#1  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:40 AM
Women in combat

Quote:
Memo to the US military:
Women are your secret weapon


By F. Brinley Bruton, Staff Writer, NBC News

Even before she moved to Israel, Minnesota-born Cpl. Arrielle Werner was certain she possessed what it took to fight on the front lines.

"I realized that I couldn't be the passive Minnesotan," said the 21-year-old member of Israel's majority female Caracal Battalion, a combat unit which patrols the volatile border with Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. "I knew this was the place for me. My friends back in the States are shocked … now I’m the wild combat soldier."

The self-described "peace keeper of the family" said she is prepared to "give everything" on the battlefield.

That's the sort of gung-ho attitude that military brass appreciate in any soldier -- but it isn't an attitude many expect from a woman.

There have long been barriers to women at war, never mind those assigned to fight at the tip of the spear. But the U.S. government's announcement on Jan. 24 that it was dropping its ban on women in combat units changed everything. (While not officially in combat units, American women have long served side-by-side with male service-members -- in fact, 152 women died while being deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Despite living in a country "where some still think women should stay in the kitchen," Werner feels accepted by male colleagues.

"There is a little bit of a glass ceiling (but) ... you see women every day getting higher and higher," said Werner, who is originally from Minnetonka, Minn. "As long as you want to succeed and want to get stronger … you’re able to handle everything."

While many worry whether society has the stomach to accept women being killed, and being killers, Werner is in no doubt about her place on the battlefield. And she doesn't mince words about her fellow females in the co-ed Caracal Battalion.

"These girls are tough," she said.

Werner, who has been on stationed on the border since October, admitted that she has noticed differences between the sexes.

"Guys are able to really to put a tough face on things (while) girls really take time to put emotion into something," she added. "Women in combat can only bring good things. Two halves of a whole together can only be good."

Not practical or not relevant?
As the U.S. military implements its new and controversial policy ahead of a January 2016 deadline, it will be seeking lessons from Israel and the handful of other countries that currently do not bar women from front-line combat. They include all of Scandinavia, Australia, Eritrea, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Poland and Romania.

Despite examples set by these countries, one of the biggest worries remains that integration will undermine the essential cohesion of the so-called band of brothers that has long defined the camaraderie among fighting men.

"(In the British military) the argument always comes down to the pure practicalities of the effectiveness of the unit rather than if a woman can't do it," said Amyas Godfrey, a former infantry officer and associate fellow at British security think tank the Royal United Services Institution (RUSI).

The United Kingdom is almost alone among Western European countries in not allowing women into front-line combat roles.

"It comes down to 18-to-22-year-old boys not being able to ignore the fact that there is a woman in their midst," he said. Integrating combat units and concentrating on making space for women also "doesn't fit with the practicality of closing with and killing the enemy," he said.

Norwegian Brigadier Odin Johannessen, who served in Bosnia and Afghanistan and commanded military units for 12 years, disagreed with the idea that men and women could not be trained to serve together.

"In mixed units, what is most important is to become a soldier," said the 51-year-old who formerly ran the Norwegian Army Academy in Oslo. "That you are a good soldier tends to be the most prized factor of all, if you are a male or female doesn’t matter."
.
blah blah blah there is more

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...d-sisters?lite
  #2  
Old 02-02-2013, 09:44 AM
It is note worthy to mention that F. Brinley Bruton is a woman. Typical that she hides her name so people do not know here gender.


What she is promoting is a travesty of human kind. War is a terrible thing and putting women in combat makes us a less civilized society. Women in combat should be considered a last resort. I did not say women should not serve. I do not want them in combat situations. This has nothing to do with if women can do it. This has to do if it is right if they do.

So the left wants the second Amendment gone and guns taken out of the hands of citizens, but wants women on the front lines????? I don't understand this logic.

Quote:
As the U.S. military implements its new and controversial policy ahead of a January 2016 deadline, it will be seeking lessons from Israel and the handful of other countries that currently do not bar women from front-line combat. They include all of Scandinavia, Australia, Eritrea, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Poland and Romania
I do not want my country copy these countries.
  #3  
Old 02-02-2013, 11:45 AM
Jesus Christ, you cannot be serious. Women are already serving, and dying, in combat zones. This is just a matter of semantics.

