If CAP could add another mission what would be? And what color(s) should the ribbon be?
I think if you do a search for things like 'mission', 'additional', 'capability', etc., you'll find several similar topics that have beaten this horse to death more than once.
Wow....that was a real question or did you forget the series of ;D :o :P >:D :clap: that are supposed to follow humor
Haberdasher.
(Because...people aren't....)
Transparent.
I find the second question interesting if not a bit nauseating. I think that after a question like "If CAP could add another mission what would it be", that follow up questions would be something along the lines of:
Why do you feel CAP should add this mission?
Does CAP have the existing capabilities to handle such a mission?
What sort of training would be required for this new mission?
What do you see the potential risks to be?
How do we mitigate those risks?
What would be the controlling / cooperating agency?
etc, etc, etc.
But instead, we are asked about the color of the ribbon. Really? Is that important? Is that what we are about?
Agree 100%.
Encapsulated in the OP's question is the entirety of the heartburn over certain contentious uniform items.
Instead of seeking mission and duty, and then gratefully accepting whatever bling eventually comes, far too many members see something shiny and decide to pursue the shiny, even if they don't understand why it was awarded in the first place, even to the point of wasting peoples time with trying to justify past activities, tangential connection, or participation in unrelated organizations as CAP bling-worthy.
That, or if they aren't doing anything bling-worthy, want to redefine the bling.
This is just going to dog-pile. Several users have made the point well enough already, so hopefully it's readily apparent to the OP why this line of thinking is viewed as sophomoric...at best. I can't see this thread going anywhere productive or of professional value, so it's being locked.