Parents' Place » military

25 Things You Should Know [video]

Parents Place — Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:31:16 +0000

Questions I’d like Your Perspective on

Parents Place — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:48:17 +0000

Questions I’d like your perspective on:

1.) Am I wrong to teach my 6 and 7 year old girls that people can LOOK good but might not BE good?

2.) Am I wrong to bring my 6 and 7 year old girls with me while I distribute H1N1 posters (at the grocery store, door to door etc)?

3.) Am I wrong to allow my 6 and 7 year old girls to hand out the H1N1 posters?

4.) Am I wrong to allow my 6 and 7 year old girls to take H1N1 posters to school with them to give to their friends?

5.) Am I wrong to teach my 6 and 7 year old girls what I honestly think about the Government, Global Warming, Vaccines, Religion, War, or the Military?

Please answer. I could really use some perspective.

Lance

Honesty is more appreciated than well padded politically correct replies.

I’ve already been called crazy by hundreds, called an asshole by countless others.

November 6, 2009 at 5:58pm ·

Becky

1.) Nothing wrong with telling them this. I think this is something they NEED to know.

2.) No, I think this is helping people to see that you really believe in what you’re talking about.

3.) I think you’re setting up a very positive path for your daughters growth. You’re teaching them to stand up for what they believe in, and not be afraid of the masses. They may end up becoming just the people we need in this world to make a real change.

4.) I’m not sure about this one. Will this effect their friendships or prevent them from being invited to b-day parties etc? Then again, do you care to have them hang around with or be invited to people’s houses who don’t believe in looking outside the box?

5.) Definitely teach them your opinions, but also make sure they know that it’s important to form their own.

November 6, 2009 at 6:30pm ·

Rose

as long as they are eventually able to form their own informed opinions without fear of judgement from the one they love. questioning authority is a good practice. saying that, it is my belief that extreme attitudes about anything is not healthy in childhood since kids often see the world in black and white and may not understand all shades of gray. not judging you or anything, just my opinion. I’d rather my kid see the world through rose-coloured glasses while still innocent and not have anxiety over things he can’t control.

November 6, 2009 at 7:15pm ·

Lana

My younger sister and I, though raised by the same parents, experienced very different upbringings. In my case, I was treated in a very “adult” fashion: watched the news with my parents, had exposure to their ideas about government, politics, religion/philosophy, etc. When my sister came along 6 years later, they decided they want to “keep her innocent”, and let her “be a child” for as long as possible. The end result? I’m fiercely independent, question everything that goes on around me (intent on being educated about it, rather than just accepting what is doled out by media and the like), am well read, and make a point of being aware and active in terms of the world I live in. My sister is an anxiety-riddled escapist who needs to be constantly reassured and told what to do. She has no opinions of her own (and doesn’t want them), because thinking outside the box is scary. She wants her answers spoon fed to her, believes that doctors and news media know best…
I am grateful for the upbringing that I received, and I agree with Becky that it’s important for your girls to hear your opinions, but to be encouraged to form their own (even if they differ from yours). Keeping children in a rosy happy place to somehow save them from the big bad world around them just seems to create simpering waifs with no coping mechanisms.

November 6, 2009 at 8:58pm ·

Rose

i think it is more of a personality thing. And also a moderation thing. i want to encourage my son to be independent, but at the same time protect him while he can still be protected. i know as a kid i worried a lot about things I couldn’t control and I don’t want the same for my child. At the same time, exposing the kid to politics etc and making them socially responsible is a good thing…i totally agree. But letting your 4 year old watch Schindlers list and explaining in detail what they did to the children isn’t exactly my cup of tea…..I prefer the rosy glasses. (this is an example from real life:S)

November 6, 2009 at 9:30pm ·

Lana

**chuckle** It also boils down to what is age appropriate. Schindler’s List for a 4 year old? Not so much. An 8 year old? Better. Still shitty, and would be best to wait ’til they’re older, but ultimately it depends on the child. I could have done without the nightmares wrought from Vietnam horror stories I heard from Daddy-O when I was 10 or so, but they certainly helped to instill a monumental sense of compassion for others, and a desire to fight against cruelty.

November 6, 2009 at 10:05pm ·

Tim

1: Definately not wrong (imo). I believe that may be one of the, if not the most important thing to teach your children. It is unbelievable the amount of time myself and people around me have been hurt, or betrayed by someone that they least expected it from. This will affect us in many ways. When it happens (weather we like to believe it or not) we automaticaly put up a wall to protect ourselves. Which will then lead us to maybe not trusting that person in the future, who very well could have been that “good person” in our lives.
I am very busy, but i will get back to you with the rest. (baby’s crying). again, not saying my answers will necessarily correct, but i agrre that it’s always good to have the opinion of peers.
If you believe you are being a good parent, then you most likely are. dn’t be so hard on yourself brotha from anotha motha!!!

November 6, 2009 at 10:17pm ·

Spencer

I haven’t ready everyone else’s comments (it’s early and I have to get to work), but I think these are really fair questions to ask and, in my view, demonstrates your thoughtfulness as a parent. A lot of parents bombard their kids with ideas without ever asking these questions, so good on ya.

First, as a caveat, I think “wrong” might be a heavy term and be careful not to be too hard on yourself if you discover after this inquiry that people you truly care about think that you are “wrong”.

From my perspective: I think #1 is a definite, *No it’s not wrong* to each them that just because people look good doesn’t mean that they ARE good. Every kid needs to learn that and if their parents don’t teach it to them, then they’ll learn it the hard way.

