Penticton Reservist (?): "It's time to end Afghanistan war"

[RAGINCANADIAN]

Seems way to shady. Got a feeling this is just an overly liberal, CF bashing set of people trying to take away what our brothers and sisters are sacraficing in Afghanistan. Being on CFB Edmonton, there are a whole lot of soldiers ready and willing to go. A whole lot just got back over the last month. If only the seen this and had a few words to say.  :rage:

 

[Celticgirl]

Well then we better hurry and get CelticGirl to apply those English teaching skills of hers before she leaves!

You can't afford me.  8)

 

[PAT-Platoon]

I won't comment on the opinions themselves, as that should not be the question at hand (i.e. where or not the opinions were positive or negative of any given topic), rather the question should be on the legality and ethics of a CF member posting under his position in contradiction to an ongoing operation. Now my question is, what legalities do we have as civilians to hold political opinions? Am I right in assuming if this Cpl. did not post under his rank and as a representative of the Canadian Forces then therefore it would be legal?

Moving on I have to say I am quite disappointed and ashamed of some of the posts in this thread. While Army.ca does not represent the CF, the people here posting very much do. To those saying such disgusting and professionally shameful remarks encouraging the physical harm of another Canadian Forces member, I say you are a disgrace to the uniform, moreso than this accused "disgrace". Those actively remarking about "going behind POL sheds" and physically assaulting another member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob, more of a harm to our personnel than any security threats. We are supposed to be a professionnal government organization that deals with military situations, not a disgusting gang bent on hazing and sadomasochistic beatings.  Get your head straight.

Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. As a civilian, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a military professional, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I won't comment on the opinions themselves, as that should not be the question at hand (i.e. where or not the opinions were positive or negative of any given topic), rather the question should be on the legality and ethics of a CF member posting under his position in contradiction to an ongoing operation. Now my question is, what legalities do we have as civilians to hold political opinions? Am I right in assuming if this Cpl. did not post under his rank and as a representative of the Canadian Forces then therefore it would be legal?

Moving on I have to say I am quite disappointed and ashamed of some of the posts in this thread. While Army.ca does not represent the CF, the people here posting very much do. To those saying such disgusting and professionally shameful remarks encouraging the physical harm of another Canadian Forces member, I say you are a disgrace to the uniform, moreso than this accused "disgrace". Those actively remarking about "going behind POL sheds" and physically assaulting another member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob, more of a harm to our personnel than any security threats. We are supposed to be a professionnal government organization that deals with military situations, not a disgusting gang bent on hazing and sadomasochistic beatings.  Get your head straight.

Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. As a civilian, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a military professional, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.

Not to disparage a very well thought out post,

But do you not contradict the theme of your statement;

member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob

When you use a name like Army-Goon?

A Goon is known as a hired thug.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=goon&r=65

Goon gun

–noun
1. Informal. a hired hoodlum or thug.
2. Slang. a. a stupid, foolish, or awkward person.
b. a roughneck.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1920–25; shortened from dial. gooney, var. of obs. gony a simpleton (< ?); influenced by the comic-strip character Alice the Goon in the series Thimble Theatre by E. C. Segar (1894–1938), American cartoonist


Just a thought.

dileas

tess

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it. Furthermore the context of Goon isn't of the textbook definition, rather it is of a common nickname given for a certain online forum community that I am a part of. Though I can see how that can be misconstrued. With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it. Furthermore the context of Goon isn't of the textbook definition, rather it is of a common nickname given for a certain online forum community that I am a part of. Though I can see how that can be misconstrued. With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.

But you see the conundrum,

Don't cast stones and all that is all.  But you did make a very valid post, so I am not faulting that. Just look at their posts, in the same manner you wish others to see yours....

dileas

tess

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name,

Just a correction for the young lad, you were registered as "Pat-Platoon" until last year....

 

[the 48th regulator]

You mean this community,

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goon

.  goon

Members of the Something Awful Forums. They were named this after repeated verbal attacks on a website caused the owner to complain to Something Awful owner Lowtax about him and his "goons."

