Lest We Forget
don (Calgary)
month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
war, an armistice was signed.
The "war to end all wars" was over.
For the past few years I have posted here and in a few other forums a
link to my modest tribute to the brave and courageous souls who have
defended our country(s) with their service in the armed forces.
With the recent tragic event in Fort Hood and the ongoing missions in
Afghanistan and Iraq it is timely to remember and honour our Veterans.
********
They went with songs to the battle, they were young,
Straight of limb, true of eye, steady and aglow.
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted,
They fell with their faces to the foe.
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old;
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.
Taken from
For the Fallen
by Laurence Binyon
********
http://actualriders.ca/lest_we_forget.htm
You will find on the web site a touching video by Terry Kelly, a
Canadian songwriter, about an encounter he had in a Shoppers Drug Mart
with a boorish oaf who did not want to spend two minutes of silence to
honour our Vets. It is a large download but well worth the time.
A Pittance In Time
http://actualriders.ca/time.wmv
There is an even larger download and equally touching video of some of
the brave Canadian men and women who have sacrificed their lives in
Afghanistan. The truly sad part is this video gets longer each year.
http://www.sewolf.ca/videos/CFTribute800x600.wmv
The red poppy is the flower of remembrance. Each Remembrance Day, we
show our abiding respect for those who have freely given their lives
for the cause of freedom, justice and peace by wearing a poppy.
In the days leading up to commemorating the eleventh hour, of the
eleventh day, of the eleventh month please wear a poppy to honour
those who made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our freedom.
.p.jm.@see_my_sig_for_address.com
wrote:
>In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
>month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
>war, an armistice was signed.
>
>The "war to end all wars" was over.
And the war that followed it had not yet begun :-(
--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
www.theanimalrescuesite.com/
Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/
Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
Shantideva Spirit
> In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
> month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
> war, an armistice was signed.
DULCE ET DECORUM EST - the first words of a Latin saying (taken from
an ode by Horace). The words were widely understood and often quoted
at the start of the First World War. They mean "It is sweet and
right." The full saying ends the poem: Dulce et decorum est pro patria
mori - it is sweet and right to die for your country. In other words,
it is a wonderful and great honour to fight and die for your
country...
DULCE ET DECORUM EST by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.
Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling,
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
8 October 1917 - March, 1918
Om! Shanti! Shanti! Shanti!
TOG@Toil
> In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
> month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
> war, an armistice was signed.
>
I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
represented only by volunteers.
Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got first pick, as it
were. The Canadians, a bit like the Poles, made a contribution out of
all proportion to their numbers[4]. And took a fearful hammering at
Dieppe. I think I mentioned that I visited the memorial on the
seafront there: the French keep it properly.
[1] But Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a Hitler appeaser[2], so
perhaps it isn't so strange[3].
[2] Not that he was alone in that, of course.
[3] But it is a little footnote of history that tends to get swept
under the carpet these days.
[4] "Johnnie" Johnson, Britain's top scoring fighter pilot, commanded
a Canadian squadron[5]
[5] JEJ were his intials, used as his aircraft recognition letters on
his Mark Nine Spitfire[6]
[6] As modelled by Airfix in the 1960s. Some things you never foget.
TOG@Toil
> On Nov 6, 7:18 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
> > month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
> > war, an armistice was signed.
>
> DULCE ET DECORUM EST
<snip>
I know this and half a dozen of his other poems by heart. A bit
worrying.
Doug Payne
> I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
> that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> represented only by volunteers.
Tell that to my uncle who fought in the Africa campaign in 1940, and was
part of the invasion of Sicily in 1943, or to my aunt who was torpedoed
in the Med in the early 40's (army nurse). Or to another aunt who was a
spy aiding the Polish underground as early as 1940. Tell it to the
45,000 Canadians, both men and women, who voluntarily lost their lives
defending your country, or to the 50,000+ who were wounded, or to the
1,000,000+ who served.
don (Calgary)
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 6 Nov, 15:18, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
>> month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
>> war, an armistice was signed.
>>
><snip>
>
>I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
>that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>represented only by volunteers.
Boy you are a load! How dare you use a thread commemorating our
veterans as another one of your back handed ankle biting efforts.
There is nothing wrong with a volunteer armed force. And for the
record you overblown goofball Canada had five divisions of, yes a
volunteer armed force, overseas in 1042. My father was there in 1942
and my mother followed the year after. Both of them brave and proud
volunteers of the Canadian Armed Forces - Army. You want to diminish
their effort or commitment because they were volunteers. If you are
give me your name and address, I will be on a plane to discuss this
with you in person.. And when I am done I doubt I will ever leave your
country.
How dare you demean them with your condescending "Canada was
represented only by volunteers." And that was a quote.
We were in Dieppe in 42, Italy in 43 and Normandy in 44. Over a
million Canadians served in our armed forces during the war. Over
40,000 died.
I would point you to an article published last year in your Sunday
Telegraph - Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, that
captures some of Canada's proud military heritage.
http://actualriders.ca/salute.htm
As for MacKenzie King, he did not support conscription and did not
implement it until he had to, which probably was in or around 1944.
That is from memory, not Google.
I would suggest you do some serious backpedaling and offer up a
sincere apology to all of the 'volunteers' who have served and died
defending their country, and to all of our veterans who _volunteered_
to serve and fight and watched their comrades, also _volunteers_ fall
beside them. While you are at it offer an apology to all of the
_volunteers_ currently occupying the front lines today.
MikeWhy
news:gff8f59osictmck3b...@4ax.com...
> You will find on the web site a touching video by Terry Kelly, a
> Canadian songwriter, about an encounter he had in a Shoppers Drug Mart
> with a boorish oaf who did not want to spend two minutes of silence to
> honour our Vets. It is a large download but well worth the time.
> A Pittance In Time
> http://actualriders.ca/time.wmv
You do realize, despite the lack of cartoon characters, that this was made
up? Staged. Not factual.
I don't find it touching at all. I find it a disparaging attack on the
freedoms you claim they upheld. I'll honor them in my own way, in my own
time, as I see fit, if I see fit.
I find it very troubling that you're so vocal about following instructions
and direction from those who hold no such authority. First with the G'day
bullshit, and now this steaming pile of moralizing. Bite me, Don.
TOG@Toil
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:12:03 -0800 (PST), "TOG@Toil"
>
> >On 6 Nov, 15:18, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
> >> month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
> >> war, an armistice was signed.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> >represented only by volunteers.
>
> Boy you are a load! How dare you use a thread commemorating our
> veterans as another one of your back handed ankle biting efforts.
What the *hell* are you on about now?
> There is nothing wrong with a volunteer armed force. Read my comments. I said I was gl;ad we had a volunteer force rather than conscripts.
> And for the
> record you overblown goofball Canada had five divisions of, yes a
> volunteer armed force, overseas in 1042.
Wow. They beat William the Conqueror to it.
> My father was there in 1942
> and my mother followed the year after. Both of them brave and proud
> volunteers of the Canadian Armed Forces - Army. You want to diminish
> their effort or commitment because they were volunteers.
No, I don't. Read my comments again. I was *glad* we got the
volunteers.
> If you are
> give me your name and address, I will be on a plane to discuss this
> with you in person.. And when I am done I doubt I will ever leave your
> country.
Neil Murray, 6 Meadow Road, SM1 4NF. Your call.
>
> How dare you demean them with your condescending "Canada was
> represented only by volunteers." And that was a quote.
Because it *was* until 1944.
>
> We were in Dieppe in 42, Italy in 43 and Normandy in 44. Over a
> million Canadians served in our armed forces during the war. Over
> 40,000 died.
I know. And I praised the volunteers. Like I said. Did you actually
read the entire posting? I suspect not.
>
> I would point you to an article published last year in your Sunday
> Telegraph - Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, that
> captures some of Canada's proud military heritage.http://actualriders.ca/salute.htm
>
> As for MacKenzie King, he did not support conscription and did not
> implement it until he had to, which probably was in or around 1944.
"In 1940 his government had introduced conscription for the defence of
Canada and a plebiscite in 1942 supported its extension. In 1944 it
was finally agreed that Canada would send troops abroad, as opposed to
relying on volunteers. The fact that it was near the end of the war
prevented the issue from being as divisive as in the past."
From http://www.answers.com/topic/william-lyon-mackenzie-king
>
> I would suggest you do some serious backpedaling and offer up a
> sincere apology to all of the 'volunteers' who have served and died
> defending their country, and to all of our veterans who _volunteered_
> to serve and fight and watched their comrades, also _volunteers_ fall
> beside them. While you are at it offer an apology to all of the
> _volunteers_ currently occupying the front lines today.
Not a damn chance. You have totally misinterpreted what I posted. Like
I have said before, you have a severe comprehension and communication
problem. In short, you are ignorant and stupid. And a liar.
TOG@Toil
See my reply. You have evidently not read my posting properly, and
misinterpreted it.
Or did you deliberately choose to ignore this: "Until.... some time in
1944... Canada was represented only by volunteers. Which was probably
for the best, as it meant we got first pick, as it were. The
Canadians, a bit like the Poles, made a contribution out of all
proportion to their numbers."
Are you feeling as stupid as Don, now?
Doug Payne
I don't regard either Don or I as stupid. You might mean well, but you
often choose your words very carelessly.
The Older Gentleman
No. I choose them carefully. You and Don read them carelessly[1].
There's a big, big difference.
Still, at least you've sort of grudgingly gone some way to admitting
that perhaps you might have been hasty. and wrong.
[1] Actually, no. You read them carelessly. Don read them and *cose* to
ignore tham and start a fight, because he deliberately snipped them. And
offered to fly across the Atlantic as well to make his point, whatever
that was. Now that's truly pathetic.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER (currently Beaving) Damn, back to five bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
The Older Gentleman
Sean_Q_
> I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]
It would be more accurate to say that Canada refused to conscript men
for overseas deployment until 1944. It becomes less odd when you
consider the Anglo vs Franco tensions in the country (still ongoing).
This tells it pretty well they way I heard it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_Crisis_of_1944
SQ
Sean_Q_
>> The "war to end all wars" was over.
>
> And the war that followed it had not yet begun :-(
It had in embryonic form, as its instigator was lying in hospital,
temporarily blinded by British mustard gas and mightily angry.
BTW it was the Boche that introduced gas to that war; rather ill advised
IMO considering that at the latitude of the Western Front the prevailing
winds blew from the Allied to the German lines.
SQ
The Older Gentleman
> BTW it was the Boche that introduced gas to that war; rather ill advised
> IMO considering that at the latitude of the Western Front the prevailing
> winds blew from the Allied to the German lines.
Indeed.
The Older Gentleman
> > I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> > WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]
>
> It would be more accurate to say that Canada refused to conscript men
> for overseas deployment until 1944.
Well, no, not really. Canada had introduced conscription years before,
but MK refused to send troops abroad. That really is a blot on his
record, although given his domestic political situation, understandable.
So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned.
