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

reply to post by 200Plus


Again, it is about ending discrimination and giving servicewomen the recognition and dignity they deserve.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Pinke

 

Killing has happened since the dawn of time.

Agree.

Killing, happens at the most basic leveled organism, to animals to humans.

Agree, but normally for some kind of purposes.

The idea that it is not natural, has been due to society, not human instinct.

Disagree. Humans are social creatures. A lot of animals have violent ways to solve disputes that don't result in killing all the time. Yes, humans have organized themselves to kill for centuries, but it's part of having an intelligence. For example, zebra don't organize themselves to have a retaliating strike against the evil lions that keep omnoming them.

Humans on the other hand, if tigers are recognized as a constant threat or even other humans, we will kill. That doesn't mean humans are natural killing machines. Maybe we're talking from different perspectives, but I think fighting to the death at a whim isn't in our nature.

I agree for the most part, but animals do organize for hunting and strikes on opposing forces or meals.
I will state that humans have the ability to kill, when necessary. Society has defined what is necessary though.

Originally posted by Pinke

I don't think there will be a sudden massive influx of women special forces recruits. I don't particularly think it matters as much as persons seem to think though.

It's not a competition. Regardless of gender, the person is either a good soldier or not. /shrug

I think there will be more then one thinks.
There is a competition though. To kill the enemy and win the task.
If they are not physical capable, regardless of sex, then they shouldn't be there. That doesn't define a good or bad GI.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

I think we should spend money on weather control machines. The russian winter was far more successful than any group of snipers, male or female.

Lol, i think nuclear bombs will work just fine when we want to make our brain dead species extinct

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by DOLCOTT

 

But thats a nice 1 on 1 fight, 30 horny enemies and a nice looking female soldier =

no matter how much she tries and fights (unless its a gay army)

So she's safe from the Turks and Greeks?




(I keed, I keed!)

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

This is about recognition and dignity.

I would agree as long as they were held to the same standards. There is nothing equal or dignified about being held to a lesser standard.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

Again, it is about ending discrimination and giving servicewomen the recognition and dignity they deserve.

I am missing your point. What is it you think they deserve? What should they be recognized for?

Segregation was discrimination. It had to end and I am glad it did. The army didn't have to lower standards to allow african-american males to perform the same as whites.

The average female is weaker than the average male. No amount of desire, wishes, or bovine feces will change that. In order wor women to serve in the combat arms, standards must be lowered to "level the playing field".

I just dont "get" this argument...

I agree that women are not as physically fit as men. I agree that placing them on front lines could be difficult and perhaps even more dangerous. But i disagree with this undertone of:

"Women are not good as good as men on the front-line and therefore do not deserve equality"

Am i wrong to assume that women can serve effectively in various positions of the military?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Yeah, I'm not getting the argument here either.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

Again, it is about ending discrimination and giving servicewomen the recognition and dignity they deserve.

Thats fine and dandy....but when they get down to the grunts they still have to earn it honey. You dont suppose you would have to earn their respect?

reply to post by Logarock


They hav already earned it.

If I might pull a chair to the table and just offer my 2 cents based on some experience I have had.

In a couple of different capacities, one as a member of the military and others I choose not to elaborate on in a public forum, I have had the opportunity "serve" with some very capable women. In a unit you develop cohesion and become as close to, or closer to members of your unit than members of your own family.

Women have for lack of a better description, "killer instinct". Most will move heaven and earth against all odds in defense of those that they love, it is a trait that I personally look for in leadership. I personally owe my own well being to the quick decision making and ability to act of some highly trained and professional women. (They know who they are.)

From my own experience I am all for combat trained women and would not have an issue serving in "the trenches" with those whom I have had the privilege of knowing. As a matter of fact woe to those in their sights. Ooh Rah. Carry on, Im done. Thank you for your time.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

I'm just saying it like it is....and will be.

Your not saying anything other than feminist theater. And you are going to tell me....a man whos been there and done that? Women like you should be restricted from working near men if you cant get that ego under control.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Where did someone say they do not deserve equality? Where did anyone say they cannot or should not serve in the military?

99% of the comments against women serving in the combat arms are based on the inequalities of the standards.

You cannot say A is as good as B, if A and B are judged by different standards.

I do not see where the problem is in this logic.

If you loaned me Ten US dollars and I paid you back ten Singapore dollars it should be the same. I gave you ten dollars, the same as you gave me. Right?

reply to post by Logarock


My ego is quite healthy, so no need.

I say let women serve and fight if they want to. Besides that, my first wife would be perfect for that. You know when you go through a divorce.....wow she was mean and very vindictive. She even kicked me in the coin purse over some dvd's that she wanted, I couldn't imagine what she would have done if I took a shot at her.

Jus' Sayin'



spez

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Where did someone say they do not deserve equality? Where did anyone say they cannot or should not serve in the military?

99% of the comments against women serving in the combat arms are based on the inequalities of the standards.

You cannot say A is as good as B, if A and B are judged by different standards.

I do not see where the problem is in this logic.

If you loaned me Ten US dollars and I paid you back ten Singapore dollars it should be the same. I gave you ten dollars, the same as you gave me. Right?

edit on 24-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Cool your heels there G.I Joe, i never said (or agreed) that A is as good as B if they are judged by different standards. But you did actually read my post you'd see i mentioned that there was an undertone of women not deserving equal treatment and it seems a little disrespectful as if its personally their fault for not being able to as many push ups as some manly men

I never advocated that women should be on the front line but perhaps people should tone down the disrespect - Its not like the military do anything worthwhile other than protect the interests of big business.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Well said.

Well if it spreads to Canada and they want to draft anyone, I will refuse, but I also refuse for my sons, and I do mean that. Even if they were foolish enough to want to join it will be over my dead body literally and I would chew up the ranks of any foolish enough to be enlisting our angel children. Period. They'd be running and ducking and dodging when they see me coming.

All military is ORCS. DOG EAT DOG BRUTALITY. No woman in her right mind would ever lower her frequency to join.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

They hav already earned it.

Already earned it? Women have served so little in comparison to men in front line units that there is almost zero data to show any comparable proformance level.

Now females have died in combat zones but how man have died behing a mechine gun? How many have died clearing houses of armed combatants?

Notice that we hear nothing from men that have served under fire or in grunt units. Thats what we are talking about here. Women are unproven as grunts. So yea you still have a lot of earning to do it that aspect. Good luck.

Nice, we just received a more weaker link than our current weak link. I don't want to hear about your stress fractures and fatigue when we are hauling 120 pounds of equipment around mountains. Just more BS to put with, not including the high annoying pitch of a woman's voice trying to prove herself.

I don't want to hear about the spike in rape either.