Gays and/or women in combat

elroy · Post by **elroy** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:23 am

[quote="CyberEd";p="440060"][quote="Nitz Walsh";p="439878"]My female cousin was in the Canadian Navy in a combat role.[/quote]

canada ? combat ?![/quote]Yessir, lots of canadian soldiers fought to liberate europe from the nazis in WW2.

Post by **Blaze** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:38 am

I'm far too lazy to go back and read the whole thing, but, as far as gays in the military go, I'm all for it!

In the words of Mark Curry:

"If I'm in a war, and it's up to my buddy to save my ass, I want him to think my ass is pretty cute!"

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 8:54 pm

Canadian Special Forces served behind enemy lines in many conflicts within the last 20 years, this includes being shot at and shooting other people. Canadian infantry in Afghanistan were in combat more than once.

Canadian Forces are combat ready and willing to do any job they can.

And there are women in Canadian Special Forces in combat roles.

And Phong, Canada doesnt have Aircraft Carriers in the Navy, and only a few submarines, but women do serve on Submarines in the Canadian Navy as far as I know.

Anyone who doubts Canada's combat records in recent history can feel free look it up.

Rileyrat · Post by **Rileyrat** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 9:26 pm

[quote="Nitz Walsh";p="440410"]Canadian Forces are combat ready and willing to do any job they can.[/quote]

How dare anyone call themselves a soldier/airman/seaman/marine if they are not.

[quote="Nitz Walsh";p="440410"]And there are women in Canadian Special Forces in combat roles.[/quote]

Such as what jobs? I have never seen such a thing in any western nation. Lots of people like to misconscrew themselves as something more than they are. Like when a cook in a US Special Forces Group tells people "I'm Special Forces" when he hasn't completed, and usually even attempted, the training needed.

[quote="Nitz Walsh";p="440410"]And Phong, Canada doesnt have Aircraft Carriers in the Navy, and only a few submarines, but women do serve on Submarines in the Canadian Navy as far as I know.[/quote]

He is speaking of the U.S. Navy

[quote="Nitz Walsh";p="440410"]Anyone who doubts Canada's combat records in recent history can feel free look it up.[/quote]
To call it "Canada's record" is a little misleading if they were not the major contributor. US Special Forces were there when Russia tried to take over Afganistan but we don't add that into the US's combat records now do we?

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Mon Jan 03, 2005 10:58 pm

I'm not even going to answer Rileyrat because he's obviously on some kind of drugs that impare his thinking ability.

CyberEd · Post by **CyberEd** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:40 pm

Nitz Walsh, then I must be taking those same drugs...

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:58 pm

I thought Canada had an itty bitty aircraft carrier?

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:28 pm

Our last aircraft carrier was sold for scrap in 1970.

It was the HMCS Bonaventure - Modified Majestic Class Light Fleet Carrier

It's sad really, we need to build up our military and get at least 4 Carriers, and double the size of the rest of the fleet, and start buying new aircraft and other equipment... new stuff too.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:34 pm

Navies are expensive.

Nitz Walsh · Post by **Nitz Walsh** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 8:45 pm

Yes they are, but if the Canadian government didn't begin cutting funding to the Canadian forces in the 1970's we would probably have all that stuff right now.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Tue Jan 04, 2005 9:18 pm

[quote="Deacon";p="439319"]Personally, I believe we should kick out all women who don't feel comfortable showering with the men in the communal showers.[/quote]

thats actually a good point

TFace · Post by **TFace** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 2:47 am

I skipped past most of the thread, since it was just the same people saying the same thing over and over again, so forgive me if this has been said already.

Show me a woman who can carry a wounded 200+ pound man out of a hot firezone, and I will gladly fight by her side. I have no problems with females in the military, but you have to set some sort of standard with combat units.

Most of you are obviously civilians who don't see the reality of military service from the inside. You can easily have mixed gender non-combat units, but it just doesn't work with combat units. As has been said before, logistics and unit integrity become a problem. Sure, unit integrity shouldn't be a problem in a perfect world, but you have to face reality.

Soldiers aren't special or better than normal people, we're just dumb enough to sign up for a job where we get shot at. lol

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:43 am

Actually, I don't think anyone's supported the case of anyone who wasn't physically up to the job.

naval_aviator_2040 · Post by **naval_aviator_2040** » Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:16 pm

TFace, The whole point of this topic was incumbent on the people in question proving thir ability to do the job. As for the woman dragging a 200+lb man, I'll refer you to my earlier post.

[quote="naval_aviator_2040";p="432634"] And flamechocobo, no I do not know any women who can do that but i do know one who, if you told her she had to to be in combat, would easily be able to train to that standard. She's a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point.[/quote]

Real Life Forums

Gays and/or women in combat

Re: Gays and/or women in combat

Who is online