Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Canadian Cadets


Recommended Posts

Cadets are just more quasi-military than the Scouts. Do you avoid buying girl scout cookies because they have "Duty to God" as a part of their charter?

Actually yes. That and...have you looked at the ingredients in those things? :sick: They're a shining example of what's wrong with the food industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument was that adding another state institutionalized, specifically one with a militarized mentality or "boot camp-esque" practices, is just going to add the likelihood of your child becoming a brainwashed drone.

I don't have kids of my own yet but I know bad parent when I see one, I was abandoned by one of mine. Homeschooling isn't my only game plan either though, but it's sure up for consideration down the road, at least for high school grades. Anyways my point is that parents usually send their kids off to "summer camps" like these because they don't have the time/energy to handle the load they birthed upon themselves. And don't have a full understand on how to develop a child. Yes there are plenty of good qualities from the camp, but also there is some disgusting condition of the kids going, on. Refuse to acknowledge it all you like, but don't call me out as coming from an ignorant perspective. I have two grandparents that served in WWII. I have an immense knowledge of all military regimes throughout history, and I thoroughly understand the types of conditioning put upon those kids.

Someone earlier said only something like 2/10 kids in cadets eventually go on to serve in the military, and argued at how little a percentage of them that was. Well I can't think of any other youth institution pumping out a higher percentage of future veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My argument was that adding another state institutionalized, specifically one with a militarized mentality or "boot camp-esque" practices, is just going to add the likelihood of your child becoming a brainwashed drone.

I don't have kids of my own yet but I know bad parent when I see one, I was abandoned by one of mine. Homeschooling isn't my only game plan either though, but it's sure up for consideration down the road, at least for high school grades. Anyways my point is that parents usually send their kids off to "summer camps" like these because they don't have the time/energy to handle the load they birthed upon themselves. And don't have a full understand on how to develop a child. Yes there are plenty of good qualities from the camp, but also there is some disgusting condition of the kids going, on. Refuse to acknowledge it all you like, but don't call me out as coming from an ignorant perspective. I have two grandparents that served in WWII. I have an immense knowledge of all military regimes throughout history, and I thoroughly understand the types of conditioning put upon those kids.

Someone earlier said only something like 2/10 kids in cadets eventually go on to serve in the military, and argued at how little a percentage of them that was. Well I can't think of any other youth institution pumping out a higher percentage of future veterans.

That would be quite a bold statement, even for a military history professor.

And I said reserves, although that might not count since it's literally armed forces already.

You seem fundamentally opposed to summer camps. I must disagree with that, and I think it is more than just a lazy tool for lazy parents. So it seems we've hit an impasse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Echoing Bob and Elvis, for this discussion to be fruitful, everyone needs to separate out Cadets from the Government of Canada and its military/foreign policy. Cadets, including those in OP's pictures, have nothing to do with forming or implementing those policies.

@lockout casualty

Cadets (founded 1879) and other organizations like the YMCA (1844), or even the British Columbia Youth Parliament (1924) were all created to keep youth (originally only boys and later girls) from getting into trouble. All have their differing philosophies on how to go about it, obviously.

The time where those organizations were founded is also a time before organized sports leagues as we know them existed, so sending the city kids for militia based training might have made a lot of sense. (If you lived on a farm, there was likely still lots of work to do, so you might have stayed largely out of trouble.)

Could other organizations fill the needs? Sure, Scouts Canada might provide winter survival training, but Cadets continues to exist because the Government of Canada continues to fund it and perhaps it meets needs (in availability or scope) that other organizations cannot or do not.

Each of my siblings (but not myself) were put in cadets. One brother even became squadron commander for his air cadet squadron, but not one of my siblings shows any interest in joining the military.

About your disdain for parents grooming their children. Note all the Asian kids in those pictures. Asian parents are notorious for wanting to have their kids be doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Those parents do not want their kids to become soldiers, as often the places they come from soldiers are tools of oppression and/or are corrupt. Asian parents do however value the structure and discipline that comes from cadets. If the kids happen to learn how to survive in the bush, or learn to fly a plane for free, so much the better.

To be honest, I'm not sure if the rationale for any parents putting their kids in cadets differs much from those Asian kids' parents too.

I'm not sure where the what gives you the idea that cadets might "romanticize" the idea of war any more than GI JOE (cartoon or the movies), Transformers, Call of Duty or Halo does? Remember the A-Team? A popular 80s TV show where thousands of rounds of ammo were "shot", but never once was anyone killed or maimed? I loved Transformers, GI JOE, and the A-Team, and I can't say I have any interest in shooting a real gun, let alone running off to war.

The Navy League (those little kids in navy uniforms you have a picture of) has decided to stop using those fake rifles as part of their drill. Apparently gives people the wrong impression...

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/not-a-para-military-organization-navy-cadets-to-stop-using-replica-rifles-over-bad-image-of-kids-carrying-guns

I hope that as you read through this thread and maybe meet actual people who were in cadets, you might realize that your characterization of this organization is mistaken. Perhaps next time you see one of those kids asking for donations, you might ask them what the organization is all about.

@Bhudda's Hand - why spend money on this?

Ah, the perils of living in a democracy. Systems of delegated authority have a habit of spending $ on things we don't support.

