TOTALLY GEEKED!

weltschmerz · Guru

US Opens Combat Roles To Women

burns07 · Guru

As long as they qualify and meet the standards
____________________________________

the most important nine words in all the rhetoric--to date, their ability (as a group) to qualify has proved rather dubious--for everyone's safety, am hoping that there are no standards lowered, bent, waived, etc. in order that they may " qualify " as has been done and still is done with " affirmative action " policies in other pursuits

" diversity " is one thing, life and death is quite another

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
The U.S. military will let women serve in all combat roles, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Thursday in a historic move striking down gender barriers in the armed forces.
"As long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before," Carter told a Pentagon news conference.
"They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men," he said.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-women-combat-idUSKBN0TM28520151204#AAjDiDMlf67iBiwY.99

Well it's about time!

And yet you have sympathy for a "religion" that, at its core, puts women on the same level as any other household object.

Property.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
The U.S. military will let women serve in all combat roles, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said on Thursday in a historic move striking down gender barriers in the armed forces.
"As long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before," Carter told a Pentagon news conference.
"They'll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars, and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They'll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men," he said.

Read more at Reutershttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-women-combat-idUSKBN0TM28520151204#AAjDiDMlf67iBiwY.99

Well it's about time!

And yet you have sympathy for a "religion" that, at its core, puts women on the same level as any other household object.
Property.

I have sympathy for Islam? Did you suffer a blow to the head?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Muslims. Don't play dumb.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
Muslims. Don't play dumb.

Right back atcha. Don't play dumb. I can't stand Islam, and if you say I'm sympathetic, then prove it.

You must be hallucinating.

weltschmerz · Guru

Have another drink or six.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, i don't know if women should be in combat or not. I am not a General or military person so i wouldn't presume to say how it should be run. I know that some countries do. If there is a need to do it then I am fine with it. But, men and women are not the same and are not interchangeable.

huskerbb · Guru

This is a bad idea on several levels.

A. The Marines did a study on this and found that combat units that included women were less effective. Sure, it wasn't actual combat--but simulated--still, though, those who argue in favor of this having nothing to refute it.

B. We are stripping the ability of our society to recover should a catastrophic war occur.

Ohfour · Hooker

I agree. This is not a good thing...

burns07 · Guru

another thing (one that the feminazis who've been pushing for this have been silent about) is that women of age will now be eligible for the draft in the event of a declared war or national emergency--from the dorm/sorority house to the battlefield as an infantry grunt

huskerbb · Guru

It's a purely political decision made NOT to make our nation stronger or our armed forces better. It is purely politically correct BS crap.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Muslims. Don't play dumb.
Right back atcha. Don't play dumb. I can't stand Islam, and if you say I'm sympathetic, then prove it.
You must be hallucinating.

All anyone has to do is read any one of your posts on the subject.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
Have another drink or six.

And I don't drink.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

huskerbb wrote:
This is a bad idea on several levels.

A. The Marines did a study on this and found that combat units that included women were less effective. Sure, it wasn't actual combat--but simulated--still, though, those who argue in favor of this having nothing to refute it.

B. We are stripping the ability of our society to recover should a catastrophic war occur.

I agree.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

burns07 wrote:

another thing (one that the feminazis who've been pushing for this have been silent about) is that women of age will now be eligible for the draft in the event of a declared war or national emergency--from the dorm/sorority house to the battlefield as an infantry grunt

And again, I agree.

huskerbb · Guru

Also, it's a bit like the female fire-fighter issue.

If they can meet the SAME physical requirements as the males--then I have less of an issue with it.

However, the physical requirements for passing basic training is lower for women than men--drastically fewer pushups, and their required time for the 2 mile run is lower.

Making them the same still would not resolve the inherent problems of putting women in combat roles with men--but at least the ones that would pass the same physical requirements would more deserve to be there.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well, some of that is fine. But, is there any real evidence that being able to do more pullups or pushups actually makes a person a better soldier on the field?