Women say they already serve in combat roles, despite Pentagon’s announcement
By Michael E. Ruane,January 26, 2013

Keesha Dentino poses for a portrait with a young boy. Dentino, a member of the 947th military police detachment from Fort Myer, Va., worked as team leader for convoy security between 2007 - 2008 during OIF V.

When Army Staff Sgt. Keesha Dentino went on combat patrols in Afghanistan last year, the local women did not at first realize that, draped in all her military gear, she, too, was a woman.

They wanted to touch her dark, waist-length hair, which she keeps in a braid, and hear her voice to make sure that “oh my gosh — she’s real.”

Then, she said, they were more at ease, and her presence soothed tensions between the Army and the residents.

The Afghan women were also amazed to see an American woman in a role equal, or almost so, to that of a man.

With the word last week that the Pentagon planned to integrate women into combat units, Dentino, 27, and other soldiers with the fabled Old Guard at Fort Myer noted that women were all but in such roles in places such as Afghanistan.

Still, Dentino said, she welcomed the chance to do battle officially.

“It’s something that I would enjoy,” she said Thursday in an interview at the base. “It’s something that I would just want to do. I think that I could do it.”

Performance in combat is “based on the individual themselves, whether it be a man or a woman,” she said. “If their stress level’s too high, either a man or woman, they might not do well, or they might rise to the occasion and do well.”

“It’s dependent upon the person and not necessarily the gender,” she said. “So I think that women could do well, potentially, in a firefight.”

The Old Guard is known for performing services at Arlington Cemetery and patrolling the Tomb of the Unknowns. But it is also an infantry regiment that has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan several times.

Dentino, an explosives-detection dog handler with the military police at Fort Myer, served for nine months in Afghanistan as a member of a cultural support team, where she would go along on combat patrols to help interact with residents.

She returned in November.

Before that, she served two tours in Iraq, as a gunner and then as a team leader on convoys. “Every deployment, I’ve done combat missions,” said the Homestead, Fla., native.

“The whole females in combat is not a new thing,” she said. “I think people are just not aware that there are women out there who have done it.”

In Afghanistan, local women were “pleasantly surprised to find [American] women in these roles,” she said. “A lot of times, they assume you’re a male, because of all your gear.”

“Then when you actually show that you’re a woman, they’re a lot more receptive to you,” she said. “They’re a lot more willing to converse with you.

“They usually want to touch me,” she said. “They want to know a lot about me. They want to verify that I’m a woman. . . . And so it’s encouraged to kind of wear your hair down, and let them know.”

The women also “want to know why it is that I’m able to be around other men,” she said. “They’re restricted in that culture. To see a woman out there kind of being treated equally by men is unheard of to them. So they’re very intrigued by that.”

As fluid as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could be, there remains a difference between direct combat and noncombat roles, she said.

“Military police, you’re kind of out there,” she said. “You don’t need an escort to leave the gates. . . . Yeah, you’ll get into some firefights. You’ll have IEDs, and stuff like that. But . . . your jobs are different” from combat assignments.

“Your job isn’t really to be the front lines, even though it’s kind of changed since Afghanistan. There really isn’t a front line. The road pretty much is the front lines, when you’re out there driving.

“But when you’re with units that are actually getting into combat, it’s a totally different world. . . . What’s different is, you’re not going into close-quarter combat. . . . You’re not going into a home and looking through rooms looking for targeted individuals. You’re not doing that as a female.”

Capt. Niki Marin, 26, of Naples, Fla., a logistician with the Old Guard who was recently deployed to Afghanistan for a year, expressed caution about the Pentagon’s changes.

“It’s still in the beginning stages,” she said of the decision Thursday.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” she said. “It’s definitely something that was a long time coming, and definitely something that’s essential for our military to be successful. . . . We still have a long way to go.”

Asked whether she felt that she had been barred from something before the announcement, she said, “No, I did not, necessarily.”

Capt. Barron Moffitt, 31, of Corpus Christi, Tex., a company commander who served two tours in Iraq, said of the decision: “It just affords more members of the military more options. . . . As long as standards stay the same in those units, then there shouldn’t be an issue.”

Last week, all three soldiers were involved in presidential inauguration duty, although Dentino had an important, gender-specific task.