Governments always try to have programs to try and get youth employed or to stay out of trouble. Cadets is just one of the many (past, present, and future), and this one enjoys the pseudo support of this government.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/military-budget-cuts-leave-cadets-without-parkas-1.1608123

Historically there has been the "Summer Youth Employment Program" which bridged unemployed youth into the military. There have been other ones like Katimavik, Summer Work - Student Exchange, and FSWEP. The current federal government seems to be moving away from programs like the first two (read cut), and is focusing on funding people joining the trades.

Perhaps a different government will be elected this year, and the funding priorities will change. We'll just have to see.

No, that is not why the Cadets were formed at all. From the official website:

http://www.cadets.ca/en/about/cadets-history.pageSince the late 1800s the Canadian Cadet Program has offered valuable training to young Canadians free of charge. Army Cadets first came into existence in the late 1800s as part of a young militia school program with the mandate of training boys over the age of 12 in military skills and drill. During the First World War, the Army Cadet Organization thrived, with more than 64,000 Cadets enrolled, thousands of whom volunteered to serve Canada overseas. Interest in Army Cadets ebbed between the two wars only to be significantly revived during the Second World War as Canadians looked to their youth to serve their country.

Or according to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Cadet_OrganizationsIn 1862, 5 years before Confederation, "drill associations" were set up in Canada as a response to the Fenian Raids and the American Civil War. These early drill associations served to train militia and were open to people over the age of 13. In 1879, the government authorized the creation of 74 "Association for Drill in Educational Institutions", drill associations that were open to male youth over the age of 14 and which did not entail active service in the military. The Riel Rebellion of 1885 motivated increased support to these youth drill associations. By 1887, they were called the cadet corps, and were open to boys over the age of 12.

There is absolutely nothing the cadets teach that cannot be taught without support from the military, or military connections. Nothing at all.

Interesting point regarding Chinese parents, but that does not mean these children you're talking about aren't 10th generation Canadian for all we know, and share Canadian culture. And I did not suggest every parent sends their child to cadets to become a trained killing machine. There's no doubt in my mind some parents want their kids to be disciplined, etc., that everyone repeated ad nauseum in this thread. That does not mean there is no effect on the child. Nor does it mean there is. I am not suggesting it if you read my posts. I am suggesting that is may affect children, that parents may send their kids for such reasons as to groom them into soldiers, it may be the reason why the Canadian Armed Forces supports the program. Without detailed statistics, I cannot say one way or another.

I don't know why you're using obvious fantasy shows as examples of romanticizing war. I never watched GI Joe or A-Team, but I'm pretty sure there is no Cobra in the real world. 13 year old kids can tell the difference between a video game, or cartoon, and real life. Cadets are real life, supported by the CAF, wearing uniforms very much like their adult, soldier counterparts. Hardly apples to apples comparison.

While you live in a bubble it seems.

Any nation with no army and valuable resources gets conquered. It has happened throughout history. Look at middle east. Why does usa not invade peru?

Canada has the second most natural resources and the most fresh water on earth. Have you noticed what we require a military for? Yes we dont have enemies (other then those who hate western world due to usa) and yes usa will protect us at this time. But when the time comes that the usa has a water shortage...

I think this is directed at me, but I'm not sure. Either way, it's ridiculous, and so simpleminded that it's just funny.

Canada's military is not what stands between Canada being free or conquered. Americans could wipe out Canada's military capabilities before Canada could put its pants on. And they could do it to pretty much anyone in the world. The reason they haven't conquered us isn't because we have a military, but because we're an ally, we're a developed western nation, we're a trading partner, etc.. If they actually wanted to, you best believe they would.

It sounds like you're the one living in a bubble, one where Canada's American-built military (and British hand-me-down tin-pot navy) can withstand American military onslaught. It's seriously a funny notion.

Best post I've read so far.

If I could do cadets at an early age, I would too.

If I had kids, I'd have them do it. They'd make new friends and get a good direction in life as to what they want.

They could achieve all that without military undertones and CAF sponsorship. Why not the alternatives?

Comparing Canadian army cadets to Hitler youth earned you a berth on my ignore list. I spent time as an army cadet, and I believe it made me a better person. As another poster above pointed out, there are plenty of antisocial personalities outside the cadet programs. I can't recall meeting any of those types during my time, but is was a different world 40 years ago

Good for you. Did the cadets teach you to ignore whoever you don't agree with, especially when you don't understand what they say? The image and the caption of Hitler Youth wasn't a comparison, it was to demonstrate my impression of cadets, which as I said in the OP, was not well founded. It was an impression. Anyway, good luck with that, champ.

I've got two young boys and I'd love to put them in something as they get older that teaches them team work, leadership, wilderness skills etc...but I'm with Lockout, I have no idea why these groups need to frequently have military (cadets) or religious (scouts) undertones.

I'm also skeptical of the federal funding and ties to military that have already been pointed out in regards to the cadets.

The overall concept is good but the execution and questionable military affiliation make me wish there was just a simple, no strings attached alternative to those groups.

Maybe I'll start something when I win the lottery :lol:

Hey, if you start it you may not need a lottery. There are many like you and me, and I suspect there may be a need that needs a fillin'.

Lol @ OP, lol.

Glad I could be of some amusement to you!

The drilling nature of the military definitely provides a HUGE draw for parents, besides the fact that it's free camp. And when you send your kid to a "quasi-military" camp, you want one that's legit. If ever you come to the point of considering sending your kid to something like this, you'd wanna make sure that there's nothing inappropriate going on. It is safer to believe in a CAF-backed program than a kids' boot camp. Brings me to my other point that if cadets went to real boot camp (Full Metal Jacket style), there would be a major controversy on our hands. But again, the drilling and legitimacy of the cadets (and that it's free) gives a huge incentive to sending your kids to camp. The armed forces, despite the fact that it IS the armed forces, gives the organization major credibility.

