Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,773
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by North Country View Post
    Why shouldn't they?
    The only argument i have heard, and i believe it is BS, is "unit cohesion".

    I dont even know a woman being there would affect it. From my understanding of this report is that they agree that it is BS.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The North Pole
    Posts
    3,774
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The only argument i have heard, and i believe it is BS, is "unit cohesion".

    I dont even know a woman being there would affect it. From my understanding of this report is that they agree that it is BS.
    Yup, no surprise that excuse is BS. If that's the case, why not divide the units up according to race and social status?

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The only argument i have heard, and i believe it is BS, is "unit cohesion".

    I dont even know a woman being there would affect it. From my understanding of this report is that they agree that it is BS.
    This is just a guess, but I'm guessing pregnancy is an issue. If a unit is about to deploy, and a female gets pregnant before the deployment, it could definitely affect unit cohesion.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    This is just a guess, but I'm guessing pregnancy is an issue. If a unit is about to deploy, and a female gets pregnant before the deployment, it could definitely affect unit cohesion.
    Huh? That makes no sense.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,252
    vCash
    1500
    Women have been serving in combat for years, they're called the French, the Government just didn't want you to know that.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    Huh? That makes no sense.
    How does that make no sense? When you're preparing for a deployment you can't just replace someone in the blink of an eye. Being short a soldier when in a combat zone would affect unit cohesion, especially when you've been training in the field with that soldier. That's why stop-loss was put in affect. Losing a soldier mid tour is not conducive to good unit cohesion.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,773
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    This is just a guess, but I'm guessing pregnancy is an issue. If a unit is about to deploy, and a female gets pregnant before the deployment, it could definitely affect unit cohesion.
    What if a man gets in a car accident before deployment, doesnt that affect unit cohesion? What if a man gets his wife pregnant before deployment, doesnt that affect unit cohesion? There are a million things that men can do to affect unit cohesion and the same can be said for men. That argument comes from the standpoint that all women are going to go out there and have sex each night and attempt to get pregnant and doesnt give them any credit for having commitment to serve their country and keep themselves in line with the same self restraint that a man would be assumed to have.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The North Pole
    Posts
    3,774
    vCash
    1500
    What if a mean gets testicular cancer prior to deployment? Better not let them serve I guess.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by North Country View Post
    What if a mean gets testicular cancer prior to deployment? Better not let them serve I guess.
    There's a huge difference between an illness and something that is preventable. This document is certainly outdated, but this female soldier does a pretty good job explaining the problems with pregnancy in the military. This was also written when we weren't at a time of war, so it is even a bigger issue now.

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/acsc/99-016.pdf

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    How does that make no sense? When you're preparing for a deployment you can't just replace someone in the blink of an eye. Being short a soldier when in a combat zone would affect unit cohesion, especially when you've been training in the field with that soldier. That's why stop-loss was put in affect. Losing a soldier mid tour is not conducive to good unit cohesion.
    I have no clue what you're talking about. Soldiers die. That's like the only thing they do for sure. How's that for "being short a soldier"? If we were that worried about unit cohesion, how about not going into battle at all?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by philab View Post
    I have no clue what you're talking about. Soldiers die. That's like the only thing they do for sure. How's that for "being short a soldier"? If we were that worried about unit cohesion, how about not going into battle at all?
    I shouldn't even respond to your ********, but yet again you mention something that isn't preventable. Whether you like it or not, there will always be war and there will always be soldiers that get killed. Keep living in your fantasy world where the world is a peaceful place.

    I'd also like to add, what the hell do you think happens to unit cohesion when a soldier gets killed? Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
    Last edited by Sox_13; 01-18-2011 at 01:38 AM.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,773
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    I shouldn't even respond to your ********, but yet again you mention something that isn't preventable. Whether you like it or not, there will always be war and there will always be soldiers that get killed. Keep living in your fantasy world where the world is a peaceful place.

    I'd also like to add, what the hell do you think happens to unit cohesion when a soldier gets killed? Your post had absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.
    I agree that there will always be war, so why should we eliminate potential servicewomen? I dont think that there is any disillusion that the world is peaceful. But i just dont get the logic in denying our troops the best possible soldiers we can give them, whether they be man/woman/gay/straight.

    I wont respond to the soldiers dying thing because i dont think it is appropriate.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I agree that there will always be war, so why should we eliminate potential servicewomen? I dont think that there is any disillusion that the world is peaceful. But i just dont get the logic in denying our troops the best possible soldiers we can give them, whether they be man/woman/gay/straight.

    I wont respond to the soldiers dying thing because i dont think it is appropriate.
    I'm not arguing that as my first post said. If a female can cut it by the male standards, they should be able to perform the same job. Trust me, there's plenty of males with combat MOS's that are complete **** bags too. All I'm saying is pregnancy is one of the larger issues in the military, and it will have an affect on unit cohesion and unit readiness. And to me, it is something that is going to have to be addressed.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,773
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    I'm not arguing that as my first post said. If a female can cut it by the male standards, they should be able to perform the same job. Trust me, there's plenty of males with combat MOS's that are complete **** bags too. All I'm saying is pregnancy is one of the larger issues in the military, and it will have an affect on unit cohesion and unit readiness. And to me, it is something that is going to have to be addressed.
    According to what i am reading there are approximately 2000 women each year in the Armed Services who get pregnant, and i admit that is 2000 too high. According to Wikipedia there are roughly 1.5M people in the Armed Services. That accounts for .13% of soldiers. It may be one of the larger issues, it appears to be well overblown in an attempt by some individuals to just keep women out of the armed services. Keeping women out of the armed service because a small number of them choose to get pregnant during service makes no sense to me. Punishing the (by a 20% estimate i have read) 300K female soldiers out of real combat for 2000 that cant follow the rules is just irresponsible.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Va Beach by way of NJ by way of Staten Island
    Posts
    1,616
    vCash
    1500
    I can tell you from first hand experience that come deployment time women start getting pregnant, so do military spouses it's the nature of the animal, getting in the last bit of loving you'll get for 6-18 months tend to produce babies.
    WWW.INDUCTDONNIE.COM
    Click here show your support for Donnie Baseball


    c'mon son!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •