It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

With women in combat roles, a federal court rules male-only draft unconstitutional

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




Men are not in danger then in training, much less the battle field?


I didn't say that. Please don't start a discussion with me with a strawman right off the bat.

What I did say is that lowering standards JUST to pass them for political purposes as ASKING to increase injuries during training and combat.



I do agree with you that this is the inevitable result of the feminist movement gone wild.


Much of this push has been a total dereliction of duty. Our responsibility to protect our troops from harm during training and during combat has been skirted for the sake of social engineering. We're making all the wrong arguments when we frame this around equality.




We can talk all day long about bone density, mass and lifting ability... yes, women and men are different and I personally am quite happy with that.


But then you say this:




But what if I'm quicker and shoot better and can adapt to a situation much easier?


It isn't a trade-off. You have to be able to do both. I weigh 170 lbs (77 Kg) in my skin suit. With my ALSE gear, Air Warrior armor, ammunition, weapons, and other gear I weigh closer to 230 lbs (104 Kg). Eventually physics MUST take over here.

For infantry those numbers are higher. We ASSUME a 240 lbs person on average for aircraft weight and balance. If is usually higher than that.



Isn't all about how much you can lift.


The military isn't about all you can lift, I agree. But combat IS about WHO you can lift, for how long, and over what obstacles to get out of fire or trekking to an LZ for pick-up. Until technologies can equalize the sexes(and this is happening) women should not be in an infantry unit.

They sure as hell should not be trying their hand at a politicized training course for Rangers who actually earned their tab.




posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

me and my wife are the proverbial unicorn... military to military still together after 12 years.


Its been brutally hard at times... of the 12 years we probably spent 4 and a half separated by deployments or long tdy's.

Now with a kid I expect it to get even harder since she left active duty and I am now the sole provider, her reserve pay will be her spending money, but my parents always said staying together takes work, its not all passion and play.
-----------------------------------

As for who should get custody, if the father has a family plan (standard in the military, basically a what happens if) and he has been proven to be the responsible one of the two (not cheating, drinking excessively etc) ... why shouldn't he get custody? Most units will work with a single parent household (in the air force), the norm is a single mom, but why not a single dad.


The only exception to that would obviously be if the kid is still breast feeding.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I’ve got just the fix for you then. From the ages of 14 to 17 we use them as breeders, then at 18 after they’ve pumped out a couple kids to replace war losses, we can send them to the battlefield. Much more efficient that way right?



Do you realize what you are saying here? Not my 14-17 year old!
edit on 25-2-2019 by mamabeth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Now they just have to stop hating gays to be more progressive than us



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

she is only entitled to get gov't benefits if her child support and income is low enough to meet the qualifications.
and the goal should be to get her into a position where her income and whatever child support she gets brings in enough to reduce her need for those gov't benefits.
and those income guidelines are the same weather you are single parent or a dual parent household.
the problem is that that aide is coming in from so many different directions that it's sometimes hard to know just what the value of what is being handed out is and sometimes, at least in the past, the value far outweighed the resources that some of the families they were turning away because they "made too much money".



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Raggedyman

Now they just have to stop hating gays to be more progressive than us


As usual it’s a very small minority who makes everyone else look bad or a few with an inferiority complex.
Women are inferior in some aspects, balanced out though in other characteristics, should be happy they are not the same as men.

People are always going to hate gays as gays are always going to hate someone else



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Pack your bags ladies, you're off to Venezuela.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Probably on to something there.

Plus a nice wee war with plenty of spoils to be had can't go wrong where a second term in office for Trump is concerned.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: NthOther
Women do not belong in combat. Healthy, strong women are required to replenish a nation's population after a devastating war.

Hence, f# Baby Boomers.

Well, if your women die in combat too... you've pretty much lost the war at that point.

Who do the boys go back to? The girls are all dead too.


Population of earth is more populated now. Think starship troopers where the future will be men and women training side by side.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mamabeth

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk
You are not wrong. As far as i know we all still do it the same way neanderthals did. Yes the woman are the backbone of the country and are the only viable means to carry out reproduction on a large scale to combat losses of men during war.


