You might be right. Scary to think about something like that. The dynamics of it from what I would understand is something like anything goes.
It would be interesting if someone does a movie or book on the Airborne and looks into it even deeper.
Abuse video fuels Arab fury at West
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
You might be right. Scary to think about something like that. The dynamics of it from what I would understand is something like anything goes.
It would be interesting if someone does a movie or book on the Airborne and looks into it even deeper.
I don't agree with the course of action taken by the Brits. However I don't think people have the right to decree their actions as criminal without seeing the whole picture. To reiterate, was the riot handled properly? No. Were the Brits out of control? No.
You "trained" with the Airborne? Saying I believe you, you were never a part of the Regiment then? So you are in no place to speak as you do about a unit you were never a part of. I once got a speeding ticket by a member of the Edmonton Police Service, does that give me the right to say all EPS members are pricks? As for the "making the World safer" aspect. Take it or leave it, the truth is that their actions over there will prevent warfare from ever spilling to our shores. People like you are the ones who bitch and moan about war, however would be the ones bitching and moaning to the Government if warfare ever touched your life.
Then you're prejudice in every sense of the word. As I mentioned before, the murder in Somalia was conducted by less than a section of men, yet for some reason the whole Regiment has been labeled as murders. I never once said that due to their terrific abilities, they should be given special priviledges. However I do feel that we as a Canadian society often overlook the individuals who provide us the freedom we take for granted. The Airborne was full of excellent soldiers, and as I pointed out many still serve this Country. I hate to point out to you all, but 6 of the 8 Canadians killed in Afghanistan have been paratroopers. One of them, Sergeant Marc Legre, a trooper for years, whom Caracal would deem an extremist nutbar, was utterly revered in The Former Yugoslavia, where a whole village has erected a monument in his honour. He helped build a school, provide the children with books, and organize well digging parties. He was so well respected that the populace dubbed him "King Marco". Does that sound like an extremist nutbar to you? He's just one example of the men you lump in with Matchee and Brown. A man who gave his life for this nation, and who's memory you dishonor with you narrow-minded take on the World.
So disbanding the only unit (at the time) in the Canadian Forces of mounting an effective offensive operation, not to mention the only unit charged with the protection of the Artic, was a good idea? If you are/were a soldier, what a waste of rations you must be/have been.
You're blaming the Airborne for being close-knit? Yikes, you really mustn't be a soldier, close-knit soldiers are a fact of life. When you live in a shithole with men for 6 months straight you tend to bond, that's a good thing. It's called Espirte de Corps. Yes the Airborne was treated a elite, they were, very. They may be gone but the SOR has stood up and JTF-2 exists, they're even more elite than the 'borne was. Should we fear them?
Dory isn't on the frontlines because soldiers exist so he doesn't have to fight. Do you honestly believe that every person who agrees with the war should just suit up and fight? Furthermore Dory is a Canadian, last time I checked we aren't at war with Iraq.
Books do exist, numerous books. I'd suggest:
Bastard Sons by Bernard Horn
Sharp End: A Canadian Soldiers Story by James R. Davis
In Search of Pegasus : The Canadian Airborne Experience 1942-1999 by Bernard Horn & Michel Wyczynski
RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
Actually, having worked and observed them without being a part of their bonding rituals I am a very good position to comment on the Airborne.
You think I am against war but would be crying to the government if war came to canada? WRONG!
close-knit: you say you are a soldier and that perhaps explains your incomprehension of the difference between postive bonding and polarization. You are forgiven.
Disbanding: yes, it was a very sound decision to make. The conditions that existed within it could not have been easily corrected, if at all. When something is that dysfunctional the best approach is to start over. The mentality of the unit needed to be irradicated.
Yes, if somebody is such a warhead they can march right on up and sign on the dotted line. There is far too much of this warring attitude of people that are all too willing to send OTHERS to do the dirty work.
Since you seem so bent on making this personal why don't you head to the beach and bemoan over there? The problem for you is being "in the forces" makes you far too biased to the realities of this world and how the military does and should work.
Actually, having worked and observed them without being a part of their bonding rituals I am a very good position to comment on the Airborne.
You think I am against war but would be crying to the government if war came to canada? WRONG!
close-knit: you say you are a soldier and that perhaps explains your incomprehension of the difference between postive bonding and polarization. You are forgiven.
Disbanding: yes, it was a very sound decision to make. The conditions that existed within it could not have been easily corrected, if at all. When something is that dysfunctional the best approach is to start over. The mentality of the unit needed to be irradicated.
Yes, if somebody is such a warhead they can march right on up and sign on the dotted line. There is far too much of this warring attitude of people that are all too willing to send OTHERS to do the dirty work.
Since you seem so bent on making this personal why don't you head to the beach and bemoan over there? The problem for you is being "in the forces" makes you far too biased to the realities of this world and how the military does and should work.
No excuses. These guys are nothing but stupid, chickensh*t clowns.
The victims appear to be teenage kids. Most of them don't even have shoes. Even if they're not kids, it's obvious that the soldiers are much larger than the Iraqis, but still they have the victims being held by other soldiers while they're beaten with batons, boots, and fists. Some of the beating was done after some prisoners were restrained with those plastic wrist cuffs. They were boots to the groin and boots to the head.
You can thank these courageous morons for helping to recruit a whole lot more new terrorists and suicide bombers.
quotes from News of the World writer & ex-SAS veteran, Chris Ryan.
