Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Started by Turks, January 24, 2013, 04:17:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

AndyJackson

Just wait until the savages in the middle east grab a few women and start raping the hell out of them on streaming video.

Then of course there will be howls for special rescue efforts that will get a bunch of people killed.

Then some enterprising liberals will find a way to sue for all that.

It's never THE THING that we see today.  It's always about their next 5 or 6 steps that are coming, in the long march to chaos, anarchy, and unbridled hedonism.

You see it with abortion, then 3rd trimester, then partial, then infanticide & euthanasia.

Or DADT, then open flaunting, then demanding military sponsored gay days and SF style debauchery.

raptor5618

If they pass the physical standards let them do it.  The Russians had women in their ranks during WW2 and the Viet Cong used women too.  Russia kicked the Nazi's out of their country that included some of the most brutal battles of the war and I have never heard a single word that they would have succeeded sooner if  they left the women home.   Perhaps someone who is more of a historian than I could pip in on what the Russians experience was. 

I just hope that this does not become one more example of where we as a nation have to include those who are not able to meet the standard. 
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

Turks

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 07:00:56 AM
If they pass the physical standards let them do it.  The Russians had women in their ranks during WW2 and the Viet Cong used women too.  Russia kicked the Nazi's out of their country that included some of the most brutal battles of the war and I have never heard a single word that they would have succeeded sooner if  they left the women home.   Perhaps someone who is more of a historian than I could pip in on what the Russians experience was. 

I just hope that this does not become one more example of where we as a nation have to include those who are not able to meet the standard.

No doubt they next step is to lower the standards.  This is all part of the "Master Plan"  The one everyone denies and will call you a conspiracy kook if you mention it.  :sad:

redlom xof

As long as they can pass the requirements, that's fine.

If you have to make different tests for women in order to get some through, I don't agree.

If that results in 1000 women in, that is all good. If that results in 0 women in, I'm fine with that too.
"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

Turks

"Former Navy SEAL commander and Montana State Sen. Ryan Zinke reacted sharply Wednesday to news the Obama administration will drop the prohibition against women serving in military combat roles, warning it is "nearly certain" to cost lives. A Republican who served in the elite SEAL Team Six, Zinke cautioned that introducing male-female dynamics on the front lines "has the potential to degrade our combat readiness."

http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz2IuFUHXq4

AndyJackson

I promise you that commanders WILL be rated on how well they support the women's integration into combat units and ops.

CC's that have very few will be hurt and their careers will flounder.

CC's that pump out big #'s of women for the cause.....will get promoted and slowly become the top cadre of Obama's military.

Same with who does and doesn't grow the gay presence in the military.

There will be myriad strategies, workarounds, and flat out cheating to get it done.

Like F & F, Behghazi, etc.....those who get caught will slip away with little interest.

Those who get caught not cheating and supporting the cause......will pay.

redlom xof

Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.
"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

kramarat

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:21:35 AM
Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.

Completely agree.

AndyJackson

redlom, I think you somehow missed the point.

We conservatives typically support things like letting the amazon women who can kick guys' asses....go ahead and earn whatever they want.  And whatever badass gay guys that are out there.

What we don't support is the immediate and systemic cheating that will come with political overtures like this.

Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us.

That's a lock.  Look at how every other affirmative action program is used as a criminal enterprise, and you're called racist if you bring this up.

Women and gays now have license to cheat their way to anything they feel like demanding in the military.  It will happen.  And I'll bet that folks like you will be supportive of it, and howl out all the standard accusations whenever it's discussed.

Turks

Quote from: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:28:17 AM
redlom, I think you somehow missed the point.

We conservatives typically support things like letting the amazon women who can kick guys' asses....go ahead and earn whatever they want.  And whatever badass gay guys that are out there.

What we don't support is the immediate and systemic cheating that will come with political overtures like this.

Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us.

That's a lock.  Look at how every other affirmative action program is used as a criminal enterprise, and you're called racist if you bring this up.

Women and gays now have license to cheat their way to anything they feel like demanding in the military.  It will happen.  And I'll bet that folks like you will be supportive of it, and howl out all the standard accusations whenever it's discussed.


"Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us."



BINGO!


And we all know how standards get "dumbed down"  under the guise of inclusiveness.

Solar

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:21:35 AM
Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.
But do you think this is a good idea, and if so, why?
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

redlom xof

If that is the case, I won't support that.


But you guys are ruling it out completely based on hypothetical scenarios.

" If we allow gays to serve openly, they may start trying to get special powers and privileges, therefor we shouldn't allow them to serve to beguine with."

It would have been the same in the day when dealing with racial issues. ( not claiming you're inferring this or anything)
"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

redlom xof

QuoteBut do you think this is a good idea, and if so, why?

Honestly, probably not.

"Christians are expected to pacify angry Muslims, Communist brats and homosexual radicals and Mexicans who convinced themselves that they own our land. That tells me the Christians are the better people among brutal and violent beasts."  Yawn - 15th May, 2013

Solar

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
Honestly, probably not.
Then why not argue that fact, instead of carrying the leftist water?
Point is, you don't always have to go along with the party, even when they're wrong, like every lib that stumbles through the forum.
Find your position and take a stand, I know you from your posts, you're better than that.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
Honestly, probably not.

Given more thought, there are physiological factors alone that make it a bad idea..........even if they are tough.

A couple of examples: Women have to go through a lot more trouble to take a leak. There is also the issue of them being on their period during a combat deployment. Neither one of them is a good thing for combat readiness.