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well, some of that is fine. But, is there any real evidence that being able to do more pullups or pushups actually makes a person a better soldier on the field?

What makes a "better" soldier? It's not a question of "better"--it's supposedly a question of equality, and how can you claim to be equal when the requirements for you are lower?

The only "evidence" we have on this subject is what the Marines came up with.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

In the field, you need strength.

It isn't just about combat.

There is building and tearing down that happens.

huskerbb · Guru

It depends on the role. But marching over rough terrain for long distances, digging trenches and foxholes, carrying heavy equipment--those are all part of combat that it take physical strength and endurance to do. Why should some soldiers have to be proficient to a level of "x" to do those roles--and some not?

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Muslims. Don't play dumb.
Right back atcha. Don't play dumb. I can't stand Islam, and if you say I'm sympathetic, then prove it.
You must be hallucinating.
All anyone has to do is read any one of your posts on the subject.

There is not one single post that I've written where I have shown any sympathy towards Muslims. Not one.

If you insist that any exist, then you're either drunk or hallucinating. Nothing could be further from the truth, so put up, instead of a vague "any of your posts." That's BS.

Stop lying.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I said direct evidence that doing x amount of pushups makes one a better soldier than one who does 0.8x.

weltschmerz · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
This is a bad idea on several levels.

A. The Marines did a study on this and found that combat units that included women were less effective. Sure, it wasn't actual combat--but simulated--still, though, those who argue in favor of this having nothing to refute it.

B. We are stripping the ability of our society to recover should a catastrophic war occur.

For the women who did sign up and ended up fighting in Afghanistan, many found the experience rewarding. As part of a two-person, heavy machine-gun team, Infantry Cpl. Katie Hodges regularly carried 80 pounds of equipment, including 220 rounds of ammunition, and sometimes went out on patrol for up to four days in a stretch. "It was great," she said.

Canadian commanders have said women fighters perform as well as their male counterparts. Maj. Eleanor Taylor became the first Canadian woman to command an infantry company in a war zone. Army Brig. Gen. Dean Milner, the last commander of Canada's combat mission, said Maj. Taylor was "easily" one of the best officers to serve under him. "The bottom line is they are soldiers," Gen. Milner said in an interview.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323539804578262002928698208

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Muslims. Don't play dumb.
Right back atcha. Don't play dumb. I can't stand Islam, and if you say I'm sympathetic, then prove it.
You must be hallucinating.
All anyone has to do is read any one of your posts on the subject.
There is not one single post that I've written where I have shown any sympathy towards Muslims. Not one.
If you insist that any exist, then you're either drunk or hallucinating. Nothing could be further from the truth, so put up, instead of a vague "any of your posts." That's BS.
Stop lying.

Oh. I'm not lying.

Not drunk cause I don't drink.

Why would I be hallucinating?

You are the one who said how great they are.

I read your posts.

You'll sing their praises even when it's your neck on the chopping block.

weltschmerz · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Muslims. Don't play dumb.
Right back atcha. Don't play dumb. I can't stand Islam, and if you say I'm sympathetic, then prove it.
You must be hallucinating.
All anyone has to do is read any one of your posts on the subject.
There is not one single post that I've written where I have shown any sympathy towards Muslims. Not one.
If you insist that any exist, then you're either drunk or hallucinating. Nothing could be further from the truth, so put up, instead of a vague "any of your posts." That's BS.
Stop lying.
Oh. I'm not lying.
Not drunk cause I don't drink.
Why would I be hallucinating?
You are the one who said how great they are.
I read your posts.
You'll sing their praises even when it's your neck on the chopping block.

What the FVCK are you talking about?

When the hell did I ever sing their praises? When did I ever say they were great? There's something really wrong with you.

Instead of babbling about nonsense with a vague "any of your posts", how about putting up or shutting up? Find me just one post where I even imply how great Muslims are. Just one. Should be pretty easy.

But you won't, because none exist.

You'll just come back with another moronic accusation you're incapable of backing up.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
It depends on the role. But marching over rough terrain for long distances, digging trenches and foxholes, carrying heavy equipment--those are all part of combat that it take physical strength and endurance to do. Why should some soldiers have to be proficient to a level of "x" to do those roles--and some not?

I don't know. A team consisits of many components. And, yeah, they did basic fitness tests in bygone years among men. A lot of that was put into place and there was no real science behind it just "oh let's require men to be able to do X as an indication of their fitness" whether that is indeed true or not.

We don't expect everyone on a football team or a basketball team to have the same skills. A quarterback most certainly has different skills than an offensive lineman. The "Bigs" in basketball are rarely as proficient ballhandlers as the point guard. Yet, we need all of those skill sets for a successful team. Women may bring other things to the table in combat. I don't know. But, there are countries who have women in those roles so it is something that can be researched.

huskerbb · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
I said direct evidence that doing x amount of pushups makes one a better soldier than one who does 0.8x.

It's not .8x. The qualification for males is 47 in two minutes, for females, it's 13, so it's .2766x.

again, though, if you are going to make the claim that you are a a equal soldier, then the requirements need to be equal.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
This is a bad idea on several levels.

A. The Marines did a study on this and found that combat units that included women were less effective. Sure, it wasn't actual combat--but simulated--still, though, those who argue in favor of this having nothing to refute it.

B. We are stripping the ability of our society to recover should a catastrophic war occur.
For the women who did sign up and ended up fighting in Afghanistan, many found the experience rewarding. As part of a two-person, heavy machine-gun team, Infantry Cpl. Katie Hodges regularly carried 80 pounds of equipment, including 220 rounds of ammunition, and sometimes went out on patrol for up to four days in a stretch. "It was great," she said.
Canadian commanders have said women fighters perform as well as their male counterparts. Maj. Eleanor Taylor became the first Canadian woman to command an infantry company in a war zone. Army Brig. Gen. Dean Milner, the last commander of Canada's combat mission, said Maj. Taylor was "easily" one of the best officers to serve under him. "The bottom line is they are soldiers," Gen. Milner said in an interview.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323539804578262002928698208

They may have found the experience rewarding, but what about their peers and direct commanders?

also, why make the requirements lower?

Bonny22Pye · Guru

I think if they can pass the same tests and meet all the qualifications that men do then its ok. Which is going to limit it to very few women.

huskerbb · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
I think if they can pass the same tests and meet all the qualifications that men do then its ok. Which is going to limit it to very few women.

I would have much less of an issue with it.

They could make all the otheir tests besides the physical the same, also.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
I think if they can pass the same tests and meet all the qualifications that men do then its ok. Which is going to limit it to very few women.
I would have much less of an issue with it.
They could make all the otheir tests besides the physical the same, also.

Of people want equality, let it be equal. Men and Women are different and their is nothing wrong with that. How are women going to handle having to pee in a bottle in the back of a transport truck with their male counterparts? How are they going to handle female hygiene in battle? what happens if someone finds out they are pregnant in the middle of nowhere on a mission?

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
I think if they can pass the same tests and meet all the qualifications that men do then its ok. Which is going to limit it to very few women.
I would have much less of an issue with it.
They could make all the otheir tests besides the physical the same, also.
Of people want equality, let it be equal. Men and Women are different and their is nothing wrong with that. How are women going to handle having to pee in a bottle in the back of a transport truck with their male counterparts? How are they going to handle female hygiene in battle? what happens if someone finds out they are pregnant in the middle of nowhere on a mission?

Big whoop. Women can and have always "handled" lots of things. Sheesh.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.

So, how is that somehow different than having gay men in a troop? Won't they be distracted as well?

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.
So, how is that somehow different than having gay men in a troop? Won't they be distracted as well?

You don't always know someone is gay (especially in the military, they don't fare well), but you would always know if someone was a woman...

