PDA

View Full Version : Allowing Homosexuals Would Boost Military Recruitment, Group Argues



thedrifter
07-26-05, 11:30 AM
Allowing Homosexuals Would Boost Military Recruitment, Group Argues
By Alexa Moutevelis
CNSNews.com Correspondent
July 26, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - A group that wants homosexuals to serve openly in the U.S. military said Monday that the military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if the ban on homosexuals were lifted.

"The 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' law hangs like a 'Gays Not Welcome' sign outside the Pentagon's front door," said Sharra Greer, director of law and policy for Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN).

"Thousands of lesbian and gay Americans are ready to answer our nation's call to service, but are turned away because of federally sanctioned discrimination. Now, more than ever, our country needs the talent of these patriotic Americans. We can make our homeland more secure by repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' once and for all," Greer said in a press release.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network is citing a new analysis of 2000 data by Gary J. Gates, senior research fellow at the Williams Project, UCLA School of Law.

Gates told Cybercast News Service that 14,000 homosexual men, or 1.4 percent, currently are on active duty in the military under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy of the Clinton era.

But, Gates says, if the ban were lifted and the service rates of homosexual men rose in proportion to the service rates of heterosexual men, that figure would increase to 34,000 homosexuals on active duty. Adjusting the National Guard and Reserve numbers, the potential number of homosexuals in the military would reach 41,000, Gates figured.

"I do think it's important to say that at a time when the military is having recruitment problems, this is one set of people that could potentially be one source of recruitment that they're not using," Gates said.

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, told Cybercast News Service , "There are other ways to remedy shortages that we may have in potential recruits right now."

Donnelly said allowing openly homosexual soldiers to serve in the military will have the opposite effect on recruiting numbers.

"Well if you really wanted to destroy recruiting, that would be a pretty good way to do it," said Donnelly, who characterized SLDN as "an advocacy group."

"They don't have the best interests of the military at heart. I don't think they really care about recruiting either. If they did, any fair-minded person would realize that the majority of recruits would certainly be dissuaded in its decision to join the military if the policy were as Bill Clinton wanted it originally [homosexuals being allowed to serve but discreetly]," she said.

"That's a completely unfounded claim," Steve Ralls, director of communication for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, told Cybercast News Service.

"We know from our allies' experience that military enlistment did not suffer as a result of lifting the gay ban, and the Pentagon itself cannot point to a single case where a heterosexual service member has said that he or she was unable to serve alongside openly gay allied troops in a war zone. So I don't think there is any basis for that assertion," said Ralls.

Donnelly compared the military's right to exclude homosexuals to female locker rooms with signs that prohibit little boys from entering or excluding little girls from entering men's rooms.

"That doesn't mean that the community that posted those signs, this recreational center, is somehow prejudiced against little boys or little girls, it just means that we do have a respect for sexual privacy, and that is something everyone is very comfortable with," Donnelly said.

"It by no means is comparable to racial separation, something that would be totally unacceptable in virtually every community in America. But sexuality is an entirely different category," she said.

"To say that sexuality doesn't matter, that is something that Congress will not agree to. I don't see them anytime in the near future agreeing to that, nor should they," added Donnelly.

Ralls countered that "there is a growing consensus in Congress among Democrats and Republicans that this policy is not a good idea."

The Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and allow homosexuals to serve openly, is currently pending in the U.S. House of Representatives. The SLDN notes the bill currently has 90 bi-partisan supporters and was endorsed by eight retired military officers.

"If the Military Readiness Enhancement Act is not taken up for a vote in this Congress, we believe it will be soon," Ralls said.

"When you have members of Congress like Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, who is a staunch conservative, a Vietnam War veteran who knows the military inside and out and is saying that the ban can be lifted and should be lifted, that is a sign of very significant progress," added Ralls.

But, Donnelly said, Congress has already made its intentions known on the subject.

"The concept has been in place since at least 1981 that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The reason is that people live in conditions of forced intimacy. It is not like the civilian world. It is not like any other occupation, and Congress, in its wisdom, passed a law that reflects those military realities," concluded Donnelly.

E-mail a news tip to Alexa Moutevelis.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

Ellie

mrbsox
07-26-05, 01:11 PM
Give me a break !!

