WestCanMan Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 When it comes down to it though, the number of infantrymen would be way less than 28,000. That number includes a lot of support trades as well - cooks, logistic types, mechanics, etc. Even if we had unlimited troop carriers at our disposal, we probably have far less than 20,000 actual soldiers to drop off on a beach somewhere. I don't even want to guess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 1 minute ago, WestCanMan said: When it comes down to it though, the number of infantrymen would be way less than 28,000. That number includes a lot of support trades as well - cooks, logistic types, mechanics, etc. Even if we had unlimited troop carriers at our disposal, we probably have far less than 20,000 actual soldiers to drop off on a beach somewhere. I don't even want to guess. calculating how many infantrymen Canada has is related to asymmetrical operations like Peacekeeping & COIN but if you are going to be in the big leagues, against the Chinese & Russians; all that matters is sea power since all the infantry in the world cant save you from a naval blockade imposed by SSN's 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 5 hours ago, blackbird said: One reason few want to join the Canadian Forces is because of their DEI and LGBTQ policies. Mixing women with men in the CAF was a mistake. Men and women should be in separate branches of the armed forces. I think that is the way it was in WW2. It is unnatural to mix men and women together and not expect sexual abuse and other problems. If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougie93 Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 8 minutes ago, Aristides said: If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem. women are best suited to a service support role to subject women to close combat at bayonet range is uncivilized 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 12 Report Share Posted April 12 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Aristides said: If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem. Quite true, but human nature being what it is, many men are strongly attracted to women and so putting males and females in that situation does not work. It has eliminated a huge number of applicants. Just saying men should not do those things does not solve the problem. That is the problem with liberals and leftists. They won't accept some realties and think they can change human nature by just telling them to behave a certain way. How well has that worked so far in the Canadian Forces? Women cannot be treated as if they are the same as men. That is just plain stupid. Edited April 12 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 4 hours ago, WestCanMan said: When it comes down to it though, the number of infantrymen would be way less than 28,000. That number includes a lot of support trades as well - cooks, logistic types, mechanics, etc. Even if we had unlimited troop carriers at our disposal, we probably have far less than 20,000 actual soldiers to drop off on a beach somewhere. I don't even want to guess. Army is an element which the Infantry is part of, When i retired in 2014/15 each Bn had 3 undermanned rifle companies,( TO&E states 150 men per Company peace time) maybe 400 troops plus maybe another 100 scattered across the BN...3 BNs to a regiment... 3 Regiments in Canada so maybe on a good day we are looking at 4500 soldiers...fighting infantry...but according to the last report only 50 % of those are able to deploy....so now we are down to 2200 troops..."not including CSOR, or JTF 2" Note this does not include any reserve numbers, but don't look for any miracles, their numbers are not that good either... On top of all this there is large equipment deficiencies as well, so even if they were at full strength there is not enough equipment.... not to mention that each Regiment as one light rifle company, like a PARA company...they are lite so no IFV, or anything heavy...except maybe some BV206, trucks, etc.... Today, these numbers are far below those that i gave, most likely by another 1/3 Normally it take s more than 10-20 support pers to service one infantry guy...thats your cooks,logies, mechs,admin,medical pers, etc etc... Armoured corp and Arty, Cbt Engineers are just as bad... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 2 hours ago, Aristides said: If you are unable to work alongside women without abusing them, you are the problem. Many women have served in the Canadian infantry, in combat without any issues...although in Afghanistan we did not face any hand to hand combat, but lots of close combat.ranges of less than 50 feet......It only takes less than 5 lbs of trigger pull to fire a 5.56 round into someone's fore head or center of mass.....anyone can do it.... but lets face it if it gets beyond that point everyone is on their own regardless, and yes men will be protective of women infanteers it is human nature, but don't think for a second, that any infanteer would not do the same for another brother in arms, it is who we are....I can not explain the bond that develops between members of the same section or platoon....deeper than brothers and sisters....most would die protecting another brother....even having been retired for years if one of my brothers phoned me today, and said hey i need help hiding a body....I would be gone before the phone hung up.... And what little issues there was got sorted out pretty quickly by an NCO...as for frat, sure it goes on, but it is punished severely while deployed regardless of rank...back in garrison it is frowned upon, measures will be taken to make sure your not in the same chain of command... other than that who cares really, life in the army is not very conducive to marriage, which is why a lot of army guys marry army women... Edited April 13 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 19 hours ago, August1991 said: Misleading title. With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000. By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers. I favour our way of doing things. ===== In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.) IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax. The Army is a separate element within the military ( Army, Navy, Air force)...not used to describe the entire military but one small portion of it...Here they are talking about the Army... My math is bad, but how many times does 50 K going into 1.4 million,,,a lot more than 3 times...over 28 times our military...we might have a ways to go.... Canada has had conscription as well, not since WWII. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 25 minutes ago, Army Guy said: yes men will be protective of women infanteers it is human nature, but don't think for a second, that any infanteer would not do the same for another brother in arms, it is who we are... Down through history, isn't it only men who actually fought in armies? Women stayed home and looked after the family and did jobs that supported the nation's armed forces. I can see women in supportive roles but not on the actual combat ranks. There is a psychological and physical difference between men and women. Does the military try to downplay or deny the differences between men and women? I assume politicians made the decision to put women there as part of the new ideology of inclusion and equity. Just seems improper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aristides Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 10 hours ago, herbie said: Draft the homeless.... Is that who you want in your military? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 On 4/12/2024 at 3:07 AM, August1991 said: Misleading title. With Navy, Air Force -our military has about 50,000. By comparison, the US with 10x our population has about 1.4 million active military. IOW, the US has about 3x our numbers. I favour our way of doing things. ===== In Canada and the US, soldiers now choose to join. (In Canada, we have always had a voluntary military. Since Nixon, the US has not had conscription.) IMHO, when a State resorts to military conscription, its leaders are imposing a tax - a weird tax. We have 28k ground troops. That's what the army is. The army is a branch of the military. There's nothing misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 On 4/12/2024 at 3:29 AM, August1991 said: With all that said, wars usually involve foolish young men, between the ages of 17 and 21. Who is in Gaza now? In Donetsk? You owe everything you have to those "fools". Learn some respect, you'd be dead or conquered without these brave patriots who want to serve and protect their country. Looks like there's not very many of them anymore, no thanks to people like you. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted April 13 Author Report Share Posted April 13 17 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said: In order to defend this country, we need a viable military. That requires conscription and an annual trillion dollar budget. Try selling that to Canadian voters / taxpayers. They sold it to the American public, and we and Europe get to afford free healthcare, pharma, daycare, and other goodies. Moochocracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 Canada is slowly being destroyed by liberals. Liberals and NDP don't reveal their real agenda to turn Canada into some kind of "progressive" liberal Marxist state. The first thing on the agenda has been to diminish the Canadian Forces. This goes back to Pierre Trudeau's time when he established diplomatic relations with Chairman Mao in about 1970. One of the most murderous Communists that ever existed. Then in his time in office he reduced Canada's participation in NATO in Europe. Cozied up to Castro. So did his son. We see how things are going now with foreign interference and Trudeau denying the seriousness of it. You wonder why they don't support the military. There's the answer, pacifism, liberalism, and Marxism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 12 hours ago, Dougie93 said: women are best suited to a service support role to subject women to close combat at bayonet range is uncivilized I , in the airforce, have worked with many women in the trades and they have almost always been as good as the men. I have also had men that were as good as the women. I challenge you to tell us when close combat at bayonet range warfare is happening except in movies OL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 18 hours ago, herbie said: Draft the homeless.... Is heard in a weak, squeaky voice from the cheap seats... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 14 hours ago, blackbird said: Quite true, but human nature being what it is, many men are strongly attracted to women and so putting males and females in that situation does not work. It has eliminated a huge number of applicants. Just saying men should not do those things does not solve the problem. That is the problem with liberals and leftists. They won't accept some realties and think they can change human nature by just telling them to behave a certain way. How well has that worked so far in the Canadian Forces? Women cannot be treated as if they are the same as men. That is just plain stupid. What century do you live in? Women have demanded equality for the past 50 and more years and in many areas, if not most, they have it. Women also have a choice, just like men do. If they choose not to crawl around in the mud, hide in the bushes or behind trees to kill someone as being in the army may happen. They will not choose that, as obviously many men have not as well. There have always been women in the military, in the occupations they choose. I have worked with many women in the aviation occupations, with great success. There are many women in the navy as well. The issue of today is that young folks do not want to work hard. That can be seen in many civilian occupations too. The trades are hurting badly as well. The trades are desperate for people. No one wants to be outside in hot summers or cold winters, let alone in the field while in the Army. This has nothing to do with men being attracted to women, this has everything to do with the actual jobs. And to make it a "liberals and leftist" issue is almost the stupidest thing you have ever posted. Edited April 13 by ExFlyer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 42 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: And to make it a "liberals and leftist" issue is almost the stupidest thing you have ever posted. I don't think so. This idea of women on the front lines in battle groups is a fairly recent phenomena. It comes from women's libbers and woke people, which have taken over the liberal and NDP parties. When we see documentaries or videos of WW1 and WW2, we don't see women in combat roles or out in battle. No, we see them working in factories producing armaments and taking men's jobs while men are away at war. This is a fairly new women's lib thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 4 minutes ago, blackbird said: I don't think so. This idea of women on the front lines in battle groups is a fairly recent phenomena. It comes from women's libbers and woke people, which have taken over the liberal and NDP parties. When we see documentaries or videos of WW1 and WW2, we don't see women in combat roles or out in battle. No, we see them working in factories producing armaments and taking men's jobs while men are away at war. This is a fairly new women's lib thing. BS. They opened up for women in combat decades ago. Back in the early 80's if I remember correctly women were enlisting in combat arms. I do not think any of them lasted but, it was open for them to join. it's OK, you can apologize . Long before the word woke even existed LOL 'https://sistersinarms.ca/history/history-of-women-in-combat/ If over 40 years ago is a "fairly new lib thing" for you ....so be it LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: BS. They opened up for women in combat decades ago. Back in the early 80's if I remember correctly women were enlisting in combat arms. I do not think any of them lasted but, it was open for them to join. it's OK, you can apologize . Long before the word woke even existed LOL 'https://sistersinarms.ca/history/history-of-women-in-combat/ If over 40 years ago is a "fairly new lib thing" for you ....so be it LOL I would agree it started in the second half of the 20th century in the 1960s and 1970s. It started as part of the sexual revolution. Women's lib was part of it. quote The sexual revolution in the 1960s United States was a social and cultural movement that resulted in liberalized attitudes toward sex and morality. In the 1960s, social norms were changing as sex became more widely discussed in society. Erotic media, such as films, magazines, and books, became more popular and gained widespread attention across the country. These changes reveal that sex was entering the public domain, and sex rates, especially among young people, could no longer be ignored.[1] With the introduction of the pill and second-wave feminism, women gained more control over their bodies and sexuality during the 1960s. Women could engage in sex without the risk of pregnancy.[2] At the same time, many women involved in the feminist movement questioned the traditional gender and sex roles ascribed to them. Women's liberation movements sought to free women from social and moral confines.[3] Developments in the gay rights movement occurred during the same period, such as public demonstrations and protests to challenge discrimination against sexuality. Some activists began celebrating homosexuality, but the movement did not really take off until the Stonewall riots of 1969.[4] unquote Sexual revolution in 1960s United States - Wikipedia This is why we have the government, Liberal and NDP parties ignoring biology and the reality of the differences between men and women. This is all part of the women's lib movement and progressive movement that rejects the historic role of men and women and the family structure. It is a societal rejection of the historic Judeo-Christian culture and civilization. Today we use the word woke to describe it, but that word doesn't really explain anything. We have to dig deeper to see it is all part of a heathen society that rejects God and his written revelation. When a society rejects the God of the Bible, it has to fill the gap with it's own man-made secular humanist ideologies. That is what we have today. We see if everyday in many areas. The new premier of Manitoba just talked about how the Legislature is changing the opening prayer to accommodate more belief systems or religions. Presumably they will include "Mother Earth" as that is part of heathen, aboriginal belief systems. We are getting closer to the truth on this topic. Edited April 13 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 10 minutes ago, blackbird said: I would agree it started in the second half of the 20th century in the 1960s and 1970s. It started as part of the sexual revolution. Women's lib was part of it. ..... This is why we have the government, Liberal and NDP parties ignoring biology and the reality of the differences between men and women. This is all part of the women's lib movement and progressive movement that rejects the historic role of men and women and the family structure. The first sentence is all you needed to say. The rest is confirming what I told you. I am not defending trudeau but man, are you ever out to lunch. He has more women in politics than any other PM in history. What I read into your post is you are a misogynist and think women still should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen LOL https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/women-in-the-military Edited April 13 by ExFlyer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: What I read into your post is you are a misogynist and think women still should be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen LOL It is not misogynist to believe in men and women as God created them. They are each unique and each have their own roles. It is you who want to ignore that reality and treat them as if there is no difference. I didn't say they need to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That is a worn out phrase used by liberals and woke. It shows your true colours. There is nothing dishonourable about having children, raising a family and looking after them in the home. Marriage is honourable. It is foolishness to mock the most important role of women in raising a family. They should be honoured and respected for that role as should men for loving and taking care of their family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 46 minutes ago, blackbird said: It is not misogynist to believe in men and women as God created them. They are each unique and each have their own roles. It is you who want to ignore that reality and treat them as if there is no difference. I didn't say they need to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That is a worn out phrase used by liberals and woke. It shows your true colours. ..... Wow, so your bible is mysogintic?? Each have their own roles??? Like barefoot and pregnant....and in the kitchen??? The phrase is long before the word woke was even invented. My true colours are that women wanted equality andthey got it and I am OK with it. ....seems yours is stuck in prehistoric biblical times and blaming liberals for it LOL So, is the bibel liberal or conservative or just a misogynistic story book? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 (edited) 18 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: So, is the bibel liberal or conservative or just a misogynistic story book? LOL "16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion. 19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. {no…: Heb. no morning} 21 And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward. 22 And they shall look unto the earth; and behold trouble and darkness, dimness of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness. " Isaiah 8:20 KJV You need to study this closely and learn if you do not believe the Bible, study it, and be born again, you are in darkness and won't know the truth. Seeking unto wizards that peep (liberal, left political leaders and pundits) will not lead you into truth, but further into darkness. I met a man in McDs that seemed near madness from seeking unto wizards. He believed money was a bad thing and all his ideas were bizarre. That is where the world system can lead one. Edited April 13 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExFlyer Posted April 13 Report Share Posted April 13 21 minutes ago, blackbird said: "16 Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that ..... You need .... Frack...don't preach to me you AHole!!!! You need to shut up with your bible shit, especially if addressing me! https://medium.com/inspire-believe-grow/misogyny-in-the-bible-a-summary-a254e3905f0b Stay on topic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.