[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I think current and past servicemembers are probably more concerned with historical and traditional aspect of the name, rather than paying homage to Monarchy.

In other words, I submit that had the Navy and Air Force NEVERhad the word "Royal" associated with their name in the past - if they had fought through the World Wars and Korea simply with the names "Canadian Navy" and "Canadian Air Force" - would many people support adding the word "Royal" now? Probably not.

I think it's also fair to ask what say(if any) do non-military civilians have in this issue? And I'm asking this as an honest open question, not a leading one: In a democracy, is the military not meant to be subservient to the interests and values of the civilian population?

I'll answer your question honestly. The ONLY familial connection I have with the Canadian Armed Forces is my brother, and he served after the name change. During WW2, my family that did serve were still in Britain, so they served in all three British Armed Services. I'm also NOT a supporter of the monarchy.
Having said that, speaking as a non-military civilian, I can answer your question two ways. The long answer: It's not like it's a major policy change on how the Armed Forces will be deployed, it's a friggin name change so it's not really my concern.
And if a change in name back to their traditional designations gives our servicemen and women a morale boost, then what's the problem?
The short answer: Considering how many people in Canada hardly give our Armed Forces a second thought unless money is being spent(they'll say wasted) on it, why should they have any say? It affects them not.

Because its' theirs.

And?

Again, because the military belongs to Canada does not automatically mean you and your buddies get a say on how they do business. You may have a say on the business they do, but that's about it.

You will just have to learn how to deal with it. Hopefully another squirrel will run by to attract your attention.

[Macguyver]

gonavy47 gonavy47:

Well, if you don't like the name change, you can kiss my Royal Canadian!

I'm not saying I don't like. Frankly I prefer the "Royal" because when I was a kid in cadets I understood the tradition and having graduated as the ranking NCO in my corps I was proud to be part of that tradition.

But we've got men and women out there fighting for us...

Do you think the person laying on the battlefield bleeding from a roadside bomb wondering if he's going to live and thinking about his wife and family gives a rats ass about the "Royal" name in the armed forces?

I'd rather the resources (money and/or time) to make this name change be invested in making sure that our guys have every single resource at their disposal to do their jobs and come home safe.

Even if the emblems are repainted "In House" there is still a time and money investment in that project. Do you think those maintenance guys have anything better to do than repaint the thousands of pieces of military equipment? Of course they do. And you guys would rather have them focus on your “tradition” and “history” rather than the job at hand today.

To me it seems like instead of equipping our guys the best we can to do their jobs and live through it some of you would rather they look good in front of the cameras and carry on your traditions.

Tradition is great, and there is a place and time for that sort of thing. I don't believe this is the place or time, with a weak economy and men at war let’s focus on our goals. Do you think the Taliban waste their time and effort rebranding their image? No, they’re focus is on killing the guys who are busy painting “Royal” on all our equipment.

Leave the rebranding for peace time, if you need to do it at all.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

if they had fought through the World Wars and Korea simply with the names "Canadian Navy" and "Canadian Air Force" - would many people support adding the word "Royal" now? Probably not.

For fuck's sake buddy. IF your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle and IF your dad had used a rubber we wouldn't be reading your drivel.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Macguyver Macguyver:

How much is it worth to you folks who support the name change?

Priceless. Tens of thousands of men died serving the RCAF and RCN. I'd be willing to bet there are those out there who'd be willing to die to preserve it as a tradition for that very reason. People have given their lives for less significant traditions in the military.

Priceless - sorry but no.

While I'm sure the cost won't be much, the navy really, really needs new destroyers and AORs, which are going on forty+ years old. I'm all for it if it cost $1 million or two, but if it costs much more than that, there are much more pressing needs IMHO.

[peck420]

I really don't understand what all the hubbub is about. It has been getting fairly extensive coverage in my area, probably due to their being a base and a large repair depot in close proximity.

Anywho, why does the average Canadian feel that they have the right to criticise?

I have never served, I have no idea how much tradition can benefit or harm our forces. Our military leaders see this as a good thing. All of the soldiers I have talked too see this as a good thing. That is good enough for me.

I will call them what ever they wished to be called, becasue they serve me with their lives. It is (literally) the absolute least I can do.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I'll answer your question honestly. The ONLY familial connection I have with the Canadian Armed Forces is my brother, and he served after the name change. During WW2, my family that did serve were still in Britain, so they served in all three British Armed Services. I'm also NOT a supporter of the monarchy.
Having said that, speaking as a non-military civilian, I can answer your question two ways. The long answer: It's not like it's a major policy change on how the Armed Forces will be deployed, it's a friggin name change so it's not really my concern.
And if a change in name back to their traditional designations gives our servicemen and women a morale boost, then what's the problem?
The short answer: Considering how many people in Canada hardly give our Armed Forces a second thought unless money is being spent(they'll say wasted) on it, why should they have any say? It affects them not.

Because its' theirs.

And?

Again, because the military belongs to Canada does not automatically mean you and your buddies get a say on how they do business. You may have a say on the business they do, but that's about it.

You will just have to learn how to deal with it. Hopefully another squirrel will run by to attract your attention.

Incorrect, sorry.

[2Cdo]

sandorski sandorski:

Incorrect, sorry.

And once again you'd be wrong! Gunnair nailed it. you can bitch to your hearts content but the only way you can have a say in how the military does it's job is to vote for the party that promises to use us as you see fit.