The RAINBOW Brig-AIDS
The Purple BUTT- tallions

I can hear the drill now...
"When I give you recruits the command FORWARD MARCH,
FORWARD being the prepatory command and
MARCH being the command of execution, you will PRANCE forward with your left foot first in a standard 30 inch step...."

Lets stop and consider the MORAL of the remaining troops before we start some silly a$$ (pun intended) crap-olla like this.
And while we're at it, lets have the Fkn media spout off to the world how desperate the military is for troops.

eddief
07-26-05, 02:38 PM
Homosexuals can serve in the military. They just have to keep their sex lives private. I think the military's obligation in this deal is to not pry into the offbase activities of these people. They should be able to go to their bars and clubs and live with their partners (as long as it's an off base residence).

As far as changing the rules to allow them to serve openly, that would mark these people for physical harm. We can't have troops beating up or killing openly gay troops.

Osotogary
07-26-05, 02:39 PM
mrbsox-
Check out the history of the Army of Sparta....way back when.
I'm not saying anything but I heard that one of the reasons they fought so hard is because of the bonding that took place on and off the field of battle.
Is there a soon to be comparison? I don't know but the Army of Sparta is in the history books.

eddief
07-26-05, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Osotogary
mrbsox-
Check out the history of the Army of Sparta....way back when.
I'm not saying anything but I heard that one of the reasons they fought so hard is because of the bonding that took place in and off the field of battle.
Is there a soon to be comparison? I don't know but the Army of Sparta is in the history books.

And they had the most fabulous uniforms on the battlefield.

Joseph P Carey
07-26-05, 02:57 PM
As I am sure that allowing prisoners out of jail to join the service may help too, maybe a whole unit of Sexual Predators, or perhaps a Platoon of Armed Robbers, or yet, even maybe a Company of Homicidal Maniacs would certainly improve our lot in the world, but I am sure that no men of honor would want this kind of rabble to be in their units, as well as someone more concerned about the curtains on the AMTRAC rather than the rounds in the main gun.

To the Gay and Lesbian Community, thank you very much for the offer, but no thank you! Join under the rules of the game and no one will say anything, or go to Canada and join their Armed Forces. I understand that they don't particularly care who, or what, they have up there! We do!

Osotogary, do you really think that we are so foolish to not know that we have and have had Homosexuals in the Armed Forces of the United States? There have been many of them, but they put aside the recognition of their behavior to act in the best interest of the services. It is all part of the deal one makes to serve his country. The last thing that the services need is openly activist Homosexuals in their ranks! The differences are small, but they are the rules the same as fraternization and adultery. There is no special case here! The rules of the UCMJ are to be followed and obeyed by all servicemen and servicewomen.

'Don't ask, Don't tell' is the policy for good cause! And like Adulterers, homosexuality will not be tolerated!

Eddie F, The rules of Fraternization and Adultery still are in effect for off duty personnel, as well as the rules for the Homosexuals. The Military is not a Democracy, we just defend Democracy!

marinefamily5
07-26-05, 03:02 PM
Ok here is something for you.......ever heard the term
"Gay Bashing" I think that would happen alot if they would let gays in the military

Osotogary
07-26-05, 03:22 PM
The Army of Sparta was just a fleeting reference that could possibly relate to the topic at hand. I meant it as nothing more.

Geez, I hope that I did not come across as thinking that there are those foolish enough to not know that there are homomsexuals in the Armed Forces but yours truly has been burnt in the past by that word assume. If I can help it at all, I no longer assume... anything. LOL

"The last thing that the services need is openly activist Homosexuals in their ranks! The differences are small, but they are the rules the same as fraternization and adultery. There is no special case here! The rules of the UCMJ are to be followed and obeyed by all servicemen and servicewomen. "
Good point, Mr.Carey.

"And they had the most fabulous uniforms on the battlefield."
Thanks for the laugh, eddief.
You want style? Check out the Athenian Army. LMAO.

Nagalfar
07-26-05, 03:26 PM
Its BS to have to fight a war, and the PC INSANITY at home too.. funny I think the PC BS will destroy us faster than any enemy ever could..