I notice that Desperate Don has gone all quiet now. Fuck 'im.
don (Calgary)
<totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On 6 Nov, 17:17, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 08:12:03 -0800 (PST), "TOG@Toil"
>>
>> <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 6 Nov, 15:18, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> In 1918, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day in the eleventh
>> >> month, the world rejoiced and celebrated. After four years of bitter
>> >> war, an armistice was signed.
>>
>> ><snip>
>>
>> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
>> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>> >represented only by volunteers.
>>
>> Boy you are a load! How dare you use a thread commemorating our
>> veterans as another one of your back handed ankle biting efforts.
>
>What the *hell* are you on about now?
>
>> There is nothing wrong with a volunteer armed force. Read my comments. I said I was gl;ad we had a volunteer force rather than conscripts.
Read your fucking words asshole. You said we refused to send troops to
Europe for nearly five years after we declared war.And that you
fucking dolt is a lie.
>
>> And for the
>> record you overblown goofball Canada had five divisions of, yes a
>> volunteer armed force, overseas in 1042.
>
>Wow. They beat William the Conqueror to it.
Clearly that should have read 1942.
>
>> My father was there in 1942
>> and my mother followed the year after. Both of them brave and proud
>> volunteers of the Canadian Armed Forces - Army. You want to diminish
>> their effort or commitment because they were volunteers.
>
>No, I don't. Read my comments again. I was *glad* we got the
>volunteers.
>
>> If you are
>> give me your name and address, I will be on a plane to discuss this
>> with you in person.. And when I am done I doubt I will ever leave your
>> country.
>
>Neil Murray, 6 Meadow Road, SM1 4NF. Your call.
You continue to lie about our armed forces and you will find me on
your doorstep. Bet on it.
>>
>> How dare you demean them with your condescending "Canada was
>> represented only by volunteers." And that was a quote.
>
>Because it *was* until 1944.
There was a dozen ways you could have said that that would have been
free of your usual arrogant and condescending attitude.
>>
>> We were in Dieppe in 42, Italy in 43 and Normandy in 44. Over a
>> million Canadians served in our armed forces during the war. Over
>> 40,000 died.
>
>I know. And I praised the volunteers. Like I said. Did you actually
>read the entire posting? I suspect not.
Once again shit for brains you said we didn't have troops in Europe
for nearly five years after we declared war. We did, in Dieppe, Italy
and Normandy. You fucking liar.
>>
>> I would point you to an article published last year in your Sunday
>> Telegraph - Salute to a brave and modest nation - Kevin Myers, that
>> captures some of Canada's proud military heritage.http://actualriders.ca/salute.htm
>>
>> As for MacKenzie King, he did not support conscription and did not
>> implement it until he had to, which probably was in or around 1944.
>
>"In 1940 his government had introduced conscription for the defence of
>Canada and a plebiscite in 1942 supported its extension. In 1944 it
>was finally agreed that Canada would send troops abroad, as opposed to
>relying on volunteers. The fact that it was near the end of the war
>prevented the issue from being as divisive as in the past."
>
>From http://www.answers.com/topic/william-lyon-mackenzie-king
Bullshit. That quote is not even close to the facts. You need to brush
up on Canadian history. See my comments below.
>
>>
>> I would suggest you do some serious backpedaling and offer up a
>> sincere apology to all of the 'volunteers' who have served and died
>> defending their country, and to all of our veterans who _volunteered_
>> to serve and fight and watched their comrades, also _volunteers_ fall
>> beside them. While you are at it offer an apology to all of the
>> _volunteers_ currently occupying the front lines today.
>
>Not a damn chance. You have totally misinterpreted what I posted. Like
>I have said before, you have a severe comprehension and communication
>problem. In short, you are ignorant and stupid. And a liar.
Here is your quote asshole:
>
>> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
>> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>> >represented only by volunteers.
So what part of refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years
is true? None of it, that's what. Our armed forces - TROOPS- then as
they are now were made up of volunteers. We declared war in 39 and
were in Europe in force in 42.
Those are the facts and you sir are a deliberate and chronic liar.
You are a boorish idiot, lacking knowledge of Canadian history. You
pass around misinformation and lies like you are handing out halloween
candy. Then when you are called on it you whine and cry like a little
girl.
No honesty, no character and no integrity. I would call you a lying
pig but I do not want to insult pigs..
BryanUT
This is an unfortunate example of this:
"What you think you heard is not what I said."
The internet, "improving" communication for decades....
Can we all agree that the Allies (Britian, Canada, Australia, NZ, the
States, Russia et. al.) had brave men and women make the ultimate
sacrifice? Conscripted or not.
While we are at it, let's be honest and admit NONE [1] of us truely
understand the horror of what took place during WWII [2].
[1] Nods to the few combat veterans amongst us.
[2] Or what is happening in Palestine, Dafur, Iraq, Afganistan, East
Timor, Sudan, Somolia, Yemen, Tibet, etc.
don (Calgary)
<boat042...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:gff8f59osictmck3b...@4ax.com...
>> You will find on the web site a touching video by Terry Kelly, a
>> Canadian songwriter, about an encounter he had in a Shoppers Drug Mart
>> with a boorish oaf who did not want to spend two minutes of silence to
>> honour our Vets. It is a large download but well worth the time.
>> A Pittance In Time
>> http://actualriders.ca/time.wmv
>
>You do realize, despite the lack of cartoon characters, that this was made
>up? Staged. Not factual.
Here from Terry's web site is the background story behind A Pittance
of Time
************
On November 11, 1999 Terry Kelly was in a drug store in Dartmouth,
Nova Scotia. At 10:55 AM an announcement came over the store�s PA
asking customers who would still be on the premises at 11:00 AM to
give two minutes of silence in respect to the veterans who have
sacrificed so much for us.
Terry was impressed with the store�s leadership role in adopting the
Legion�s �two minutes of silence� initiative. He felt that the store�s
contribution of educating the public to the importance of remembering
was commendable.
When eleven o�clock arrived on that day, an announcement was again
made asking for the �two minutes of silence� to commence. All
customers, with the exception of a man who was accompanied by his
young child, showed their respect.
Terry�s anger towards the father for trying to engage the store�s
clerk in conversation and for setting a bad example for his child was
channeled into a beautiful piece of work called, �A Pittance of Time�.
Terry later recorded �A Pittance of Time� and included it on his
full-length music CD, �The Power of the Dream�.
**********
You can read the full story here"
http://www.terry-kelly.com/pittance/pittance_en.htm
So let me think about this for a minute. Should I believe someone who
can write such a beautiful piece of music or an antagonistic jerk who
resides in a usenet forum
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
No contest. You lose, every time. ROTFLMAO
>
>I don't find it touching at all. I find it a disparaging attack on the
>freedoms you claim they upheld. I'll honor them in my own way, in my own
>time, as I see fit, if I see fit.
>
>I find it very troubling that you're so vocal about following instructions
>and direction from those who hold no such authority. First with the G'day
>bullshit, and now this steaming pile of moralizing. Bite me, Don.
>
I think we can all see what you are made of and speaking for myself I
am neither impressed or surprised. You are lucky to live in a country
defended by the most honourable of people, so people like you can
display your disrespect in whatever form you desire.
But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from the
disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
BrianNZ
> On Nov 6, 10:31 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> This is an unfortunate example of this:
>
> "What you think you heard is not what I said."
>
> The internet, "improving" communication for decades....
>
> Can we all agree that the Allies (Britian, Canada, Australia, NZ, the
> States, Russia et. al.) had brave men and women make the ultimate
> sacrifice? Conscripted or not.
You can include the 'Axis' forces in there as well.......people fighting
for politicians.
BryanUT
>
> But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from the
> disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
>
Yes, freedom of speech, it does not protect you from other's freedom
of speech.
Don and I have had our "moments" [1], yet having boken bread and
ridden with the man I will always respect him. He has earned [2] MY
respect.
[1] Rodeos and tar sands (ooops, oil sands) come to mind :)
[2] Respect is not hard to earn. For most people. Just be honest.
And willing to ride through a snow storm with a stranger. He trusted
me and I will always trust Don.
don (Calgary)
<nest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Nov 6, 10:31�am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This is an unfortunate example of this:
>
>"What you think you heard is not what I said."
Not this time Bryan. The Old Cout clearly said Canada did not send
troops to Europe until five years after we declared war. That is
Bullshit, plain and simple.
His following up saying we sent volunteers prior to that demeans all
of the troops that were shipped overseas prior to 1944, many of whom
died in battle.
Since the Old Cout continuously derides others, because their command
of the English language is not equal to his, I can only surmise he
meant exactly what he wrote and is deliberately lying. And in the
process he is spitting on the graves of the brave and courageous
Canadian _TROOPS_ who fought and died in Europe.
>
>The internet, "improving" communication for decades....
>
>Can we all agree that the Allies (Britian, Canada, Australia, NZ, the
>States, Russia et. al.) had brave men and women make the ultimate
>sacrifice? Conscripted or not.
No one has even suggested that.
don (Calgary)
Bryan, you and I are friends, not twins. We can and do disagree on a
variety of topics, but I look forward to the next time we get to ride
together and share a few laughs again.
I might be going to Moab again next spring. Maybe you and Lyle can
join us.
Better yet ride up here and I will take for a tour of the oil sands.
;-)
don (Calgary)
>
>> But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from the
>> disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
>>
>
>Yes, freedom of speech, it does not protect you from other's freedom
>of speech.
After typing my initial reply I go to thinking of a speech Michael
Douglas made in the movie American President. Thanks to Google I was
able to find it. Here's an excerpt from it.
************
America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want
it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want
free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your
blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of
his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of
yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the
symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to
be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in
protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your
classrooms.
************
I have yet to hear a better definition of free speech.
MikeWhy
>Thanks to Google I was
> able to find it. Here's an excerpt from it.
> ************
> America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta want
> it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You want
> free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your
> blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of
> his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of
> yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the
> symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to
> be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in
> protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your
> classrooms.
> ************
>
> I have yet to hear a better definition of free speech.
Yup. What he said.
BryanUT
> BryanUT wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:31 am, "TOG@Toil" <totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > This is an unfortunate example of this:
>
> > "What you think you heard is not what I said."
>
> > The internet, "improving" communication for decades....
>
> > Can we all agree that the Allies (Britian, Canada, Australia, NZ, the
> > States, Russia et. al.) had brave men and women make the ultimate
> > sacrifice? Conscripted or not.
>
> You can include the 'Axis' forces in there as well.......people fighting
> for politicians.
>
Well of course, but they were the BAD guys.
Like the cashier at the State liqour store Halloween eve, with his
black T-shirt that said "God is on My side." With a pic of an obvious
terrorist ( turbin, scarf and AK-47).
Don't forget there is US and THEM.
Road Glidin' Don
> But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from the
> disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
Well said.
The Older Gentleman
> Not this time Bryan. The Old Cout clearly said Canada did not send
> troops to Europe until five years after we declared war. That is
> Bullshit, plain and simple.
