• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Poor and Rustic: Canada's Army vs. the Screaming Eagles

blackberet17

Full Member
Subscriber
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_06_02_Military_Eagles.html

I checked the search engine, and couldn't find if this had been posted prior. It is from 2000, but struck me. I'd like to see the author conduct a review, and see if his/her opinion has changed.

Now, discuss amongst yourselves :)
 
Not really sure what the authors point even was... comparing the entire Canadian army (which was yes, in a bit of a rut in the 90s) to a single US special forces unit... he started on education, rambled about lack of equipment, then went back to education.
 
anecdotal evidence from three privates at the mess is hardly proof of anything except three privates at the mess hall.

Its sour grapes. I worked with enough American units to know they have faults and strengths and the CF has its own sets. He's just sad he didnt get enough rides in helicopters.

The other "articles" contain lots of assumptions as well. Im not concerned with what they think or suggest at all.

 
a Sig Op said:
Not really sure what the authors point even was... comparing the entire Canadian army (which was yes, in a bit of a rut in the 90s) to a single US special forces unit... he started on education, rambled about lack of equipment, then went back to education.
Terminology: A light infantry division, even if currently focused upon air assault operations, does not equal "special forces."
 
I briefly scanned this and I have a question:

Who wrote this crap?

We exercised with the Hundred and Worst in 1996 and they sucked as soldiers. A college degree does not a good soldier make nor a stupid person a genius.

We went to the NTC in 98 and the Staff Sgt had a college diploma but he wanted to "axe" me a question.
 
This :

For those unfamiliar with the Global Positioning Satellite revolution, it means that you cannot be lost... ever.

:rofl:

(with thermal imagers on Apaches and so many weapon platforms, there is no way to hide).

Ya wanna bet ?
 
Jim Seggie said:
We went to the NTC in 98 and the Staff Sgt had a college diploma but he wanted to "axe" me a question.

He was dumbing it down for a Canadian "soldier"  ::)
 
Journeyman said:
Terminology: A light infantry division, even if currently focused upon air assault operations, does not equal "special forces."

My mistake.

He's still comparing a single unit to an entire army, and not basing it in any real facts.
 
Jim Seggie said:
I briefly scanned this and I have a question:

Who wrote this crap?

Probably written by John Thompson a former (?)  Captain in the Toronto Scottish he’s basically the McKenzie Institute
http://www.sources.com/listings/Subscribers/L733.htm

http://jewishstudies.uwaterloo.ca/documents/MemorialLecture.pdf

http://blogs.canoe.ca/canoelive/tag/mackenzie-institute/

http://www.isranet.org/conference2010/SpeakerBios_2010.htm

JohnThompson_0005.jpg

 
Danjanou said:
Probably written by John Thompson a former (?)  Captain in the Toronto Scottish he’s basically the McKenzie Institute
JohnThompson_0005.jpg

Sweet...that dude looks hard as f*ck.
I'd soldier under him in a heartbeat.

BTW...love the bowtie.

 
Really?

Are we getting worked up over something someone said 11 years ago?

Go drink some more beer. It's Friday.
 
Hammer Sandwich said:
BTW...love the bowtie.

Hey now, be sure to forward your issues with bow ties to this man... or anyone of the other men who were this man...
 
This sort of attitude used to run through the halls of NDHQ, not least of all in the Land Staff. A year and a bit later, a couple of months after 9/11 I met a friend who had served in J3 Ops. When I suggested our troops would soon be off to Afghanistan, he replied that the Canadian army was incapable of deploying a combat capable unit to the theatre. A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as somebody could get killed.

Both of these gentlemen, one Inf and one MILE, were in key advisory positions in Gulf 1.
 
Old Sweat said:
A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as somebody could get killed.

:rofl:

 
I got an honourable mention in the history of Gulf 1 when I noted the that the casualty estimate for thirty days combat in theatre for a four battle group brigade was higher than the actual toll for the Canadian Corps at Passchendale or 2nd Canadian Corps in Normandy.
 
recceguy said:
Really?

Are we getting worked up over something someone said 11 years ago?

Go drink some more beer. It's Friday.

ACK.
Completed in spades...(BTW, my wife is pissed...I told her I was just following orders)..I gave her your email address....

Now it's Saturday...and I read the article again, (and sober, BTW).
Still poop.
Still don't care for the fella.

Still don't care for his bowtie, either.

I don't judge his service, I just don't like his article.

I fart in his general directon.

 
Technoviking said:
Frig that!!!

That's ludicrous.........I thought the boys 'n Girls were out selling Tim's muffins & Coffee....
(that's what I signed up for, anyways)

Damn recruiters......
 
Old Sweat said:
This sort of attitude used to run through the halls of NDHQ, not least of all in the Land Staff. A year and a bit later, a couple of months after 9/11 I met a friend who had served in J3 Ops. When I suggested our troops would soon be off to Afghanistan, he replied that the Canadian army was incapable of deploying a combat capable unit to the theatre. A few years earlier another friend emphatically stated to me that we must never send troops into combat as somebody could get killed.
Both of these gentlemen, one Inf and one MILE, were in key advisory positions in Gulf 1.

No kidding.
 
Jim Seggie said:
No kidding.


Don't forget that Old Sweat and I served during the (several) decades of darkness, under e.g. Trudeau, Mulroney and Chrétien. The latter one noted that, with regard to the military, Canadians wanted "Boy Scouts" and that's what he was giving them. The big reason successive Canadian governments loved peacekeeping was that it appeared to buy us a "seat at the table" and to fulfill our international security obligations at a very low cost. Parsimony in defence is a long established tradition and Canadian governments were just treading a well worn path. Only once, in our entire history - short though it may be - have we wanted to be an actor on the world stage, rather than a reactor: 1947-1957; one decade out of 14.
 
Would you put 2001-now in that department as well?
 
Back
Top