Thread So does anyone actually have a problem with women serving in active combat roles?

b_sinning

Erect Member
Nov 22, 2004
22,790
47
41
45
Savannah, GA
People are probably going to die so somebody can have a chance at a star? Is it worth it? It will happen in time but what is the need to force the change right now? Stuff is building to a climax in the middle east, our world image is at an all time low, and we really need to lower military spending while still looking strong to our enemies. Is now the best time to even debate this in the military?
 

Mr. Argumentor

Will Argue for Tacos
Sep 27, 2012
50,666
23,156
723
Tampa-ish
Steam
asastang
People are probably going to die so somebody can have a chance at a star? Is it worth it? It will happen in time but what is the need to force the change right now? Stuff is building to a climax in the middle east, our world image is at an all time low, and we really need to lower military spending while still looking strong to our enemies. Is now the best time to even debate this in the military?

You literally have no clue what you are talking about.
Fucking seriously. @Domon, come take over I have to separate copper from copper chloride
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DJBrenton

In Her Majesty's Secret Cervix
Feb 10, 2010
9,391
3,297
273
Robin Hoodland
You literally have no clue what you are talking about.
Fucking seriously. @Domon, come take over I have to separate copper from copper chloride

Separate the chloride and what you have left will be copper. Simples. Everyone else just uses electrolysis. dare to be different.
 
Last edited:

b_sinning

Erect Member
Nov 22, 2004
22,790
47
41
45
Savannah, GA
Do you even read real news or studied history or have a concept of foreign culture? For all your bitching you have yet to give a reason why it's a good idea to put woman in combat roles. Why is it really necessary? It isn't cheaper and there is no proof it will increase the effectiveness of our combat troops. The only reason you said was for someone's chance at a promotion. Fuck that. When you replace one warrior with another less effective warrior be it due to physical ability or because you can't use them in certain social situations you weaken the fighting force. Several thousands of years of history has shown this fact. Name me one war won by an army with majority women? Why haven't they been used on more battlefields before now in combat roles? There have been several enlightened societies in history that has tried but it wasn't the most effective use of their resources. If it was other forces would have adopted it as a winning strategy. It has nothing to do with equality. Wars aren't won by giving a damn about equality. You want to use your best chance at winning in the field while leaving the right mix of people at home to rebuild or maintain your society post war. You don't want your women coming back carrying part enemy babies with them. Look at the difficulties we had leaving long term Military in Germany and Japan post WW2.


Name me a news story in the last few decades where a middle eastern society has said send us your women to fix our problems. they don't want our men there but they sure as hell don't want our women. Some of those countries still punish women for spending any alone time with men outside of family. You can't just demand they adopt our culture because we say so. All your doing is creating more enemies.


Be sides pointless bitching you have yet to show any evidence on why this is such a great idea.
 

b_sinning

Erect Member
Nov 22, 2004
22,790
47
41
45
Savannah, GA
I think you base all your views on the middle east and women on saudi arabia, which no troops are occupying....

Where do you think the majority of the US forces has been fighting for the past 2 decades? The middle east. I just listed Saudi as one of our allies over there. Most of the other countries there don't treat women any better.

I think women are most likely better pilots/drone pilots than men because of better dexterity and coordination. Women fighters did an awesome job for the VC in Nam in guerilla warfare. Women have done great in tons of combat roles in the past but historically just men on the battlefield has worked out for the best. One day when we have mech suits that take out the physical factor and can only be opened back at base then lets throw them into the infantry. But at this very moment there isn't a good enough pro.


Lets say we do and major major war breaks out and we just draft them like they did men in the last WW what do you see as the long term pro of doing that? England practically lost a generation of men in the last WW. What if you lost a generation of women instead of men? Did you win the war if your population is majority made up of your enemy in a few generations?


You get a group of guys and throw in a few women and you start dicking around with the band of brothers mentality. My best friend has told me tons of times where they've had to ban women from the barracks and being too close to the guys soldiers because of in fighting because guys are stupid around girls. Especially military guys. Plus I don't see many guys running to fly the bomber with the hairy man in a sexy pose on the nose.


There are ton of other roles in our arm forces for women to fill. Just because they may not be the best fit for one role does anything to lessen their importance. No man will ever be able to do somethings that women do no matter how hard they try.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Argumentor

Will Argue for Tacos
Sep 27, 2012
50,666
23,156
723
Tampa-ish
Steam
asastang
I'll play your silly little game!

Do you even read real news
I honestly have no clue what this has to do with ANYTHING we are discussing, but yes. I have on average an hour between classes every day I have classes (3x a week), I spend that time fucking off on the interweb, either on a forum or reading news sites.

However, I do find it absolutely HILARIOUS that you accuse me of being out of touch with what is going on in the world when you have mentioned women getting raped a couple times as if it is a new thing (Protip: men are coming forward in RECORD NUMBERS to report that they have been raped by their squadmates while on deployment. When you consider how many females don't report rapes, applying that to men is going to be even worse)

For all your bitching you have yet to give a reason why it's a good idea to put woman in combat roles.
Why do you have such a hard time remembering my stance on the matter? I haven't mentioned it every 5 posts like you have, but I did mention it.