The victims appear to be teenage kids. Most of them don't even have shoes. Even if they're not kids, it's obvious that the soldiers are much larger than the Iraqis, but still they have the victims being held by other soldiers while they're beaten with batons, boots, and fists. Some of the beating was done after some prisoners were restrained with those plastic wrist cuffs. They were boots to the groin and boots to the head.
You can thank these courageous morons for helping to recruit a whole lot more new terrorists and suicide bombers.
quotes from News of the World writer & ex-SAS veteran, Chris Ryan.
We have to see, but from what it sounds like, I hope they get the maximum penalty.
And it doesn't do any good for any other British soldiers who are not gutless like these guys. How many Iraqis and British soldiers and civilians have to be killed to respond to this incident of stupidness.
And it doesn't do any good for any other British soldiers who are not gutless like these guys. How many Iraqis and British soldiers and civilians have to be killed to respond to this incident of stupidness.
Re: RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
the caracal kid wrote:
If war is necessary Dory, why aren't YOU on the frontlines?
Still undergoing training at the moment, application is underway to go full time. Unless you'd like to rush my paperwork through that is... seeing how you've got connections to the airborne and all that.
MARS officer is first choice on the list, Armoured second, Infantry third. Damn good chance I'm either going to be in the Gulf or Afghanistan in a year or two, and it would have been sooner if it hadn't been for an old injury that stalled my application for two years. I'm no chickenhawk, Caracal, so lay off the finger-pointing.
And why is it you believe that Mogz as a soldier can't understand the military mindset, but you as a civilian can? Would that imply that civilians know more than soldiers about how the military works? In the reverse, would that imply that soldiers would therefore know more about civilian life than you, since they're not a part of it?
This whole "you're a soldier, so you're obviously not going to understand" is just petty-minded self-superiourity Caracal.
the caracal kid wrote:
If war is necessary Dory, why aren't YOU on the frontlines?
Still undergoing training at the moment, application is underway to go full time. Unless you'd like to rush my paperwork through that is... seeing how you've got connections to the airborne and all that.
MARS officer is first choice on the list, Armoured second, Infantry third. Damn good chance I'm either going to be in the Gulf or Afghanistan in a year or two, and it would have been sooner if it hadn't been for an old injury that stalled my application for two years. I'm no chickenhawk, Caracal, so lay off the finger-pointing.
And why is it you believe that Mogz as a soldier can't understand the military mindset, but you as a civilian can? Would that imply that civilians know more than soldiers about how the military works? In the reverse, would that imply that soldiers would therefore know more about civilian life than you, since they're not a part of it?
This whole "you're a soldier, so you're obviously not going to understand" is just petty-minded self-superiourity Caracal.
RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
Well, good luck to you then Dory.
Understanding group dynamics is the issue here. In the case of a highly polarized group, being a member (and what that entails psychologically) dsistorts one's perceptions of the group.
Being an observer is different from being a participant. Understanding and correcting for attribution errors is essential to being able to separate out objective study from subjective study. As for the other "police" comparison or this "civilian" comparison: they are both invalidated because the airborn e was a very small select group of soldiers drawn from a military group (based on qualities suited to airborne function) where the other cases are more hetrogenious in nature.
" This whole "you're a soldier, so you're obviously not going to understand" is just petty-minded self-superiourity Caracal."
No, it is idenifying the biases involved as put forth Mogz's very biased and emotional statements.
Well, good luck to you then Dory.
Understanding group dynamics is the issue here. In the case of a highly polarized group, being a member (and what that entails psychologically) dsistorts one's perceptions of the group.
Being an observer is different from being a participant. Understanding and correcting for attribution errors is essential to being able to separate out objective study from subjective study. As for the other "police" comparison or this "civilian" comparison: they are both invalidated because the airborn e was a very small select group of soldiers drawn from a military group (based on qualities suited to airborne function) where the other cases are more hetrogenious in nature.
" This whole "you're a soldier, so you're obviously not going to understand" is just petty-minded self-superiourity Caracal."
No, it is idenifying the biases involved as put forth Mogz's very biased and emotional statements.
I am well aware of the bonding rituals you refer to; jamming jump wings in to another troopers bare chest, nude mud wrestling, etc etc. However, that said, you clearly lack any knowledge on the whole issue. The bonding rituals took place in a single platoon in a single commando. The entire Regiment didn't follow these rituals. You're blaming the entire Regiment of over 900 men for the actions of less than 40.
How am I wrong? You clearly don't support the people overseas preventing warfare from ever reaching our homes. You say you'd not bitch to the Government if warfare ever reached Canada, yet you won't support the people out preventing such a thing from even happening? Am I missing something?