At the Commander in Chief’s Ball, “I danced with the vice president of the United States,” she said, laughing. Representing the Army, she was the service member selected to dance with Vice President Biden, who she said was “awesome.”


Link
  #4  
Old 02-02-2013, 01:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
It is note worthy to mention that F. Brinley Bruton is a woman. Typical that she hides her name so people do not know here gender.


What she is promoting is a travesty of human kind. War is a terrible thing and putting women in combat makes us a less civilized society. Women in combat should be considered a last resort. I did not say women should not serve. I do not want them in combat situations. This has nothing to do with if women can do it. This has to do if it is right if they do.

So the left wants the second Amendment gone and guns taken out of the hands of citizens, but wants women on the front lines????? I don't understand this logic.


I do not want my country copy these countries.
So...you're saying women shouldn't be at the front lines even if they want to be? And I don't understand the correlation you're attempting to make between stricter gun regulation and women serving in areas original exclusive to men.
  #5  
Old 02-02-2013, 01:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
So the left wants the second Amendment gone and guns taken out of the hands of citizens, but wants women on the front lines????? I don't understand this logic.
If you made Venn diagrams consisting of these two ideas not only would they not overlap, they wouldn't exist on the same sheet of paper. This is a straw man pure and simple. This is why you don't understand the logic.

Quote:
They include all of Scandinavia, Australia, Eritrea, France, Germany, Lithuania, Netherlands, New Zealand, North Korea, Poland and Romania.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I do not want my country copy these countries.
Yeah, I don't want the US to take a liking to Krautrock, hairy women, boxing kangaroos, or housing Dracula.

I also don't want a human rights record similar to North Korea and Eritrea. Oh wait! Those are the only two countries and their appearance on that list doesn't really prove anything except maybe the existence of outliers.
  #6  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Jesus Christ, you cannot be serious. Women are already serving, and dying, in combat zones. This is just a matter of semantics.
I am serious and don't call me Jesus Christ. LOL
It is not semantics. If you were in the military and on the front lines, you would know the difference. Should I assume you never served?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
So...you're saying women shouldn't be at the front lines even if they want to be? And I don't understand the correlation you're attempting to make between stricter gun regulation and women serving in areas original exclusive to men.
That is exactly what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with saying it either.

It is the exact same type of statement people say about Republicans regarding the death penalty and abortion. And I did not say stricter gun control. I said people on the left would love to see all guns be banned. Many have come out and said it many times. I know they can't do that, so they default to gun controls. There are people out there who would support getting rid of guns and putting women on the front lines. That does not make sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
If you made Venn diagrams consisting of these two ideas not only would they not overlap, they wouldn't exist on the same sheet of paper. This is a straw man pure and simple. This is why you don't understand the logic.
.
See note above.
"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling."
  #7  
Old 02-02-2013, 04:44 PM
DO I assume you three have no issue with women on the front lines? You did not address that at all.
  #8  
Old 02-02-2013, 06:44 PM
I find the general views the GOP holds about what they think of soldiers to be a bit... funny.

Gay soldiers: Sexual predators who think of nothing but their plots to rape all their straight counterparts.

Women soldiers: Seductive temptresses who will distract the men with their irresistible feminine charm who will then, at the first sign of conflict, clutch their pearls, faint, and wait to be rescued by the men.

Straight male soldiers: Sex crazed maniacs who will have to fight the constant urge to fuck every woman they see, while simultaneously cower in fear that another dude might see his junk in the shower.


In the end, these people are all professional and they'll do their jobs the same way tomorrow as they did yesterday. The GOP was unequivocally wrong about gays in the military, and now they are wrong about women serving. If they can pass the standards, then they can do the job.


All These Objections to Women in Combat Are Dumb



And to answer your question: No, I've never served. That fact is also irrelevant.
  #9  
Old 02-02-2013, 06:59 PM
Whatever facillitates getting rid of sociopaths, male or female, is a good thing by me.
  #10  
Old 02-03-2013, 01:54 AM
Women's biggest issue in the military is being raped by their fellow soldiers, not being in combat. They were at least trained for the latter.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
"What she is promoting is a travesty of human kind. War is a terrible thing and putting women in combat makes us a less civilized society. Women in combat should be considered a last resort. I did not say women should not serve. I do not want them in combat situations. This has nothing to do with if women can do it. This has to do if it is right if they do."
So in essence you are saying men are more deserving to die in combat? War is terrible for everyone yet there are men as well as women willing to go into that fray to defend you and your's. If you should have a problem with anything, then take issue with the need for unnecessary wars that put both men an women in harm's way. War is uncivilized to begin with, how does having women in combat (and they have already been) make it more uncivil? It doesn't, its a semantic argument based on some convoluted idea that overvalues women (which is laughable given the statistics on women's chances of being raped in the service and their treatment after) over men. Insulting both genders.