As for 2, I think it depends on why you’re bringing them with you. If it’s because you can’t find daycare or because you’re going anyway, that’s one thing, but if you’re bringing them with you to show that you in fact are a parent or otherwise to “further the cause” I think it’s a bit darker grey. No kid should be used as a weapon, be it in actual combat, political sparring, post-divorce family wrangling, or marketing, social or otherwise.

For 3, 4, & 5 I feel that it’s really a question of how ready your 6 & 7 year old girls are to think critically and decide for themselves what they think about the issues and the information they are able to collect. I know it’s possible for a 6 or 7 year old to be a genius, but the people whose responsibility it is to make decisions on these issues and topics (doctors, voters, and adults in general) are all 18+ so I do feel that it might be bit much to involve them in all this stuff when they’re still eleven years away from being in a position to choose for themselves, (“officially” speaking of course).

I think it’s perfectly natural for you to want what’s best for your girls and to help other parents find information to help them make decisions for their kids is a nice way to help other kids too. You’re also pretty good at respecting people who think and feel differently than you, and THAT’s something your girls can learn at ANY age.

November 8, 2009 at 8:44am ·

Canadian Military To Undertake “Domestic Security”

Parents Place — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:00:20 +0000

Sources:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/canadian-military-units-to-undertake-domestic-security.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12694

http://www.calgary911truth.org/my_weblog/2009/03/canadian-military-units-to-undertake-domestic-security.html

You would think a News Giant like CBC News would report on this:
http://www.cbc.ca/search/cbc?ie=utf8&site=CBC&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=description&oe=utf8&safe=high&q=canadian+military+domestic+security

CBC ran this in December 2008 (unrelated, but similar):
http://www.cbc.ca/empire/security.html

The Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/templates/hub?searchText=canadian+military+domestic+security&hub=Search&searchType=Quick&control=searchSimple&iaction.x=26&iaction.y=7&iaction=Go

The National Post:
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1353971

The Toronto Sun:
http://search.torontosun.com/?sen=site&ie=UTF-8&q=canadian+military+domestic+security

Canadian Military Units To Undertake “Domestic Security”

Duties would include mass internment of citizens after terrorist attack, mirroring militarization of law enforcement in U.S. and Britain

Paul Joseph Watson

Prison Planet.com

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Canadian military is reorganizing its priorities to suit a “post 9/11-world,” by creating reservist units for each area of the country that would be tasked with providing “domestic security,” and involve roles such as the mass internment of citizens in the event of a terrorist attack.

“The Canadian military has embarked on a wide-ranging plan to turn its reserve soldiers into focused units trained and equipped to respond to a nightmarish array of domestic threats,” reports the National Post.

“The remodeling of the reserves will see the development of specialist units in four of the military’s regional divisions — Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the West.”

This is an open announcement that Canada has been subdivided into military units that will be policed by military reserves, who will take a “dominant role in domestic operations in the future,” according to the article.

Of course, the necessity of the change is dressed up using the notion of troops helping people in the event of earthquakes, floods and nuclear accidents, but we also learn that one of the duties that the reservists would potentially undertake would be mass internment of citizens in camps or quarantine zones after a biological terror attack.

“We are training to establish a perimeter,” said Brigadier-General Jean Collin. “Do I see a scenario when we might be obliged to keep people in? Probably. You need to be trained to be able to make sure that you don’t become a casualty in the process of doing that security.”

In light of that comment, it’s interesting to note that, according to the report, Brig-Gen. Collin, who has served in Bosnia and Afghanistan, “has also been a special advisor to the Chief of the Defence Staff on homeland security issues.”

Other roles for the military reservists would be to undertake law enforcement and other “security” duties for domestic events such as the 2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver and the 2010 G8 summit of world leaders in Huntsville.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The story dovetails with a report out of Barrie, Ontario, where authorities are considering using troops from the local army base to patrol bar areas on weekends in a supposed attempt to prevent rowdiness.

Mention is also made of “scenarios that might require a form of constabulary or policing function for reserves in civilian containment and security.”

David Bercuson, director of the Center for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, attempted to dismiss the premise by claiming reservists would oppose such measures.

“People in Ottawa sometimes forget that the reserves are volunteers. If you try to change the reserves in ways they don’t want to change, they just might not show up,” he said.

Would reservists oppose the use of military units for purposes of domestic law enforcement and not show up, or would they just follow orders under the justification of a breakdown in authority after a biological attack or mass rioting after a total economic collapse?

I’m not so confident that people who have been kicking down doors, abducting, torturing and killing people in Afghanistan for seven years under the justification that they are terrorists would be unwilling to do the same to Canadian citizens if they were drilled with the same propaganda.

The militarization of law enforcement duties in the U.S., Canada and Britain is accelerating at a pace never before seen.

Last week it was revealed that the British Army is on standby to deal with rioting on UK streets as a result of the economic crisis, according to a newspaper report, which states that MI5 is targeting political activists who could help create a “summer of discontent”.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., urban warfare training drills are taking place across the country as Northcom announces that tens of thousands of active duty troops will be stationed inside the U.S. for domestic purposes.

The U.S. Army War College in November released a white paper called Known Unknowns: Unconventional ‘Strategic Shocks’ in Defense Strategy Development. The report warned that the military must be prepared for a “violent, strategic dislocation inside the United States,” which could be provoked by “unforeseen economic collapse,” “purposeful domestic resistance,” “pervasive public health emergencies” or “loss of functioning political and legal order.” The “widespread civil violence,” the document said, “would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.”

Research related articles: