Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    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.
    My fantasy world? What are you talking about? Where did I give ANY indication that I believe 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.
    That's exactly my point! Reading comprehension, eh?

    If a soldier gets killed, of course unit cohesion is affected. Soldiers are going to get killed, and thus unit cohesion will be affected. To deny pregnant women because it might also affect unit cohesion (which is a false premise anyway, but even taking it at face) makes no sense.

    And I really don't appreciate the tone here. Come across as quite an ***hole.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Sox messaged me where i got my numbers from (the 2000 number in particular) and it dawned on me, where these a college paper i would be expelled for plagiarism as i did not put the source.

    I got it from this publication. The overall premise, as i gathered it, was that pregnancy does affect readiness but instead of banning service women we need to find a way to make it work more in tune. One of the recommendations that she (it was written by a woman) is to used reservists when women get pregnant. It gets them military experience and keeps the army from being down soldiers. I think that she speaks from a unique perspective on the true affects.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    vCash
    1912
    What is this world coming to. In now way should women be allowed to perform combat missions. Combat is life or death for everyone involved and women serving would cost alot more deaths. Women cant keep up with men that's the bottom line.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,010
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Sox messaged me where i got my numbers from (the 2000 number in particular) and it dawned on me, where these a college paper i would be expelled for plagiarism as i did not put the source.

    I got it from this publication. The overall premise, as i gathered it, was that pregnancy does affect readiness but instead of banning service women we need to find a way to make it work more in tune. One of the recommendations that she (it was written by a woman) is to used reservists when women get pregnant. It gets them military experience and keeps the army from being down soldiers. I think that she speaks from a unique perspective on the true affects.
    That article is pretty useless.

    Pregnancy affects readiness? Shocker. Pregnancy affects unit cohesion? Well, maybe if you believe her hypotheticals. There's actually no evidence given to support that one.

    I mean, all in all we're talking an increase in combat soldiers. So a pregnant soldier decreases unit size, but we're still at net gains for the day. If this is such a big deal, how about basing unit size on the number of males and then distribute the females from there. In other words, assume that every woman will get pregnant. There. How hard was that?

    The amount of tiptoeing, pussyfooting, moaning, and pseudopsychological garbage that comes out in support of these outmoded policies never ceases to amaze me. Soldiers take orders, no questions asked. It's the most hierarchical facet of "society" there is. If a soldier doesn't like a policy, if he can't live with another soldier, if he "resents" a pregnant soldier ... discipline him. Problem solved. Private Bob doesn't get to question orders from the top, so why the hell do we care what Private Bob thinks about the order? As long as we know the order is reasoned, that's all that matters.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    What is this world coming to. In now way should women be allowed to perform combat missions. Combat is life or death for everyone involved and women serving would cost alot more deaths. Women cant keep up with men that's the bottom line.
    That is filled with so many factual inaccuracies, myths, and superstitions. Men and women deserve every right to compete for the spot. Why is there any harm in allowing them the same opportunity to get a spot. There is nothing in this that says there will be a quota, this is saying that they should be given the opportunity. Unless you can prove that giving women a CHANCE is harmful to soldiers lives please keep these kinds of falsehoods out of the discussion.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,072
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    What is this world coming to. In now way should women be allowed to perform combat missions. Combat is life or death for everyone involved and women serving would cost alot more deaths. Women cant keep up with men that's the bottom line.
    Please tell me that was sarcasm.

    Maybe we should keep them out of offices too, since their work can't be as good as a man's. Then they can stay home and make babies and have my dinner ready.

    ....see like THAT....sarcasm right?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    vCash
    1912
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Please tell me that was sarcasm.

    Maybe we should keep them out of offices too, since their work can't be as good as a man's. Then they can stay home and make babies and have my dinner ready.

    ....see like THAT....sarcasm right?
    First off stupid response!

    If this come to fruition then there will be 1 maybe 2% that will be physically able to handle Combat situations and that is speaking from experience. There are reasons only men handle combat missions and one of those major reasons its alot different seeing a dead women there then a dead man, try arguing it all you want but its just how it is. In the end, this wont pass and if it does most women wont want to or will not be able to.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    First off stupid response!

    If this come to fruition then there will be 1 maybe 2% that will be physically able to handle Combat situations and that is speaking from experience. There are reasons only men handle combat missions and one of those major reasons its alot different seeing a dead women there then a dead man, try arguing it all you want but its just how it is. In the end, this wont pass and if it does most women wont want to or will not be able to.
    So what harm is there in letting women compete for a chance? Again, this isnt a quota system, this is giving them the chance to do the job. One of my sociology teachers my freshman year was one of the first female cops in NYC and she proved all these stereotypes wrong.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    25,683
    vCash
    1500
    The reason certain countries dont allow woman to serve on the front lines (Israel for instnace) is because of the risk that the soldiers get captured and raped among other things and the videos are put onto the internet which is more likely and more damaging with woman.

    I was discussing this with someone who used to serve in the IDF and that's what they said not that I agree with it.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    33,072
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    First off stupid response!
    Thanks, I love you too.