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.
So, how is that somehow different than having gay men in a troop? Won't they be distracted as well?
You don't always know someone is gay (especially in the military, they don't fare well), but you would always know if someone was a woman...

Which means what? That every man is attracted to the point of distraction to every women? The same arguments have been used as to why men and women could not work together in the work place. Or, why women should never lead anything, blah, blah.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.
So, how is that somehow different than having gay men in a troop? Won't they be distracted as well?
You don't always know someone is gay (especially in the military, they don't fare well), but you would always know if someone was a woman...
Which means what? That every man is attracted to the point of distraction to every women? The same arguments have been used as to why men and women could not work together in the work place. Or, why women should never lead anything, blah, blah.

Not attracted...out to prove something. Women too.

huskerbb · Guru

There is no reason to do this other than PC nonsense.

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
huskerbb wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
I think if they can pass the same tests and meet all the qualifications that men do then its ok. Which is going to limit it to very few women.
I would have much less of an issue with it.
They could make all the otheir tests besides the physical the same, also.
Of people want equality, let it be equal. Men and Women are different and their is nothing wrong with that. How are women going to handle having to pee in a bottle in the back of a transport truck with their male counterparts? How are they going to handle female hygiene in battle? what happens if someone finds out they are pregnant in the middle of nowhere on a mission?
Big whoop. Women can and have always "handled" lots of things. Sheesh.

I know that women in the military high a high risk of UTI's because they hold it in longer than their male counterparts. I'm also just curious how do they manage all this stuff in combat?

just Czech · Give Me Grand's!

IMHO, a bad idea.

Once more, PC cR ap gone too far.

Ohfour · Hooker

just Czech wrote:
IMHO, a bad idea.

Once more, PC cR ap gone too far.

Yup!

burns07 · Guru

combat is about killing and surviving--with your hands if needs be or with a weapon if available--it's not hollywood, not demi moore and gi jane nonsense, it's about being alive in the next few moments--about killing your opponent--have done some myself and it's not the arena for women,bless them all--in my humble opinion, the up-close-and-personal killing needs to be handled by men

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Quite frankly, I have issue with men and women serving in combat together. It has the potential to be too distracting. You'll get men who are sexist pigs, men who are too chivalrous, women who are too intent on proving they can do what a man can do and not acting wisely, and the whole sex among the ranks issue.

Nope, it's about as good an idea as freshmen co-ed dorm rooms.
So, how is that somehow different than having gay men in a troop? Won't they be distracted as well?
You don't always know someone is gay (especially in the military, they don't fare well), but you would always know if someone was a woman...
Which means what? That every man is attracted to the point of distraction to every women? The same arguments have been used as to why men and women could not work together in the work place. Or, why women should never lead anything, blah, blah.

Ahhh, those people are not away for their loved ones for months on end, facing life and death situations on a daily basis, and basically living with their co-workers. Not the same thing at all.

weltschmerz · Guru

We have female squadron leaders and female generals. Our very best shooter with an assault rifle has a long red ponytail. Some say female soldiers are easier to train because they're not as stubborn. Women here have been fighting on the front lines for over 25 years and there have been no problems.
People who weigh in with UTIs and hygiene are just looking for problems where none exist.
Many countries have women on the front lines. One of my best friends was a sharpshooter in the Israeli army.
Why is it such a problem for the USA? "Oh, it can't be done...bad idea". That's nonsense.

news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/best-shooter-in-canadas-military-has-a-long-red-ponytail

Ohfour · Hooker

And Canada has such a dominant military...lol!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Israel has women in limited combat roles. But they really have too. We dont at this point.

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
And Canada has such a dominant military...lol!

How is that pertinent to the discussion? We still fought and died alongside you in Afghanistan. Men AND Women.

Ohfour · Hooker

Its always good to show the boy scouts how its really done...its kinda like being a mentor at the Boys and Girls Club. Its cute...

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
And Canada has such a dominant military...lol!

Lol all you want. It's a real laugh riot.