- Reaction score
For this reason? [
Loachman said:An ugly and stupid waste of money. The bill should be presented to those that pushed for it, and they should be publicly shamed, their livestock slaughtered, and their fields laid waste and salted.
So who is that guy? I heard his name attached to the return of British ranks and to the last new flag of two years ago. Is he an EX-something with a staff and no responsibility but to reinvent the aesthetic?Journeyman said::not-again:
Jarnhamar said:Needs more maple leafs.
You have to give more credit than that to our great staff workers in Otawa.
I have no doubt that the answer exists.
At some point in the flurry of high level staff activity that preceded such a momentous decision, a briefing note covering the supporting documentation was carefully arranged by a junior staff officer (read a Lcol) to be passed up the chain for approval. That note contained the words "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea". This sentence was, like the rest of the briefing note, subjected to critical reading by this officers superior, who exerted himself with great acumen as he took on this serious task in order to justify further his very existence in the system. So he underlined that sentence and scribbled in the margin: "Explain?" and sent it back down for review. The whole resulting in the drafting and addition to the supporting material of a 12 page paper of historical-philosophical-anthopological mumbo-jumbo in support of the contention.
Now, they will just dig it up.
“These changes are collectively directed at promoting the military traditions that shape our Army,” said LGen Wynnyk. “Our symbols and history increase the pride that each soldier feels in their trade and duty within the Canadian Army. Maximizing corps and regimental identity is key to our soldiers’ personal and collective esprit de corps.”
Certainly better than decent boots and trucks would.
Bird_Gunner45 said:and GBAD, AT, Attack Helicopters, a decent material management system (DRMIS is junk), a decent SA system (battleview is junk), Blue force tracker for logistics vehicles (if we had vehicles).... I'm sure I'm missing things.
Aside from that... yes, the General is 100% correct.
Rifleman62 said:Army G1 Heritage as a Public Servant.
CO or ex CO now, don't know.
Chris Pook said:Old Sweat.
I filled in the Government's questionnaire. I also filled in the opposition's questionnaire. Then I wished the opposition luck on being able to effect any kind of change or being allowed to supply any meaningful input.
We have no policy beyond expediency.