Once again you prove you know nothing about the Regiment. The Somalia affair happened in 1993, yet the Airborne wasn't disbanded for over a year later in 1994. During that year period the unit received a new Commanding Officer, Company Sergeant Majors were shuffled around, and closer supervision was placed on the troops. A month before the Regiment was axed, a report was sent to the Defence Minister outlining the changes made to the Airborne, including; The new COs crack down on the bad eggs of the unit, many of which were either ejected from the Airborne or placed on recorded warning. A new supervision plan was in effect and working well to keep the higher ups appraised of the happenings in the companies and platoons. In all the report said that the Regiment was totally different than the unit of the previous year and was considered effectively under control and ready for overseas deployment. You claim that the Airborne was beyond repair, however in just over a year, major changes took place that people, both military and civilian, conceded were working well to repair the Airborne. So why was the Airborne still axed? Because the Government had a headache and cut off the head. They were so concerned with their own image (many high ranking Government officials tampered with the Somalia investigation) that they didn't want the Airborne to stick around. So they disbanded the Regiment, the supreme insult to a unit, to have their colours stripped and their members scattered. It's easy to sit there and cast blame on 900 men for the actions of less than 16. It's far to easy to ignore that, yes, mistakes were made in the command structure. It's easy to decree the unit beyond repair. All those things are far easier than looking at the good that happened post-Somalia. When the Airborne Regiment paraded for the last time, when the colours were taken, when the troops dismissed, grown men cried. Some of the toughest men on the planet wept like babies. Why? Because their Government had just taken away the most important thing in their lives. Many civilians fail to realize that a Regiment is the most important thing to a soldier. It gives him a purpose, and when you take that, you kill a part of the soldier. In the grand scheme of things, disbanding the 'Borne hurt the CF more than the Government knows. When the Airborne was around, it gave the average soldier something to shoot for, to set themselves above the rest. Post-Airborne there was nothing, aside from JTF-2, a unit that is so secretive and selective that only a handful of soldiers ever get the chance to apply, let alone serve with the unit. Now, only in 2006, is a new unit standing up, the Canadian Forces Joint Special Operations Regiment. Perhaps that'll give the new generation something to shoot for, perhaps not. In all disbanding the Airborne was a mistake, a huge mistake, something that highlights our Governments neglect for the military. Hopefully the Conservatives will make good on their promise to bring back the Airborne. We'll see.
If anything it makes me MORE in touch with the world. Western society is clouded by this peace not war attitude, something that developed after Vietnam and gained steam in the late 70's. People have forgotten that our way of life was forged with warfare. I'm not saying war is the answer to everything, however I do accept that sometimes war is a favourable option. Many times civilians fail to grasp the ramifications of steering clear of conflicts. What would have happened if we'd steered clear of World War I? World War II? Korea? The Gulf War? Bosnia? Haiti? Afghanistan? Iraq? Would the world be safe? Or even the way it is today? Highly unlikely. What really gets me, is that you claim that me being a soldier blinds me to how a military does and should work? Now correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a soldier know best how a military should work? That's like saying a person being an electrician blinds them to how electricity does and should work. Moronic no? If anything I know better than the average person how a military should and does work. What do you think an Army is for? Handing out food parcels? Peacekeeping? No, even though that is a common misconception in Canadian society, hell the news even deems Afghanistan a peacekeeping mission. A lit bit of info for the civies on these forums. When a soldier serves a tour in Afghanistan, they're awarded the General Campaign Star. A medal awarded for, and I quote:
That's not peacekeeping, that's warfare. The primary role of a soldier is to kill. Not hand out blankets, or police buffer zones, to kill. Yes I agree full out we should help people, there is nothing wrong with peacekeeping in and of itself, however in Canada people often fail to realize that our primary occupation is taking lives in the defence of Canada. I'm not blinded by ignorance Caracal (not an insulting kind of ignorance mind you) that all civilains poses. A quote will serve to highlight this:
yes I am biased, because I see the whole picture, a picture closed off from the civilian world. I see the ramifications of disbanding the Airborne and what it did for troop moral. My statements are emotional too, yes, because for one; you lumped my father in with the likes of Matchee and Brown. And two, you pass judgement on an organization that protects you without you even knowing it. In essence, your ability to speak your crass comments stems from the blood and sweat of soldiers wearing a Maple Leaf on their shoulder.
RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
"I am well aware of the bonding rituals you refer to..."
actually you are not refering to what i am refering to. I am refering to the group dynamics of the entire regiment. As for the shuffling, you fail to see how the conditions that create dynamics that result in things such as the somalia incident were still present.
Are you so in touch with the world by being indoctorinated into upholding the western standard? I think not.
I saw what disbanding the Airborne did as well, and recognize it was a necessary step to correcting problems that dog the canadian military.
Now don't proclaim anything about the canadian forces protecting me, because they do not. The canadian forces protect what they are ordered to by the government of the day. Don't try and paint the military as heros. I can see why you would, much like why the government must, but don't pass off that rhetorical dogma in defense of the canadian forces.
"Now correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a soldier know best how a military should work?"
No. "a soldier" is an expendible unit (to put it bluntly). "a soldier" in the generic terminology is built to perform a function, not to define that function. Now the military has methodologies of selecting out individuals who have the potential to actually determine how the military should work, but these are but a few.
"How am I wrong? You clearly don't support the people overseas preventing warfare from ever reaching our homes. You say you'd not bitch to the Government if warfare ever reached Canada, yet you won't support the people out preventing such a thing from even happening? Am I missing something? "
What your missing is how you have been lied to wrt "preventing wars from hitting canada".
And for the record I have seen the "whole picture" from both a "civilian" and a "military" standpoint.
"I am well aware of the bonding rituals you refer to..."
actually you are not refering to what i am refering to. I am refering to the group dynamics of the entire regiment. As for the shuffling, you fail to see how the conditions that create dynamics that result in things such as the somalia incident were still present.
Are you so in touch with the world by being indoctorinated into upholding the western standard? I think not.
I saw what disbanding the Airborne did as well, and recognize it was a necessary step to correcting problems that dog the canadian military.