    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    If this come to fruition then there will be 1 maybe 2% that will be physically able to handle Combat situations and that is speaking from experience.
    Experience as a woman trying to make it in the military? Even if it was 1-2% (which I firmly believe is way off, based on my experience), the point is they shouldn't be flat out excluded; they deserve a chance. Again we're talking about an organization so desperate for help they go to the poorest sections of America and advertise on TV....they shouldn't be rejecting people before they learn something about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    There are reasons only men handle combat missions and one of those major reasons its alot different seeing a dead women there then a dead man, try arguing it all you want but its just how it is. In the end, this wont pass and if it does most women wont want to or will not be able to.
    Oh ok

    It doesn't matter if most women won't want to or won't be able to. On a whole, most men in this country don't want to either. It's a matter of having an open policy. This isn't affirmative action; we're not saying YOU MUST TAKE WOMEN. We're saying give them the shot to serve their country.

    I have 5 friends who have served in Iraq and 3 of them were women, one who made captain in Baghdad as a nurse, but had to take on a battle role more times than necessary and could "man-up" more than most guys I know. This may not be the norm, but she deserves the chance just as much as anyone else.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    vCash
    1912
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    Thanks, I love you too.



    Experience as a woman trying to make it in the military? Even if it was 1-2% (which I firmly believe is way off, based on my experience), the point is they shouldn't be flat out excluded; they deserve a chance. Again we're talking about an organization so desperate for help they go to the poorest sections of America and advertise on TV....they shouldn't be rejecting people before they learn something about them.



    Oh ok

    It doesn't matter if most women won't want to or won't be able to. On a whole, most men in this country don't want to either. It's a matter of having an open policy. This isn't affirmative action; we're not saying YOU MUST TAKE WOMEN. We're saying give them the shot to serve their country.

    I have 5 friends who have served in Iraq and 3 of them were women, one who made captain in Baghdad as a nurse, but had to take on a battle role more times than necessary and could "man-up" more than most guys I know. This may not be the norm, but she deserves the chance just as much as anyone else.
    I have served with plenty of women over there that doesnt mean anything and being a nurse is alot different than being involved in day to day combat missions but i will digress from my argument there are women, albeit a small few, who are capable of serving in combat operations. As long as they are not treated differently and held to the same high standard as the male soldiers and that includes physical training. I am willing to bet this isnt going to happen though.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by carter80 View Post
    I have served with plenty of women over there that doesnt mean anything and being a nurse is alot different than being involved in day to day combat missions but i will digress from my argument there are women, albeit a small few, who are capable of serving in combat operations. As long as they are not treated differently and held to the same high standard as the male soldiers and that includes physical training. I am willing to bet this isnt going to happen though.
    That's the main reason it doesn't bother me if this happens. The percent of women that will be able to cut it in a combat MOS is going to be so small. There are very few women, or any, that I knew in the military that could handle the strain of being an infantrymen day in and day out. The strain it puts on you physically and mentally is extraordinary. The only thing I'm slightly worried about is men not using their best judgment in a combat situation just to protect a female soldier. It is almost human nature for a male to protect a female when they are in trouble.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    To Sox and Carter: If men are truly superior then what is the harm in allowing women to compete for a spot? The men will just defeat them if they are truly superior as you state.

    The only argument i am hearing is that they are too weak, mentally and physically, so we shouldnt even let them try.

    Any arguments against quota systems isn not arguing the actual point of this.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    6,854
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    To Sox and Carter: If men are truly superior then what is the harm in allowing women to compete for a spot? The men will just defeat them if they are truly superior as you state.

    The only argument i am hearing is that they are too weak, mentally and physically, so we shouldnt even let them try.

    Any arguments against quota systems isn not arguing the actual point of this.
    Just like anything, there's things females are better at than males, and vice versa. From my experience, there aren't going to be a lot of females that can make the cut. It's as simple as that. There's a reason that female pt standards are much lower than males. There will certainly be some females that can. Like I said, give them chance, but I don't think a whole lot is going to change.

    And I never said males are far superior to females. There's definitely men that shouldn't be in combat MOS's either, and usually they washout at some point. Anyone that has actually served in a combat MOS and has served in a present day war zone will understand the physical strain it takes on the body.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,772
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Sox_13 View Post
    Just like anything, there's things females are better at than males, and vice versa. From my experience, there aren't going to be a lot of females that can make the cut. It's as simple as that. There's a reason that female pt standards are much lower than males. There will certainly be some females that can. Like I said, give them chance, but I don't think a whole lot is going to change.

    And I never said males are far superior to females. There's definitely men that shouldn't be in combat MOS's either, and usually they washout at some point. Anyone that has actually served in a combat MOS and has served in a present day war zone will understand the physical strain it takes on the body.
    Well my understanding of the two of your's posts is that men will do much better and be the majority anyways. I dont think that is wrong, whether it was the point you were making or not.

    My only point is that they should be given the chance to try.

    They should all have the same standards and whoever does better, regardless of sex, should be given a chance to serve.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 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
  •