Joseph P Carey
07-26-05, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Nagalfar
Its BS to have to fight a war, and the PC INSANITY at home too.. funny I think the PC BS will destroy us faster than any enemy ever could..

For what it is worth, Nagalfar, that may very well be the intention!

eddief
07-26-05, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Joseph P Carey
Eddie F, The rules of Fraternization and Adultery still are in effect for off duty personnel, as well as the rules for the Homosexuals. The Military is not a Democracy, we just defend Democracy! [/B]

Did I say anything about fraternization and adultery? I'm talking about hooking up the way us heterosexuals hook up. We go to the bar or club or wherever the chicks are at. It's the same for homosexuals.

A trooper shouldn't have to worry about the MPs catching him or her at a gay bar. As long as they are not in uniform they should be left to be who they are, unless you expect them to be celibate. Joseph. Personally, I wouldn't want to work with someone who is sexually frustrated. They are grumpy jerks who are a pain in the ass.

eddief
07-26-05, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by marinefamily5
Ok here is something for you.......ever heard the term
"Gay Bashing" I think that would happen alot if they would let gays in the military

Then the problem is not with gays but with homophobic psychos who most likely are insecure with their own sexuality.

THATFEMALE
07-26-05, 04:25 PM
Gays do not belong in the military "PERIOD!" While that is very noble, it's not good for the overall mission.

tntmondy
07-26-05, 04:40 PM
Why do gay's feel the need to proclaim their sexuallity. I don't have to tell people I am hetrosexual, why must they tell everyone and anyone who will listen that they are gay?

eddief
07-26-05, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by THATFEMALE
Gays do not belong in the military "PERIOD!" While that is very noble, it's not good for the overall mission.

Then how will the navy man their ships?

eddief
07-26-05, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by tntmondy
Why do gay's feel the need to proclaim their sexuallity. I don't have to tell people I am hetrosexual, why must they tell everyone and anyone who will listen that they are gay?

Did you ever brag to your boys about the tail you got over the weekend? If you have then you were proclaiming your heterosexuality.

hrscowboy
07-26-05, 06:12 PM
Well ladies and gents i am with Thatfemale on this one we dont need no gays what so ever in the military.

yellowwing
07-26-05, 07:11 PM
The fabulous uniforms and that brand of bonding did not ensure that Sparta remained.

Our proven Esprit de Corps gives us the bonding needed for victory.

...and WOW, hrscowboy is agreeing with Thatfemale! :D

BigCat1
07-26-05, 07:29 PM
Me thinks eddief is a closet gay....he seems to defend them pretty vociferously.....hmmmmmmmmm.....just an observation...

david fox
07-26-05, 09:00 PM
Eddief,
I am a 22 year Chief of the Coast Guard and having spent over 12 years deployed on SHIPS! While I cannot speak for my Navy brothers and sisters I am almost sure there were no Gays on ships I served on. Being a Gunnersmate and having a son in your proud outfit (3/7 India at 29 Palms) we are not currently serving with gays. However letting folks "hook up" promotes adultery (not allowed) promotes moral debasing-not allowed, promtes lack of morale character, something the services pride them selves in. This is not some "new age event" or "expirement" like some of our elected officials think. We have rules for a reason as I am sure you have learned in your young life. Having rules are what makes this real for personnel like me who have devoted most of their lifes to defend the freedoms we enjoy. Hooking up and having gays in the service were not on my enlistment contract. By the way being married for over 20 years and suffering long deployments one is allowed to be sexually frustrated pain in the ass. That's what coming home is for!

eddief
07-26-05, 09:28 PM
david fox
I respect your opinion.

I'm not calling for homosexuals to openly serve. We're obviously as a society not ready for that.

Nagalfar
07-26-05, 09:30 PM
Hey eddief, show some repsect would you, you dont have to respect the man but you damn well have to respect the rank.. ease up.. face it, in this matter of allowing gays in our Corps, it will never fly, no one else here seems to be like you.. and I doubt that is going to change, I for one hope that is does not change, it is a matter of TRADITION.. remember tradition? it is one of the corner stones of our Corps.. leave it alone brother..

eddief
07-26-05, 10:02 PM
I deleted the post, Nagalfar. He aint ****ing worth it.

