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.

 

BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

page: 12
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
In fact I want to add something else....

Men have to be TRAINED to NOT kill.

When someone takes a woman we want, we want to bash in their skull. When someone has something that we want, we want to bash in their skull and take it from them.

When someone wrongs us in ANY way.... guess what?????

We want to bash in their skull.

It is societal up bringing and training that STOPS us from doing so. It is pack mentality that keeps us from going off on people EVERY day...

It has been taken to an extreme and is pussifying our men and taken to the level that it is getting to is NOT healthy psychologically.

This is one of the reasons that people go off and kill people like in Newtown and at Columbine.

There is no outlet any more.

Men used to settle their differences with their fists and then buy each other a drink, not any more the friggin pussies will go shoot each other.

That's due to pent up agression that is not let out and nothing else.

Some people have found healthy ways to let out the pent up aggression, some find unhealthy ways and some lose it completely and get depressed or angry to the point that they lash out or kill themselves.

Jaden




posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

I wish I would have quoted your original post, containing several made up facts; probably gathered from wikipedia,


Um okay. Here is exactly what I posted before.


In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:

Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers, e.g. Land Mine Clearance and Route Clearance



I'm not saying there aren't women who could handle it. Everyone seems to think that is what those opposed to this are saying, when it simply isn't the case. Fantastic for those who could do it! I applaud them. I would have no problem with them meeting the SAME standard as everyone else,


So before you get heated towards me you should read my posts. Because that's exactly what I have been saying.



Those branches are considered combat arms. That doesn't mean women have proven themselves in combat. You aren't picking up on the correlation. And you are certainly not saying the same thing I am, because you certainly have been implying they HAVE proven it. They haven't. Not a single time. They have been in situations, here and there. Their job, has never solely been, to ruck with 150 + pounds of gear, for miles and miles, looking for an enemy, and facing the possibility of dragging their gear, plus their wounded buddy's gear, plus their wounded buddy, back to safety. Never happened.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
It took me a few hours to realize.

It doesn't matter what every soldier knows, it only matter what a few women think.

It amazes me how people can have so much knowledge about something they have never been a part of.



Truest statement I've read regarding any of this stupidity.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus
 


I didn't claim to know, I said let's wait and see what happens. You all said yourself women have never proven themselves on the frontlines because they've never been there, so how then can you make those claims? This is the most ridiculous discussion I've been on in a long time.


You have claimed to know. I replied to a post of yours in which you said "they already have" in reference to "proving themselves" in combat....They have been in combat. Not on the front lines. You people seem to be confusing the front lines, with ground pounding grunts whose only job is to carry hundreds of pounds, several miles, in an effort to find and kill enemy. In order to even be considered fit to do that, EVERY woman, should have to meet the infantry's male pt standard. Since most women can't meet their own standard, how do you suppose they are going to meet the infantry's?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
I used to love playing wow years ago. I know why now after rewatching the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit now. My father read that out to me in when I was 3. And then in school, then I read them. Those are my favorite stories and WOW has enough of that in it to attract.

But, here is the experience of a woman playing it. My son and I used to dance with and emote to the enemies. Before the bloodelves and good looking negatives came out I played horde because in the battle ground I got to look at handsome humans and night elves and flirt with them. We had lots of fun. My son too.

Then I used to tell people, this game needs to be improved. Number 1. All the leaders on both sides are corrupt so the secret leveling in the game should be that the people wake up and join together and gain diplomacy. They should be able to communicate with each ohter in higher levels of diplomacy and learn each other's language. It should be combination quests and SIMS with building your own home in the towns where you can even have boyfriends and friends, even date the enemy in neutral towns.

That would be a super fun game.

In the end the higher levels that would be leading a world of peace would be ET.

Oh and I used to pretend that, my character was a higher level federation officer on assignment infilitrating the world, that she killed no one, ever, nor any animals, and that in reality she beamed everybody up for checkups and healing counseling.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



That's fantastic, but World of Warcraft isn't real and combat is.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.


Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...


actually they have


Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko was the most successful woman sniper of World War Two.Pavlichenko actually became one of two thousand female snipers in the Red Army,
Pavlichenko's officially confirmed kills amounted to a total of three hundred and nine, this amazing figure also included thirty-six German snipers ( one of whom had himself notched over five hundred kills after she retrieved his detailed log book after killing him ) and many high ranking German Officers.During this time she had a battlefield promotion to the rank of Lieutenant
In June 1942, she was wounded for the fourth time when a mortar round exploded close to her position.In 1943 she was awarded The Gold Star Of The Hero Of The Soviet Union and was awarded the higher rank of Major but never returned to fight the Germans, instead she was employed, probably for the better, using her skills to train new recruits at a sniper school, this she did until the end of the war.


www.vincelewis.net...


