hope not, es would bring bad luck to the male soldiers and would lead to more casualities that could've been prevented.
hope not, es would bring bad luck to the male soldiers and would lead to more casualities that could've been prevented.
they wanted to be equal so lets send them off to die instead of being sexist and treating men like they're inferior and disposable, it's only fair if you want true equality imho
But the Repugs, in their wonderful strategy, "Christian" suckering, and ideology to win the women votes, will block any Equal Pay regulations, as well as block VAWA.
What's great about this is that women raped by their fellow soldiers will be "destroyed evidence" in combat.
if (s)he dies, (s)he dies.
It was never about that. I was once against women in combat for a few reasons, but today, for a host of different reasons, as long as they can physically keep up, I'm OK with it.
They cannot physically keep up. Their PT standards are far lower that of men. Even in running.
If a woman can put 150 lbs on her back with her already 60 lbs of equipment and walk for 20 miles while scanning their area, I'd be fine with it.
If a woman can put a 200 lbs person on her back with her 60 lbs of equipment and walk a half mile, I'd be fine with it.
Murdoch's Sheet worries about
Wall Street Journal: Women Shouldn’t Be In Combat Because Men Poop
http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...ause-men-poop/
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.
But doesn't seem to be worried about women excreting and changing tampons around men.
That is the key. Not have two different standards. I do believe in equality. It is those who want two different standards that do not.
Somehow, I just knew this thread would go like this...........
LMAO ting in front of a is traumatizing but blowing up scores of children to smithereens is not
Yes, because I'm going to be worried about some butch broad laughing at my when there are people trying to kill me.
RT called a chick sir 5 times today while getting my oil changed on my truck. Looked at the name tag, said "Katie". Thought he was a bit boyish. S(he) had a dip in it's mouth.
only thing good about women participating in combat is when one of your men get shot and you don't have no bondage to stuff the bleeding wound, you can ask one of your female teammates for a piece of tampon to stop the bleeding and save the man's life.
Does anyone know the military regulations now regarding women? I think they have to have the ability to shower every 72 hours
Wow, you sure hate women.
you must not have seem some butch es play in a compe ive soccer team
those mean es will kick your ass 10 times out of 10
I'm not saying there are no girls out there who can do that. I'm saying they are going to lower the standard for them like they did when they originally let them in.
Dude, seriously. I play coed soccer, it's always the es who play dirty - grabing your shirt, kicking the shins, pushing while pretending to go for the ball.
The worst part is if you play the same way and body check them to the ground, suddenly it's not fair and you get a yellow card
Well, you can bet that the men in the unit would be willing to give them a golden shower in combat when that 72 hrs is up.
Women have been more or less serving in direct combat roles ever since the wars started in 2001. There is little in the way of real "front lines" anymore and women, even if they're serving on bases (in-theater), are still in harms way on the reg. MP's, Truck Drivers, Fuelers, Clerks, Ammo, it just doesn't matter anymore in today's conflicts. If you get in a vehicle and drive off a base there's a good goddamn chance you could be hit, at any time.
Few roles remain in the Army or the Marines that aren't mechanized in some way, and the physical standards in those units wash out plenty of guys every year. The reality is that women, outside of a very, very small number, just won't be able to hack the conditions in those few units (Spec Ops, Rangers, Recon, certain infantry like 10th mtn e.g.). Survival of the fittest will remain the rule in those particular organizations and thus will probably remain 99% male.
However, there is no reason women shouldn't be in Tank units, Stryker units, Artillery units (self-propelled and towed), ADA units, and any other mechanized combat arm I forgot to mention.
The ing Israeli's allow women on their sniper teams (among many other combat roles), and there are other countries who already allow a greater presence than we do.
ROK (S. Korean) units, some of the most hardcore I've ever seen, allow women in some of their Armored and Artillery units as well.The number of countries that have opened frontline combat positions is also larger than you might think (or than media reports sometimes suggest). A2010 survey by the British Ministry of Defense listed Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Sweden as countries that allow women in "close combat roles," defined as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile forces personnel." Australia joined that list in September 2011 when it opened its front-line units — including one of the largest contingents in Afghanistan — to women. http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146802589/foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines
I will say that if women are going to be in frontline organizations, they damn well better be able to meet the same standards as the men. PT standards can be slightly different (as they already are for varying ages), but otherwise there should be no differences at all.
From a practical standpoint, it will help with manpower as well as morale, imo. I damn sure would have liked some women around during my time, no matter how busted (the Army has the worst looking chicks on the planet) they were. If they can hack it, fine with me. The biggest problem will be with the Army/Marine bureaucracy, not the grunts at ground level who make a living adjusting to ever-changing scenarios.
I must break you.
If they allow the Commander to maintain his standard then whatever. But whatever.
Women have not been serving in direct combat. I know all the libs are saying that. fuelers, and truck drivers are not combat arms. In no way whatsoever. Their mentality to their training is not combat arms. Yeah they go outside their fob on war, but that doesn't mean they are in a combat role. if they get hit, they don't action on.
They should be allowed to try. The washout rate needs to be made available to the public however to relieve some of the liberal bull . When that happens, the standards will be lowered for them so they have the same pass/fail rate as men. Those making these rule changes do not fight and quite likely have no children in the military fighting in combat arms roles.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)