Joseph P Carey
07-26-05, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by eddief


Then the problem is not with gays but with homophobic psychos who most likely are insecure with their own sexuality.

No! The problem is with the UCMJ, and it is correct and unbias, no outward homosexuality, as well as no adultery, as well as no fraternizaion. Don't make it any more than what it is! Besides, I have never been one to go along with creating special classes of citizens with special rights and protections over another class of citizens.

Joseph P Carey
07-26-05, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by eddief


Did I say anything about fraternization and adultery? I'm talking about hooking up the way us heterosexuals hook up. We go to the bar or club or wherever the chicks are at. It's the same for homosexuals.

A trooper shouldn't have to worry about the MPs catching him or her at a gay bar. As long as they are not in uniform they should be left to be who they are, unless you expect them to be celibate. Joseph. Personally, I wouldn't want to work with someone who is sexually frustrated. They are grumpy jerks who are a pain in the ass.

The adultery comes from the availability of service wives and other servicemen and women, just because they are off duty does not make it out of bounds for the UCMJ, the same with Homosexuality, if they can not remain celebate for the years they are in, they should not be in the service. Sometimne it is a long time between Liberty ports or R&R. They knew the rules when they joined. It isn't like it was a surprise for them.

eddief
07-26-05, 11:16 PM
Got ya, Joe. You have your opinion and I have mine. We can agree to disagree. Good night.

hrscowboy
07-27-05, 01:00 AM
Well hell i guess i am guilty of adultry then i was always picking up some Navy guys wife while he was out to sea... Never thought about it I guess... oh well you all know the saying.. aint no sense in going home Jodys got your girl and gone... hahahaha

Osotogary
07-27-05, 02:01 AM
hrscowboy,
I am truly appalled at the way you have conducted your life.
Technically speaking, you can be guilty of adultry all you want. It's okay! Just don't ever commit adultery. LMAO
By the way, how are the "guys" doing?

CPLRapoza
07-27-05, 08:38 AM
We had some guys "come out of the closet" before we came to Afghanistan. One I think tried it to get out of the deployment, but the other one I truly believe is gay. The ridicule and and torment these Marines go through is unbelievable. As a Sergeant I cannot allow it, atleast in my presence. But these Marines are branded now and there is no way to reverse that. The other Marines don't respect or trust them, which is not good for the mission. If it wasn't for the needs of the battalion as far as bodies go, these Marines would have been dropped and transitioned out.

I truly do not believe gays should be allowed in the military, atleast in combat related fields. We live together in the same hooches, and it's open showers, the last things these Marines need is to worry about some F in' homo, coming from behind and showing him the long end of his swagger stick.

Sgted
07-27-05, 09:46 AM
CPLRaposa.... <br />
You've got to be kidding. <br />
When is the last time you (or anyone else here) had &quot;to worry about some F in' homo, coming from behind and showing him the long end of his swagger stick.&quot;...

Joseph P Carey
07-27-05, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Sgted

Furthermore, to group homosexuals (male or female) with pedophiles and homocidal maniacs is wrong.

I fully back the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Gays have served and will continue to serve honorably. Some have made careers in the Armed Forces of this country. The vast majority of these men & women did so without ever acting inappropriately.


For the record, Sgt Ed, I made the comment about the jail birds, because of the story lead that said 40,000 homosexuals were willing to join the service to augment the recruiting problem. It was a tongue in cheek comment to what could be done, but would never be accepted. If you will note, I also made the comment that we are not so foolish to think that there have not been, or are not, homosexuals in the service, but they are governed by the 'Don't ask, Don't tell!" policy. They do their job, and they keep their liaisons to themselves. No problem there! Overt actions are subject to UCMJ!

I still say that the Canadian Armed Forces would probably take them in the open!

PTWARRIOR
07-27-05, 11:14 AM
I say let every service decide what they want in thier ranks.The MARINE CORPS will definitely not accept this type of character .In my opinion my very own personal opinion "I don't think we should have females in the Corps."
But that is another subject.

outlaw3179
07-27-05, 12:10 PM
oh oh ! did I just hear a can of worms opening? lol

sm@@thrider
07-27-05, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Joseph P Carey
As I am sure that allowing prisoners out of jail to join the service may help too, maybe a whole unit of Sexual Predators, or perhaps a Platoon of Armed Robbers, or yet, even maybe a Company of Homicidal Maniacs would certainly improve our lot in the world, but I am sure that no men of honor would want this kind of rabble to be in their units, as well as someone more concerned about the curtains on the AMTRAC rather than the rounds in the main gun.

To the Gay and Lesbian Community, thank you very much for the offer, but no thank you! Join under the rules of the game and no one will say anything, or go to Canada and join their Armed Forces. I understand that they don't particularly care who, or what, they have up there! We do!

Osotogary, do you really think that we are so foolish to not know that we have and have had Homosexuals in the Armed Forces of the United States? There have been many of them, but they put aside the recognition of their behavior to act in the best interest of the services. It is all part of the deal one makes to serve his country. The last thing that the services need is openly activist Homosexuals in their ranks! The differences are small, but they are the rules the same as fraternization and adultery. There is no special case here! The rules of the UCMJ are to be followed and obeyed by all servicemen and servicewomen.

'Don't ask, Don't tell' is the policy for good cause! And like Adulterers, homosexuality will not be tolerated!

Eddie F, The rules of Fraternization and Adultery still are in effect for off duty personnel, as well as the rules for the Homosexuals. The Military is not a Democracy, we just defend Democracy!

" Doesn't the Canadians speak french, so just like the Canadians and french foreign legion to merge" LOL

GunnyL
07-27-05, 01:56 PM
Sm@@thrider,

I wouldn't put the French Foreign Legion and the Canadians on the same level if I were you. I've done some raids in Somalia with the FFL and I've got a friend who was an FFL Sniper. The French Army might be full of pansies and light in the loafers types but the FFL is full of some very tough SOB's. Don't confuse the French Army and the French Foreign Legion. You think Faggots have a hard time in the Marine Corps? They would litterally take them out and shoot them in the FFL.
And yes to all you Pole Smoker Loving Liberals on this post I used the Non Politically Correct term Faggots. Just because I don't particularly care for Faggots and their way of life doesn't make me a Homophobe, it just means that I don't like Fags. There may be gays serving Honorably in the service today as long as they keep their sexuality hidden but as soon as it's revealed they are processed out. There is no room in the Military way of good order and discipline for Open Homosexuality. What they do after the military is their business.
Serving in this Corps is a Privilege, not a Right!

GunnyL

yellowwing
07-27-05, 04:38 PM
40,000 willing to sign, say 30,000 make it through Army training. That's enough for them to form their own Queer Brigade.

But seriously, the Canadian Forces General is geared up to send some serious shooters to go out and kill the Taliban, instead of garrison peacekeeping duties.

A few newspapers and an Independent elected official were mortified. But the General Hillier did not back down!

hrscowboy
07-27-05, 05:58 PM
awwwwwwwwww shlits yep somebody just opened a can of worms where is that female when she is needed...

hrscowboy
07-27-05, 05:59 PM
We dont need any rump roasters in any branch of the service!!! enuff said....

Joseph P Carey
07-27-05, 06:11 PM
Yellowwing : 40,000 willing to sign, say 30,000 make it through Army training. That's enough for them to form their own Queer Brigade.


I can see it now! Designer Leather Combat Uniforms, No bottoms to the leather trousers, the wearing of Motorcycle hats with EAG emblems, and Open toed spiked heeled boots. The EM Club would be renamed the S&M Club, and the post exchange would feature Gucchi bags!

We would go from being the 'Devil Dogs' to the 'Bedeviled Beeeches'!

FREDDY
07-27-05, 06:21 PM
I THINK YOU NEED TO EASY UP ON THE CPL ,SGT I FOR ONE AGREE WITH HIM AND GAYS JUST SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SERVICE PERIOD. FOR SOME REASON THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF "WALKING ON EGG SHELLS" ON THIS SUBJECT. I FOR ONE AM NOT GOING TO DEBATE, JUST SAY MY PEACE AND SHUT UP. EVER SINCE THE DONT ASK DONT TELL POLICY CAME WENT INTO EFFECT THERE HAVE BEEN MORE AND MORE PROBLEMS. THIS PC CRAP WAS NOT AROUND WHEN I WAS ON ACTIVE DUTY. THAT BEING SAID THAT IS MY VIEW AND I SAY AGAIN I WILL NOT GET INTO A DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER. RESPECTFULLY, FBIII

yellowwing
07-27-05, 06:21 PM
Army training
Brigade motto: "Do Everyone You Can Do" :banana:

Nagalfar
07-27-05, 06:23 PM
Quote; But seriously, the Canadian Forces General is geared up to send some serious shooters to go out and kill the Taliban, instead of garrison peacekeeping duties. unquote

Canada has a total military "force" of apx. 58k TOTAL personnel, now get this, there are MORE officers than enlisted.. I did a paper on Canada's military during, and post WW2 about 4 morths ago.. it was unthinkable what they dont have in numbers or equipment.. Canada's military is totally ineffective as a fighting force, in MHO, Canada is out gunned by MEXICO!.

GunnyL, have you ever wondered why France cant train Frenchmen to be as effective as their FFL troops? lol

yellowwing
07-27-05, 06:28 PM
...actually some units are outgunned by the Hells Angels. We have a huge budget surplus, but no air-worthy helicopters. :(

USMCgrunt0331
07-27-05, 06:39 PM
The military doesn't let females live with guys, or shower with guys, cause it ain't right. So why should staight guys have to sleep with and shower with fags? It'd be the same as if you had girls and guys doing all that stuff. Fags should stay out of the military. I wonder what the other countries are thinkin when they hear us talkin about how we need to let a bunch of homo's in our military to fight for us cause we're so bad off. Laughin their a$$ off I bet....Our Corps ain't that bad off.

Joseph P Carey
07-27-05, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Nagalfar
Quote; But seriously, the Canadian Forces General is geared up to send some serious shooters to go out and kill the Taliban, instead of garrison peacekeeping duties. unquote

Canada has a total military "force" of apx. 58k TOTAL personnel, now get this, there are MORE officers than enlisted.. I did a paper on Canada's military during, and post WW2 about 4 morths ago.. it was unthinkable what they dont have in numbers or equipment.. Canada's military is totally ineffective as a fighting force, in MHO, Canada is out gunned by MEXICO!.

GunnyL, have you ever wondered why France cant train Frenchmen to be as effective as their FFL troops? lol

Why should they worry? They have Alaska on their left, Greenland on their right, the North Pole over their head to the North, and the USA to the South. Like Alfred E Newman (MAD Magazine) said, "What? Me worry?"

The truth is, Why should they arm? They know that they have the Americans to the South to save their bi-Butts. They may not help us in Iraq, and they openly condemn our policies and our life style, and they are only in Afghanistan because of NATO, but they stay huddled in the safety of their compund. Remember Hotel Rhuwanda, those UN Troops that bugged out and left those people to be killed were Canadian Troops. What a Proud tradition.

During WWII, Following a massive naval bombardment, 35,000 U.S. and Canadian troops stormed ashore at Kiska, in the Aleutian Islands. Twenty-one troops were killed in the firefight. It would have been worse if there had been any Japanese soldiers on the island.

To Paraphrase: "Yea though they walk through the world with the name North American, we shall fear no evil, because those evil, no good, money grubbing, war mongering bastards from South of the Border will always be there to pull our chestnuts out of the fire..."

It should be written into the Canadian National Anthem, "Oh Canada, we can not defend our selves. Our policy to have Gay Marriages and Socialist Programs do not allow for that. We will 'bad mouth' the people and the government of the USA, we will give refuge to their criminals and their draft evaders, we will shop in their stores and call them stupid everyone. After all, we are Canadians, and we will always be protected by the USA!"

yellowwing
07-27-05, 07:31 PM
Do not forget to include the liberation of Holland through some of the harshest warfare terrain, or the thousands of Canadians that volunteered to stand by you in the RVN.

airframesguru
07-27-05, 09:13 PM
But it would be perfect.... just imagine the force in readiness... gone in a flash.. cause they already have there _ _ _ _ packed.

Oooops!

Joseph P Carey
07-27-05, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by yellowwing
Do not forget to include the liberation of Holland through some of the harshest warfare terrain, or the thousands of Canadians that volunteered to stand by you in the RVN.

Let us also not forget the millions of Canadians that have never been there for us at all, yet they use our military and Air Force to Protect them, and they contribute nothing. THe Canadians are no friends of ours, they are just our neighbor to the North!

Let us also not forget the numbers of Americans that fought with the Canadians during WWII, because the USA was late on entering the war. I'd say we were even, but let us talk about those American Volunteers and how Canada appreciated them.

Canada went first to England in 1939, and hence to unknown environs such as Dieppe, Sicily, Italy and Normandy. It is not generally well known that until April 1945, a scant few weeks before the end of the war in Europe, the First Canadian Army was comprised entirely of volunteer troops of Canadians and Americans. Canadian formations in both Italy and Northwest Europe consistently fought well, though understrength through the balance of their war, while hundreds of thousands of healthy, uniformed troops languished at home at the behest of a government lacking the will to impose overseas conscription. This, too, was as uniquely Canadian as was the tenacity and endurance of their fighting men themselves: the volunteers of the Canadian Army Overseas are all they had and all they used.

Nagalfar
07-27-05, 10:39 PM
Canada had a standing Army that was listed as in excess of 1 million during WW2, for any Canadian to serve in combat during WW2, he had to first request combat duty, thought out all of WW2, Canada's total man power that was ever fielded OUTSIDE of Canada was apx. 100,000 total for all of WW2. This includes the Canadian's who signed up for service outside of Canada's own military.. these numbers for from Canada's own version of their V.A.

I agree Carey, Canada does use out military to protect them, knowing the evil Americans south of the boarder wouldnt let a foreign invader onto N. American Territory without a fight..

Joseph P Carey
07-28-05, 01:40 AM
Truthfully, I think we got off of the subject, talking about gays in the service, and now the Canadians, but actually, the only difference would be that gays is spelt with four letters, and Canadians are spelt with nine letters!

yellowwing
07-28-05, 01:48 AM
(Your're only trying to yank my tail) just because its going down to 48 degrees tonite. ;)

Joseph P Carey
07-28-05, 02:06 AM
Wing,

General Hillier's speach to 1/3 of the Candain Army:

Lt.-Gen. Hillier acknowledged that the coming mission to Afghanistan will be dangerous, but pledged to give the battle group in Kabul "whatever they need." Commanders have rated the threat to the Canadian contingent, part of the 5,000-strong, 29-nation International Security Assistance Force as high, and some military intelligence estimates have predicted a near certainty of Canadian fatalities on the 12-month mission.Lt.-Gen. Hillier however, advised the soldiers yesterday to minimize the risks. "Be vigilant. Use the training. Use the experience. Listen to your leadership, ears and eyes open and just go do the job. Do it as you professional Canadian soldiers can only do it. And come home safely. That's what we want you to do."

Major General Andrew Leslie, who will be the senior Canadian officer in Kabul, said that without the NATO-run force in Afghanistan, the country would quickly slide back into anarchy. "It would devolve very quickly back down into all-out war, quite frankly. That's how potentially grim the situation is," he told reporters after the parade.

Maj-Gen Leslie said his greatest fear is suicide bombers, like those who blew up a bus full of German ISAF troops this month, killing four and wounding dozens more. "With all the best skills, with all the best training in the world, it is really tough to defend yourself against someone who's willing to die to kill you," he said.

The force assembled for the missions in Bosnia and Afghanistan represents a third of the Canadian army's field soldiers, leaving the rest of the army stretched thin, critics say.

James Bartleman, the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, also reviewed the troops and said after the parade he had never seen anything like it. "I have 35 years in the diplomatic corps and service, eight years as ambassador to NATO and five years ambassador to Israel and Cypress, and so I've seen a lot of Canadian soldiers in my time, but never this many," he said.

It is no wonder that Canada can afford all of those Socialist Programs, they sure as hell do not spend it on their military. There is always the USA for that!

Joseph P Carey
07-28-05, 03:08 AM
You do realize that the State of Rhode Island has about a 3,000 man National Guard! Hell! That means that Rhode Island and Connecticut could whip Canada in a war!