If you sign up for military service, especially during a war or occupations, it should be a given that you've accepted the very real possibility of being injured or killed in combat. Combat being another highly likely scenario no matter what department of the military you work in as long as you're deployed in a warzone and move about.

I find your wording very curious in its vagueness. In fact you've spoken more about the second amendment and liberals banning guns than you have about the very issue you've started a thread about. Why are women a "last resort" option? Are we the fine china saved for a special occasion or the bottom of the barrel used only when there's nothing better available? What exactly is your argument explaining how women in combat is possibly the wrong thing to do"?

The fact of the matter is women have already been serving in combat, this ruling is merely a formality acknowledging the reality. Only now women will receive the requisite benefits and honor that are supposed to follow. The realities of Afghanistan and Iraq forced women to unofficially join the front lines as medics, military police, and intelligence officers. But since women were technically banned from combat, they weren't able to move up the ranks to higher-paid, elite positions. That constitutes discrimination — and also helped foster an environment in which massive sexual assault scandals were par for the course.

And no, the standard tests required to enter certain positions, like the Infantry Officer Course, will not be "watered down" in order to allow women in. Only 2 women have tried out and failed, along with 25% of the men who tried out as well in one class.

This is same level of griping and outrage that happened when other social experiments like integration, and women first being allowed to enlist were introduced. This argument regarding certain people's reasonings against women being in harm's way reminds me of Joe's argument about women being able to vote in Little Women:

Joe:I find it poor logic to say that because women are good, women should vote. Men do not vote because they are good; they vote because they are male, and women should vote, not because we are angels and men are animals, but because we are human beings and citizens of this country.

Last edited by electriclite; 02-03-2013 at 02:23 AM..
  #11  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post

And to answer your question: No, I've never served. That fact is also irrelevant.
Completely relevant. Let me clue you in, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you want to know what are some of the worst things a soldier will have to do or see? Kill or see the dead body of a child or a woman as a result of war. Seeing that messes with our minds. To quote the Joker in The Dark Knight, "Because it is all part of the plan" Seeing that stuff is not part of the plan. I can not or will not talk about what I have seen during combat, but I have seen and done a lot. I have seen the toughest SOB's on this earth cry like a baby with some of the shit we have seen. It is hardwired into our brains what you will see and what your ethics will tell you what is right and wrong to see on the battlefield. Why are there so many ex soldiers offing themselves daily? We have seen some pretty shitty stuff and we can't get over it. I think about some shit every single day. Your average soldier can not deal with the down side of women in combat and this whole social agenda bullshit is not being put forth by generals and people who understand war, but by politicians and know it all media members and it is sickening.
  #12  
Old 02-03-2013, 03:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
The fact of the matter is women have already been serving in combat, this ruling is merely a formality acknowledging the reality. ]
LOL You make me laugh man. You keep enjoying the news. Trust me, as a person who served and was in combat, women are not serving in the manner you think they are. I see it was a mistake to bother to have this thread.

FYI Being vague is what military people do, because everything is classified.
  #13  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I

That is exactly what I am saying. There is nothing wrong with saying it either.

It is the exact same type of statement people say about Republicans regarding the death penalty and abortion. And I did not say stricter gun control. I said people on the left would love to see all guns be banned. Many have come out and said it many times. I know they can't do that, so they default to gun controls. There are people out there who would support getting rid of guns and putting women on the front lines. That does not make sense to me.
You sound like an in the closet misogynist to me. You're essentially saying women shouldn't serve the front lines in combat because it's an exclusive, life risking experience that women shouldn't be voluntarily able to endure (one again, even if they wanted to). I don't get the logic here. So what if you've served in the military and are adamantly against it? It's like being in WWII and blacks are finally starting to be integrated within certain ranks that were only designed for whites and I say, "I have a problem with blacks being awarded that rank, and those who question my opinion who haven't been in the military don't have the right to criticize because they don't know anything."