Now don't proclaim anything about the canadian forces protecting me, because they do not. The canadian forces protect what they are ordered to by the government of the day. Don't try and paint the military as heros. I can see why you would, much like why the government must, but don't pass off that rhetorical dogma in defense of the canadian forces.
"Now correct me if i'm wrong, but wouldn't a soldier know best how a military should work?"
No. "a soldier" is an expendible unit (to put it bluntly). "a soldier" in the generic terminology is built to perform a function, not to define that function. Now the military has methodologies of selecting out individuals who have the potential to actually determine how the military should work, but these are but a few.
"How am I wrong? You clearly don't support the people overseas preventing warfare from ever reaching our homes. You say you'd not bitch to the Government if warfare ever reached Canada, yet you won't support the people out preventing such a thing from even happening? Am I missing something? "
What your missing is how you have been lied to wrt "preventing wars from hitting canada".
And for the record I have seen the "whole picture" from both a "civilian" and a "military" standpoint.
I'm looking at that paragraph and not really understanding it. At first you decree the Airborne had bonding rituals, which I conceded a small portion did. Now you're saying that isn't what you're talking about. Now you're on about something called "group dynamics". Could you please clarify, or better yet explain to me what conditions still existed post-Somalia in a completely retooled Regiment?
1. I haven't been indoctrinated, that's a typical view of civilans. I'm a normal human being just like you, however my lifestyle makes me privy to things that joe-Canadian doesn't see or hear about. As for upholding the Western lifestyle, that's in essence my job description. My job is to protect Canada and it's interests.
2. What problems existed/still exist? I'm curious to see what problems dog the CF. As for losing the born, no good came of it. We lost an elite Regiment that's primary responsibility was the protection of Northern Canada. Also, as you may or may not know, the Airborne's secondary role in Canada was counter-terrorism. You call losing both of those important capabilities a good thing?
I never said you had to accepted it, in fact I believe I said you didn't even know it was happening. However take it or leave it, the freedom you enjoy and your ability to sell the men and women in uniform short exist soley because they're wearing that uniform. Over 100,000 Canadian men and women have given their lives in service to this Country. Do you honestly believe that our way of life isn't the way it is because of those sacrifices? A member of my unit; MCpl Paul Franklin recently lost a leg in Afghanistan due to a suicide bomber. He's wasn't in Afghanistan for medals, or for glory, he was there because our Government realizes the threat that exists in that failed nation. Him and thousands of other Canadians are there to prevent that lawlessness and unrest from that nation ever directly effecting the way of life we enjoy in Canada. When it all boils down to it, your lifestyle is upheld by soldiers. Lastly I don't need to defend the CF from you, the reputation held world wide by our men and women is defense enough. Consider my posting here an attempt to educate the ignorant as to how lucky they are.
That thinking may have flown back in the 40's anf 50's when a soldier didn't have to think. In the 21st Century a soldier isn't a mindless drone anymore. At what point does a soldier know how a military should work? Does the infanteer not know how to be an infanteer? What his purpose is? You bet he does, because if he doesn't he's dead. Long gone are the days when the officer pointed and the men charged. Here are the days where each soldier does his own thinking. A great example of this is the three block war scenario. For those that don't know, this doctrine dictates that wars these days usually have three phases going on at the same time; Combat, general aid, and security. You cannot expect a soldier to be put in a situation like that to simply stand there with a rifle. A soldier has to know how the Army works, what his job is, and how he can adapt that to accomplish his mission. In short, a soldier knows better now more than ever how a military should work.
Nobody has lied to me. My Colonel didn't hold a briefing where he said "troops we're the tip o' the spear". I realize the role we play overseas because of what our missions entail. Lets say we pull out of Afghanistan tomorrow, in fact lets say the whole World pulls out. What are we left with? A lawless nation where the Taliban can come back in from Pakistan or from the hills around Kandahar and set up their regime again. Next we'll have more shit flying in to buidling in North America and we'll be back at square one. You may not know Caracal Al-qaeda and the Taliban have listed the following six nations as their top priority for destruction:
-The United States
-Britain
-Canada
-France
-Germany
-Australia
Look back in the news a few years and you'll find the broadcast made on Al-jazeera regarding the top enemies of Islam. There we are in the top 6, not a good place to be and do nothing bud. If you think nothing to benifit Canada is coming out of our troops being overseas, ask yourself then, why are we sending thousands overseas in to a region that has declared us infidels to be killed on sight? Canada doesn't want to dominate the World, we don't like to pick fights with people for the fun of doing it. Why then are we deploying enmass overseas to a warzone? Because the people making the calls, or as you'd say:
realize the degree of threat an untamed Afghanistan presents.
You claim to have served in the Forces, yet don't respect anyone from this nation serving in uniform. Furthermore you make outrageous claims that members of the CF contribute nothing to the security of Canada. If you were in the Forces what the hell were you, an RMS Clerk?