I’ve got just the fix for you then. From the ages of 14 to 17 we use them as breeders, then at 18 after they’ve pumped out a couple kids to replace war losses, we can send them to the battlefield. Much more efficient that way right?



Do you realize what you are saying here? Not my 14-17 year old!


Yes I realize. It was sarcasm to the poster who said a woman’s primary and sole focus in life should be to get locked away and forced to pump out babies (by force if necessary) for us to send to war.
edit on 25-2-2019 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As it stands, the guys I saw in the military that came home from deployment to find another man in their bed with the wife had 1 option to not end up destitute. Look at the judge, say she can have it all just leave me my car and my uniforms and then start over, that's not a fair and just system.


So the man shouldn't be punished for making a bad decision? Why should the woman remain utterly devoted to you, when you're the one who went away? Especially when kids are involved. In that situation, are you doing anything at all other than sending them money? And you think that makes you a parent?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As it stands, the guys I saw in the military that came home from deployment to find another man in their bed with the wife had 1 option to not end up destitute. Look at the judge, say she can have it all just leave me my car and my uniforms and then start over, that's not a fair and just system.


So the man shouldn't be punished for making a bad decision? Why should the woman remain utterly devoted to you, when you're the one who went away? Especially when kids are involved. In that situation, are you doing anything at all other than sending them money? And you think that makes you a parent?


If you marry someone in the military you know what you are signing up for. If you cant handle it then you are not worth marrying at that time. Adultry is still technically illegal and should be enforced with monetary punishments.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
If you marry someone in the military you know what you are signing up for. If you cant handle it then you are not worth marrying at that time. Adultry is still technically illegal and should be enforced with monetary punishments.


No, most people do not know until they experience it. Also, in the majority of states it is not illegal.

The argument comes across to me like these men think women are their possession and should always be there for them at their whim. They made the choice to get a job that sends them away. Actions have consequences.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Irishhaf
As it stands, the guys I saw in the military that came home from deployment to find another man in their bed with the wife had 1 option to not end up destitute. Look at the judge, say she can have it all just leave me my car and my uniforms and then start over, that's not a fair and just system.


So the man shouldn't be punished for making a bad decision? Why should the woman remain utterly devoted to you, when you're the one who went away? Especially when kids are involved. In that situation, are you doing anything at all other than sending them money? And you think that makes you a parent?


If you marry someone in the military you know what you are signing up for. If you cant handle it then you are not worth marrying at that time. Adultry is still technically illegal and should be enforced with monetary punishments.


Do military men deployed wherever not commit adultery?



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: UKTruth

Probably on to something there.

Plus a nice wee war with plenty of spoils to be had can't go wrong where a second term in office for Trump is concerned.



Bernie is better and actually has a superior functioning brain.



posted on Feb, 25 2019 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Pack your bags ladies, you're off to Venezuela.


Great, show us who's ass to kick.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

You could play spin the bottle with the 325.7 million people of the US and there's a 99% chance the dude it landed on would have superior brain function than Trump.

I quite like Sanders myself but at 77 years old he's getting on a bit.

I think the position of POTUS is more of a younger man's or woman's job or at least middle-aged to be honest, considering all these old farts really don't understand how the world spins in this day of age.
edit on 26-2-2019 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Might want to start in the Oval Office.

The world would pay in spades to see Trump getting his arse handed to him by the fairer sex.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I agree with the decision, excepting i think a draft is slavery and against what it means to be American. If The People support a war, they will provide the means to fight it. If they don't, forcing them is a tyranny that is beneath our nation.

Besides, i'd not be the kind of guy you'd want on your team when forced to be on your team. Might as well call me "enemy" at that point.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dug88

isnt a draft in of itself unconstitutional because you are risking your own personal freedom ?

or is it because if you are an American citizen your liberty is protected by the constitution and so you have sworn to defend it

it's not like if someone burns the constitution all is lost , the people make america , not a signed piece of paper !
I just think that a draft itself is a threat to everyones freedom.

If everyone was drafted and they all died, who would protect the constitution then ?




top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join