No, it's fact. You did not "send" troops, as I've explained in my
statment: "Canada had introduced conscription years before,
but MK refused to send troops abroad. "
>
> His following up saying we sent volunteers prior to that demeans all
> of the troops that were shipped overseas prior to 1944, many of whom
> died in battle.
No it doesn't. I said: "Canada was represented only by volunteers. Which
was probably for the best, as it meant we got first pick"
Does that mean "we got the dregs" in the language in your hick town?
I also said: "The Canadians, a bit like the Poles, made a contribution
out of all proportion to their numbers"
Does that mean they were shit, in the language in yor hick town? I only
ask because *nobody else* seems to have had difficulty with these
concepts.
Answers, please.
I'm frankly amazed. I responded to your post with praise of Canada's
volunteers, acknowledged their contribution, mentioned Dieppe, and also
mentioned that I'd visited the Canadian memorial there. And you, for
some reason known only to yourself, decided to spit the dummy, twist my
words, snip everything positive, and get your history wrong. Just to
start a fight.
I bet the guys lying under the ground at Dieppe, if they're reading your
bile, wonder why they bothered.
The Older Gentleman
>
> Read your fucking words asshole. You said we refused to send troops to
> Europe for nearly five years after we declared war.And that you
> fucking dolt is a lie.
No, *you* read them. Canada did not *send* troops. Volunteers went, and
as I said, they made a great contribution. As I pointed out, your PM
refused to send conscripted men abroad.
This is fact.
>
> You continue to lie about our armed forces and you will find me on
> your doorstep. Bet on it.
I'm not lying. Big Man.
> >>
> >> How dare you demean them with your condescending "Canada was
> >> represented only by volunteers." And that was a quote.
> >
> >Because it *was* until 1944.
>
> There was a dozen ways you could have said that that would have been
> free of your usual arrogant and condescending attitude.
Oh, so now you admit it *was* true? Make your mind up, Desperate.
Please show how "was probably for the best, as it meant we got first
pick, as it were. The Canadians, a bit like the Poles, made a
contribution out of all proportion to their numbers. And took a fearful
hammering at Dieppe. I think I mentioned that I visited the memorial on
theseafront there: the French keep it properly." is condescending. Off
you go.
> >>
> >> We were in Dieppe in 42, Italy in 43 and Normandy in 44. Over a
> >> million Canadians served in our armed forces during the war. Over
> >> 40,000 died.
> >
> >I know. And I praised the volunteers. Like I said. Did you actually
> >read the entire posting? I suspect not.
>
> Once again shit for brains you said we didn't have troops in Europe
> for nearly five years after we declared war. We did, in Dieppe, Italy
> and Normandy. You fucking liar.
See my quote, up there, about Dieppe? That's twice you've ignored it
now.
>
> Here is your quote asshole:
> >
> >> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> >> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1]. Until
> >> >that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> >> >represented only by volunteers.
>
> So what part of refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years
> is true? None of it, that's what. Our armed forces - TROOPS- then as
> they are now were made up of volunteers. We declared war in 39 and
> were in Europe in force in 42.
>
> Those are the facts and you sir are a deliberate and chronic liar.
No, I'm correct. The key word is "send". Now, I used it in the context
of the government not sending troops, which is entirely and factually
correct. Volunteers were not "sent". You have *deliberately* chosen to
take it as "no troops went", despite all my statements to the contrary.
You are deliberately trying to pick a fight.
I also, as you have repeatedly ignored, mentioned the great contribution
they made. Strange you have snipped every reference to that.
>
> No honesty, no character and no integrity. I would call you a lying
> pig but I do not want to insult pigs..
Quite possibly because you don't want to insult yourself.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> Read your fucking words asshole. You said we refused to send troops to
>> Europe for nearly five years after we declared war.And that you
>> fucking dolt is a lie.
>
>No, *you* read them. Canada did not *send* troops. Volunteers went, and
>as I said, they made a great contribution. As I pointed out, your PM
>refused to send conscripted men abroad.
>
>This is fact.
Actually you said Canada _Refused_ to send troops until five years
after we declared war. We _only_ sent volunteers. That is a bit of a
different connotation isn't it.
Let's see what Webster has to say about the definition of troops:
Date: 1545
1 a : a group of soldiers b : a cavalry unit corresponding to an
infantry company c plural : armed forces, soldiers
2 : a collection of people or things : crew 2
3 : a flock of mammals or birds
4 : the basic organizational unit of Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts under
an adult leader
Interesting, Webster doesn't mention a word about conscription.
So let me assume you are not suggesting we sent a troop of Boy Scouts
or a flock of Magpies. Clearly the applicable definition is a group
of soldiers b : a cavalry unit corresponding to an infantry company c
plural : armed forces, soldiers.
Are you with me so far?
Now show me where or how a soldier has to be conscripted to join a
troop?
Your assertion we did not send troops but only sent volunteers is
demeaning to those that served and died and is plain and simple
bullshit.
Those are the facts you bloated bag of pus.
MikeWhy
It cuts both ways.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> Not this time Bryan. The Old Cout clearly said Canada did not send
>> troops to Europe until five years after we declared war. That is
>> Bullshit, plain and simple.
>
>No, it's fact. You did not "send" troops, as I've explained in my
>statment: "Canada had introduced conscription years before,
>but MK refused to send troops abroad. "
You are dumber than a sack of hammers and clearly ignorant of Canada's
history related to conscription.
I will try to dumb this down so even you can understand it.
1. Canada is a country made up of two distinctly different cultures.
Prime Ministers then as they do now must walk a fine line recognizing
those two cultures see most major issues such as going to war and
conscription from opposite ends of the spectrum. The federal Liberals,
sensitive to strong francophone feelings on this issue, repeatedly
pledged not to resort to compulsory enlistment for overseas military
service. This was a divisive issue in WW1 and the Liberal government
had legitimate concerns the issue could divide Canada along Anglo
Francophone lines.
2. In the spring of 1940 the government had adopted the NATIONAL
RESOURCES MOBILIZATION ACT (NRMA) providing for enlistment for home
defense. The NRMA specifically excluded sending those conscripted
overseas. This was one of the many compromises Canada makes on a
regular basis to accommodate our distinctly different cultures.
3. In 1941, as recruitment slowly progressed, more voices were raised
in favour of conscription. To appease the supporters of conscription,
Prime Minister King decided to hold a plebiscite asking Canadians to
release the government from its anti-conscription promises. In Quebec,
the Ligue pour la defense du Canada campaigned for the "no" side, and
on 27 Apr 1942, 72.9% of Quebec residents voted "no," while in the
other provinces the "yes" vote triumphed by 80%. The plebiscite was
poorly worded and was as ambiguous as King's famous quote
"conscription if necessary, but not necessarily conscription,"
4. With passage of Bill 80 in July, the conscription issue was
defused. Conscription for overseas service was now legally possible,
but it need not be implemented until the military ran short of men.
With the Canadian troops stationed in England, that day was not at
hand.
5. The heavy casualties suffered during the Normandy Invasion in 1944
and afterwards decimated Canada's available troops and triggered the
sending of conscripts overseas..
I wouldn't expect many to understand the fine political line Canadian
Federal governments have to walk and the compromises they have to make
to appease the French and English cultures in this country. The
conscription issue split the country along those lines and had the
potential to break this country apart.
Passing of the NRMA in 1940 did not provide the authority for the
government to send conscripts overseas. Neither did the plebiscite in
1941. Bill 80 passed in the summer of 41 did, but with the
qualification of when deemed necessary.
It is entirely possible Canada would have split over the conscription
issue and King had a very tough decision re when conscription was
deemed necessary.
Historians have long debated the strength of King's decisions on this
issue, but aside from one bloated bag of pus in England, I have yet to
hear one of them suggest Prime Minister Mackenzie King refused to send
conscripts overseas because he was a Hitler appeaser. That takes a
special combination of arrogance and ignorance. And the bloated bag of
pus rings the bell on both counts.
Chuck Rhode
> "don (Calgary)" <hd....@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:6fn9f5d50gv8c85a9...@4ax.com...
>> America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You've gotta
>> want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say, "You
>> want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make
>> your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the
>> top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at
>> the top of yours." You want to claim this land as the land of the
>> free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The
>> symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to
>> burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that,
>> celebrate that in your classrooms.
>> I have yet to hear a better definition of free speech.
> Yup. What he said.
Well, there's free speech and there's hate speech. I suppose hate
speech includes incitement to illegal acts, which is unethical and is
itself illegal, and that's not protected under free speech.
--
.. Be Seeing You,
.. Chuck Rhode, Sheboygan, WI, USA
.. Weather: http://LacusVeris.com/WX
.. 54° — Wind SW 13 mph
Road Glidin' Don
Irrelevant if you don't have an example of disrespect in the other's
argument.
But maybe you think the act of someone criticizing your incapacity for
respect is an act of disrespect, right? Oh boy...
J. Clarke
In other words, boiling all that crap down, you're saying that prior to 1944
the only Canadian troops sent overseas were volunteers, and that not enough
of them were sent to do the job. Which from outside of both of your
cultures looks like the same thing that he said, only he put it much more
succinctly.
don (Calgary)
I would not have objected to that representation of Canada's
deployment of troops prior to 1944, subject to recognizing we had five
divisions overseas well prior to 1944 I would not have used the term
"only". It's grammatically correct both ways, but the use of "only"
adds a condescending connotation to the statement.
>and that not enough
>of them were sent to do the job.
Here I disagree. Prior to 1944 Canada's troop deployment met the needs
of the day. It was after the horrific losses in 44 (Normandy) there
was a need to send conscripts over.
>Which from outside of both of your
>cultures looks like the same thing that he said, only he put it much more
>succinctly.
Not at all, the bloated bag of pus said Canada did not send Troops
overseas until 1944, only volunteers. We did send _Troops_ overseas
long before 44.
So no that is not what he said, nor was it what he meant.
Bruce Richmond
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Read your fucking words asshole. You said we refused to send troops to
> > Europe for nearly five years after we declared war.And that you
> > fucking dolt is a lie.
>
> No, *you* read them. Canada did not *send* troops. Volunteers went, and
> as I said, they made a great contribution. As I pointed out, your PM
> refused to send conscripted men abroad.
>
> This is fact.
>
I think there may have been a bit of misunderstanding here. When I
first read what you wrote I interperted volunteers to mean men and
women that took it upon themselves to go over and help entirely on
their own. Such things do happen. The Spanish civil war being a good
example. There were US citizens that went and fought with no
assistance of any kind from the US government. That is the type of
volunteer I thought you were referring to. But it seems there were
volunteers that were part of the armed forces. They chose to go but
were not required to. Another level of volunteer applies to all of
the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
go where ever they are told to go.
MikeWhy
> On Nov 7, 7:32 am, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 6:28 pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from
>>>> the disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
>>
>>> Well said.