Regarding gun control (I don't want to get off topic here), some Democrats have said they want all guns banned? Have 'some' indeed said this, sure. Will this happen? No, it's called checks and balances. Some Republicans have said they don't want biological evolution taught in schools, homosexuals to be banned from being teachers, and violent video games to be banned. That does not make sense to me.
  #14  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Completely relevant. Let me clue you in, because you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you want to know what are some of the worst things a soldier will have to do or see? Kill or see the dead body of a child or a woman as a result of war. Seeing that messes with our minds. To quote the Joker in The Dark Knight, "Because it is all part of the plan" Seeing that stuff is not part of the plan. I can not or will not talk about what I have seen during combat, but I have seen and done a lot. I have seen the toughest SOB's on this earth cry like a baby with some of the shit we have seen. It is hardwired into our brains what you will see and what your ethics will tell you what is right and wrong to see on the battlefield. Why are there so many ex soldiers offing themselves daily? We have seen some pretty shitty stuff and we can't get over it. I think about some shit every single day. Your average soldier can not deal with the down side of women in combat and this whole social agenda bullshit is not being put forth by generals and people who understand war, but by politicians and know it all media members and it is sickening.

Ah, so, what you are saying is that, deep down, all women are pussies; delicate flowers who must be safeguarded at all times, lest they break a nail. I'm sure they'd be glad to know what you think is best for them.
  #15  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
LOL You make me laugh man. You keep enjoying the news. Trust me, as a person who served and was in combat, women are not serving in the manner you think they are. I see it was a mistake to bother to have this thread.

FYI Being vague is what military people do, because everything is classified.

My dad's a Vietnam vet, a couple of my cousins served in Iraq along with my best friend's brother (who is currently going through some serious PTSD and is homeless), I'm friends with a guy who used to be in the Navy and I've volunteered at the VA. I've heard the stories. Heck I grew up with my dad talking about his Vietnam experiences like they were bedtime stories (How many Kindergartners did you know who knew what a tiger trap was for?)From my experience, military people tend to be vague because the experiences are traumatic and not necessarily suitable for entertaining conversation. My father however was surprisingly very stable and open about his experiences in war.

I get the good intentions behind the reasons you gave Badbird, but no matter how good the intentions it still boils down to controlling women's experiences and choices. Very bad things happen in war and no one wants any of the people in the military to go through it. How many parents were horrified at the idea of their children signing up to be part of the meat grinder? But they let them go because 1.) they had no real control in the matter 2.) they acknowledged their children were adults and had the right to make decisions about their lives and accept the consequences.

Do you believe the women in the service aren't aware of the horror stories? That they live in a vacuum protected from the realities of war? There are seriously injured female soldiers, some of them amputees, in various military hospitals around the world. Are you seriously going to continue telling me they have not seen active combat or active combat according to your personal experience? More importantly: would you tell them?

Last edited by electriclite; 02-03-2013 at 02:28 PM..
  #16  
Old 02-05-2013, 07:40 PM
Well l have to say women should not be on the front line
I know there want to be the same as there male conter part but if caught by the other side the things they could do to a woman would be worse than a man

of cause l know that men in sevice if caught by the other side can go through terrlibe things

But think if you were captureed and there were females caught with you

The things a group of men could do to a woman would be horrible and just say as a male you were seeing these women gang raped

A woman with a rifle is okay because she has a weapon but if she does not have that she is doomed

I am saying this as a woman and l know that we have smart women who can do anything or could out do a man in alot of things but have a woman on the frontline would be a hassle for the male soldiers

In Australia the men only fight but like the USA the goverment is thinking of bringing women to the front line too

I just think it is a terrible mistake

It is good having equal rights and be able to do things most men do but there should be a limit
  #17  
Old 02-05-2013, 07:59 PM
I think Walter E. Williams puts it best:

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age, the minimum requirement is 13 pushups, 47 situps and a 19:42 two-mile run. Why the difference in fitness requirements? "USMC Women in the Service Restrictions Review" found that women, on average, have 20 percent lower aerobic power, 40 percent lower muscle strength, 47 percent less lifting strength and 26 percent slower marching speed than men.