As I read this thread it reminds me of Scot Taylor. He did one tour of service and started a magazine on the Canadian Military. He appoints himself as a expert, yes some of his articles have helped improve the Military but some of what he writes is not fact but just his interpertation of events. The Air Borne was not a group of Hand Maidens they were trained to kill and given drugs that were untested like lab rats. Have any of you seen what happens to a person who suffers battle Fatique or Post Tramatic Stess Syndrom? I have. My neighbour came home after three months of duty in Bosnia and I didn't reconise him. He aged twenty years, he had TB and he was a haunted man. I would find him wondering the woods behind our backyard with a drink in his hand at 8am ranting and incoherant. When my husband came back from his tour he tried talking to him but he was so haunted by what he had seen that he couldn't get past it. He would ask me if my husband was having bad dreams, flash backs etc. I said "no" but I noticed unusal behavior i.e. if he heard a loud noise he would reach for his hip like he was going to grab his side arm. Could this man have snapped and beaten an inocent, yes he could have. Eventually he reached a point where he was able to seek help but it was awful to watch. An article in the paper today cited a young man that took place in the rock throwing and he stated "They were walking by and noticed the British Military and they became angry because all of their life ills where the British Military's fault. So they started to pelt them with rocks, stones and anything else they could hurl. Inocents, I don't think so. Frankly I would of shot the little snots.
RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
My entire conversation has been on the entire group dynamics of the Airborne, not the sub-group involved in the Somalia affair. The conditions that led to the actions within that group were based within the regiment as a whole. This is why had it not been that group in Somalia, the risk was present of a similar or worse incident occuring at a different date.
Yes, upholding the "western standard" as commanded is part of your "job descriptio", but one must recognize the indoctorination methodologies employed to ensure that such commands are upheld.
The loss of the airborne was a necessary step. I didn't say that the roles it played were redunant. Now as for problems that plague the CF. Consider again what the airborne was, and how the members were conditioned to do their role. Now look at some of the secondary roles they were placed in. It was a mismatching of unit to assignment. This happens too often within the CF because it often attempts to be something it is not so it "makes sacrifices".
Actually, it is not the 50's but the "grunt" still is an "expendible unit". Just like it takes more years of schooling now than in the 50's for most types of work, the increasing complexities and specializations exist in the forces, but that does not mean that a soldier is equiped to determine the best functioning of the military. Quite the opposite, with more complexity, greater training is necessary to command.
I didn't claim that the CF does not function for the security of Canada. I said that that what some pass off as being "security" is not. You are correct, i do not respect the "men in uniform". I do not respect any military servicemen for in the end no matter what military one is with, they are all the same. My position comes from both a philosophical and an experiential position. When expected to prepare humans to die for senseless reasons at the whim of warheads my stomach turns. When (as much as you don't like the word) expected to indoctorinate soldiers so they can be good little robots I felt I was a hypocrite. When I would think through the scenarios of people on the "other side" doing the same thing, for such petty purposes, i cried inside. The devaluation of life is the path to our assured destruction.
Now I am not saying it is time to disband the entire military machine but it is past time to redefine said machinery.
Don't worry, even if canada pulled out of afganistan there would not be airplanes flying into buildings becase if it.
Remember, it is not our role to tell others how to live.
My entire conversation has been on the entire group dynamics of the Airborne, not the sub-group involved in the Somalia affair. The conditions that led to the actions within that group were based within the regiment as a whole. This is why had it not been that group in Somalia, the risk was present of a similar or worse incident occuring at a different date.
Yes, upholding the "western standard" as commanded is part of your "job descriptio", but one must recognize the indoctorination methodologies employed to ensure that such commands are upheld.
The loss of the airborne was a necessary step. I didn't say that the roles it played were redunant. Now as for problems that plague the CF. Consider again what the airborne was, and how the members were conditioned to do their role. Now look at some of the secondary roles they were placed in. It was a mismatching of unit to assignment. This happens too often within the CF because it often attempts to be something it is not so it "makes sacrifices".
Actually, it is not the 50's but the "grunt" still is an "expendible unit". Just like it takes more years of schooling now than in the 50's for most types of work, the increasing complexities and specializations exist in the forces, but that does not mean that a soldier is equiped to determine the best functioning of the military. Quite the opposite, with more complexity, greater training is necessary to command.
I didn't claim that the CF does not function for the security of Canada. I said that that what some pass off as being "security" is not. You are correct, i do not respect the "men in uniform". I do not respect any military servicemen for in the end no matter what military one is with, they are all the same. My position comes from both a philosophical and an experiential position. When expected to prepare humans to die for senseless reasons at the whim of warheads my stomach turns. When (as much as you don't like the word) expected to indoctorinate soldiers so they can be good little robots I felt I was a hypocrite. When I would think through the scenarios of people on the "other side" doing the same thing, for such petty purposes, i cried inside. The devaluation of life is the path to our assured destruction.
Now I am not saying it is time to disband the entire military machine but it is past time to redefine said machinery.
Don't worry, even if canada pulled out of afganistan there would not be airplanes flying into buildings becase if it.
Remember, it is not our role to tell others how to live.
My fingers are starting to cramp:
Sassy, i'm not claiming to be an expert on the military, Canada or the World, however I do tend to think I have things in perspective. I have never claimed the Airborne was next to Sainthood, but then again it's a Regiment that has been dogged by propoganda and 1/2 truths. As for drug testing, that was a small portion of the unit (much like everything they're blamed for), my father and friends that have served with the Airborne were never tested upon. As for the soldier who returned from Bosnia, yes it does happen, especially back then when PTSD wasn't widely accepted and seen as a form of weakness. These days we are trained to recognize PTSD in its base form and help those affected by it. That said not everyone who does a tour becomes what you've described. Granted awful things are seen and they will haunt a person, but not everyone snaps.
