Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

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

Previous topic - Next topic

JustKari

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:11:16 AM
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.

As a woman, I agree with this.  Absolutly no special concessions should be made.  If no women can hack it, then they weren't meant to.

redlom xof

My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

QuoteA 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.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.
"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, 08:05:38 AM
My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.
Cramps and mental instability, or rather emotional instability, though both go hand in hand, then there is the issue of male, female dynamics that cannot be overcome, nature of nurture and protect, that is instinctual.
This whole move has absolutely nothing to do with rights, women have not been protesting the right to die in combat.
This whole thing by design, is to destroy the Military structure, and if you can't open your eyes to the obvious, then you are lost in the flock of other mindless followers to the slaughter.

Question the motivation of your leaders, if you don't do it now, then when? For crying out loud.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

raptor5618

I really am starting to believe that this countries biggest problem is that in your face honesty is no longer the norm.  All the hot topics of late are argued on both sides not for what the rule or decision of plan is, but what it might become.   The Left want to regulate guns and they base it on the hypothetical that a gun somehow causes someone to shoot someone else. Gun rights people do not want any regulations because they fear, with good reason I believe, that the new regulation is only a stepping stone and not the actual extent of what the other side wants.   

In this case women in the military seems to be opposed not because none of them are capable but because standards will be dropped and promotions will be based on female affirmative action. Again I never thought about that but think it has merit.

Everything is based on the fear that if you give an inch they will take a mile.  It just seems that there is no honor anymore where when an agreement is reached that the discussion is over.   Even the negotiations are not honest.  What happened to a mans word is his bond way of thinking.  How can we ever get anything done when everyone believes they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and  most action is done for appearance sake and not with the goal of actually solving a problem. 

This really is a no brainer if everyone were honest and someones word could be trusted.  I see no reason why they should not be able to serve if they can qualify in exactly the same way as men.  If anyone is captured they are brutalized so that should not be an issue.  The ambassador supposedly was raped so why is that not as bad as if he was a she.  I accept that there are differences between Men and woman but thing that we as a society should not be limiting what we can do based on race, sex or even sexuality.  But given our society that can find a way to litigate over anything well I think that it will be a long while before we find a way to solve problems rationally. 
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

redlom xof

QuoteCramps and mental instability, or rather emotional instability, though both go hand in hand, then there is the issue of male, female dynamics that cannot be overcome, nature of nurture and protect, that is instinctual.


Question the motivation of your leaders, if you don't do it now, then when? For crying out loud.

Solar, all those things you mentioned would be taken care of in the screening process. If a female is emotionally immature, she doesn't pass, same as a man.

When you talk about differences in male and female biology, I agree. That is why a lot more men are in the military, especially front line rolls.

As I said before, If this equality results in one female passing and serving her country, so be it. If it means 50, so be it.

QuoteThis whole move has absolutely nothing to do with rights, women have not been protesting the right to die in combat.
This whole thing by design, is to destroy the Military structure, and if you can't open your eyes to the obvious, then you are lost in the flock of other mindless followers to the slaughter.

I don't honestly see Obama/Democrats or even Republicans, trying to bring down our military power. That is not their aim. Obama supports our military ( I think for the wrong reasons, but that is another discussion).

Why else would he increase our military budget and also continue Bush's wars ?
"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

JustKari

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 08:17:52 AM
I really am starting to believe that this countries biggest problem is that in your face honesty is no longer the norm.  All the hot topics of late are argued on both sides not for what the rule or decision of plan is, but what it might become.   The Left want to regulate guns and they base it on the hypothetical that a gun somehow causes someone to shoot someone else. Gun rights people do not want any regulations because they fear, with good reason I believe, that the new regulation is only a stepping stone and not the actual extent of what the other side wants.   

In this case women in the military seems to be opposed not because none of them are capable but because standards will be dropped and promotions will be based on female affirmative action. Again I never thought about that but think it has merit.

Everything is based on the fear that if you give an inch they will take a mile.  It just seems that there is no honor anymore where when an agreement is reached that the discussion is over.   Even the negotiations are not honest.  What happened to a mans word is his bond way of thinking.  How can we ever get anything done when everyone believes they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and  most action is done for appearance sake and not with the goal of actually solving a problem. 

This really is a no brainer if everyone were honest and someones word could be trusted.  I see no reason why they should not be able to serve if they can qualify in exactly the same way as men.  If anyone is captured they are brutalized so that should not be an issue.  The ambassador supposedly was raped so why is that not as bad as if he was a she.  I accept that there are differences between Men and woman but thing that we as a society should not be limiting what we can do based on race, sex or even sexuality.  But given our society that can find a way to litigate over anything well I think that it will be a long while before we find a way to solve problems rationally.

I think you have a very good point.  It is all about trusting someones word.  If the military lowers the bar for women, then it is the military that is to blame for lowering that standard.  Will a ton of women even want to be put in combat positions?  I doubt it, women work in firefighting and coast guard positions as well, but in very small numbers and this would be much more taxing a job than those.
As for peeing, women have been camping, hunting, and working construction (etc) for many years, we kinda have the peeing in the wild thing down.  Menstruation is also an easy fix, many women rework their pill cycles during college so that they don't have a period until it is "convenient", or you can simply get the Depo Prevara shot, which stops your period altogether.  As to moodiness, not all women get moody during their cycle and I would hope that a woman who was a high enough rank in our military to even qualify to try to do this would have the moody factor under control.
As to a mans need to protect females, well I can't really say anything about that, I think a man, if given the opportunity is just protective in nature, no matter if the subject being protected is man or woman.

