The use of his rank and unit in his signature imply that he is doing so. In that, he erred, IMNSHO.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Prometheus30
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15633

posted 15 October 2008 04:52 AM      Profile for Prometheus30     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:

The decision contains an excerpt of the relevant provisions. While wearing his/her uniform, a reservist is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. While on duty, a reservist is subject to the Code of Service Discipline. While heading to their place of work, a reservist is subject to the Code because of the former, and not because of the latter, provision.

As a CIC officer, for instance, a significant amount of my time is spent on voluntary service for which I am not paid. While I am not paid, I am not "on duty," but I am quite frequently still subject to the Code because of either where I am, what I'm wearing or what I'm doing. However, if I'm sitting at home in civilian attire not getting paid and doing paperwork or writing news releases, I'm not subject to the Code.

The decision linked to above provides a quite strong argument that the Cpl in question here would not be subject to the Code by reason of using her rank in signing the statement.


In any case it ill be interesting to see how things pan out and wether he remains unpunished via the military or they manage to ding him with something. The military is nothing if not efficient in finding ways to punish it's members.


From: ottawa | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 15 October 2008 09:09 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't expect any formal disciplinary or administrative outcome. Like I said, it'll be a one-sided chat with the Sergeant.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca