• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aclu sues over policy barring women from combat

Hatuey said:
Lol, the fact that you had to go on this little diatribe to white wash your use of derogatory terms is all we need to know. What next? Nigger isn't a racial/ethnic slur? It's just the term of the day for black people? Just because something is the 'term' of the day to the historically illiterate, it does not mean it's not a racial/ethnic slur. The two are more than mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

You misquoted me as libs are prone to do. I said war word not word of the day. We have never been in a war where the enemy was called "nigger". If you have to misquote people to make a point you obviously have no point.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You misquoted me as libs are prone to do. I said war word not word of the day.
Click to expand...

Actually, you misquoted what I actually quoted from your post

Here is what you said:

swayerloggingon said:
And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day
Click to expand...

Here is what I stated:

Just because something is the 'term' of the day to the historically illiterate
Click to expand...

We have never been in a war where the enemy was called "nigger". If you have to misquote people to make a point you obviously have no point.
Click to expand...

Lol, your acrobatics do not remove from the fact that 'war words'/'terms of the day' and 'ethnic slurs' aren't mutually exclusive. Do you know what mutually exclusive means? That you even think that 'terms of the day' can't be ethnic slurs is ridiculous. That you immediately after using the term had to hide behind wars you yourself didn't fight in, is beyond laughable.
 
Hatuey said:
Actually, you misquoted what I actually quoted from your post

Here is what you said:



Here is what I stated:





Lol, your acrobatics do not remove from the fact that 'war words'/'terms of the day' and 'ethnic slurs' aren't mutually exclusive. Do you know what mutually exclusive means? That you even think that 'terms of the day' can't be ethnic slurs is ridiculous. That you immediately after using the term had to hide behind wars you yourself didn't fight in, is beyond laughable.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of why I rarely respond to anything you post. I am here to discuss and debate issues, you are here to engage in petty little personal arguments. I have neither the time nor inclination for your idea of fun. Have a nice day.:)
 
TurtleDude said:
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out​
Click to expand...

As long as standards are not dumb down and women abide by the same exact physical and mental standards and those as their male counterparts and it is not to costly to accommodate women I would have no problem allowing women.But knowing the clowns in office they are going to dumb down the standards just like they already do for women in the military,so I do not support allowing women into combat roles.
 
Surtr said:
lol, ok.


The English referred to the Germans as "Jerry", and "slant" "gook" and "slope" were used as disparaging terms against the North Koreans and Vietnamese. We still view the enemy as people. They're just people we don't like, so why the **** would we refer to them using polite, PC terms?


I had a North Korean in my sights once. He looked pretty human to me, and I would have killed him just the same if ordered.



Thanks, I needed that chuckle. This isn't psychology, it's pretentious psychobabble and projection.


Military and civilian mindsets and psychology are two entirely different things. You should leave both to the professionals who actually know what they're doing... for the most part anyway. Or keep going, since I find you telling us how we think to be hilariously entertaining.
Click to expand...

Actually its was Gerry for German. Not that bad considering.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just to play devils advocate, we may question if those standards are really the important factor. Say all men became ill, and could not do anything physical, fires would still happen, and women would still fight them. They would adjust and develop different strategies for fighting them. In some cases, such rethinking may well lead to better strategies. I would not be too fixed to only one way of doing anything.
Click to expand...

If they want to revisit the entire standards (as they have done and always continue to do over time) then that's fine.

I have and always will oppose gender-standards for areas of service where physical fitness and ability is key.
 
celticwar17 said:
Oh yes it does, especially if you are the U.S..... I don't think war should have any boundaries, if you go to war, you go to war.... that said, war needs to have a clear goal and job to be done, and this goal/job must be important enough for some civilians to die... if it's not, than don't go to war.
Click to expand...

War is like a street fight where there is just one rule. THERE AREN"T ANY. Should there be? Of course but tell that to a guy who just saw his whole squad blown away or a squad who saw their buddies die in some gruesome way.

Most soldiers can hold it together and keep on going but its not easy and its not always.
 
jamesrage said:
As long as standards are not dumb down and women abide by the same exact physical and mental standards and those as their male counterparts and it is not to costly to accommodate women I would have no problem allowing women.But knowing the clowns in office they are going to dumb down the standards just like they already do for women in the military,so I do not support allowing women into combat roles.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would agree with having identical standards. To discriminate on the basis of gender, the government must show an important state interest in doing so. Military operations obviously have particular requirements. Failing to meet those requirements could endanger the operation, and lives. This certainly falls under my definition of an important state interest. However, if women meet those standards, I see no reason to deny women ground combat roles.