There is a much better chance of the military getting funding than emergency services. I am aware that the current government is supporting neither, but that's beyond the point. The army provides emergency services that no other organization in Canada provides. And the mobility of the armed forces is something you can't ignore. In theory, no hospital can respond to an emergency in an isolated community faster than the armed forces. They've got planes and helicopters and big trucks.

The police cannot handle larger events such as the Olympics. I'm pretty sure they brought troops in to help the police in Vancouver. If the Canucks go the final again and the city decides to take another risk by having outdoor stuff, I wouldn't be surprised if I saw some reservists on guard. There will be times when a police's capacity is put to the limit. Having an army who can perform guard duties is... necessary. Choosing when to use the army is a whole different matter (I know, War Measures Act...).

If it's the drilling nature and government-granted legitimacy, why doesn't the government run and fund boot camps instead? That would address both of your concerns. And it doesn't have to go FMJ, why not leave it at kid-appropriate?

Military vs. emergency funding may not be so lopsided if you rid of the military, and use the funds (12 billion in Afghanistan, half a billion in Iraq already) to fund better emergency services? And use the rest to fund... oh a billion things that aren't bombs. Planes and helicopters won't disappear, nor can they only be bought by the military. I don't think this is a strong case for the military.

As I am opposed to using the military as police, I would simply say that I would rather we do nothing before we use do that. In more practical terms though, I would suggest finding another way do deal with the issues that are evident and expected, like a shortfall in police officers. Plan ahead, have contingencies in place that don't involve military policing civilians. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cadets are just more quasi-military than the Scouts. Do you avoid buying girl scout cookies because they have "Duty to God" as a part of their charter? Cadets learn both practical and life skills. If you don't believe in supporting them don't. Bashing them as some Hitler Youth group is completely wrong.

Thanks to the Federal Government, Canada's Coast Guard has been pared to the bone. A lot of search and rescue is done by our Canadian Military. Is that a waste of money? In my opinion we should be using the resources of our Armed Forces more in a day-to-day capacity helping out in the community. You know having soldiers (MP's) for traffic control, engineers assisting in road, surveying, and other building projects, etc. In a major disaster the Armed Forces might be your only help, and the only thing keeping order.

Armies much like any tool can be used in a bad way. Just like a hammer. You can use it to drive nails and build things with. Or bash someone on the head. It's how you use the tool that's important.

I don't have scouts come to my door. Luckily. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy cookies anyway. And for the record, I did not compare them to Hitler Youth. That was to demonstrate my thoughts, so that others could understand where I'm coming from and what impression it gives me. Seems like it was in vain.

An army isn't a hammer, it's a gun. There's only so many ways you can use a gun. Since we're using metaphors...

The Army does those things because that is how we developed our emergency response. If we use the army for day-to-day activities, why call it army? Why give them guns if they're directing traffic and assisting in road surveying? Why don't we remove the military aspects, preserve and expand the emergency response and civil assistance aspects, and rename it to Canadian Savior Squad instead?

At the end of the day, the military we have is not for defense. And whatever it's actually for, what it has been used for is to tag along with the Americans into their wars (not necessarily by choice, like Afghanistan). Peace keeping isn't really an important aspect much more in Canada.

If we want to help people against ISIS, let's drop aid packages. If we want to advise, let's advise on civil leadership, municipal structures, etc.. If we want to be a humanitarian nation and help people suffering the world over, let's do that. What we absolutely should stop doing, is dropping bombs thousands of miles away on desert people who pose no threat to us, and call that humanitarian. At least call it what it is, but then, people won't vote for it. A an easy predicament for the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be quite a bold statement, even for a military history professor(1).

And I said reserves, although that might not count since it's literally armed forces already.

You seem fundamentally opposed to summer camps(2). I must disagree with that, and I think it is more than just a lazy tool for lazy parents. So it seems we've hit an impasse.

(1) Fair enough. I just know a lot when it comes to the history of warfare, and also had almost gone to school of psychology to become a social worker before I thought more into the long haul of what my career would become. I ended up deciding against it, but nevertheless I do have a very good understanding of human psychology.

(2) I'm only against ones that refine military instincts in children, I just see most others as places the parents chooses for the child. Or oversells to the kid about how great it will be so they agree in excitement. That's kind of irrelevant to this conversation though.

What I'm arguing is that if you expect the state to instill good values in your children, then your mind is living in a fictional reality. They're gonna download information that benefits their purpose. Sure basic fundamentals will be taught, and anti-social kids will meet like minded kids to socialize with and develop relationships, but that can be founded in places that don't also poison the kids mind with other garbage. Like nationalistic pride that like I've said before will do them no could other than in helping them pull the trigger against foreign strangers that the millionaires running their state told them were "bad guys". This lead to xenophobic tendencies in their behavior. Your child will become a right-brained slave if you give them up to state indoctrination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like you're the one living in a bubble, one where Canada's American-built military (and British hand-me-down tin-pot navy) can withstand American military onslaught. It's seriously a funny notion.

Hey, if you start it you may not need a lottery. There are many like you and me, and I suspect there may be a need that needs a fillin'.

Or Russia. Or China...

I'd need to win the lotto to have the time to do it...lol I'd love to though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I take issue with the military affiliation (I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over in replying to everyone individually).

I think the conclusion I'm arriving at is that without statistical analysis of how many cadets go on to join the military and how that compares to the general population, it's nigh on impossible to say one way or another whether the Cadets act as an extension of the military. My opinion as stated in previous posts is that no children's organization should have any affiliation with any kind of army. Period. Full stop.

And yet we have people associating things that are wrong with the military with cadets, despite anecdotal evidence that only a small percentage of cadets go on to join the military or have any military aspirations at all.

You're welcome to have the opinion there should be no type of affiliation at all with any kind of army, but why not address whether or not the actual program itself is an issue if you have evidence one way or the other?

My argument was that adding another state institutionalized, specifically one with a militarized mentality or "boot camp-esque" practices, is just going to add the likelihood of your child becoming a brainwashed drone.

I don't have kids of my own yet but I know bad parent when I see one, I was abandoned by one of mine. Homeschooling isn't my only game plan either though, but it's sure up for consideration down the road, at least for high school grades. Anyways my point is that parents usually send their kids off to "summer camps" like these because they don't have the time/energy to handle the load they birthed upon themselves. And don't have a full understand on how to develop a child. Yes there are plenty of good qualities from the camp, but also there is some disgusting condition of the kids going, on. Refuse to acknowledge it all you like, but don't call me out as coming from an ignorant perspective. I have two grandparents that served in WWII. I have an immense knowledge of all military regimes throughout history, and I thoroughly understand the types of conditioning put upon those kids.

Someone earlier said only something like 2/10 kids in cadets eventually go on to serve in the military, and argued at how little a percentage of them that was. Well I can't think of any other youth institution pumping out a higher percentage of future veterans.

You keep saying this and keep referencing adult military as your only statements of 'the types of conditioning', yet show no correlation between boot camp/actual military life and what a cadet experiences. What cadet specific practices do you find fault with and why are they worse than any other activity you could send your children to?

But if any parent is sending their children to a camp or even a weekly activity as a means to replace them having to parent their children, it doesn't matter what the program is since they'll be set up for failure anyway. Maybe some programs would at least give some structure and teach them valuable life skills more so than others, but then why even worry about the program when it's clearly the parenting skills we should be concerned about?

In the end, any child should:

  1. be properly parented and supported in a home family situation
  2. enjoy an active lifestyle and socialize with other children
  3. learn and develop skills that will help them as an adult

If a parent chooses to not help their kids with one of those points then why should that be an indictment of any other point?

In summary, I'm not hearing any specifics as to why cadets are bad for kids. What I am hearing is there are lots of people that don't like the association to adult military, but haven't heard why that's bad for the kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have scouts come to my door. Luckily. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy cookies anyway. And for the record, I did not compare them to Hitler Youth. That was to demonstrate my thoughts, so that others could understand where I'm coming from and what impression it gives me. Seems like it was in vain.

An army isn't a hammer, it's a gun. There's only so many ways you can use a gun. Since we're using metaphors...

The Army does those things because that is how we developed our emergency response. If we use the army for day-to-day activities, why call it army? Why give them guns if they're directing traffic and assisting in road surveying? Why don't we remove the military aspects, preserve and expand the emergency response and civil assistance aspects, and rename it to Canadian Savior Squad instead?

At the end of the day, the military we have is not for defense. And whatever it's actually for, what it has been used for is to tag along with the Americans into their wars (not necessarily by choice, like Afghanistan). Peace keeping isn't really an important aspect much more in Canada.

If we want to help people against ISIS, let's drop aid packages. If we want to advise, let's advise on civil leadership, municipal structures, etc.. If we want to be a humanitarian nation and help people suffering the world over, let's do that. What we absolutely should stop doing, is dropping bombs thousands of miles away on desert people who pose no threat to us, and call that humanitarian. At least call it what it is, but then, people won't vote for it. A an easy predicament for the government.

Then you clearly haven't paid attention to any Canadian military history PRIOR to the Harper Era. For generations Canada has been at the forefront of UN peacekeeping activities. Rarely does Canada get into the fighting since Korea. Kosovo, and the first Iraq war we sent F-18's, and a few support vessels of our navy. Usually Canadian troops have tried to maintain the peace through the UN, on UN peacekeeping missions. Places like Cyprus, Canada was there from 1964 to 1993.

It was only until Harper got in, that we've bowed down to the US and following it's agenda. It's unrealistic to not have any military.

It's also insane to be like the US to bankrupt your nation plowing hundreds of billions of dollars to support the military industrial complex. Countries like Thailand have a bigger military than we do. I don't think Canada is the problem here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yet we have people associating things that are wrong with the military with cadets, despite anecdotal evidence that only a small percentage of cadets go on to join the military or have any military aspirations at all.

You're welcome to have the opinion there should be no type of affiliation at all with any kind of army, but why not address whether or not the actual program itself is an issue if you have evidence one way or the other?

I can't speak for other people, and I don't think I've conflated cadets with the military anywhere in my posts.

I never said I have evidence, and I've taken issue with military sponsorship. I did not take issue with what they're taught, the program, so I don't understand what you're saying I should be doing. I have no evidence and I've been saying it for three pages. That's the whole point of this thread.

So far, I haven't been convinced that military affiliation is honky dory in the slightest.

Then you clearly haven't paid attention to any Canadian military history PRIOR to the Harper Era. For generations Canada has been at the forefront of UN peacekeeping activities. Rarely does Canada get into the fighting since Korea. Kosovo, and the first Iraq war we sent F-18's, and a few support vessels of our navy. Usually Canadian troops have tried to maintain the peace through the UN, on UN peacekeeping missions. Places like Cyprus, Canada was there from 1964 to 1993.

It was only until Harper got in, that we've bowed down to the US and following it's agenda. It's unrealistic to not have any military.

It's also insane to be like the US to bankrupt your nation plowing hundreds of billions of dollars to support the military industrial complex. Countries like Thailand have a bigger military than we do. I don't think Canada is the problem here.

I did say it's not an important aspect anymore of Canadian military. I am well aware of Canada's peacekeeping history.

If the reason we have a military is because we want to be blue hat peacekeepers, then I suggest the UN funds our soldiers' training et al, and not Canadian tax payers.

You're right that it's under Harper that we've followed the US, but isn't that just another issue of having a military? That it is at the whims of a government that may misuse them as happening now? And in a majority government, the PMO currently holds the balance of power and rules practically unbridled. And what's not realistic about not having a military? It's not the deciding factor if we get attacked, as anyone capable of projecting power this far will steamroll our army. Can you tell me what purpose it serves, beyond being borderline symbolic?

Can you explain me why we need an army? Keep in mind what I've already said about power projection, our capabilities, our potential enemies' capabilities, who we are fighting and why, and where, the costs of these wars, etc..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been talking about cadets. And then I shifted to military as a career. Military deployment is government policy. So feel free to criticize Harper's Conservatives all you want. When comes to all things military-related, he absolutely deserves the heat. But you seem to be living in some fantasy world where every Canadian who joins the cadets or armed forces is training to become a Navy SEAL.

A whole bunch of cadets have already posted here talking about how they basically learned everything but to kill. This isn't basic training. And after any member of the armed forces completes basic training, I can bet my ass a majority of them go into something that does NOT involve maiming and killing. We spend our money and resources on training engineers, medical staff, technicians, even cooks! I sound like a goddamned recruiter, but your ignorance has forced me to treat you like an uneducated child. So if you plan on giving yet ANOTHER useless response about "maiming and killing", you can just leave the thread, since you clearly have no intention of having a real dialogue.

I never once mentioned the cadets , my beef was and always will be that we spend trillions training and arming our young men to kill our young men in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves in pointless conflicts/wars with millions of young men dying in those conflicts........for no good reason.

And when I say our I mean that we are all human being's that have to share the same planet.

Your claim " But you seem to be living in some fantasy world where every Canadian who joins the cadets or armed forces is training to become a Navy SEAL" is total fantasy , where did I even mention cadets let alone link them or armed forces to navy seals ?

You were not talking about cadets in this post , you were talking about army regulars , army regulars have everything to do with international war.

If they wish to serve as regulars, this is the risk they take. It's a JOB. There is no conscription in Canada. You do not get to use this as a platform to push your anti-war message. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with international war. So stop trying to spin it as such.

I will use any platform I can to push my anti-war message.

I will argue to my last breath that use our money and resources to help those who are less fortunate than us rather than on the means and practice of killing each other , what rational , logical humanist would'nt.

As for your last statement , get over yourself , you do not want to read or reply to my posts then don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you in a lot of other threads, but I disagree with you here. Bob acknowledges that some may join the military for that license to kill, but I doubt those kind of people want to spend years in cadets learning mostly about other things.

What he is saying however is it's totally an option for a career, just like farming, office work or a technical trade. There's more instruction and structure involved than just dumping your kid off at the hockey rink or pool, and a lot of kids benefit from that.

What I think too many people are doing here is associating cadets with government led decisions about our adult military, or maybe more so the adult military of the other countries that don't have as good a reputation as ours. Wasteful spending or 'bringing democracy to the heathens' are real errors in adult militaries, but there is no real connection between that and cadets.

I have not stated anything about the cadets but for the record I agree with LC.

I see no point in sending young men to quasi-military organisations. If that is the only place they can learn life skills and "respect" as one member noted then canadian society is letting its youth down. If not then there is no need to send them there if there are other options.

My oldest friend has coached the kids at my hometown football club for over 15 years , footy is just the start of his job , due to poor parenting he has had to teach the kids how to treat others with the respect they expect themselves , many parents have thanked him over the years for the positive effect he has had on their kids.

I know that all clubs are not like this but many are.

Imagine.. sending our kids to a place where we teach them kindness and compassion for others, where they learn those things in a group enviroment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never once mentioned the cadets , my beef was and always will be that we spend trillions training and arming our young men to kill our young men in the name of protecting ourselves from ourselves in pointless conflicts/wars with millions of young men dying in those conflicts........for no good reason.

And when I say our I mean that we are all human being's that have to share the same planet.

Your claim " But you seem to be living in some fantasy world where every Canadian who joins the cadets or armed forces is training to become a Navy SEAL" is total fantasy , where did I even mention cadets let alone link them or armed forces to navy seals ?

You were not talking about cadets in this post , you were talking about army regulars , army regulars have everything to do with international war.

I will use any platform I can to push my anti-war message.

I will argue to my last breath that use our money and resources to help those who are less fortunate than us rather than on the means and practice of killing each other , what rational , logical humanist would'nt.

As for your last statement , get over yourself , you do not want to read or reply to my posts then don't.