The point i've been trying to make. Innocent is a relative term. Why would you toss rocks at armed soldiers? That's like toss rocks at a grizzly bear. Not overly smart is it?
I beg to differ. You cannot deem every aspect of a Regiment as being the same. The actions in 1 Commando cannot be carried over to 2 Commando and vice versa. Each Commando was run as it's own entity, which is why the Airborne was a great organization. The failure came from the CO and his inability to manage his subordinates, and to a lesser extent his inability to properly communicate the rules of engagement while in Somalia. The panel that sat on the Somalia inquiry came to the conclusion that the whole incident was the result of Matchee being sent overseas, Even though his pre-deployment psych profile suggested otherwise. He was deemed unfit for overseas service yet his platoon OC still signed off on him going. A failure right there, in that particular Commando. Can that be blammed on the other two Commandos in the Regiment? No, of course not. The Airborne itself was not flawed, members in it were, and those flaws were not identified due to a lack of proper supervision. You never did answer my question however, why was the Airborne still disbanded if the Regiment was completely retooled from top to bottom? You speak of issues in the whole Regiment, yet fail to even describe one of them, let alone all. What were these Regimental wide problems? What were these issues that affected every trooper? The problems that ACTUALLY existed, which were identified and corrected no longer dogged the Regiment. If anything the Regiment was better than it had ever been, and with things heating up in The Former Yugoslavia it would have made perfect sense to keep a skilled Regiment like the Airborne around. End statement; unless you can give me ONE example of a Regimental epidemic that was cause for total disbandment, i'll assume you have nothing and are just basing your entire argument on what you saw in the media and your disdane for a Regiment you don't understand.
Give me an example of indoctorination that occurs in the Canadian Forces?
Ok i'm looking at the 'Borne and i'm not seeing what you're talking about. The Airborne had excellent soldiers whose chief domestic responsibility was the defense of the arctic. A role they were suited for due to their para-deployment capabilites in to a remote region of Canada. Partner the Airborne with the Canadian Rangers and you've got an excellent Northern watchdog. In regards to their secondary roles, I fail to take issue with that either. Their chief secondary role was counter-terrorism. What's wrong with having highly fit, highly trained men at your disposal to assist the RCMP SERT at handling terrorist issues? I'd like to point out that the British 22nd Regiment, otherwise known as the SAS, in the U.K. is a soley military unit whose PRIMARY role domestically in the U.K. is counter-terrorism. So why are the SAS fit for counter-terrorist duties while the Airborne wasn't?
That's your right to feel that way, however as i've said time and time again warfare has forged this nation. Without warfare this nation would be nothing. You assume that the military devaluates life. You're wrong. Yes we come to accept that sometimes people die, but we also accept that they were taking doing the most noble thing a human being can do. Protecting others. Your bad experiences or hippyistic (I made that word up) attitude may cloud your ability to recognize what i'm saying, but that doesn't change the fact that thousdands of Canadians wear the uniform to protect our way of life. Without the men and women of the CF our international acclaim woudn't exist, nor, perhaps, would the Country I love so much. I'm just sorry you don't respect the people who put themselves in harms way for the betterment of society.
Yes I agree, however in Afghanistan we were asked to come back. As you may or may not know, we pulled out of Afghanistan briefly in the summer of 2002. The Afghan Government asked us to come back and help them. We agreed, not only to help them, but because we analyzed the threat Afghanistan presented to our way of life and coupled with our ability to aid a fledgling Afghanistan, we have returned enmass. As a rejoinder to your claim that it's not our role to tell people how to live, yes i'll agree, however it IS our role to decide how we live, and if that means going off to some far away land to engage some extremist whose agenda is the destruction of Western civilization, so be it.
Actually those dorks throwing stones are heavily armed Brits don't have any concept of their place in the World. They're told at the mosque that the West is evil therefore they take it for the word of Allah. So they chuck stones at people they don't know, who are for the most part just doing their job. I have no sympathy for the "innocents" beaten by the Brits. I will however say I don't agree with it either. As soldiers their job is to uphold the law and represent their nations ideals. I highly doubt slapping some ignorant Iraq's around is high on the Brits agenda. In all I have empathy for the Brits and their actions, but as I said don't think it was the correct stance to adopt.
Yes you clearly don't understand the situation at all. Somalia wasn't about food, or drowing individuals. We were asked in to Somalia by the U.N., the Airborne deployed near Belet Huen and the people were so happy to see them that they cried. However militants from neighbouring tribes showed up and time and time again tried to raid the Canadian Camp. Many were shot and killed, some even run over by Iltis'. These people, more like poor excuses for people, deemed that because the Camp was on "their land" that they had every right to what contents lay within. Shidane Arone just happened to be one of hundreds of Somalies that tried to enter the Canadian Camp. He, unfortunately, was captured by Clayton Matchee. As a result he was beaten to death. I have never said I supported Matchee and Brown, quite the opposite really, however I do understand where it all came from. Imagine being in a land far away from home, trying to help people who shoot at you and steal from you. Eventually you could snap and take it to excess. Did what the Brits do fall in line with what happened in Somalia? Hell no, but it all stems from the same place, ingratefulness.