Do I think it is a fantastic idea?  No, I don't.  Things were working just fine before, and I honestly have heard nothing from the Womens lib groups intimating that they wish to do this, so it seems more of a parting shot from a retiring man who won't have to see how it turns out.  However, if the regulations for admittance be left as is, then let them try.  I don't see very many woman succeeding.  The amount of gear, that has to be carried constantly, alone would limit the number of likely candidates down to negligible numbers, then add the test of being able to port wounded would pretty much eliminate all other candidates.     

raptor5618

Women have their own issues as do men that can be a detriment as a soldier. The protective part is I think a non issue because guys in combat protect each other anyway.  How many stories about guys giving their life up to recover another soldier even when that soldier was dead.  I think some women will want to do it but I think few would really be able to make it through something like the Seals. 

I go back to Russia in WW2 and maybe even today but women were on the front lines and fought right next to men and they certainly were an effective army at that time. 

As far as capture goes and the enemy does not comply with the rules well neither man nor women are going to be treated well and I think it is a fact that women can endure pain much better than men.  At the beginning especially I think any women who is on the front lines would have a larger burden on their shoulders not to let women down and I think they would have to be pretty bad ass anyway to want to be in combat and fulfill all the requirements.
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

Solar

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:28:03 AM
Solar, all those things you mentioned would be taken care of in the screening process. If a female is emotionally immature, she doesn't pass, same as a man.

When you talk about differences in male and female biology, I agree. That is why a lot more men are in the military, especially front line rolls.

As I said before, If this equality results in one female passing and serving her country, so be it. If it means 50, so be it.

I don't honestly see Obama/Democrats or even Republicans, trying to bring down our military power. That is not their aim. Obama supports our military ( I think for the wrong reasons, but that is another discussion).

Why else would he increase our military budget and also continue Bush's wars ?
I know I can't change your mind, mostly because you've never served.
But there is an issue, one that covers gays and women in a front line position.
Relationships, people will sacrifice others to save their mate, male or female.

I'm done with this issue, trying to educate libs is a useless attempt at justifying insanity.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

AndyJackson

Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:05:38 AM
My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.

Your whole attempt to excuse away the problems with women in combat.....is hypothetical.

That there won't be pregnancies in theater, or problems with relationships on the front line, guys fighting or killing each other over this, gals fighting with each other over such things, guys forgetting about their safety and others' to save their girl and vice versa, and so on.

There's a whole element of BS that IS GOING TO HAPPEN, that has no business happening in combat.

But of course liberals pretend that none of this will happen, or even more insidiously, "well, too bad, that's the price you pay so that I can have my rights".

kramarat

There's also the big elephant in the room that no one is willing to address, and we know for a fact that it causes problems all of the time.........in and out of the military.

It's the same reason I'm not comfortable with open gays in the military.

When on combat duty, the bulk of the time is not spent shooting at enemies. It's time in remote locations with lots of boredom.

The issue is human nature, sexuality, urges, and the problems that they cause.

Lets face it, sex and sexual jealousy create all kinds of problems, just in normal society. People wind up in prison over it.

Mix men and women together in some remote desert, some of them away from their spouses, and there are going to be problems; there's no question about it, and those problems could get people killed.

To me, that is reason enough to keep them separated and completely focused on their jobs. It's not about women being weaker.

JustKari

Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 01:59:06 PM
There's also the big elephant in the room that no one is willing to address, and we know for a fact that it causes problems all of the time.........in and out of the military.

It's the same reason I'm not comfortable with open gays in the military.

When on combat duty, the bulk of the time is not spent shooting at enemies. It's time in remote locations with lots of boredom.

The issue is human nature, sexuality, urges, and the problems that they cause.

Lets face it, sex and sexual jealousy create all kinds of problems, just in normal society. People wind up in prison over it.

Mix men and women together in some remote desert, some of them away from their spouses, and there are going to be problems; there's no question about it, and those problems could get people killed.

To me, that is reason enough to keep them separated and completely focused on their jobs. It's not about women being weaker.

You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.

Reality

Sadly, the rubber will meet the road when one of our female combatants gets captured by the likes of the Taliban. 

Solar

Quote from: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.
There's no convincing libs, consequences be damned and social mores proven over tens of thousands of years never cross the mind of an emotional kid.
Throw it all out because they might be right, regardless of what history has taught.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

AndyJackson

Quote from: Reality on January 24, 2013, 02:33:34 PM
Sadly, the rubber will meet the road when one of our female combatants gets captured by the likes of the Taliban.
Sadly, the libs will then fabricate some amazing way to blame Bush, or as stated earlier by someone, use it to undermine the war effort.

There is NEVER a "ah, we were wrong" moment for liberals.  Just a slight change in the lies, to make them "still right no matter", and to move right along to demand something else.

kramarat

Quote from: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.

It won't be like MASH, where Hawkeye beds any woman he wants, and everybody else stays away.

They started putting women on tenders back in the early 80's when I was in the Navy, for limited deployments, as well as on carriers for full deployments.They never admitted that there were problems that I know of, but there were. It doesn't have to do with prejudice against women, it's just that the problems that do occur, impact both moral and full combat readiness.

We're talking about young kids here. The left has already taught them that sex whenever they feel like it, with whoever, is okay.

Although I don't think it was rampant, there were also women that entered the military and chose their assignments, specifically to engage in prostitution. Needless to say, they made LOTS of money.

I don't even want to think about what the taliban would do to a captured female..............and suppose she was romantically involved with a guy from the unit. Would he be able to think straight in that situation?

Soldiers are expected to perform like machines. Any level of emotional disruption. is too much.