Hooray for more word games. While this woman was sniping Germans, American women were home raising families.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Tardacus
 


And a sniper isn't exactly "in the #" as it's called....I'm not saying it's easy to be a sniper. It's not the same as being a ground pounder.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
So, since everyone is so concerned about equality, all women, 18 and older, will of course be registering for the selective service today. Correct? Or do you only want equality on your own terms, when it's convenient and it works for you?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Congrats ladies

Welcome to equality

You wanted it, you got it


For years you tell us its your body when you murder our children or that we should treat you differently while you reap the benefits of our hard work

I for one will be glad to see you pick up yoyr packs and guns and run out into a hail of bullets protecting your
Rights you have been fighting for all this time

Now its time to stop talking and start earning your effin keep

To paraphrase the dancing israelis
Now women will know what real war is like



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
My belief is that they should be trained to the same level and standard as men but maybe used as a separate force. Almost like the NRMA conscripts In Canada during ww2. Trained and ready to fight to the last breath but on the home front not overseas or on the frontlines outside of there own country. This opens up an even bigger can of worms so to speak though. What about a woman's rights and equality? Well what about the even bigger problem? Living in an era where we posses the information and technology to prevent war from happening, yet we'd rather argue about if it should be our sons or our daughters marched to the front lines to be slaughtered. It's quite sad really.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I think a lot of people are also missing a major part of this. American forces have to engage women, they may have allied forces that also employ women. Men have to get used to that and they frequently do. Women being shot by Americans in the middle east isn't uncommon.


Originally posted by arthurfonzarelli
Congrats ladies

Welcome to equality

You wanted it, you got it

For years you tell us its your body when you murder our children or that we should treat you differently while you reap the benefits of our hard work


Honestly, why bother to take such 'moral high ground' as if women are actually some collective political movement opposing you? Do you take responsibility for human slavery because it has traditionally been a male past time? Sex crimes? Murder rates?

No, and I wouldn't ask you to. It would be unfair as you're being now.


Now its time to stop talking and start earning your effin keep


The snarky response back to this would be ... it's time for men to stop inventing new reasons to kill each other.


Why is this some kind of gender competition?


Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Tardacus
 

The military does not deal with "ones" it deals in averages. As you move from soldier to specialized infantry to special operations, those averages


Call me poorly informed perhaps but I disagree?

It's about excelling and being all you can be if you believe the adverts. The best person for the position is the way to go. The British SAS for example, operate in four person teams with cross training. Each team should have different skills between them to make them more effective.

Even at the lowest level in my country ... There is baseline training, but there is a lot of optional and further training for individuals ... tickets and clearances for vehicles etc ... Not sure what it's like in America.


Men are hard-wired to be protectors. Again we are dealing with averages not "ones".


All the more reason for soldiers to be exposed to it. As stated in the opening part of this post ... they will face it in the field.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
Interesting. Please point out the incidents where females humped 120lbs of personal gear, LBE, protective devices, ammo, food, in adition to another 40+ pounds of unit materiel such as ammo...


I don't think the army would write down times when a woman was 'really freaking strong'. It's not a medal winning situation. I think a lot of men (understandably) are acting as if they have to go to war with their next door neighbor.

A woman (or man for that matter) in a combat unit is not an ordinary woman in my opinion? I notice regular police and army lower baseline training for women, partly I think to make up numbers. That's a policy issue perhaps, but combat units with the same training and measures ... you're not having to go to war with a 5'0ft midget.


One of our MP's on convoy watch needed a male to charge her M2 because she lacked the upper body strength to pull the bolt back on her own.


Bring it up and report it?

If your army is risking lives based on perceived 'political correctness' and poor training there is something wrong and I don't disagree. Apologies if you already tried officially complaining about it ... On the other side, if they're having to lower training requirements to make numbers and it's technically not meant to be a combat unit ... is a logistical or policy issue.


Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by NavyDoc
 

What if I get hit, can this woman even move me? Drag me?


Women have actually got medals for doing that under fire in the last ten years, so I would guess so.


Originally posted by NavyDoc
The trouble is, putting people in positions they are not capable of in the armed forces, "seeing what happens" involves people getting killed.