[PENATRATOR]

What "thousands of pieces of equipment" are you talking about there ranking cadet? I don't recall seeing any ships painted with "Maritime Command" or any Army vehicles "Land forces/Mobile Command" or aircraft painted with "Air Command"

Funny how outside of serving Sailors/Soldiers/Airmen and vets at the time being up in arms about the Hellyer Fiasco, the country sat on it's hands.
What would of happened if the Government had of taken another federal institution with a proud, storied history, changed their name and took away their "Royal" designation, put them in horible, ugly, uniforms, and basically pissed on all who came before?

You'd of ended up with the "Canadian Mounted Police", and they would of looked like clowns riding their horses on the musical ride with ridiculous green forage caps.

I am pretty sure the country would of went banannas.

[Regina]

peck420 peck420:

I really don't understand what all the hubbub is about. It has been getting fairly extensive coverage in my area, probably due to their being a base and a large repair depot in close proximity.

That and the Kardashian Ho's aren't doing much this summer.

[BeaverFever]

Gunnair Gunnair:

The fact you believe reassigning the term 'Royal' to the Navy and Airforce is paying homage to monarchy shows how little you understand the historical and traditional aspects of the name.

That was my whole point.

$1:

What a foolish and irrelevent submission. Like saying If Victoria had never named her daughter Louise Caroline Alberta, no one would support renaming the province between BC and Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Again...my whole point. I was arguing AGAINST the claim by a Royal supporter that Canadians today have some kind of special affection for the Monarchy. Nobody cares about the monarchy. Supporters of the "Royal" (re)addition are only interested in restoring whathever name was in historical use. Presumably, if our maritime forces had been named anything else at their fomration, even if were something that was superficially unappealing, such as the "Canadian Pink Elephant Navy" and had fought bravely under that title until 1968, restoring that title would be equally popular today.

$1:

No, you don't always get a say. Irrespective of the military reporting to the government, there are many aspects of the military that are controlled internally without having representatives of special interest groups trying to have a say...rayon industry

A valid assertion. However, is this the equivalent steak on Thursdays? Our military is an institution that represents all Canadians abroad. Just to further the discussion a little bit, lets take a comparison that at the opposite end of the spectrum from steak night: Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

You really have nothing left to bring to this discussion, if you start
posting this kind of nonsense.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Gunnair Gunnair:

$1:

The fact you believe reassigning the term 'Royal' to the Navy and Airforce is paying homage to monarchy shows how little you understand the historical and traditional aspects of the name.

That was my whole point.

$1:

What a foolish and irrelevent submission. Like saying If Victoria had never named her daughter Louise Caroline Alberta, no one would support renaming the province between BC and Saskatchewan, Alberta.

Again...my whole point. I was arguing AGAINST the claim by a Royal supporter that Canadians today have some kind of special affection for the Monarchy. Nobody cares about the monarchy. Supporters of the "Royal" (re)addition are only interested in restoring whathever name was in historical use. Presumably, if our maritime forces had been named anything else at their fomration, even if were something that was superficially unappealing, such as the "Canadian Pink Elephant Navy" and had fought bravely under that title until 1968, restoring that title would be equally popular today.

$1:

No, you don't always get a say. Irrespective of the military reporting to the government, there are many aspects of the military that are controlled internally without having representatives of special interest groups trying to have a say...rayon industry

A valid assertion. However, is this the equivalent steak on Thursdays? Our military is an institution that represents all Canadians abroad. Just to further the discussion a little bit, lets take a comparison that at the opposite end of the spectrum from steak night: Let's say that the German Army, for the same reasons as you claim (i.e. "finest hour", sacrifice, tradition, etc.)wanted to reinstate Nazi insignia purely for those nostalgic reasons, would the German public have a right to intervene in your opinion?

Holy shit dude, are you for real? THAT'S your comparison? I'm no monarchist but I'd say you've slipped a gear or two. You want to compare a symbol that's almost universally accepted as a symbol of evil to something as innocuous as putting the Royal back in the Canadian navy and Airforce? Wow..just wow.

[Regina]

A drowning man with grasp a swords blade............

[herbie]

It was Royal when I was a cadet.
It wasn't a few years later.
And NOTHING changed about honouring anyone who served then, before then or now.
It's CANADA'S Air Force and Navy, not the Queens.
This is a foolish move that pisses off Quebecers, non-Anglo new Canadians and nationalists like me.
I resent both any effort to Americanize us and any effort to glorify or return to colonial status.

Today's the anniversary of Dieppe. What do you want to do, remember the heroism and sacrifice of our guys or glorify the inbred aristocratic idiot who sent them there by right of birth rather than military qualification?
Stuff the Royal.

[BeaverFever]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Holy shit dude, are you for real? THAT'S your comparison? I'm no monarchist but I'd say you've slipped a gear or two. You want to compare a symbol that's almost universally accepted as a symbol of evil to something as innocuous as putting the Royal back in the Canadian navy and Airforce? Wow..just wow.

No, I said its the opposite.

What I asked is: when do non-military citizens have a right to voice an opinion in that situation?

Gunny said civilians have no right to tell military how to conduct their internal affairs or what traditions to follow. I suggested the swastika example as an instance I felt civilians should. Either civilains can tell the military what traditions to follow or the can't,right? Im not saying that the royal lineage is comparable to the swastika, im just asking under what circumstances do civilians get to overrule miliary personnel. Get it?