From your first post to your last you have been ranting about people sending other people to die. And while I have continually tried to show you your misguidedness you remain blind and ignorant to the truth: The averaged member of the Canadian Armed Forces is not a trained killer. You're deliberately trying to derail a thread about cadets and its relation to the armed forces. You're also deliberately being ignorant about our modern military. You keep going back to this garbage about killing each other. The Canadian Armed Forces in its current form are much more than just killing and maiming people, and this was why I differentiated them from Navy SEALs (who are expertly trained in the art of killing). You never explicitly said that the army is like the SEALs, but you have explicitly said that our current army trains regulars to kill and maim, and nothing more. The average Canadian soldier probably has no reason to brandish his or her weapon during the average workday. Most of the time they are just building stuff, fixing stuff, driving stuff or helping people. Or any mundane occupation you can think of. And so this is why your anti-war message falls on deaf ears, because nobody here is stupid enough to assume that Canadian soldiers are all cold-blooded killers. Nobody except you.

You claim to fight for the rights of the less fortunate and paint yourself as a rational, logical humanist. And yet you complain about the current institution that is the Canadian Armed Forces, which has essentially served as a modern welfare system for the poor and uneducated in Canada. There are those here who have a problem with that, and I acknowledge the concern. But your scope is so narrow-minded, and yet you have the gall to present yourself as a champion for peace and humanity. You do not get to use this thread as a platform, because you are deliberately trying to derail this thread, which, again, is about the cadets and their relationship with the military. Your anti-war message of "killing and maiming" has no place here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your first post to your last you have been ranting about people sending other people to die. And while I have continually tried to show you your misguidedness you remain blind and ignorant to the truth: The averaged member of the Canadian Armed Forces is not a trained killer. You're deliberately trying to derail a thread about cadets and its relation to the armed forces. You're also deliberately being ignorant about our modern military. You keep going back to this garbage about killing each other. The Canadian Armed Forces in its current form are much more than just killing and maiming people, and this was why I differentiated them from Navy SEALs (who are expertly trained in the art of killing). You never explicitly said that the army is like the SEALs, but you have explicitly said that our current army trains regulars to kill and maim, and nothing more. The average Canadian soldier probably has no reason to brandish his or her weapon during the average workday. Most of the time they are just building stuff, fixing stuff, driving stuff or helping people. Or any mundane occupation you can think of. And so this is why your anti-war message falls on deaf ears, because nobody here is stupid enough to assume that Canadian soldiers are all cold-blooded killers. Nobody except you.

You claim to fight for the rights of the less fortunate and paint yourself as a rational, logical humanist. And yet you complain about the current institution that is the Canadian Armed Forces, which has essentially served as a modern welfare system for the poor and uneducated in Canada. There are those here who have a problem with that, and I acknowledge the concern. But your scope is so narrow-minded, and yet you have the gall to present yourself as a champion for peace and humanity. You do not get to use this thread as a platform, because you are deliberately trying to derail this thread, which, again, is about the cadets and their relationship with the military. Your anti-war message of "killing and maiming" has no place here.

Thats what wars are bob sending young men to die.

"The averaged member of the Canadian Armed Forces is not a trained killer"

All Forces members need to go through basic training and part of that training involves training them to kill.

I will as always do as I choose bob, I have and will continue to use this thread as a platform for my anti-war message.

You're cracking me up here bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's the drilling nature and government-granted legitimacy, why doesn't the government run and fund boot camps instead? That would address both of your concerns. And it doesn't have to go FMJ, why not leave it at kid-appropriate?

Military vs. emergency funding may not be so lopsided if you rid of the military, and use the funds (12 billion in Afghanistan, half a billion in Iraq already) to fund better emergency services? And use the rest to fund... oh a billion things that aren't bombs. Planes and helicopters won't disappear, nor can they only be bought by the military. I don't think this is a strong case for the military.

As I am opposed to using the military as police, I would simply say that I would rather we do nothing before we use do that. In more practical terms though, I would suggest finding another way do deal with the issues that are evident and expected, like a shortfall in police officers. Plan ahead, have contingencies in place that don't involve military policing civilians. Period.

There is no such thing as kid-appropriate FMJ (haha kid-friendly gunny), at least not in Canada. Boot camp works in Korea because the overarching society can treat subordinates like dirt. Because their army treats recruits and privates like dirt. If a Korean parent sends his kid to a boot camp, the child screwed and has no choice but to go. He has no say in the matter because his rights are deferred to his parents; the government will only interfere if the child is being physically mistreated. No kid would willingly go to an institution where he will be treated like garbage. Do you see the problem here if we try to apply this to Canada? In fact, I reckon such a boot camp would probably instil militarist ideology better than the cadets can. And it would do things to the ones that get punished. Think Gomer Pyle.

Emergency services that were prepared to mobilize for such disasters have been completely nerfed by the current government. And to be honest, the current CAF is overstretching here to compensate for this lack of services. The increasing role of the army has been a direct result of federal policy, and to see a change to that would require a reversal of said policy.

I don't have scouts come to my door. Luckily. Otherwise, I wouldn't buy cookies anyway. And for the record, I did not compare them to Hitler Youth. That was to demonstrate my thoughts, so that others could understand where I'm coming from and what impression it gives me. Seems like it was in vain.

An army isn't a hammer, it's a gun. There's only so many ways you can use a gun. Since we're using metaphors...

The Army does those things because that is how we developed our emergency response. If we use the army for day-to-day activities, why call it army? Why give them guns if they're directing traffic and assisting in road surveying? Why don't we remove the military aspects, preserve and expand the emergency response and civil assistance aspects, and rename it to Canadian Savior Squad instead?