Yikes, you sure don't know much about what's really going on over there do you? First off let me point it, a Gorilla lives in a tree, a Guerrilla is a partisan, coming from the word guerra, or "little war". That said, over 80% of the insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi citizens. They're extremeists from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc, who are blinded by faith and have a grudge against the West. If over 50% of the insurgents are from outside Iraq's borders, they're not Guerillas. For the first few years many Iraqis supported the coalition, however due to an increase in insurgents targeting civilians, the residents have no place to direct their anger than at coalition troops. It's like in Afghanistan, a village in the moutains 2 hours North of Kandahar supports the coalition being in Afghanistan, however are forced to harbour insurgents when the coalition troops leave. Not a nice World we live in.
Actually in terms of freedom in Iraq there is way more control. Granted yes it is a war zone, something that people fail to realize. The U.N. did not oppose the war at the begining, they simply sat there and watched.
First off, I hate that catch phrase "9/11". That said, I have never once claimed that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on New York. I have however said in these posts that Iraq has been on America's hit list as a threat to national security for years. The attacks on New York just allowed them to fast track their invasion.
The U.S. not only lost Vietnam due to PR issues, they lost because the vast majority of the troops they had fighting over there were pot-smoking draftees. As for North Korea, we didn't lose North Korea, in fact the war wasn't just in North Korea, in flowed back and forth along the 38t parallel. The war ended because China entered the war and the West realized that in order to defeat both Norea Korea and China it'd take years and years and cost millions of lives, something the World wasn't too keen on coming out of World War II less than a decade before. Lastly in regards to the Korean War, South Korea supported us fully, and the war was started by North Korea, not us. With regard to this "foreign legion" you speak of, how would that have helped the U.S. secure it's own nation against a myriad of threats?
Sassy, i'm not claiming to be an expert on the military, Canada or the World, however I do tend to think I have things in perspective. I have never claimed the Airborne was next to Sainthood, but then again it's a Regiment that has been dogged by propoganda and 1/2 truths. As for drug testing, that was a small portion of the unit (much like everything they're blamed for), my father and friends that have served with the Airborne were never tested upon. As for the soldier who returned from Bosnia, yes it does happen, especially back then when PTSD wasn't widely accepted and seen as a form of weakness. These days we are trained to recognize PTSD in its base form and help those affected by it. That said not everyone who does a tour becomes what you've described. Granted awful things are seen and they will haunt a person, but not everyone snaps.
The point i've been trying to make. Innocent is a relative term. Why would you toss rocks at armed soldiers? That's like toss rocks at a grizzly bear. Not overly smart is it?
I beg to differ. You cannot deem every aspect of a Regiment as being the same. The actions in 1 Commando cannot be carried over to 2 Commando and vice versa. Each Commando was run as it's own entity, which is why the Airborne was a great organization. The failure came from the CO and his inability to manage his subordinates, and to a lesser extent his inability to properly communicate the rules of engagement while in Somalia. The panel that sat on the Somalia inquiry came to the conclusion that the whole incident was the result of Matchee being sent overseas, Even though his pre-deployment psych profile suggested otherwise. He was deemed unfit for overseas service yet his platoon OC still signed off on him going. A failure right there, in that particular Commando. Can that be blammed on the other two Commandos in the Regiment? No, of course not. The Airborne itself was not flawed, members in it were, and those flaws were not identified due to a lack of proper supervision. You never did answer my question however, why was the Airborne still disbanded if the Regiment was completely retooled from top to bottom? You speak of issues in the whole Regiment, yet fail to even describe one of them, let alone all. What were these Regimental wide problems? What were these issues that affected every trooper? The problems that ACTUALLY existed, which were identified and corrected no longer dogged the Regiment. If anything the Regiment was better than it had ever been, and with things heating up in The Former Yugoslavia it would have made perfect sense to keep a skilled Regiment like the Airborne around. End statement; unless you can give me ONE example of a Regimental epidemic that was cause for total disbandment, i'll assume you have nothing and are just basing your entire argument on what you saw in the media and your disdane for a Regiment you don't understand.
Give me an example of indoctorination that occurs in the Canadian Forces?
Ok i'm looking at the 'Borne and i'm not seeing what you're talking about. The Airborne had excellent soldiers whose chief domestic responsibility was the defense of the arctic. A role they were suited for due to their para-deployment capabilites in to a remote region of Canada. Partner the Airborne with the Canadian Rangers and you've got an excellent Northern watchdog. In regards to their secondary roles, I fail to take issue with that either. Their chief secondary role was counter-terrorism. What's wrong with having highly fit, highly trained men at your disposal to assist the RCMP SERT at handling terrorist issues? I'd like to point out that the British 22nd Regiment, otherwise known as the SAS, in the U.K. is a soley military unit whose PRIMARY role domestically in the U.K. is counter-terrorism. So why are the SAS fit for counter-terrorist duties while the Airborne wasn't?
That's your right to feel that way, however as i've said time and time again warfare has forged this nation. Without warfare this nation would be nothing. You assume that the military devaluates life. You're wrong. Yes we come to accept that sometimes people die, but we also accept that they were taking doing the most noble thing a human being can do. Protecting others. Your bad experiences or hippyistic (I made that word up) attitude may cloud your ability to recognize what i'm saying, but that doesn't change the fact that thousdands of Canadians wear the uniform to protect our way of life. Without the men and women of the CF our international acclaim woudn't exist, nor, perhaps, would the Country I love so much. I'm just sorry you don't respect the people who put themselves in harms way for the betterment of society.