Goons have neckbeards, no real-life social skills, a tendency for whining about dumb superficial crap, and a knack for shutting down anyone who has anything worth making fun of. They're known for their sarcastic and elitist tendencies, though many on the internet find them hilarious.

Usually proud members of such Forums as GBS, BYOB, FYAD, or ADTRW, goons patrol the Awful Forums attempting to type funny jokes while their fingers slip off the keyboard due to Cheetos grease.

Goons spew overused catchphrases like "Do you have stairs in your house?" or "All your base are belong to us," though they are also responsible for founding and popularizing various internet memes, web sites, and trends.

There are many varieties of goon, depending on the particular forums they frequent at SA. GBS goons are often sarcastic and clever, while FYAD goons are elitist and abstract, BYOB goons are laid-back and random, CC goons are artistic and very critical, and ADTRW goons are anime-obsessed.
Goon1: That reminds me of a BYOB thread a few days ago.
Goon2: OMG ur a goon 2?
Goon1: Wow yeah do you have stairs in your base belong to us?

Goons: Why do I have to pay 10bux to get into these forums? If it costs me an entire week's allowance, than I don't want to be a goon.  


Could this be our Penticton reservist?

dileas

tess

 

[PAT-Platoon]

For the record no i am not the Corporal in question, as I do not live in Penticton nor am I in the Armoured Corps (as stated by my qualifications in my profile).

Now, moving on to my actual concerns. I would like to hear some actual opinions on my thoughts, instead of my actual name.

 

[Shamrock]

With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.

With pleasure.

This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it.

Change it or don't.  You denounce goonish behaviour as "disgraceful" while are perfectly comfortable introducing yourself as an army goon.  Set the standard, lead by example.

Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. As a civilian, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a military professional, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.

You and Cpl Demetrick are not civilians; however, we all here are citizens.  Service requires our willing curtailment of some of our civil liberties, including our permisson to communicate with news agencies and our political activities.  As a military professional you should be aware that we are not permitted to publicly utter inappropriate comments about our leadership.

Your and Demetrick's opinions are not invalid.  However, the manner in which Demetrick has formed them is flawed and the manner in which he has chosen to voice them is questionably lawful.

 

[Teeps74]

The Cpl in question, did indeed sign his letter, and have is signature included as Cpl Demetrick. At which point, IMHO, he violated trust by speaking out of his hat on subjects he is ignorant on, and yet has access to more information then the general public. Further, he violated the NDA by engaging in discourse as a member of the CF (by signing as Cpl Demetrick) which is clearly prohibited, especially in light of the fact that there was an election run up going on.

He is a clown, nothing more, and the best recourse would be administrative action, followed by immediate deployment to Afghanistan, where he can discover the facts he does not know, and blatently lied about.

 

[PAT-Platoon]

He is a clown, nothing more, and the best recourse would be administrative action, followed by immediate deployment to Afghanistan, where he can discover the facts he does not know, and blatently lied about.

So you are suggesting we set a horrible precedent of forcefully sending Reservists on overseas deployment? As well you would force this Corporal to fight in a war that he is vehemently against, practically conscripting him for it. Furthermore as someone who does not wish to be over there, he would be a detriment to his unit and the operation, as such a danger to himself and others.

There is some interesting and quite disappointing tones here of vengeance and anger. Yes he has made a mistake, and he well be dealt with in accordance with our current institutions in place. If that means discharge then so be it, but I doubt it does. He made a mistake in signing his name on to an anti-war piece, so it does not mean he deserves to lose his entire career over it. Many people have done much worse and stayed in the Canadian Forces.

I am almost certain that if a Corporal had sent a pro-war message, and signed his name at the bottom there would be no controversy whatsoever. I can actually guarantee that to everyone here. Even if he had lied about the facts for his pro-war message there still would be no uproar. 

So that being said to those seeking blood and vengeance, step back and take a look at this. He sounds like a young Reservist with a very strong opinion on a subject, and he made a mistake of signing his opinions with his professional title. This was a mistake, and hopefully in the future he does not continue to do such a thing.

