(The lost women in military thread)

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Hmmm... do we see a similiarity with our illustrious FM?




posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Normally, I would think that is mean but for Freemason, I'll make an exception.

No offense to you if you are one, but I can't stand these conservative Christians who think their job is to tell women their roles ( Nazi's Lebensborn) and say that being gay is a sin that will be punished in Hell (Nazi's punishing "sub-humans")

Hmm... I see what you mean.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 01:55 AM
link   
maynardsthirdeye, indeed I do take offense that you equate Christianity with Nazism!!!!! We have enough of that nonsense already. Is this going to turn into another one of those Chistian bashing threads which equates Christianity with all the world's problems?



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 02:03 AM
link   
*please note, I only equated Freemason with Naziism*



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 02:06 AM
link   
dragonrider, I did not see where you equated Nazism with Christianity - it was maynardsthirdeye who equated Christianity with Nazism. (You are innocent unless maynardsthirdeye is one of you alter egos.)



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Oh sorry thought I was in a school then?

I am at a loss to why FM has so many problems with women, something happened to you when you was a child?

Well I didnt think it would be long before the real FM would be back to his old self, nice too see it!!!!!

I agree with some parts of women not being in the front-line of things, but......

saying that women couldnt change tank tracks etc etc etc, well who do you think was working in the factories during WW1 and WW2 building tanks, air craft, jeeps etc etc, was it the fairy's? NO, over here in UK women of all ages were working the fields ("Land girl's"). Working in factorie's 16, 18 hours a day, building tanks, boats you name it, if it was build here majority of the time it was the women who built them. I know this personally as both my grandmother's were working in factories just outside London building aircraft, tanks etc etc. No they never went to the front-line but there was also a hell of alot of mess being cleared up here as well.

Nightly bombing raid's killing 100's, sometime's whole neighbourhood's were wiped out, in one night. And who was left to pick up the piece's, going around collecting body part's trying to put them in the right body bags (thats all that was left many a night), Women, not men, women who were there through it all.

Men maybe stronger phsyically, but mentally, women are: men show their agression with fist's, which is fine, but

"women can probably do more damage with what they say, than what a man can do with his fist's" (oh yes, it was a bloke that first said that, not a woman)

It's not a case of women wanting to have babie's at the drop of a hat, or whether they can hold a gun, throw a grenade, or even change tank track's, at the end of the day, you should fight for what you believe in, doesnt matter what the sex of someone is. If they are prepared to died for what they believe in, then they should have the right to fight along side who ever!



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jagdflieger
maynardsthirdeye, indeed I do take offense that you equate Christianity with Nazism!!!!! We have enough of that nonsense already. Is this going to turn into another one of those Chistian bashing threads which equates Christianity with all the world's problems?


Oh, Sorry about that. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I don't want to equate you with evil people the caused the deaths of millions. No one could be as bad as them.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:37 AM
link   
BW....

Good points!


Freemason...just to let you know i am a woman in the military!!!!!!

Yes..okay...so there is sexual politics involved so we can't fight on the front line but we are treated no diffrent than our men in the armies!

We are respected, treated with fairness and enjoy those who accept them into there groups....

We are the equal of men.....just because my reproductive organs are on the outside rather than the inside...it doesn't mean i can't handle whatever u can handle!



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I agree that women should not serve in combat roles. They can serve in the Army/Navy/Air Force as medics,pilots,tacticians,and whater else there is. Just as long as its not on a battlefield as a soldier. If a women gets captured she is more likely subjected to rape than a male. She can be easily sexual abused than a man. I bet alot of women would make fine soldeirs,but I don't think they are safe in a combat role on a battlefield.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Jedi...that is your personal opinion and i respect that...but u can't judge us woman until u see us in combat!

I am a medic and i have been to the frontline to evac wounded....its one of the scariest jobs i have ever done and it was the other nurses and soldiers who helped me through it!



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:12 AM
link   
I am a Navy veteran and I have no problem with women in the military (Navy)...with a few exceptions.

1. If they are gonna be in the Navy, then they need to be eligible for ALL assignments. In the Navy, shore duty is a cherished break in a long career of sea duty. All to often the females were hoggin all the choice shore duty billets because they are ineligible for most sea billets. Thus fleet sailors would get shafted when it became time to rotate to a shore duty assignment, while shore duty females would run around in the Admirals office in summer whites all day.....

2. Cost. If the Navy is gonna implement a fully co-ed fleet, the cost to upgrade and segregate the ships and subs will be enormous.

3. Pregnacy. Its a fact of life. Men dont get pregnant, and therefore dont ever have to unexpectedly leave a duty assignment, perhaps maybe a critical one. When you mix men and women, pregnacies will occur, and staffing will become an issue. Also, females will bear the brunt of the discipline in this area, I have seen it.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Pyros...i agree totally!

We were warned that if we were going to just stand around and try and get knocked up....we shouldn't sign up...i have fought for my respect in some cases but due to me having the strength and determination...i have been accepted fully into the role!



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
No offense to you if you are one, but I can't stand these conservative Christians who think their job is to tell women their roles ( Nazi's Lebensborn) and say that being gay is a sin that will be punished in Hell (Nazi's punishing "sub-humans")


Did you mean mormons ?



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salem

Originally posted by maynardsthirdeye
No offense to you if you are one, but I can't stand these conservative Christians who think their job is to tell women their roles ( Nazi's Lebensborn) and say that being gay is a sin that will be punished in Hell (Nazi's punishing "sub-humans")


Did you mean mormons ?


No, I'm not going to say anymore because I don't want every Christian yelling at me.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Gryffen,

As a woman who HAS faced a combat zone (which is far and away more than FM has ever managed in his life), did you ever, at any time, have a feeling that you would have been in less danger, or under less fire if you had been a man instead of a woman??


Ash

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I still would like to hear about the Russians winning Stalengrad due to the SAW.
Never heard anything more on this historical innacuracy.

Also I believe there was a study done on civilian woman and their capabilities to complete ranger school. There was a fall out rate, just as there is for men. I have no statistics on this but will try and find a link.

Btw I am all for women on the front line. Those that are able to be on the front line are obviously able to handle themselves as well as thier male counterparts. Jmo.



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 04:54 PM
link   
I still would like to hear about the Russians winning Stalengrad due to the SAW. Never heard anything more on this historical innacuracy. Posted by Ash

Odd you should mention that, I have challenged Mr. World Conqueror to a debate on weapons technology before, and although he talks a good dictionary of knowledge, his actual experience seems to be centered around some of the firearms manufactured by "Daisy"....


By the way, just for historical accuracy, THIS is the M249 SAW...




I really doubt we saw many of those in Stalingrad, as they were only built in the 1980s....

THESE are what was used in Russia in WWII...

The 7.62x25mm PPSH submachine gun...




The 7.62x54R Moisin Nagant rifle (as seen in Enemy at the Gate)




The Tokarev 7.62x25mm sidearm...

www.geocities.com...

The 7.62mm Nagant Gas Seal revolver (favorite execution weapon of the NKVD)





posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 05:10 PM
link   
What happened to Mr. FreeMason? Did he get banned?



posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 05:14 PM
link   
damn it.
no one bit at my joke.
and that was a pretty good one. lol



girls just wanna be her...




posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 05:40 PM
link   
No he's not banned (yet). Just not online





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join