Yes I agree, however in Afghanistan we were asked to come back. As you may or may not know, we pulled out of Afghanistan briefly in the summer of 2002. The Afghan Government asked us to come back and help them. We agreed, not only to help them, but because we analyzed the threat Afghanistan presented to our way of life and coupled with our ability to aid a fledgling Afghanistan, we have returned enmass. As a rejoinder to your claim that it's not our role to tell people how to live, yes i'll agree, however it IS our role to decide how we live, and if that means going off to some far away land to engage some extremist whose agenda is the destruction of Western civilization, so be it.
Actually those dorks throwing stones are heavily armed Brits don't have any concept of their place in the World. They're told at the mosque that the West is evil therefore they take it for the word of Allah. So they chuck stones at people they don't know, who are for the most part just doing their job. I have no sympathy for the "innocents" beaten by the Brits. I will however say I don't agree with it either. As soldiers their job is to uphold the law and represent their nations ideals. I highly doubt slapping some ignorant Iraq's around is high on the Brits agenda. In all I have empathy for the Brits and their actions, but as I said don't think it was the correct stance to adopt.
Yes you clearly don't understand the situation at all. Somalia wasn't about food, or drowing individuals. We were asked in to Somalia by the U.N., the Airborne deployed near Belet Huen and the people were so happy to see them that they cried. However militants from neighbouring tribes showed up and time and time again tried to raid the Canadian Camp. Many were shot and killed, some even run over by Iltis'. These people, more like poor excuses for people, deemed that because the Camp was on "their land" that they had every right to what contents lay within. Shidane Arone just happened to be one of hundreds of Somalies that tried to enter the Canadian Camp. He, unfortunately, was captured by Clayton Matchee. As a result he was beaten to death. I have never said I supported Matchee and Brown, quite the opposite really, however I do understand where it all came from. Imagine being in a land far away from home, trying to help people who shoot at you and steal from you. Eventually you could snap and take it to excess. Did what the Brits do fall in line with what happened in Somalia? Hell no, but it all stems from the same place, ingratefulness.
Yikes, you sure don't know much about what's really going on over there do you? First off let me point it, a Gorilla lives in a tree, a Guerrilla is a partisan, coming from the word guerra, or "little war". That said, over 80% of the insurgents in Iraq are not Iraqi citizens. They're extremeists from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc etc, who are blinded by faith and have a grudge against the West. If over 50% of the insurgents are from outside Iraq's borders, they're not Guerillas. For the first few years many Iraqis supported the coalition, however due to an increase in insurgents targeting civilians, the residents have no place to direct their anger than at coalition troops. It's like in Afghanistan, a village in the moutains 2 hours North of Kandahar supports the coalition being in Afghanistan, however are forced to harbour insurgents when the coalition troops leave. Not a nice World we live in.
Actually in terms of freedom in Iraq there is way more control. Granted yes it is a war zone, something that people fail to realize. The U.N. did not oppose the war at the begining, they simply sat there and watched.
First off, I hate that catch phrase "9/11". That said, I have never once claimed that Iraq had anything to do with the attack on New York. I have however said in these posts that Iraq has been on America's hit list as a threat to national security for years. The attacks on New York just allowed them to fast track their invasion.
The U.S. not only lost Vietnam due to PR issues, they lost because the vast majority of the troops they had fighting over there were pot-smoking draftees. As for North Korea, we didn't lose North Korea, in fact the war wasn't just in North Korea, in flowed back and forth along the 38t parallel. The war ended because China entered the war and the West realized that in order to defeat both Norea Korea and China it'd take years and years and cost millions of lives, something the World wasn't too keen on coming out of World War II less than a decade before. Lastly in regards to the Korean War, South Korea supported us fully, and the war was started by North Korea, not us. With regard to this "foreign legion" you speak of, how would that have helped the U.S. secure it's own nation against a myriad of threats?
RE: Abuse video fuels Ara
as i described, it was the group dynamics that were the issue with the airborne. The best solution was disbanding the regiment and starting over. Specifically, it was the organization as a whole that was the problem! My position is based on actually working with the aireborne unit. I actually had warned something like Somalia or worse was a real potential years before the Somalia incident.
Don't confuse discussion of group structure and dynamics with the individual traits of the members. However, as you should know, the dynamics of the group influence the behaviours of the individuals within. This is where problems can become intensified.
My "hippisitic": no, i am not hippisitic. I merely recognize the real nature of the military and its role.
Indoctorination: it begins before one is even sworn in. It extends through every facet of the military structure. You do not create "good soldiers" without it.
as i described, it was the group dynamics that were the issue with the airborne. The best solution was disbanding the regiment and starting over. Specifically, it was the organization as a whole that was the problem! My position is based on actually working with the aireborne unit. I actually had warned something like Somalia or worse was a real potential years before the Somalia incident.
Don't confuse discussion of group structure and dynamics with the individual traits of the members. However, as you should know, the dynamics of the group influence the behaviours of the individuals within. This is where problems can become intensified.
My "hippisitic": no, i am not hippisitic. I merely recognize the real nature of the military and its role.
Indoctorination: it begins before one is even sworn in. It extends through every facet of the military structure. You do not create "good soldiers" without it.
MMMike said:
How can you compare the two? The beheading videos are done by terrorist and insurgants! I mean, that is what they do, they terrorize and resist. Violence is their caveat.
The foreign liberation forces are supposed to liberate, spread freedom, and bring peace and harmony; not toture, abuse and demean.
In a twisted sort of way, I can respect a terrorist who terrorizes more so than a liberator who terrorizes.