And its quite wrong to claim that due to his opinions he has disgraced the CF, or those in it. Not at all, in fact this is good. Criticism and clarity is important in any organization and by bringing up the very valid claims of civilian casualties and the use of white phosphorous allows us to look more carefully at how we do things.

 

[OldSolduer]

Army Goon:
If you hold your opinion that the war in Afghanistan is wrong, then you are in the wrong area of employment. It's a just war: We are protecting the Afghan people from tyranny. There is no more righteous cause than that.
Not only that, if we are to withdraw from Afghanistan, our influence at the international table becomes very tenuous. Should we sit on the sidelines and tut-tut everyone (for most of the anti war crowd read the USA) or should we lead?

Now in the matter of this young man voicing his opinion....he seriously needs to ask himself a few questions.

 

[the 48th regulator]

So you are suggesting we set a horrible precedent of forcefully sending Reservists on overseas deployment? As well you would force this Corporal to fight in a war that he is vehemently against, practically conscripting him for it. Furthermore as someone who does not wish to be over there, he would be a detriment to his unit and the operation, as such a danger to himself and others.

So your argument is to protect the reservist from fighting a war.  This should be good, so please amuse me.

There is some interesting and quite disappointing tones here of vengeance and anger. Yes he has made a mistake, and he well be dealt with in accordance with our current institutions in place. If that means discharge then so be it, but I doubt it does. He made a mistake in signing his name on to an anti-war piece, so it does not mean he deserves to lose his entire career over it. Many people have done much worse and stayed in the Canadian Forces.

You are confusing me, Punish  him if he did wrong but then you say;

Funny how someone decides to post in his favour, and has found to be dishonest about who he is....hmm an agenda?  Oh no you are not him, maybe a friend?

Something is wrong here.  Let us charge along…

I am almost certain that if a Corporal had sent a pro-war message, and signed his name at the bottom there would be no controversy whatsoever. I can actually guarantee that to everyone here. Even if he had lied about the facts for his pro-war message there still would be no uproar. 

Pro war, or pro mission?

So that being said to those seeking blood and vengeance, step back and take a look at this. He sounds like a young Reservist with a very strong opinion on a subject, and he made a mistake of signing his opinions with his professional title. This was a mistake, and hopefully in the future he does not continue to do such a thing.

Then post it as a Civilian, and leave his duty for our nation out of his politics.  He was the one that invited all of the naysayers to attack him for being a soldier and criticizing the mission.  He could have signed off as anything else.

And its quite wrong to claim that due to his opinions he has disgraced the CF, or those in it. Not at all, in fact this is good. Criticism and clarity is important in any organization and by bringing up the very valid claims of civilian casualties and the use of white phosphorous allows us to look more carefully at how we do things.

This is why I am also questioning the dubious nature of your posts here….lemme guess, considering you are from BC, you are friend No? 

dileas

tess

 

[PAT-Platoon]

Army Goon:
If you hold your opinion that the war in Afghanistan is wrong, then you are in the wrong area of employment. It's a just war: We are protecting the Afghan people from tyranny. There is no more righteous cause than that.
Not only that, if we are to withdraw from Afghanistan, our influence at the international table becomes very tenuous. Should we sit on the sidelines and tut-tut everyone (for most of the anti war crowd read the USA) or should we lead?

Now in the matter of this young man voicing his opinion....he seriously needs to ask himself a few questions.

I very much disagree with your assertion that just because I don't agree with one of hundreds of missions the Canadian Forces has been a part of that therefore I have to leave this organization. I am a professional in a government organization, not a mindless robot. I have the right to an opinion, and as long as I purvey that opinion in the proper contexts and venues (as I am doing now, not as a representative of the CF) then I am fully within my rights to do so. Furthermore as a Canadian citizen, I have a right to voice an opinion against current Canadian foreign policy, and as a member of the CF I have the right to hold constructive criticism of current operations.

Furthermore I disagree with your statement on the War in Afghanistan, but as this topic subject is not "The Legalities and Ethics of the War in Afghanistan" I will not enter into a debate onto why I disagree with what you said. If you are genuinely interested in my opinions then feel free to PM them. As this topic is quite prevalent in these forums, I would keep a look out on my post history. I am sure I will eventually enter a debate regarding this topic in the proper venue. I implore others not to derail this discussion with the merits of the War in Afghanistan, as it is not the topic at hand.

Something is wrong here.  Let us charge along…

I would just like to point out that you misquoted me. None of my posts have the entered text in your reply. An editing mistake I assume?

Also to point out, no i am not a friend of his, nor do I even know him. Is it so hard to believe that in a country where 60% of Canadians disagree with the War in Afghanistan that more than one CF member falls into that 60%?

It seems we are misconnecting on our ideas here. I agree that the Corporal in question was out of line and deserves punishment for his mistakes. Should this punishment include physical harm, discharge or sending him overseas? No it should not. What I am simply asserting is that the level of vitriol in the replies do not match the level of mistake he did.

 

[kincanucks]

As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.  You have the right to follow orders and go where the government of Canada wants to send its military.  Or you have the right to release and voice your opinion whereever and whenever you want.  Please don't use the word professional to describe yourself as a member of the CF as you have a very long way to go before that happens.

 

[the 48th regulator]

What I am simply asserting is that the level of vitriol in the replies do not match the level of mistake he did.

It does.

As you once again have changed your name, it is apropos to our argument.  Although he feels angst towards the war, he cannot represent the military by stating that he serves.  He can, by all means say he disagrees with the war, but his wrong was stating that as a member of the military.

Although I understand your point of view, I am shocked by the fact you do not understand the duty of a soldier, as opposed to a civilian.

He was wrong to state that he served.  Period.  By doing that, he represents the military as a whole.  That is what rubs everyone the wrong way.  At what point do we, as soldiers decide what is right and wrong?  Are we making this a moral argument, or a dutiful argument?

You are all over the map, if I may say.

State what your purpose is, and we can go from there.

dileas

tess

 

[PAT-Platoon]

As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.  You have the right to follow orders and go where the government of Canada wants to send its military.  Or you have the right to release and voice your opinion whereever and whenever you want.  Please don't use the word professional to describe yourself as a member of the CF as you have a very long way to go before that happens.

Please quote exactly under which regulation I am not allowed to state my opinion on a Canadian mission? I would be very much interested in this regulation.

Tess, my purpose was merely what I stated earlier. I believe he was wrong for stating his opinion as a representative of the CF. If he had simply posted that opinion without his rank then he would be in the right, however since he did not I agree with your point that he was wrong. My argument is against those who stated that members of the CF do not have the right to that opinion at all, which is completely and inherently wrong.

We have a right and an obligation to state moral and dutiful concerns regarding what we have to do. In the same sense we are obliged not to carry out illegal orders, we are very much obliged to have involved opinions on the subject of foreign policy and warfare. The problem is in this case, he was voicing his opinion as a representative of the CF which in my mind is unprofessional.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Cog-Diss...


One of the things that constantly grips my sh*t is people who think the Canadian Forces are just another government organisation, like DFAIT or Revenue Canada.

WE ARE NOT. THE ENTIRE CF EXISTS TO GET THE INFANTRY TO CLOSE WITH AND DESTROY THE ENEMY. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SECONDARY.

We are subject to a different code of conduct than any civilian, and as such, if you publicly criticise government policy whilst representing yourself as a member, you are in breach of service discipline. End of story. He is totally within his right to think whatever the hell he wants, he cannot go public and say 'X mission is wrong, signed, Cpl D. Umbass, Penticton Fusiliers (or whatever)'

The reasons for this, believe it or not, is to ensure the military, AT ALL TIMES, remains subserviant to the elected government, ensuring liberal democracy and not military autocracy. See Argentina, '70's time frame, for an example of the latter.

 

[kincanucks]

Please quote exactly under which regulation I am not allowed to state my opinion on a Canadian mission? I would be very much interested in this regulation.

I like QR&O 19.36 to start.  You know what QR&Os are, right?

Easily accesible from any computer:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch019_e.asp#19.36