>>
>> It cuts both ways.
>
> Irrelevant if you don't have an example of disrespect in the other's
> argument.
>
> But maybe you think the act of someone criticizing your incapacity for
> respect is an act of disrespect, right? Oh boy...
Talk about the blind. Watch that video again. Read Don's words again. <Go
ahead. I'll wait.> Is the message about love, honor, and respect? No. The
loud, clear message is hate, intolerance, and disrespect. Again, bite me. Do
me a favor, Honor my sensibilities and keep your moralizing and preaching of
hate and intolerance to yourselves. There is little so disrepectful as your
continued preaching and moralizing. I have never once told you how you
should think, act, or behave. I have only ever expressed my disagreement
with your thoughts expressed here. Contrast and compare the two. How would
you characterize them in terms of respect and disrespect? If you really must
paint that line, even the occasional spewing of racial hate is less
offensive and disrespectful than the uninvited moralizing spew coming my our
north.
don (Calgary)
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Another level of volunteer applies to all of
>the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
>so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
>go where ever they are told to go.
Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
Would you think it a fair representation if I said The US refuses to
deploy troops overseas, only volunteers?
turby
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> >Another level of volunteer applies to all of
> >the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
> >so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
> >go where ever they are told to go.
>
> Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
earlier post, it's not clear.
J. Clarke
Seems accurate to me.
The Older Gentleman
> I think there may have been a bit of misunderstanding here. When I
> first read what you wrote I interperted volunteers to mean men and
> women that took it upon themselves to go over and help entirely on
> their own. Such things do happen. The Spanish civil war being a good
> example. There were US citizens that went and fought with no
> assistance of any kind from the US government. That is the type of
> volunteer I thought you were referring to. But it seems there were
> volunteers that were part of the armed forces. They chose to go but
> were not required to. Another level of volunteer applies to all of
> the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
> so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
> go where ever they are told to go.
Thank you. You are precisely correct.
And the Spanish Civiil War is an *excellent* example. Britain did not
send troops. But British volunteers fought there.
The Older Gentleman
And that's because the troops the US is deploying overseas are
volunteers, and not conscripted men. Which is the key difference.
Canada refused to send conscripted me overseas until 1944. Fact. We did
receive a large number of Canadian volunteers prior to that date, for
which we are eternally grateful.
This key point, and my praise of them right from the start, Desperate
Don chooses to ignore.
The Older Gentleman
> >No, *you* read them. Canada did not *send* troops. Volunteers went, and
> >as I said, they made a great contribution. As I pointed out, your PM
> >refused to send conscripted men abroad.
> >
> >This is fact.
>
> Actually you said Canada _Refused_ to send troops until five years
> after we declared war. We _only_ sent volunteers. That is a bit of a
> different connotation isn't it.
No, it's the precise truth.
The Canadian government refused to send troops. Brave volunteers took
things into their own hands.,
Look at Bruce Richmond's posting, and my reply. That sums it up
admirably.
> Your assertion we did not send troops but only sent volunteers is
> demeaning to those that served and died and is plain and simple
> bullshit.
Fuck but I wonder if you understand English. You did not "send" troops.
You do not technically "send" volunteers.
"Hey, you, volunteer! Go there!"
Volunteers, er, volunteer. And as I said, right from my very first post
on this subject, we were glad of it because we got the best. This part
of my posting, and the bit that followed, you have chosen to ignore,
again and again, because you are deliberately picking a fight.
And losing.
The Older Gentleman
> I would not have used the term
> "only". It's grammatically correct both ways, but the use of "only"
> adds a condescending connotation to the statement.
Wrong. And you have *still* failed to mention my sentence following
that: about how lucky we were to have them, and what a good job they
did.
OK: serious question. Why have you, right through this thread, failed to
acknowledge that bit? Why did you snip it?
The Older Gentleman
> In other words, boiling all that crap down, you're saying that prior to 1944
> the only Canadian troops sent overseas were volunteers, and that not enough
> of them were sent to do the job. Which from outside of both of your
> cultures looks like the same thing that he said, only he put it much more
> succinctly.
*Ding*
The Older Gentleman
> I wouldn't expect many to understand the fine political line Canadian
> Federal governments have to walk and the compromises they have to make
> to appease the French and English cultures in this country. The
> conscription issue split the country along those lines and had the
> potential to break this country apart.
>
> Passing of the NRMA in 1940 did not provide the authority for the
> government to send conscripts overseas. Neither did the plebiscite in
> 1941. Bill 80 passed in the summer of 41 did, but with the
> qualification of when deemed necessary.
>
> It is entirely possible Canada would have split over the conscription
> issue and King had a very tough decision re when conscription was
> deemed necessary.
Thank you for confirming what I said. Canada did not send conscripts
abroad. I do not isagree with the reasons you state - in fact, I stated
a very abbreviated version earlier but (surprise!) you chose to ignore
it.
>
> Historians have long debated the strength of King's decisions on this
> issue, but aside from one bloated bag of pus in England, I have yet to
> hear one of them suggest Prime Minister Mackenzie King refused to send
> conscripts overseas because he was a Hitler appeaser.
I did not mean that to sound the way it sounds. And I did not say
"because". Our own PM was an appeaser as was Halifax, who so nearly
succeeded him.
But at least you've acknowledged the key point. Took you a while, but
your brain worked it out in the end.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 9:19�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>>
>> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Another level of volunteer applies to all of
>> >the current armed forces of the US. �We do not currently have a draft
>> >so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
>> >go where ever they are told to go.
>>
>> Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
>
>Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
>volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
>earlier post, it's not clear.
Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
overseas. You have to remember we were just coming out of the
recession, unemployment was still very high and people were
struggling. Conscription put people to work, at home, supporting the
war effort.
Although conscription was not supported in Quebec young Francophone
men flocked to enlist in the Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal regiment. The
long and proud history of the regiment goes back to the 1800's and
they played a major part in the ill fated Dieppe raid. Later the
regiment was rebuilt and they achieved honours in several major
battles.
All of this happened before TOG claims we even sent troops overseas.
Given the conscripts could not go overseas, those who voluntarily
enlisted pretty much knew where they were headed. I don't recall the
numbers but I think when compared on a per capita basis Canada's troop
deployment was favourable with all other allied countries.
My dad, a bunch of his friends and two of my uncles enlisted at the
same tine. They all enlisted to go to Europe and to fight. As it
turned out my dad never left England but that wasn't his choice. The
letters he wrote to my mother tell me what his attitude was and what
his expectations were. He was proud to be there, doing a man's job. He
even needled my mother about the difference between a man's role and
that of a woman. Well, my mom wasn't one to take any crap and before
long she also enlisted and she spent a year and a half in England.
Good for you Mom!
They are both gone now, but their letters and pictures have survived
them and have shown me a side of them I would never had known.
I don't know if any of that means anything to you. I mean it is
personal stuff and as has been noted before, sometimes my story
telling skills leave a little to be desired. But I am proud of the
service of my family and the contribution my country has made in both
war and peacekeeping efforts over the years. To read someone say my
country refused to send troops overseas prior to 1944 is infuriating
and insulting. That might not justify my actions, but it is the reason
why.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> It is entirely possible Canada would have split over the conscription
>> issue and King had a very tough decision re when conscription was
>> deemed necessary.
>
>Thank you for confirming what I said. Canada did not send conscripts
>abroad. I do not isagree with the reasons you state - in fact, I stated
>a very abbreviated version earlier but (surprise!) you chose to ignore
>it.
Quit trying to rewrite what you wrote.
You said Canada refused to send _troops_ overseas until 1944.
The Older Gentleman
Yes, I did. And guess what? In the next sentence I said: "Until
that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
represented only by volunteers."
Why is this so hard to understand?
And I also said:
"Canada had introduced conscription years before, but MK refused to send
troops abroad. That really is a blot on his record, although given his
domestic political situation, understandable.
So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
Why have you not mentioned this? Ashamed?
The Older Gentleman
> >Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
> >volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
> >earlier post, it's not clear.
>
> Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
> when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
> overseas.
This is what I have said. Thank you for confirming it.
Now all I need is for you to agree that I said volunteers served, and
that we were glad of them.
don (Calgary)
So the US currently has no troops deployed overseas?
You are going to have to provide an accepted definition of troops to
support your position.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> I think there may have been a bit of misunderstanding here. When I
>> first read what you wrote I interperted volunteers to mean men and
>> women that took it upon themselves to go over and help entirely on
>> their own. Such things do happen. The Spanish civil war being a good
>> example. There were US citizens that went and fought with no
>> assistance of any kind from the US government. That is the type of
>> volunteer I thought you were referring to. But it seems there were
>> volunteers that were part of the armed forces. They chose to go but
>> were not required to. Another level of volunteer applies to all of
>> the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
>> so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
>> go where ever they are told to go.
>
>Thank you. You are precisely correct.
>
>And the Spanish Civiil War is an *excellent* example. Britain did not
>send troops. But British volunteers fought there.
Unfortunately for you Canadian troops deployed overseas during the
second world war were enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces, very much
a part of Canada and officially representing Canada.
Bruce's last example is more accurate. And they are troops. I am not
saying they are not volunteers, I am saying you are wrong saying they
are not troops.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I would not have used the term
>> "only". It's grammatically correct both ways, but the use of "only"
>> adds a condescending connotation to the statement.
>
>Wrong. And you have *still* failed to mention my sentence following
>that: about how lucky we were to have them, and what a good job they
>did.
Well once again you are spouting lies. Here is what you said:
>Which was probably for the best, as it meant we got first pick, as it
>were. The Canadians, a bit like the Poles, made a contribution out of
>all proportion to their numbers[4]. And took a fearful hammering at
>Dieppe. I think I mentioned that I visited the memorial on the
>seafront there: the French keep it properly.
Look at the language. "we got first pick". It almost implies Canadians
had to apply to England to be accepted as a volunteer.
The truth is they enlisted in Canada and were deployed by Canada.
There was no "first pick."
You are a pompous and arrogant ass.
>
>OK: serious question. Why have you, right through this thread, failed to
>acknowledge that bit? Why did you snip it?
Well there it is and it is as condescending as the rest.
I don't think there is any doubt you were lucky to have Canada and the
US enter the war. Too bad you are not thankful.
turby
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:43:05 -0800 (PST), turby <keens...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 7, 9:19 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >Another level of volunteer applies to all of
> >> >the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
> >> >so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
> >> >go where ever they are told to go.
>
> >> Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
>
> >Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
> >volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
> >earlier post, it's not clear.
>
> Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
> when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
> overseas.
That is so bizarre - to have two classes of troops. Soldiers have
always been mere fodder. They go where they are sent. A very strange
situation when 2 brothers may enter on the same day, go through the
same training, yet one may be sent to war and the other cannot.
>
> All of this happened before TOG claims we even sent troops overseas.
Yet he did praise the Canadian troops who did volunteer. Several
times, and without prodding.
> To read someone say my
> country refused to send troops overseas prior to 1944 is infuriating
> and insulting. That might not justify my actions, but it is the reason
> why.
Let it go.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> Historians have long debated the strength of King's decisions on this
>> issue, but aside from one bloated bag of pus in England, I have yet to
>> hear one of them suggest Prime Minister Mackenzie King refused to send
>> conscripts overseas because he was a Hitler appeaser.
>
>I did not mean that to sound the way it sounds. And I did not say
>"because". Our own PM was an appeaser as was Halifax, who so nearly
>succeeded him.
Ok here is precisely what you said"
>I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
>WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1].
>[1] But Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a Hitler appeaser[2], so
>perhaps it isn't so strange[3].
>[2] Not that he was alone in that, of course.
>[3] But it is a little footnote of history that tends to get swept
>under the carpet these days.
Geez this is really picking the low hanging fruit.
You stated he was a Hitler appeaser so it wasn't so strange he refused
to send troops overseas for nearly five years after declaring war, and
then follow up with telling us it was a little known footprint in
history.
Nothing about the NRMA specifically excluding sending conscripts
overseas. Nothing about the conscription crisis that threatened to
break Canada apart. Nothing about the Anglo Francophone divide on the
topic. Just that it was a little footprint of history that King was a
Hitler appeaser.
Oh yeah and nothing about the troops Canada deployed prior to 44.
That is what you said. If that is not what you meant maybe you should
try proof reading your stuff next time. You might be less critical of
others writing skills, if you are unable to write what you mean.
Too friggin easy. lol
The Older Gentleman
> Look at the language. "we got first pick". It almost implies Canadians
> had to apply to England to be accepted as a volunteer.
No. It means we got the pick of the crop. The first pick. The best.
That. Is. Where. The. Phrase. Comes. From. And yor use of the word
"almost" is telling, too.
>
> The truth is they enlisted in Canada and were deployed by Canada.
> There was no "first pick."
They indeed enlisted in Canada. Yes. As volunteers. Not conscripts.
Because conscripts, er, don't enlist, not really. They're, er,
conscripted.
Slowly but surely you're forcing yourself to admit what I posted was
accurate, but it's like pulling teeth.
The Older Gentleman
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:43:22 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think there may have been a bit of misunderstanding here. When I
> >> first read what you wrote I interperted volunteers to mean men and
> >> women that took it upon themselves to go over and help entirely on
> >> their own. Such things do happen. The Spanish civil war being a good
> >> example. There were US citizens that went and fought with no
> >> assistance of any kind from the US government. That is the type of
> >> volunteer I thought you were referring to. But it seems there were
> >> volunteers that were part of the armed forces. They chose to go but
> >> were not required to. Another level of volunteer applies to all of
> >> the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
> >> so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
> >> go where ever they are told to go.
> >
> >Thank you. You are precisely correct.
> >
> >And the Spanish Civiil War is an *excellent* example. Britain did not
> >send troops. But British volunteers fought there.
>
> Unfortunately for you Canadian troops deployed overseas during the
> second world war were enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces, very much
> a part of Canada and officially representing Canada.
The volunteers, prior to 1944, mostly weren't enlisted in the Canadian
military. And the airmen *certainly* weren't. Learn some history.
>
> Bruce's last example is more accurate. And they are troops. I am not
> saying they are not volunteers, I am saying you are wrong saying they
> are not troops.
I never said they *weren't* troops.
The Older Gentleman
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:43:23 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
> >
> >> Historians have long debated the strength of King's decisions on this
> >> issue, but aside from one bloated bag of pus in England, I have yet to
> >> hear one of them suggest Prime Minister Mackenzie King refused to send
> >> conscripts overseas because he was a Hitler appeaser.
> >
> >I did not mean that to sound the way it sounds. And I did not say
> >"because". Our own PM was an appeaser as was Halifax, who so nearly
> >succeeded him.
>
> Ok here is precisely what you said"
> >I always thought it odd that Canada, having declared war on Germany in
> >WW2, refused to send troops to Europe for nearly five years[1].
> >[1] But Prime Minister Mackenzie King was a Hitler appeaser[2], so
> >perhaps it isn't so strange[3].
> >[2] Not that he was alone in that, of course.
> >[3] But it is a little footnote of history that tends to get swept
> >under the carpet these days.
>
> Geez this is really picking the low hanging fruit.
Only if you have an intellect as inferior as yours.
>
> You stated he was a Hitler appeaser so it wasn't so strange he refused
> to send troops overseas for nearly five years after declaring war, and
> then follow up with telling us it was a little known footprint in
> history.
He was. It is. I didn't mean to imply that was his reason.
>
> Nothing about the NRMA specifically excluding sending conscripts
> overseas. Nothing about the conscription crisis that threatened to
> break Canada apart. Nothing about the Anglo Francophone divide on the
> topic. Just that it was a little footprint of history that King was a
> Hitler appeaser.
So you admit Canada didnt send conscripts? Oh, and you ignore this:
"MK refused to send troops abroad. That really is a blot on his
record, although given his domestic political situation,
understandable."
I've brought this to your attention before. Why do you ignore it?
because it makes you look an even bigger arse?
>
> Oh yeah and nothing about the troops Canada deployed prior to 44.
The original posting that irked you says this. "Volunteers", remember?
You're a mental lightweight. You really don't have the powers to do this
properly. And you're also physically ill. I'm thinking the problems in
your guts are actually affecting the way you think: poisoning the inside
of your skull. In which case, you have a valid excuse.
don (Calgary)
wrote:
>On Nov 7, 11:04�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:43:05 -0800 (PST), turby <keens...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Nov 7, 9:19�am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>>
>> >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >Another level of volunteer applies to all of
>> >> >the current armed forces of the US. �We do not currently have a draft
>> >> >so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
>> >> >go where ever they are told to go.
>>
>> >> Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
>>
>> >Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
>> >volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
>> >earlier post, it's not clear.
>>
>> Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
>> when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
>> overseas.
>
>That is so bizarre - to have two classes of troops. Soldiers have
>always been mere fodder. They go where they are sent. A very strange
>situation when 2 brothers may enter on the same day, go through the
>same training, yet one may be sent to war and the other cannot.
To be clear my dad and uncles all enlisted at the same time and were
volunteers. They could be assigned or deployed anywhere. My dad never
saw front line duty. He was working in an assembly/receiving unit. A
couple of his friends were deployed to front line troops. Not all of
them survived the war. Those drafted in 1940 and until about halfway
through 41 could not be deployed overseas.
It was the National Resources Mobilization Act, passed in 1941 that
opened the door for conscription but only for home defense. It
specifically excluded sending conscripts overseas. The act was a
desperate response by the Liberal government to address the call by
most of english Canada for a draft, while appeasing their Francophone
counterparts, who were against drafting troops for overseas service.
The act allowed for the draft and also excluded sending the conscripts
overseas. What it did accomplish was it put a lot of people displaced
by the recession to work and served to support the war effort through
ramped up production.
I don't kow how much Canadian history they teach or report down there,
but Canada is an unwilling partnership between the english speaking
provinces and Quebec. It is fair to say the divide is greater between
the western provinces, specifically Alberta, than it is with other
provinces. Since confederation our country has sat on the precipice of
a divide along language lines. We move closer every two decades or so.
It wasn't all that long ago Quebec narrowly defeated a referendum to
pursue separation from the rest of Canada. Our federal government,
regardless of which party is in power know they are one bit of
legislation or even one public comment away from adding fuel to the
fire and raising the temperature of the separation question. The NRMA
was a product of that unwilling partnership.
>>
>> All of this happened before TOG claims we even sent troops overseas.
>
>Yet he did praise the Canadian troops who did volunteer. Several
>times, and without prodding.
I haven't disagreed with that nor have I taken exception to it.
>
>> To read someone say my
>> country refused to send troops overseas prior to 1944 is infuriating
>> and insulting. That might not justify my actions, but it is the reason
>> why.
>
>Let it go.
>
Eventually this like other Reeky pissing contests will fade away.
Stephen Cowell
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hd4cj...@news3.newsguy.com...
TOG never said 'deployed... volunteers'... he said
'represented by volunteers'. This sounds more
like the Lafayette Escadrille than Canadian enlisted.
__
Steve
.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
>> >volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
>> >earlier post, it's not clear.
>>
>> Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
>> when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
>> overseas.
>
>This is what I have said. Thank you for confirming it.
>
>Now all I need is for you to agree that I said volunteers served, and
>that we were glad of them.
You are an idiot. I never disagreed with your suggestion volunteers
served. I have pointed out you are wrong in stating Canada did not
deploy troops prior to 44.
Your position all along has been troops were not deployed until 44. My
point has been you do not have to be conscripts to form a troop.
Your original post in this thread was deliberately misleading and
demeaning. Consistent with your history and character.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:43:23 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> It is entirely possible Canada would have split over the conscription
>> >> issue and King had a very tough decision re when conscription was
>> >> deemed necessary.
>> >
>> >Thank you for confirming what I said. Canada did not send conscripts
>> >abroad. I do not isagree with the reasons you state - in fact, I stated
>> >a very abbreviated version earlier but (surprise!) you chose to ignore
>> >it.
>>
>> Quit trying to rewrite what you wrote.
>>
>> You said Canada refused to send _troops_ overseas until 1944.
>
>Yes, I did. And guess what? In the next sentence I said: "Until
>that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
>represented only by volunteers."
>
>Why is this so hard to understand?
You are being deliberately obtuse. You can't honestly tell me you have
to be a conscript to form a troop can you. Before and after 44 Canada
deployed troops overseas. Depending on the time frame some were
volunteers and some were conscripts, but they were all troops and
formed part of The Canadian Armed Forces.
Why can you not understand that? Ashamed?
>
>And I also said:
>
>"Canada had introduced conscription years before, but MK refused to send
>troops abroad. That really is a blot on his record, although given his
>domestic political situation, understandable.
Well only a simpleton would think a Canadian Prime Minister could
enact and enforce legislation such as conscription on his own.
>
>So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
>going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
Of course we could stop them. The way you are representing this is
Canadians independently transported themselves over to England so you
could then take first pick to select those worthy to defend Britain.
That is just plain ridiculous. Canadians enlisted in The Canadian
Armed Forces and were then deployed as Canada saw fit.
>
>Why have you not mentioned this? Ashamed?
I have addressed the conscription crisis in Canada at some length. I
have tried to explain the delicate political balance we have to
maintain to keep this country together, and for clarity I have just
advised you Canadian Troops were deployed in Europe by Canada. They
did not travel to England for an interview.
I have never disagreed with you that Canadians fought proudly and
well. Your continuing to mention it does not absolve you of all the
lies you write in between.
The only shame here is your continuing to spout your bullshit.
Bruce Richmond
Gentleman) wrote:
> don (Calgary) <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >No, *you* read them. Canada did not *send* troops. Volunteers went, and
> > >as I said, they made a great contribution. As I pointed out, your PM
> > >refused to send conscripted men abroad.
>
> > >This is fact.
>
> > Actually you said Canada _Refused_ to send troops until five years
> > after we declared war. We _only_ sent volunteers. That is a bit of a
> > different connotation isn't it.
>
> No, it's the precise truth.
>
> The Canadian government refused to send troops. Brave volunteers took
> things into their own hands.,
>
> Look at Bruce Richmond's posting, and my reply. That sums it up
> admirably.
I did not mean to be taking sides in that post. It was intended to
give both of you a chance to back down a bit. But it seems both of
you want to fight so have at it!
BTW I read your original post as maybe taking a poke at the Canadian
government, but in no way being disrespectful of the men that served.
> > Your assertion we did not send troops but only sent volunteers is
> > demeaning to those that served and died and is plain and simple
> > bullshit.
>
> Fuck but I wonder if you understand English. You did not "send" troops.
> You do not technically "send" volunteers.
>
> "Hey, you, volunteer! Go there!"
>
> Volunteers, er, volunteer.
Volunteers can be sent. Their transport was provided to get them
there. The government provided them food, clothing, weapons, pay and
transport. That qualifies them as government troops whether they were
conscripted or voluntary. In the case of the Spanish civil war the US
government did not provide food, clothing, weapons, pay or transport
for anyone wishing to fight in it. Those volunteers could also be
called troops since they were obviously not going over to live as
civilians, but they were not sent.
Bruce Richmond
> On Nov 7, 11:04 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 09:43:05 -0800 (PST), turby <keens...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On Nov 7, 9:19 am, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 08:41:09 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond
>
> > >> <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >> >Another level of volunteer applies to all of
> > >> >the current armed forces of the US. We do not currently have a draft
> > >> >so they are all volunteers, but having enlisted they are required to
> > >> >go where ever they are told to go.
>
> > >> Which is pretty much exactly like the Canadian Armed forces.
>
> > >Is it really? If a man enlisted in the Canadian army then, but did not
> > >volunteer to go fight in Europe, would they send him anyway? From your
> > >earlier post, it's not clear.
>
> > Yes they would. Once you enlist you go where they tell you. In 1940,
> > when conscription started, the conscripts could not, by law, be sent
> > overseas.
>
> That is so bizarre - to have two classes of troops. Soldiers have
> always been mere fodder. They go where they are sent. A very strange
> situation when 2 brothers may enter on the same day, go through the
> same training, yet one may be sent to war and the other cannot.
>
Not at all. Here in the US the National Guard was always filled to
capacity during the Vietnam war because it was a way of getting your
military obligation out of the way with almost no chance of being sent
to war. As I recall GW Bush served in the Air Guard or Reserves for
that very reason.
>
> > All of this happened before TOG claims we even sent troops overseas.
>
> Yet he did praise the Canadian troops who did volunteer. Several
> times, and without prodding.
>
> > To read someone say my
> > country refused to send troops overseas prior to 1944 is infuriating
> > and insulting. That might not justify my actions, but it is the reason
> > why.
>
> Let it go.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
don (Calgary)
<bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I did not mean to be taking sides in that post. It was intended to
>give both of you a chance to back down a bit. But it seems both of
>you want to fight so have at it!
For what it is worth I didn't see you taking sides, nor do I place
much value in the number of people that might agree or disagree with
me. I consider your opinions and the points you might make, but at the
end of the day the discussion is not about popularity.
Fortunately most who have jumped into this discussion have presented
reasonable points and have tried to lower the temperature of the
responses.
You only need to look at how reasonable I am right now to know you
have been effective. :-)
turby
Actually, the USNG proves the point. People may have enlisted in the
Guard thinking they were avoiding combat, but there have been many
sent to Iraq in spite of it. Once you sign the papers, the US military
can do with you what they want, regardless of any "promises". Vietnam
was an anomaly because so many were conscripted, they didn't need to
send the Guard, but they certainly could have.
The Older Gentleman
> BTW I read your original post as maybe taking a poke at the Canadian
> government, but in no way being disrespectful of the men that served.
>
Which is fair comment.
> Volunteers can be sent. Their transport was provided to get them
> there. The government provided them food, clothing, weapons, pay and
> transport. That qualifies them as government troops whether they were
> conscripted or voluntary.
<snip>
Yes, very fair comment.
Ultimately, though, you come against the political backdrop. Mackenzie
made a bad call. OK, he had a nasty domestic political situation, but he
shoved the bigger issue into the background in favour of the smaller
domestic political issue.
I suppose it's not too late to go back to my earliest comments about the
Canadian fighter pilots, commanded by Johnnie Johnson (and before him,
by Douglas Bader).
Two weeks ago I interviewed an elderly ex-WAAF who'd been a radio
operator at Kenley, where that particular squadron flew from. And I
recorded it on video, too. Amazing stuff.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
The Older Gentleman
> I haven't disagreed with that nor have I taken exception to it.
You've just ignored it, snipped it, and twisted the words.
The Older Gentleman
> Of course we could stop them. The way you are representing this is
> Canadians independently transported themselves over to England so you
> could then take first pick to select those worthy to defend Britain.
No, that's the way *you* see it because...
...because, well, because you're not very bright.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
The Older Gentleman
> I have pointed out you are wrong in stating Canada did not
> deploy troops prior to 44.
I never said "deployed".
> Your position all along has been troops were not deployed until 44
No, it hasn't been. Who mentioned Dieppe in his first posting? Clue: not
you.
Look, why don't we call it a day?
Quite frankly, and yes, you'll say this is arrogant, you don't stand a
chance in this sort of discussion.
You haven't got the knowledge.
You haven't got the ratiocination capability.
You haven't got the vocabulary.
You haven't got the intellectual ability.
You haven't got anything.
All you're doing is make yourself look more and more aggressive and
wrong, and this is corroborated by the number of people who are (more
gently than I) pointing out your fundamental..
..well, let's call them "oversights".
Incidentally, am I the only person to notice how you've started to sound
like Drain Man recently? All those "Oh, this is too easy" sort of stuff
and the use of "lol". Firsty KrustyUS and then Henry.
Not good role models, yannow.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately for you Canadian troops deployed overseas during the
>> second world war were enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces, very much
>> a part of Canada and officially representing Canada.
>
>The volunteers, prior to 1944, mostly weren't enlisted in the Canadian
>military.
Holy crap! That's it! You do believe the Canadian volunteers were
somehow enlisted in the British Armed Forces. That is what you meant
right from the start. Your delusions are worse than I expected.
When I respond to you I have to look very carefully at how you phrase
your statements, trying to discern which word or words you will try to
spin to wriggle out of your most recent mess. This time I suspect it
will be "mostly". So let me be proactive and define "mostly" up front.
Here is what Webster has to say:
Main Entry: most�ly
Pronunciation: \?mo-st-le-\
Function: adverb
Date: 1563
for the greatest part : mainly
The greatest part, the majority. I can live with that.
>And the airmen *certainly* weren't. Learn some history.
I don't know where to start. Let's begin with some facts and figures.
Over the course of the war the army enlisted 730,000; the air force
260,000; and the navy 115,000 personnel. What's that over one million
soldiers. Granted over half of our troops never left Canada and I will
give you thousands did serve in the Royal Air Force.
I believe 370,000 +/- Canadian Soldiers served in Europe. So tell me
you old gasbag how many of those proud Canadians were not enlisted in
the Canadian Armed Forces? Google me up a number you old buffoon.
Please give me more than just TOG bullshit.
In 1942 we had five divisions in Europe. How many of those proud
soldiers were not wearing a Canadian uniform?
How about the 40,000 who died or the 50,000 wounded. Show me where
they were not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Let's add a little perspective to these numbers. Of all of those
conscripted less than 15,000 were deployed to Europe and less than 100
of them died. So please do not try to make the point anything but a
minuscule percentage of Canadian troops that served overseas were
conscripts and not to be factored into your most recent and utterly
ridiculous statement.
So set aside for a minute the 15,000 +/- of the conscripts, please
tell me how many of the other hundreds of thousands were not enlisted
in the Canadian Armed Forces.
>>
>> Bruce's last example is more accurate. And they are troops. I am not
>> saying they are not volunteers, I am saying you are wrong saying they
>> are not troops.
>
>I never said they *weren't* troops.
Fuck off with this. You said repeatedly Canada refused to send troops
overseas prior to 44. They were troops and they were enlisted in the
Canadian Armed Forces. Now you are saying the volunteers were mostly
not enlisted in The Canadian Armed Forces.
You are now emitting the scent of desperation. You wear it well.
BrianNZ
> don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:43:23 +0000, totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk (The
>> Older Gentleman) wrote:
>>
>>>> It is entirely possible Canada would have split over the conscription
>>>> issue and King had a very tough decision re when conscription was
>>>> deemed necessary.
>>> Thank you for confirming what I said. Canada did not send conscripts
>>> abroad. I do not isagree with the reasons you state - in fact, I stated
>>> a very abbreviated version earlier but (surprise!) you chose to ignore
>>> it.
>> Quit trying to rewrite what you wrote.
>>
>> You said Canada refused to send _troops_ overseas until 1944.
>
> Yes, I did. And guess what? In the next sentence I said: "Until
> that time (some time in 1944 and I cba to Google for it) Canada was
> represented only by volunteers."
>
> Why is this so hard to understand?
>
> And I also said:
>
> "Canada had introduced conscription years before, but MK refused to send
> troops abroad. That really is a blot on his record, although given his
> domestic political situation, understandable.
>
> So Canada sent volunteers - well, they couldn't very well stop them
> going. And they were formidable, as I've mentioned."
>
> Why have you not mentioned this? Ashamed?
>
>
Because when it's taken in context, your comments aren't as easy to take
exception to.?
The same tactic henry uses.......and worked well, eh?
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I haven't disagreed with that nor have I taken exception to it.
>
>You've just ignored it, snipped it, and twisted the words.
Talk about selective snippng. You just removed all context of what we
were talking about.
The Older Gentleman
> I don't know where to start. Let's begin with some facts and figures.
> Over the course of the war
I said prior to 1944. You ignored that.
> In 1942 we had five divisions in Europe. How many of those proud
> soldiers were not wearing a Canadian uniform?
Who cares? They weren't conscripts. Which is what "enlisted" means. They
were volunteers. And good for them.
> How about the 40,000 who died or the 50,000 wounded. Show me where
> they were not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces?
Show me where they were? "Enlisted" as in "conscripted". And "prior to
1944" as I said.
Fact. Canadian military, in the European (and other) theatres, prior to
1944, were not enlisted (as in "conscripted) men.
If there is another meaning of enlisted, then of course I apologise for
the confusion, but I've made my argument pretty plain.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
The Older Gentleman
>
> Because when it's taken in context, your comments aren't as easy to take
> exception to.?
>
> The same tactic henry uses.......and worked well, eh?
You are so right.
The Older Gentleman
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>Look, why don't we call it a day?
>
>Quite frankly, and yes, you'll say this is arrogant, you don't stand a
>chance in this sort of discussion.