William Gregor, professor of social sciences at the Army's Command and General Staff College, reports that in tests of aerobic capacity, the records show, only 74 of 8,385 Reserve Officers' Training Corps women attained the level of the lowest 16 percent of men. The "fight load" – the gear an infantryman carries on patrol – is 35 percent of the average man's body weight but 50 percent of the average Army woman's weight. In his examination of physical fitness test results from the ROTC, dating back to 1992, and 74,000 records of male and female commissioned officers, only 2.9 percent of women were able to attain the men's average pushup ability and time in the two-mile run.

In a January report titled "Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women in Land Combat" (http://tinyurl.com/axn9l93) Elaine Donnelly, director of the Center for Military Readiness, points to U.S. Army studies showing that women are twice as likely to suffer injuries and are three times more undeployable than men. Women are less likely to be able to march under load – 12.4 miles in five hours with an 83-pound assault load – and to be able to crawl, sprint, negotiate obstacles with that load or move a casualty weighing 165 pounds or more while carrying that load. Plus, there are muscle-challenging feats, even for men, such as field repairs on an M1A1 Abrams tank.

Then there's the pregnancy issue, which makes women three to four times as likely as men to be undeployable. And once deployed, they often have to be medically evacuated, leaving units understrength. Finally, there's another difference between men and women rarely considered in deliberation about whether women should be in combat. All measures of physical aggressiveness show that men, maybe because of testosterone levels 10 times higher, are more aggressive, competitive and hostile than women. Those attributes are desirable for combat.

Here are a couple of what-if questions. Suppose a combat unit is retreating in mountainous terrain in Afghanistan, where a person's aerobic capacity really makes a difference, and the women in the unit can't keep up with the men. What would you propose, leaving the women behind to possibly be captured by the Taliban or having the unit slow down so the women can keep up, thereby risking causalities or capture? What if a male soldier is washed out of the Army's Advanced Infantry Training program because he cannot pass its physical fitness test whereas a female soldier who can't perform at his level is retained? Should male soldiers be able to bring suit and be awarded damages for sex discrimination? How much respect can a male soldier have for his female counterpart, who is held to lower performance standards?

There's another issue. The Selective Service System's website has the following message about draft registration: "Even though the Secretary of Defense has decided to allow women in combat jobs, the law has not been changed to include this. Consequently, only men are currently required to register by law with Selective Service during ages 18 thru 25. Women still do not register." How can that, coupled with differences in performance standards, possibly be consistent with the Defense Department's stated agenda "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field"?
  #18  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:15 PM
Years ago,
I found a video on youtube of two women with massive boobs & tiny micro-bikinis who were locked in combat.
I wanted to post here in this thread,
but it's been years that I've watched anything on youtube,
and it seems like the site has done some serious housecleaning since then.
  #19  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Guiltless View Post
What if a male soldier is washed out of the Army's Advanced Infantry Training program because he cannot pass its physical fitness test whereas a female soldier who can't perform at his level is retained? Should male soldiers be able to bring suit and be awarded damages for sex discrimination? How much respect can a male soldier have for his female counterpart, who is held to lower performance standards[/I]

Two women already washed out of AIT program, along with 25% of their male class members. They weren't given special privileges in order to be retained.

I agree, we shouldn't be lowering any bars, or watering down any procedures, but you should be allowed to at least be able to try. The thing is, the military already has methods in place to keep men who can't carry a load or pass a certain requirement out of jobs that require a specific standard to be met in order to qualify. What is so hard about applying rules that are already in effect?

And to quote a female soldier, in regards to having them experience what the men do in combat:

"Uh, hi. Female War Veteran here. War sucks. Combat sucks. Seeing your buddies hurt or killed is the worst thing ever. But we are soldiers for the same reasons the men are. We know what we are doing, we know what our job is, and we do it. I *have* killed people in combat. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. But I coped, I'm still in, and I will go back if they call me. Because I am a soldier, and it's not any worse for me than it is for a guy."

And here's a women who coped when it was specifically worse for her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhonda_Cornum

Last edited by electriclite; 02-05-2013 at 08:45 PM..
  #20  
Old 02-05-2013, 08:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
Two women already washed out of AIT program, along with 25% of their male class members. They weren't given special privileges in order to be retained.

I agree, we shouldn't be lowering any bars, or watering down any procedures, but you should be allowed to at least be able to try. The thing is, the military already has methods in place to keep men who can't carry a load or pass a certain requirement out of jobs that require a specific standard to be met in order to qualify. What is so hard about applying rules that are already in effect?

And to quote a female soldier, in regards to having them experience what the men do in combat:

"Uh, hi. Female War Veteran here. War sucks. Combat sucks. Seeing your buddies hurt or killed is the worst thing ever. But we are soldiers for the same reasons the men are. We know what we are doing, we know what our job is, and we do it. I *have* killed people in combat. It was one of the worst experiences of my life. But I coped, I'm still in, and I will go back if they call me. Because I am a soldier, and it's not any worse for me than it is for a guy."
She sounds like a typical Stockholm Syndrome in effect to me. Just what we need, women with PTSD joining law enforcement or other hands-on gov't jobs, just like is happening with returning veteran men. Something truly bad is gonna give with this shit.
  #21  
Old 11-19-2013, 02:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
I find the general views the GOP holds about what they think of soldiers to be a bit... funny.
I find your general view on things that aren't so far left leaning as to approach insanity to be a bit disturbing.

Is it possible that you really believe you are more enlightened than the rest of us because you're a liberal?

And the fact that you've never been near live gunfire directed at other human beings definitely makes your opinion on who should and shouldn't be in combat completely irrelevant and worthless.
  #22  
Old 11-19-2013, 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSU80 View Post
I find your general view on things that aren't so far left leaning as to approach insanity to be a bit disturbing.

Is it possible that you really believe you are more enlightened than the rest of us because you're a liberal?

And the fact that you've never been near live gunfire directed at other human beings definitely makes your opinion on who should and shouldn't be in combat completely irrelevant and worthless.
Way to dig up old bones.

I'm sure he wasn't implying a blanket statement that all members of the GOP are nut bags, just the "general views" shared commonly by most are a bit, well, funny. And once again, how does someone's lack of experience being in a firefight negate them from having a valid point about such combat not being mutually exclusive to one gender in particular? I have to assume you yourself served on the front lines and have some stories in order to validate your reasons for women being unfit for duty.
  #23  
Old 11-21-2013, 01:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
Way to dig up old bones.

I'm sure he wasn't implying a blanket statement that all members of the GOP are nut bags, just the "general views" shared commonly by most are a bit, well, funny. And once again, how does someone's lack of experience being in a firefight negate them from having a valid point about such combat not being mutually exclusive to one gender in particular? I have to assume you yourself served on the front lines and have some stories in order to validate your reasons for women being unfit for duty.

I think the "general views" of most progessive democrats are a bit, well, funny.

It's perfectly okay to terminate a pregnancy in the sixth or seventh month but if I fish or hunt, I'm a heartless redneck psychopath? It's okay to call anyone who believes in God a shallow minded retard with ancient views but if someone's Muslim child wants to drop a prayer mat and face west in front of my children in school, we're all supposed to turn a blind eye and accept diversity.
  #24  
Old 11-21-2013, 08:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSU80 View Post
I think the "general views" of most progessive democrats are a bit, well, funny.

It's perfectly okay to terminate a pregnancy in the sixth or seventh month but if I fish or hunt, I'm a heartless redneck psychopath? It's okay to call anyone who believes in God a shallow minded retard with ancient views but if someone's Muslim child wants to drop a prayer mat and face west in front of my children in school, we're all supposed to turn a blind eye and accept diversity.
Thanks for completely redirecting this conversation from women in combat to "I hate those stupid Democrats because they took our guns!"
  #25  
Old 11-21-2013, 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Batty View Post
Thanks for completely redirecting this conversation from women in combat to "I hate those stupid Democrats because they took our guns!"
Your last sentence completely validates my belief that liberal democrats are the most self righteous group of people on the planet. And, no one took anyone's guns. And anyone who really thinks that will ever happen is a fool and living in a dream world.

Secondly, no I never served on the front lines. That's the reason I didn't state a concrete, yes-I'm-right opinion on the matter. However I know plenty of people who have been in combat and they all share the view that women have no place in a firefight. Are you saying the opinion of men who have been shot at means nothing?
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump