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.

 

Army Wants Women On Front Lines

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by friday2112
I say as long as they can pass the physical test that the men do and go through the same training as the men do, let them be on the front lines. There are many women who are qualifed to be grunts and any other mos in the military. Like some of the other posters said they can take more pain than men can. They are also more intuitive than men which could be quite an advantage in combat. I would have no problem with a woman fighting along side of me. Hey face it women can kick ass if they so chose to. The mother instinct kicks in watch out.




AMEN preach on brother if we can actually get these people to realize this then I will be the happiest MAN yes Man on earth.




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I would have thought that the main reason women were kept back from battle is because they were/are the main method of reproduction and in previous wars which were very bloody (as opposed to Iraq where not really that many soldiers have died) and lots of men died. If all or most of your women are killed then you have little chance of survival, however communities can sustain a heavier loss of men.

Also I have heard that whilst women do have higher tolerence to pain this only occurs because of some drug which is produced by the female body during childbirth, otherwise men have higher pain tolerance, even then it varies from person to person.

So anyway I dont see much of a reason why women cant fight these days, after all since this 'new' war we are in is terrorism, in which woman and children are fair game, so they might as well have the opportunity to fight should they want to.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rouge_Warrior
I would have thought that the main reason women were kept back from battle is because they were/are the main method of reproduction and in previous wars which were very bloody (as opposed to Iraq where not really that many soldiers have died) and lots of men died. If all or most of your women are killed then you have little chance of survival, however communities can sustain a heavier loss of men.



I always thought this was a flawed theory, because women cant have babies without men and women out number men what 3 or 4 to one or something like that. They actually should be using this view on men cause we are the minority in the world population.



posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Actuall its not think of it this way, If you have one man and four women you have the potential for four pregnanacies, however one women and four men and you have the potential for only one pregnancy.



posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Actuall its not think of it this way, If you have one man and four women you have the potential for four pregnanacies, however one women and four men and you have the potential for only one pregnancy.



And again were back to the point I made with my story, women thought of only things to have sex with is wrong. They are capable , and only held back by male sex drive kindda a bad statement for men huh?



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join