Not a chance you old gas bag. You started by posting lies, you
continue to post lies. You are oblivious to even the most basic logic.
You refuse to acknowledge the accepted definitions of the words you
use and seem to look to those not involved in the pissing contest, who
are critical of both of us, for some kind of support or validation of
your bullshit.
Now I am going to leave this part of the discussion, because I am
waiting anxiously for you to support your recent assertion Canadian
troops who volunteered were mostly not enlisted in the Canadian Armed
Forces.
This one has to be good. LOL
The Older Gentleman
> Now I am going to leave this part of the discussion, because I am
> waiting anxiously for you to support your recent assertion Canadian
> troops who volunteered were mostly not enlisted in the Canadian Armed
> Forces.
I may have been wrong. On the other hand, it depends on how you view the
term "enlisted", which in everyone else's military lexicon (but not
yours, it seems) means "conscripted".
If the majority of pre-44 Canadian volunteers were in fact conscripts in
the Canadian military at the time, I will of course acknowledge the
point. Can you prove it? Or point to a decent source? I will admit I
made my assertion because Canadian conscripts were not sent abroad by
MK.
However, there is the point that conscripts in the Canadian military may
have been permitted to volunteer. I hadn't considered that.
So, I'd appreciate a definitive answer. Your call.
>
> This one has to be good. LOL
Ah, you're sounding like Henry again. A sure sign that you ar elosing
the plot.
have you *any* idea of how desperate and shrill you;re sounding?
The Older Gentleman
>
> I may have been wrong. On the other hand, it depends on how you view the
> term "enlisted", which in everyone else's military lexicon (but not
> yours, it seems) means "conscripted".
Actually, on reflection, there's a conflict of terminology here. You can
"enlist", which means volunteer, but I was always under the impression
that "enlisted men" meant "conscripted". BICBW
So let's keep to "conscripted" to avoid any confusion, eh?
J. Clarke
> The Older Gentleman <totallyde...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> I may have been wrong. On the other hand, it depends on how you view
>> the term "enlisted", which in everyone else's military lexicon (but
>> not yours, it seems) means "conscripted".
>
> Actually, on reflection, there's a conflict of terminology here. You
> can "enlist", which means volunteer, but I was always under the
> impression that "enlisted men" meant "conscripted". BICBW
>
> So let's keep to "conscripted" to avoid any confusion, eh?
I don't know how things are in the UK, but in the US an "enlisted man" is as
opposed to a "commissioned officer". How they came to be in the service is
irrelevant to the distinction, especially so when many commissioned officers
were also draftees, for example some physicians during the Korean War.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Now I am going to leave this part of the discussion, because I am
>> waiting anxiously for you to support your recent assertion Canadian
>> troops who volunteered were mostly not enlisted in the Canadian Armed
>> Forces.
>
>I may have been wrong.
May have?? Come on you can do better than that.
>On the other hand, it depends on how you view the
>term "enlisted", which in everyone else's military lexicon (but not
>yours, it seems) means "conscripted".
Well once again let's go to Webster because quite frankly when you say
"everyone" I gotta tell ya, all I see is you making that claim.
So Webster says this about enlist
Main Entry: en�list
Pronunciation: \in-?list, en-\
Function: verb
Date: 1599
transitive verb
1 a : to secure the support and aid of : employ in advancing an
interest <enlist all the available resources> <enlisted our help> b :
to win over : attract <trying to enlist my sympathies>
2 : to engage (a person) for duty in the armed forcesintransitive verb
1 : to enroll oneself in the armed forces <will enlist for three
years>
2 : to participate heartily (as in a cause, drive, or crusade)
� en�list�ee \-?lis-?te-, -?lis-te-\ noun
� en�list�ment \-?lis(t)-m?nt\ noun
WOW what a surprise not a word about conscripted.
Now I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt here. After all
you are seeming to have difficulty expressing what you mean. So I
tried the thesaurus hoping to find conscript as a synonym for enlist.
Sorry dude, I found join, sign up, enroll but no conscript.
Now I will agree with you to conscript you must enlist, but you do not
have to be conscripted to enlist. A volunteer may enlist in the armed
forces.
So maybe try another tack if you want to weasel out of this one.
Personally I like watching you try. Your dance is entertaining.
>
>If the majority of pre-44 Canadian volunteers were in fact conscripts in
>the Canadian military at the time, I will of course acknowledge the
>point. Can you prove it? Or point to a decent source? I will admit I
>made my assertion because Canadian conscripts were not sent abroad by
>MK.
I never said they were conscripts and neither did you. I was
challenging your statement Canadian troops who volunteered were mostly
not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is just plain
bullshit. I can't express it any other way. There is just no way to
make that kind of deliberate deception smell good.
So as noted above enlist does not mean conscript. Let's bury that red
herring right now.
Second my information comes from my mom and my dad and history lessons
in school and supported by facts and figures on the internet. Just
Google Canada Deployment Second World War and you will find all the
information you need.
>
>However, there is the point that conscripts in the Canadian military may
>have been permitted to volunteer. I hadn't considered that.
What a joke.
>
>So, I'd appreciate a definitive answer. Your call.
You need to buy a dictionary and use it before you post your crap..
>
>>
>> This one has to be good. LOL
>
>Ah, you're sounding like Henry again. A sure sign that you ar elosing
>the plot.
>
>have you *any* idea of how desperate and shrill you;re sounding?
Have you got any idea how your credibility is suffering when you post
blatant lies and then try to wiggle out of them.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
OK because you persist in snipping the relevant parts of the messages
I went back and grabbed your latest ridiculous statement:
>Don said
>> Unfortunately for you Canadian troops deployed overseas during the
>> second world war were enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces, very much
>> a part of Canada and officially representing Canada.
>TOG said
>The volunteers, prior to 1944, mostly weren't enlisted in the Canadian
>military. And the airmen *certainly* weren't. Learn some history.
>>
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where to start. Let's begin with some facts and figures.
>> Over the course of the war
>
>I said prior to 1944. You ignored that.
No difference your statement "The volunteers, prior to 1944, mostly
weren't enlisted in the Canadian military. And the airmen *certainly*
weren't. Learn some history." is bullshit before or after 1944.
>
>> In 1942 we had five divisions in Europe. How many of those proud
>> soldiers were not wearing a Canadian uniform?
>
>Who cares? They weren't conscripts. Which is what "enlisted" means. They
>were volunteers. And good for them.
Sorry old dude enlist does not mean conscript. I posted the definition
from Webster in a separate message. Please don't tell me an allegedly
educated man does not know the difference between enlist and
conscript. Especially one who claims such mastery with the english
language. That doesn't pass the giggle test.
>
>> How about the 40,000 who died or the 50,000 wounded. Show me where
>> they were not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces?
>
>Show me where they were? "Enlisted" as in "conscripted". And "prior to
>1944" as I said.
No once again you said enlisted. Conscripted has an entirely different
meaning. Your command of the language is failing you.
>
>Fact. Canadian military, in the European (and other) theatres, prior to
>1944, were not enlisted (as in "conscripted) men.
>
>If there is another meaning of enlisted, then of course I apologise for
>the confusion, but I've made my argument pretty plain.
I do not believe you are ignorant of the definition of enlist. At the
very least, if in doubt a responsible, credible person would have
looked it up before putting up this lame defense.
It is getting tiring correcting all of your misrepresentations. Bottom
line you know didly squat about Canadian history, our politics and
much of our contribution to the WWII war effort. Your posts on the
topic are littered with bullshit and followed up with a variety of
weasel words.
Separate from the disdain I have for your attitude, until now I was
not aware of how comfortable you are with lying. Frankly that has
surprised me.
don (Calgary)
Please point out to me where I have snipped something that took
context away from my reply. I am quite careful not to do that and
would like to know where I may have erred.
I addressed the Canadian Conscription Crisis and the difficult
position the Liberal government was in, in great length. I do not
attribute the issue directly to King because he could not move
arbitrarily with conscription. He needed the support of the house.
Support that wasn't there for an unlimited conscription bill.
I have beat TOG's assertion Canada refused to send troops to Europe to
death. If he meant something different in his original post he should
have typed what he meant.
And Canada had the right and the power to deploy our troops as the
government saw fit. It was Canada's decision whether to deploy troops
to Europe, not the volunteers. So yes we could have stopped them from
going.
If I have missed something or contorted the context please let me
know.
>
>The same tactic henry uses.......and worked well, eh?
I don't read Henry's stuff, but I am glad to see TOG has found himself
a sock puppet.
Bruce Richmond
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/guardandreserve/a/reservecallup.htm
"In 1973, DOD adopted the total force policy, which recognized that
active and reserve U.S. military forces should be readily available to
support military operations. As a result, reserve forces were no
longer considered to be forces of last resort; rather, they are now
recognized as indispensable to the nation's defense from the earliest
days of a conflict."
Prior to 1973 the Gaurd and Reserve were normally held in reserve in
the normal sense of the word. People would join that were prepared to
serve if something big broke out that the regular forces couldn't
handle, but they were not looking to get involved unless really
needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_National_Guard
"Army National Guard of the United States units or members may be
called up for federal active duty in times of Congressionally
sanctioned war or national emergency [1]. The President may also call
up members and units of state Army National Guard, with the consent of
state governors, to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, or execute
federal laws if the United States or any of its states or territories
are invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation, or if
there's a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of
the federal government, or if the President is unable with the regular
armed forces to execute the laws of the United States."
Notice the part, "with the consent of state governors". Prior to that
change in 1973 the governors had the final say over what their state's
Guard unit did. They could, and most did, refuse to send their troops
to Vietnam. If anyone wanted to volunteer they were free to transfer
to the regular federal forces at any time.
One of the main reasons for the existance of the Guard is because the
US has an aversion to using fedral troops to quell civil
disturbances. I seem to recall there was even some dispute about who
had the final say over who the Guard took their orders from during the
civil problems involving segregation back in the 1960's. Governor
Wallace didn't see things quite the same way as the president.
The Reserve units are under direct federal control, but again their
purpose was to have a reserve force should things get so bad the
regulars couldn't handle it. Many were older guys that had served,
and would be willing to serve again, but no longer wanted to be the
front line defence. For the younger guys it was a way to prepare for
service if needed, but they really had better things to do with their
lives.
I served in the New Hampshire National Guard from 1976 till 1982 along
with many that were in the Guard during the Vietnam era. When the
feds made the above change, and it was a change, the state shifted men
around and eventually came up with one gun battery (six 155MM
howitzers) to send over.
The first big use of the Guard and Reserve for leading the charge was
during "Desert Storm". It was IMO politically motivated. It helped
drum up support for what could have been an unpopular war. The troops
had volunteered, so they couldn't publically complain, and what could
their families do but show support for them? And if they supported
the war who were we to speak against it?
Desert Storm got over so quickly I don't think the general public was
really aware of how the status of the Guard and Reserve had changed.
Their recruitment adds certainly tried to downplay it with their
constant repetition of "one weekend a month". And how many of the
kids that signed up in the late 90's remembered Desert Storm?
Today any kid with half a brain should know that signing up in the
Guard or Reserve will get him over to Iraq or any new hot spot just as
quickly as the regular Army, if not faster. But it wasn't always that
way and IMO it shouldn't be today either.
> Vietnam
> was an anomaly because so many were conscripted, they didn't need to
> send the Guard, but they certainly could have.- Hide quoted text -
And if they had a draft today they could do the same thing. But there
is no draft and it is unlikely you could drum up public support for
one. One of the main reasons that change was implemented in 1973 was
that the draft had become so unpopular. The change allowed them to
tap into a new source of trained troops with no outcry from the
civillian population.
Road Glidin' Don
> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 7:32 am, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Road Glidin' Don wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 6:28 pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> But having the right to be disrespectful does not protect you from
> >>>> the disdain and ridicule your actions and attitude deserve.
>
> >>> Well said.
>
> >> It cuts both ways.
>
> > Irrelevant if you don't have an example of disrespect in the other's
> > argument.
>
> > But maybe you think the act of someone criticizing your incapacity for
> > respect is an act of disrespect, right? Oh boy...
>
> Talk about the blind. Watch that video again. Read Don's words again. <Go
> ahead. I'll wait.> Is the message about love, honor, and respect? No. The
> loud, clear message is hate, intolerance, and disrespect. Again, bite me. Do
> me a favor, Honor my sensibilities and keep your moralizing and preaching of
> hate and intolerance to yourselves. There is little so disrepectful as your
> continued preaching and moralizing. I have never once told you how you
> should think, act, or behave. I have only ever expressed my disagreement
> with your thoughts expressed here. Contrast and compare the two. How would
> you characterize them in terms of respect and disrespect? If you really must
> paint that line, even the occasional spewing of racial hate is less
> offensive and disrespectful than the uninvited moralizing spew coming my our
> north.
<shaking head>
You really are an odd duck, Mike. Yes, I saw the video. About a year
ago. And (no offense to Don here), it wasn't exactly my cup of tea
either (it struck me as looking for fault in others as a means for
promoting what ought to be a positive attitude towards veterans).
Now consider this. Although we have a not-too-dissimilar take on the
same video, it causes you to almost foam at the mouth to hear someone
make a statement of principle. And, as I have seen from you
repeatedly over the years, just the whiff of someone expressing a
value judgement always brings out this same vehement reaction in you.
It is an enormous conceit of yours, thinking yourself above moralizing
and preaching. You are doing it in spades right now. Indeed, you
strike me as among the least tolerant people here.
This seems based on some misunderstanding you have of what tolerance
and respect consist of. It is not the absence of taking a stand for
principles and stating what those principles are. Tolerance has to do
with how well you are able to deal respectfully with people whose
principles you differ with (hint: you don't do very well there; re-
read your post).
BrianNZ
VBG...<poking tongue out>.....don (Calgary) sits down to pee!
So, how long do you reckon TOG and me are the same person, trying to
decieve you?...or maybe you used the wrong words? Could it be you are wrong?
no 'gidday' for you....... :) (That was the last time you got this frothy)
turby
Which of course brings up the separate but relevant point that
Congress hasn't declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.
> > ... Vietnam
> > was an anomaly because so many were conscripted, they didn't need to
> > send the Guard, but they certainly could have.- Hide quoted text -
>
> And if they had a draft today they could do the same thing. But there
> is no draft and it is unlikely you could drum up public support for
> one. One of the main reasons that change was implemented in 1973 was
> that the draft had become so unpopular. The change allowed them to
> tap into a new source of trained troops with no outcry from the
> civilian population.
Yeah. The draft was unpopular because the war was unpopular. I am in
favor of a draft, in large part because it makes people more cognizant
and responsible for military actions of our government. People care
more if it's their son or daughter facing death. WWII saw almost half
a million American deaths, Vietnam less than 60,000. The losses we've
suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan are minuscule compared to the
population as a whole. As long as the major impact is financial (&
that's a boon to big business,) who cares what we do over there,
right?
don (Calgary)
I suppose I shouldn't have expected more from you.
MikeWhy
You're right, of course. Mostly. It isn't so much the video, even though I
disagree with the thought and message. I've heard and seen worse. It's
entirely Don and his preaching and moralizing. I'll take nothing back on
that. This one is still all his.
I appreaciate the time you took for the reasoned response.
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
What was the old saying? War is good business, invest your son. I
prefer no draft. If they can't drum up enough support to get
volunteers then maybe the cause isn't justified.
The Older Gentleman
> I have beat TOG's assertion Canada refused to send troops to Europe to
> death. If he meant something different in his original post he should
> have typed what he meant.
What I said originally was true. Canada (and I was obviously using the
word to mean 'the Canadian government, sovereignty, whatever, rather
than 'some amorphous 'Canadian spirit') Refused to send troops. Those
who went were volunteers.
>
> And Canada had the right and the power to deploy our troops as the
> government saw fit. It was Canada's decision whether to deploy troops
> to Europe, not the volunteers. So yes we could have stopped them from
> going.
And Canada did. Not the volunteers, of course, because that's next to
impossible. I mean, the US had volunteers fighting in Europe before it
entered the war.
This is simple fact. It does not detract at all from the quality, spirit
and bravery of the men who did volunteer. Tens of thousands. A
"contemptible little army" with all the quality and ability of that
original.
The Older Gentleman
> Sorry old dude enlist does not mean conscript. I
We've agreed to knock that definition on the head, haven't we?
Linguistic confusion.
The Older Gentleman
> >If the majority of pre-44 Canadian volunteers were in fact conscripts in
> >the Canadian military at the time, I will of course acknowledge the
> >point. Can you prove it? Or point to a decent source? I will admit I
> >made my assertion because Canadian conscripts were not sent abroad by
> >MK.
>
> I never said they were conscripts and neither did you. I was
> challenging your statement Canadian troops who volunteered were mostly
> not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is just plain
> bullshit. I can't express it any other way. There is just no way to
> make that kind of deliberate deception smell good.
It's not deliberate deception. It may be an error. I don't know,
actually, and neither do you.
Question: if you were conscripted into the Canadian forces, could you
volunteer for service abroad? There's the rub, and I admit I don't know.
Road Glidin' Don
> I appreaciate the time you took for the reasoned response.
You have to stop saying things like that, Mike. You're making it hard
for me to dislike you. ;)
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> I have beat TOG's assertion Canada refused to send troops to Europe to
>> death. If he meant something different in his original post he should
>> have typed what he meant.
>
>What I said originally was true. Canada (and I was obviously using the
>word to mean 'the Canadian government, sovereignty, whatever, rather
>than 'some amorphous 'Canadian spirit') Refused to send troops. Those
>who went were volunteers.
What I am reading is you are still saying The Canadian Government
refused to send troops. Well that is blatantly wrong and more TOG
bullshit.
Canadians, about a million, voluntarily enlisted to join The Canadian
Armed Forces. The Canadian Government and the Canadian Government
alone, then determined how best to deploy these troops. Hundreds of
thousands of them were deployed overseas prior to 1944.
That is about as plain as I can explain it.
You have had several days now to research Canada's troop deployment
during the second world war. If your initial statement was an honest
error or linguistic confusion, you have had ample opportunity to
realize the mistake and make the appropriate correction.
Since you haven't done that I can only surmise my initial assessment
was correct and your claim Canada refused to send troops prior to 44
was a direct and deliberate lie intended only to deride Canada and our
soldiers. All of the later praise for Canada's troops are merely a
smoke screen. Your intent is clear and it is disgusting.
>
>>
>> And Canada had the right and the power to deploy our troops as the
>> government saw fit. It was Canada's decision whether to deploy troops
>> to Europe, not the volunteers. So yes we could have stopped them from
>> going.
>
>And Canada did. Not the volunteers, of course, because that's next to
>impossible.
You are not that dense. This is deliberate. Once again Canadians
volunteered to join The Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian
government deployed their new troops as they saw fit. Hundreds of
thousands of troops were deployed to Europe.
>I mean, the US had volunteers fighting in Europe before it
>entered the war.
>
>This is simple fact. It does not detract at all from the quality, spirit
>and bravery of the men who did volunteer. Tens of thousands. A
>"contemptible little army" with all the quality and ability of that
>original.
Once again your praise of the Canadians fighting spirit does not
provide enough smoke to cover all of the above noted lies.
But this is new. A new spin on what you were calling volunteers. It
doesn't alter your assertion Canada refused to send troops prior to 44
but it is an indication of how far you will go to further your bs.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> >If the majority of pre-44 Canadian volunteers were in fact conscripts in
>> >the Canadian military at the time, I will of course acknowledge the
>> >point. Can you prove it? Or point to a decent source? I will admit I
>> >made my assertion because Canadian conscripts were not sent abroad by
>> >MK.
>>
>> I never said they were conscripts and neither did you. I was
>> challenging your statement Canadian troops who volunteered were mostly
>> not enlisted in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is just plain
>> bullshit. I can't express it any other way. There is just no way to
>> make that kind of deliberate deception smell good.
>
>It's not deliberate deception. It may be an error. I don't know,
>actually, and neither do you.
Well actually I do know and I posted all of the facts. You may choose
to ignore them and the fact you are speaks volumes about your
character and integrity.
>
>Question: if you were conscripted into the Canadian forces, could you
>volunteer for service abroad? There's the rub, and I admit I don't know.
First only 15,000 conscripts were deployed overseas so the question is
almost academic. Prior to July 1941 conscripts were specifically
excluded by law from going overseas. Between that time and 1944 no
conscripts were deployed overseas so clearly if any of them asked to
be deployed in Europe their request was not granted.
That said I have not heard of anyone enlisting or being conscripted,
to our armed forces, being able to dictate where you are to be
deployed. Requests can be made based on previous training or
education. Clearly even the Government wouldn't put a doctor behind
the controls of a fighter plane nor would they ask a pilot to perform
surgery. [1] But at the grunt level, once you sign up you are at the
mercy of the military hierarchy.
[1] I am sure there are a few hundred exceptions to that, because,
well, we are dealing with the government.
don (Calgary)
Older Gentleman) wrote:
>don (Calgary) <hd....@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry old dude enlist does not mean conscript. I
>
>We've agreed to knock that definition on the head, haven't we?
>Linguistic confusion.
Not really. I think the statement in question points to the core of
your beliefs on this topic. It is consistent with previous statements
supporting your incorrect premise Canadians serving overseas prior to
44 somehow volunteered to join the British armed Forces.
As for linguistic confusion, you seem to be having a problem with the
definition of a few very commonly used words.
Linguistic confusion? I doubt it. Intellectual laziness coupled with a
deliberate attempt to deceive and a poor education is more like it.
The Older Gentleman
I'm abandoning this thread now, as I stated elsewhere. I suggest you do
the same.