My rather cynical prediction is ... there won't be a huge influx of women into combat units. There will be a bunch of gloating men saying 'I told you women couldn't fight on the front line', and there will be the odd exception to the rule which gets grudgingly admitted.

Life will go on.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Pinke because: tags



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 



There may be some kidergarden bloodlust types, but I have never met one yet. ALL of my family, relatives, cousins, friends, and associates consider anything like that primitive, jungle boy, dog eat dog, mysteriously bizarre, why we're on a hell planet and absolutely refuse to ever participate in that.


I am not sure exactly what you mean. Especially in context to my posts since you replied to me..

but if you're curious about my position...

My posts were just in context to this thread topic. I try and stay as much on topic as possible. So I was merely trying to express my stance on what I felt was an equality issue. But also being in agreement with the idea there should be a minimum fitness level everyone should adhere to.

Truth be told I am very anti-military. I don't think anyone should be signing up. I feel we haven't had a justified war in a long time. Not only that but I strongly feel our military budget is disgustingly large. We (and yes I am US) have so many problems in our social infrastructure that needs addressing, and could use some financial love! It's absolutely absurd how much time and resources are giving to military instead of everything else that would better our society. Not sure if that's what you were getting at, but I am passionate about my anti-military stance so I don't want to be misinterpreted here.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 




Those branches are considered combat arms.

Yes. I know. You said 'combat arms'. My original post was simply in response to that.


That doesn't mean women have proven themselves in combat.

Which I didn't argue for (or against). Now you're putting words in my mouth. Although I am seeing now others have presented a case for it in the thread.


because you certainly have been implying they HAVE proven it.

Really? HAVE I?? My post(s) have been implying that? Please quote anything and everything from all my posts to support that.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Unity_99
 



There may be some kidergarden bloodlust types, but I have never met one yet. ALL of my family, relatives, cousins, friends, and associates consider anything like that primitive, jungle boy, dog eat dog, mysteriously bizarre, why we're on a hell planet and absolutely refuse to ever participate in that.


I am not sure exactly what you mean. Especially in context to my posts since you replied to me..

but if you're curious about my position...

My posts were just in context to this thread topic. I try and stay as much on topic as possible. So I was merely trying to express my stance on what I felt was an equality issue. But also being in agreement with the idea there should be a minimum fitness level everyone should adhere to.

Truth be told I am very anti-military. I don't think anyone should be signing up. I feel we haven't had a justified war in a long time. Not only that but I strongly feel our military budget is disgustingly large. We (and yes I am US) have so many problems in our social infrastructure that needs addressing, and could use some financial love! It's absolutely absurd how much time and resources are giving to military instead of everything else that would better our society. Not sure if that's what you were getting at, but I am passionate about my anti-military stance so I don't want to be misinterpreted here.


You know what I hate about this? I can find my qualms with both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can be critical of how we got involved, and why we are still involved. But I've also experienced it firsthand, and I am very aware of the fact that what I saw there left me under the impression that we did accomplish a hell of a lot more good than you would care to give us credit for. You couldn't possibly know if we are "justified" in being there, because you haven't seen the things that soldiers have seen. I'm not speaking politically. I'm speaking as a person who is just as average as a gas station clerk, who has been there, seen it with my own eyes, and is understanding of the fact that BOTH of those places need us. And, although it may come as a surprise to you, nearly every citizen I ever encountered was beyond grateful for our presence. I saw amazing things happen because, and only because, we were there. Have your opinion. It's founded on nonsense. And to be completely honest; it is insulting when people speak on Iraq or Afghanistan as if they have some sort of knowledge that those who have fought for not only their lives, but the lives of strangers in both of those places don't...like you have some sort of broader understanding of what is/was happening in either of those countries. It's tiresome. It's disrespectful. And those who gave their lives for you to voice that opinion say you are welcome.

Edited to add....that military budget...the one that is so ridiculous in your opinion, pays me, a 10 year combat veteran, a little more than a manager of a gas station. I'm not bitching about it, I'll gladly take that compensation. But consider there are 3,000,0000 people in the Army alone....what do you propose they pay us? Should we be compensated with rainbows and glitter? Should our equipment be as it was during Vietnam, or even Desert Storm? Be reasonable.
edit on 25-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 




Those branches are considered combat arms.

Yes. I know. You said 'combat arms'. My original post was simply in response to that.


That doesn't mean women have proven themselves in combat.

Which I didn't argue for (or against). Now you're putting words in my mouth. Although I am seeing now others have presented a case for it in the thread.


because you certainly have been implying they HAVE proven it.

Really? HAVE I?? My post(s) have been implying that? Please quote anything and everything from all my posts to support that.
edit on 25-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


Women have served in combat arms...not in the "combat" we are referring to.
3 or 4 posters have given reference to 3 or 4 women, over the course of history who (apparently) proved themselves in combat....all fine stories. None of them would lead me to believe American women (or women in general for that matter) have over the test of time, proven themselves as front line warriors. The front line isn't supply trucks and patrols in areas that have since been cleared by the recon, cav and the grunts are not the same as being the recon, the cav or the grunts...which we are discussing.
You did say it. It was the reason I responded to you in the first place.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

I wish I would have quoted your original post, containing several made up facts; probably gathered from wikipedia,


Um okay. Here is exactly what I posted before.


In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:

Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers, e.g. Land Mine Clearance and Route Clearance



I'm not saying there aren't women who could handle it. Everyone seems to think that is what those opposed to this are saying, when it simply isn't the case. Fantastic for those who could do it! I applaud them. I would have no problem with them meeting the SAME standard as everyone else,


So before you get heated towards me you should read my posts. Because that's exactly what I have been saying.


This post, you have quoted here...is not your entire post. Remember, the one you immediately edited, while I was responding?



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 


I have been an active member here since this site began.

I signed up in 2004. I lurked for years before.

I am familiar with conspiracy. I know things you probably don't. This goes BOTH ways my friend!!

So yes I am not going to pretend I know what it's like to be in your shoes, but don't pretend you know what it's like to be in mine!

I am NOT meaning disrespect to soldiers!

They know not what they do. And if you don't believe in the idea of Government manipulation I don't know what to say!....get used to it! You will hear it a lot on ATS.

There is nothing more admirable than sacrificing ones life for a greater cause! And certainly not a whole lot harder thand enduring the military life! I am not questioning that! I am questioning the legitimacy of most wars.

**edited**


.what do you propose they pay us? Should we be compensated with rainbows and glitter?


Apparently you're not familiar with the budget! If you think there is no room to pay veterans and not cut expenses!!.......
edit on 25-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 



Remember, the one you immediately edited, while I was responding?


Which I later quoted for you in its entirety earlier.......



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.


Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...


actually they have


Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko was the most successful woman sniper of World War Two.Pavlichenko actually became one of two thousand female snipers in the Red Army,
Pavlichenko's officially confirmed kills amounted to a total of three hundred and nine, this amazing figure also included thirty-six German snipers ( one of whom had himself notched over five hundred kills after she retrieved his detailed log book after killing him ) and many high ranking German Officers.During this time she had a battlefield promotion to the rank of Lieutenant
In June 1942, she was wounded for the fourth time when a mortar round exploded close to her position.In 1943 she was awarded The Gold Star Of The Hero Of The Soviet Union and was awarded the higher rank of Major but never returned to fight the Germans, instead she was employed, probably for the better, using her skills to train new recruits at a sniper school, this she did until the end of the war.


www.vincelewis.net...


Hooray for more word games. While this woman was sniping Germans, American women were home raising families.


Under those conditions one would expect women to become snipers.



posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masterjaden
reply to post by Pinke
 


You're living in fantasy land. I wouldn't even know where to begin....

No your average MMA female CANNOT overpower a typical man... Maybe a lethargic couch potato man, but not a physically fit man.

Men ARE hard wired to kill. They don't need training. It is ingrained in them. They killed before they had guns, before they had swords and spears and knifes and stones and sticks.

They killed because we are PREDATORS, that's what having eyes in the front of our heads and stereoscopic vision means.

Women are born to be nurturers and caretakers, men to be hunters and killers.

That's the facts no matter HOW much psychobabble bull# you quote from fairy boy psychiatrists that snort too much coke and wack to pics of their moms and I HAVE a psychology degree from Columbia and still know how much of it is bunk bull#.

You go on living in your fantasy world where women can keep up with men, it's just NOT the case.

The day that women make it into force recon, Seals, green berets etc... without the standards being lowered or changed or them taking hormone therapy to convert them into man/woman hybrids is the day I'll cut off my balls and eat them.

Jaden



Im not actually sure men are born to be killers. Dont you think we'd have a lot more murders if that was the case? Men shouldn't have to kill - Why would anyone be proud that they took another human beings life? And for no other reason than "I got told to do it"


And i call BS on your psychology degree




top topics



 
10
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join