I am ambivalent on the matter. I don't see it as a negative thing, but I damned sure don't see the point of it considering we are completing missions with all male troops.
It isn't cheaper and there is no proof it will increase the effectiveness of our combat troops.
How do you figure that it isn't cheaper? Hell, women are smaller so they eat less, by that argument I can state that they will be cheaper and it will be as valid an argument as that one.
And there never will be proof if the rules aren't changed. You can't have a point based on no facts.

The only reason you said was for someone's chance at a promotion.
Here is a point where I have a good solid argument. The ONLY real power within the military are Generals. There has NEVER been a female in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hell I think that Colin Powell has been the only black man as a JCS member.
You want rape to not be a problem in the military, you get them to change the rules, are women going to be more concerned about prosecuting rapists, or men?

Unfortunately, this point is about the same as "recycling will save the earth"
Yes, it is a good thing, but it won't benefit anyone currently in the military above the rank of (roughly) O-4.
Fuck that. When you replace one warrior with another less effective warrior be it due to physical ability or because you can't use them in certain social situations you weaken the fighting force.
No one in this thread has been advocating lessening the physical fitness requirements for women, so how can you say that women will be a "less effective warrior" in the physical sense?
Why can't you use them in certain social situations? You claim that cultural conditions in Saudi Arabia won't allow it, but we aren't in Saudi Arabia in a combat situation.
Do you mean Afghanistan? Go look up Women's Rights in the 'stan. Everyone in charge of the country for last century, until the Taliban, was trying to reform women's rights. Since we are fighting the Taliban, we don't really want to reinforce their belief system.

Several thousands of years of history has shown this fact. Name me one war won by an army with majority women?
Ahhh... so your point is thousands of thousands of years of outdated information?
There have been several guerrilla groups that have kicked plenty of men's asses. I'll go looking for 'em later.
However... Fucking Syria further along on this than we are. Look at what these female guards are expected to do
http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/70908/report-after-gaddafis-female-guards-assads-female

There have been several enlightened societies in history that has tried but it wasn't the most effective use of their resources.
Which?
It has nothing to do with equality.
It has everything to do with equality. Literally everything.
You want to use your best chance at winning in the field while leaving the right mix of people at home to rebuild or maintain your society post war.
Ah yes, rebuilding post war... That is a pretty big issue right now with an entire generation of US citizens in the Middle East...
Oh, wait, there is something like 1% of US citizens in the entire US military, and less than half of those military members are in the Middle East?

You seem to be stuck in WWII. Wars are not fought the same way as they used to be, the modern military is much more advanced and much smarter than they were at that point in time. In today's world, iff enough people go to war to reach WWII levels we've got much more serious issues than women on the front line

You don't want your women coming back carrying part enemy babies with them.
What. The. Literal. Fuck.
This is fucking hilarious, absolutely god damned hilarious.
Seriously, I'm going to requote it in a larger font so more people see it.
You don't want your women coming back carrying part enemy babies with them.

Seriously, how racist are you? Are we going to be putting citizens of Middle Eastern descent in internment camps as the Japanese of WWII?
Look at the difficulties we had leaving long term Military in Germany and Japan post WW2.
What difficulties? The part where both countries welcome our troops with open arms? My father-in-law led many a town Oktoberfest parade when he was stationed in Germany. He was literally the Grand Marshall of the parade.
What difficulties?

Name me a news story in the last few decades where a middle eastern society has said send us your women to fix our problems.
Name me a female diplomat of the 60s or 70s that we could have sent. Hell, name me a Middle East country that has asked us to fix their problems, we went in and got ready to liberate Kuwait without them asking us.
You can't just demand they adopt our culture because we say so.
Every host country we are in is making strides to aid all of their citizens, including the women. We aren't demanding shit
Be sides pointless bitching you have yet to show any evidence on why this is such a great idea.
It isn't pointless bitching, you child. You have said nothing of value in this argument, the only things you have spouted off have been misogynistic, obsolete opinions based on a worldview that is decades out of date.


You.
Literally.
Know.
Nothing.
Of.
Value.
About.
This.
Topic.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: 1 person

Mr. Argumentor

Will Argue for Tacos
Sep 27, 2012
50,666
23,156
723
Tampa-ish
Steam
asastang
Plus I don't see many guys running to fly the bomber with the hairy man in a sexy pose on the nose.
I love when you reinforce shit I say.

Bombers don't have pinup poses on them anymore. Back in the early 90s the USAF decreed that nose art be gender-neutral.
You have an outdated world view
 

Domon

Robotic Dexter
May 19, 2011
47,335
29,051
823
Separate the chloride and what you have left will be copper. Simples. Everyone else just uses electrolysis. dare to be different.

iron produces a reaction that should strip the chloride. So does zinc. I think we used zinc back when i did it.
 

plot

Morning Boehner
Oct 16, 2006
20,031
4,165
573
kansas city
Simple answer: yes, let them serve in combat roles if they meet the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.

Simple solution to everything else: have them in all women units, don't mix one chick in with twenty guys for a mission. this is how Israel deals with their female combat roles.

One more thought, if women want equal rights in the military they should have to sign up for selective service too.
 

my little brony

Keep Being A Little Bitch
Oct 15, 2004
34,952
18,763
823
We're not just killing everyone in the middle east. Some of our allies do not see women as equals. Saudi Arabia for example. Women aren't even allowed to drive there.

It's our job to show them the right way, not bend to their will.
 

Mikeawesome

Im an Idiot, Ignore me.
Sep 27, 2012
7,131
3,567
173
we should have a segregated military so women can succeed on a level playing field