At the end of the day, the military we have is not for defense. And whatever it's actually for, what it has been used for is to tag along with the Americans into their wars (not necessarily by choice, like Afghanistan). Peace keeping isn't really an important aspect much more in Canada.

If we want to help people against ISIS, let's drop aid packages. If we want to advise, let's advise on civil leadership, municipal structures, etc.. If we want to be a humanitarian nation and help people suffering the world over, let's do that. What we absolutely should stop doing, is dropping bombs thousands of miles away on desert people who pose no threat to us, and call that humanitarian. At least call it what it is, but then, people won't vote for it. A an easy predicament for the government.

There is a paradox here. If a government decides to send unarmed, untrained civilians to unstable regions where help is most needed, those people are probably going to get their heads chopped off in a recruitment video. And so if you must send aid workers, you send the military, which makes people at home angry and a mixed reaction from the populace in the unstable region.

(1) Fair enough. I just know a lot when it comes to the history of warfare, and also had almost gone to school of psychology to become a social worker before I thought more into the long haul of what my career would become. I ended up deciding against it, but nevertheless I do have a very good understanding of human psychology.

(2) I'm only against ones that refine military instincts in children, I just see most others as places the parents chooses for the child. Or oversells to the kid about how great it will be so they agree in excitement. That's kind of irrelevant to this conversation though.

What I'm arguing is that if you expect the state to instill good values in your children, then your mind is living in a fictional reality. They're gonna download information that benefits their purpose. Sure basic fundamentals will be taught, and anti-social kids will meet like minded kids to socialize with and develop relationships, but that can be founded in places that don't also poison the kids mind with other garbage. Like nationalistic pride that like I've said before will do them no could other than in helping them pull the trigger against foreign strangers that the millionaires running their state told them were "bad guys". This lead to xenophobic tendencies in their behavior. Your child will become a right-brained slave if you give them up to state indoctrination.

State indoctrination is not achieved through the military in Canada. It is done through... other institutions that are far more wide-reaching. For some reason, I can't think of any. I must sleep.

I can't speak for other people, and I don't think I've conflated cadets with the military anywhere in my posts.

I never said I have evidence, and I've taken issue with military sponsorship. I did not take issue with what they're taught, the program, so I don't understand what you're saying I should be doing. I have no evidence and I've been saying it for three pages. That's the whole point of this thread.

So far, I haven't been convinced that military affiliation is honky dory in the slightest.

I did say it's not an important aspect anymore of Canadian military. I am well aware of Canada's peacekeeping history.

If the reason we have a military is because we want to be blue hat peacekeepers, then I suggest the UN funds our soldiers' training et al, and not Canadian tax payers.

You're right that it's under Harper that we've followed the US, but isn't that just another issue of having a military? That it is at the whims of a government that may misuse them as happening now? And in a majority government, the PMO currently holds the balance of power and rules practically unbridled. And what's not realistic about not having a military? It's not the deciding factor if we get attacked, as anyone capable of projecting power this far will steamroll our army. Can you tell me what purpose it serves, beyond being borderline symbolic?

Can you explain me why we need an army? Keep in mind what I've already said about power projection, our capabilities, our potential enemies' capabilities, who we are fighting and why, and where, the costs of these wars, etc..

The US, like any other country, puts its own interests first. The same goes for Canada. This is why they do not always share the same military objectives abroad. The USA is not going to bother Russia about the Arctic waters. The US has plenty of other beefs with Russia, and they have no interest in speaking on behalf of the Canadians. This is why the Americans were ambivalent on Ukraine, while... Harper and Baird decided to duke it out with Tsar Putin. You'd better have some guns to back yourself up in a fight like that.

Or think of it this way... you don't even like the fact that the army is sometimes used for policing duties in various public events. And while something like that can be addressed otherwise, do you really want an American occupation force in Canada? You can't deny the fact that we need a navy and air force to watch our borders (for illegal activity - we're not gonna get invaded). The Americans would have control over our borders.

If anything, we are too integrated into the global society to NOT have a standing military. Our international prestige somewhat hinges on the use of our military power (and this is the general cause of most anti-war sentiment). But more importantly, Canada has self-interests at stake here. If an unstable country falls, Canada will want to maintain its prestige and make a pledge to oversee a transition. But if a country that does business with Canada falls.... well then. Time to send out the liberation force!

I apologize in advance. Sometimes I play the realist role a little too much. I am so much more capable than to just be ambivalent on matters like these, but I am either too lazy or too cowardly to change myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats what wars are bob sending young men to die.

"The averaged member of the Canadian Armed Forces is not a trained killer"

All Forces members need to go through basic training and part of that training involves training them to kill.

I will as always do as I choose bob, I have and will continue to use this thread as a platform for my anti-war message.

You're cracking me up here bob

I have a question. Don't you just hate it when right-winged nuts make extreme generalizations without listening to anyone else? Why do you feel like you're allowed to take the same stance on things? No matter how many times I try to explain otherwise, you are simply refusing to budge an inch, while providing no explanations of your own!

Basic training... is not designed to train people to kill! Doing pushups and obstacle courses and learning first aid doesn't teach you how to kill! Hell, learning how to shoot a gun doesn't even teach you how to kill! It is designed to get your butt in shape and make you a disciplined and efficient member! This is very different from outright combat training! I must use exclamation to emphasize this, since you're still unwilling to acknowledge anything I've said.

Training a field surgeon or an engineer how to defend oneself is important. And yet the reality is that they're probably never gonna see a day of combat in their lives. You've got medical, technicians, engineering, communications, emergency response, crew! None of the people in the occupations I've just mentioned have any desire to be in the middle of a firefight! And then you've got combat specialists! Yes, those people are trained in the art of killing. Now can we please get back on topic??

I am not a moderator, but I do know that you can't just deliberately derail a thread and rile people up about something unrelated. So again, NO. You do NOT get to just push your anti-war message wherever you want. It's not that I'm having none of it, it's that you are ignorant! You keep spewing the same junk over and over again! "trained killers trained killers rah rah rah!" Is there such thing as an anti-warmonger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the reason that the cadets are affiliated with DND is simple. DND flips the bill. The cadets use surplus military kit, they have officers who are paid by the DND. Cadets come from all walks of life and many come from lower income families, who cant afford the hundreds and thousands to go into organized sports or activities.

Now the anti military crowd always give me a good chuckle. The anti harper crowd, need to remember which government sent us to war in the first place. Those that think modern war is just men going to die need to give their head a good bounce off the wall. If youve ever spent time in a combat unit in the canadian military you would know that almost ever troop wants to go on a tour, not because we enjoy killing and are a bunch of unsophisticated war mongers, but because it is our job, one that we train very very hard to go do. Not one person in the military is forced to be there. This isnt the usa in the 60's, we arent drafting dudes to go fight a $&!# war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the reason that the cadets are affiliated with DND is simple. DND flips the bill. The cadets use surplus military kit, they have officers who are paid by the DND. Cadets come from all walks of life and many come from lower income families, who cant afford the hundreds and thousands to go into organized sports or activities.

Now the anti military crowd always give me a good chuckle. The anti harper crowd, need to remember which government sent us to war in the first place. Those that think modern war is just men going to die need to give their head a good bounce off the wall. If youve ever spent time in a combat unit in the canadian military you would know that almost ever troop wants to go on a tour, not because we enjoy killing and are a bunch of unsophisticated war mongers, but because it is our job, one that we train very very hard to go do. Not one person in the military is forced to be there. This isnt the usa in the 60's, we arent drafting dudes to go fight a crap war.

Lol, I love ignorant people. They always give me a good chuckle.

We went to Afghanistan as part of our NATO obligation. Our ally was attacked. We had no discretion in the matter. We did have a choice in going to Iraq 2.0, and we chose not to go despite Harper's impassioned speech that we should, because he wasn't the PM. Maybe you should listen to the anti-Harper crowed, we seem more informed than you are.

How about we fund those activities for low income families? Bet you didn't think that one through, did ya.

So give a man purpose in being a soldier, and he'll want to go and be one? You're not making a very good case for the military. If I was trained to shovel sht, I wouldn't be desperate to grab a shovel, I don't know why you're so desperate to go thousands of miles from home and shoot at Arab people. People aren't forced to go by a draft, but there are other circumstances that may exert pressure to join. If it's your job to be a soldier, I would say it's a waste of potential, a lazy way to go through life by not contributing anything to society, and a burden on Canadian tax payers. You're not defending Canada in any sense of the word.

In conclusion, smh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It sounds like you're the one living in a bubble, one where Canada's American-built military (and British hand-me-down tin-pot navy) can withstand American military onslaught. It's seriously a funny notion. '

Halifax frigates- built in Canada

Kingston class ships- built in Canada

Leopard tanks- built in Germany

armoured fighting vehicles- built in Canada

F-18 fighter/bombers built in US

Victoria class subs built in Britain (originally called Upholder class).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for other people, and I don't think I've conflated cadets with the military anywhere in my posts.

I never said I have evidence, and I've taken issue with military sponsorship. I did not take issue with what they're taught, the program, so I don't understand what you're saying I should be doing. I have no evidence and I've been saying it for three pages. That's the whole point of this thread.

So far, I haven't been convinced that military affiliation is honky dory in the slightest.

...

I hadn't seen you say the cadets are the military, but others are doing so. I agree you'd said from the start you don't know why they're associated with the military, but by association that suggests the cadets are bad after you've made clear you don't think of the military fondly because you feel they're grooming children into soldiers

People have answered that last statement though to say it's not there to groom children for military careers, and having that association allows for them to get government funding and become a low cost alternate to other groups kids can join.

What about the merits the cadets do have since your position of them previously being an extension of the recruitment process is no longer the case? And if you don't have any proof, then how did you come to be convinced the military association is bad - personal opinion?

I have not stated anything about the cadets but for the record I agree with LC.

I see no point in sending young men to quasi-military organisations. If that is the only place they can learn life skills and "respect" as one member noted then canadian society is letting its youth down. If not then there is no need to send them there if there are other options.

My oldest friend has coached the kids at my hometown football club for over 15 years , footy is just the start of his job , due to poor parenting he has had to teach the kids how to treat others with the respect they expect themselves , many parents have thanked him over the years for the positive effect he has had on their kids.

I know that all clubs are not like this but many are.

Imagine.. sending our kids to a place where we teach them kindness and compassion for others, where they learn those things in a group enviroment.

It is a thread about cadets after all, and I'm pretty sure the posts have gotten a little aside from the goal but we keep trying to circle them around rather than derail the topic into a breakdown of why the military is bad.

But to understand why a youth organization like cadets is bad just because of the military association requires us understanding what you know of that the military association is doing to make it bad. If it's nothing, other than the fact that the military generally (or rather how the government has used the military) is bad, then it's a misplaced distrust of the cadets program.

Give me something that directly relates to why cadets are bad just because they wear military uniforms and I think we can have a discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...