Probably the one place that will continue to be a difficulty in integration would be submarine operations. Living space is at such a premium in a submarine that it just isn't practical to have separate facilities for men and women. This might remain an operational issue, at least until we're in that Starship Troopers stage where men and women shower together.

wolfman24 said:
War is like a street fight where there is just one rule. THERE AREN"T ANY. Should there be? Of course but tell that to a guy who just saw his whole squad blown away or a squad who saw their buddies die in some gruesome way.

Most soldiers can hold it together and keep on going but its not easy and its not always.
Click to expand...

Seeing your squad blown away is not really a good reason to shoot children.
 
As a genealogoist (read historian) i find the entire argument against women in combat to be stupid. Ancient tribes like my ancestors the Kelts had women in combat. One of the Keltic tribes fighting in Britain was led by a women. Zulus had women warriers.

The Russians do as do may other countries.

Now heres something to think about. I do not remember the exact year, but there was a Ms. Universe who was from Isreal and was also a tank commander.

Woman are capable and in my opinion more fierce than men in many respects. They would also tend to be more focused. That is why whenever I worked in the field as a wildlife biologist I made sure my partner was a woman.
 
wolfman24 said:
As a genealogoist (read historian) i find the entire argument against women in combat to be stupid. Ancient tribes like my ancestors the Kelts had women in combat. One of the Keltic tribes fighting in Britain was led by a women. Zulus had women warriers.

The Russians do as do may other countries.

Now heres something to think about. I do not remember the exact year, but there was a Ms. Universe who was from Isreal and was also a tank commander.

Woman are capable and in my opinion more fierce than men in many respects. They would also tend to be more focused. That is why whenever I worked in the field as a wildlife biologist I made sure my partner was a woman.
Click to expand...

We're not Russians or Amazons or Zulu or Celts. :shrug: The average fit American female is not on par with the average fit American male - it takes an exceptionally fit female to be on par.

I'm all for those being in because they won't come into a situation in which their inabilities won't get someone else's head lopped off.

What makes no sense to me is that many men are quite capable, too, but if they don't meet their higher standards they're out - but they might have been able to make it in if they were a woman? How is that remotely fair?

I don't like the pandering that goes on behind it. Some women cried and whined so they're in - but poor old Bryan was up and out before training was up? I declare bull****.
 
wolfman24 said:
....
They would also tend to be more focused. That is why whenever I worked in the field as a wildlife biologist I made sure my partner was a woman.
Click to expand...

Sure it wasn't because you don't need to be able to outrun the bear, just the person with you......:doh

I don't care if women serve in combat positions. I doubt that many would go for just plain old have gun will travel Infantry positions anyway.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
We're not Russians or Amazons or Zulu or Celts. :shrug: The average fit American female is not on par with the average fit American male - it takes an exceptionally fit female to be on par.

I'm all for those being in because they won't come into a situation in which their inabilities won't get someone else's head lopped off.

What makes no sense to me is that many men are quite capable, too, but if they don't meet their higher standards they're out - but they might have been able to make it in if they were a woman? How is that remotely fair?
Click to expand...

So what is different between an Isrealie Ms Universe, or Russian model, or any regular russian or isrealie and our women?

BTW Kelt woman were not trained fighters, they were moms and landowners and housewives. So that also applies.

So how are they different from us?

Are you saying a woman can't fly a fighter jet or bomber or command a nuclear sub or destroyer or command tanks in battle?

There are many forms of combat roles in the military that could and would be considered front line jobs. Being a grunt on the ground is just one of them. Oh. Also I consider female medics or rescue copter pilots as front line people.

No slam but you seem to be limiting your assessment to just dog faces and not the other multitude of possibilities.

IF women can fight and meet the standards already set for them in the military they deserve the chance
 
Fisher said:
Sure it wasn't because you don't need to be able to outrun the bear, just the person with you......:doh

I don't care if women serve in combat positions. I doubt that many would go for just plain old have gun will travel Infantry positions anyway.
Click to expand...

No I started out with guys as partners and they did not compare to the women. The women had a bone to pick and did it with professionalism and dedication to objectives which made them more reliable in the pinch. In that field and others I would take a woman over a man any day.

Also on your second point. I agree and I don't think it is limited to just women feeling that way.
 
Women aren't denied from those positions - that's not what we're discussing here. Women can and do all those things. I'm not even opposing women being in front line combat.

I just think they ALL should meet the same fitness standards to do so.

To me it just seems simple.
 
wolfman24 said:
War is like a street fight where there is just one rule. THERE AREN"T ANY. Should there be? Of course but tell that to a guy who just saw his whole squad blown away or a squad who saw their buddies die in some gruesome way.

Most soldiers can hold it together and keep on going but its not easy and its not always.
Click to expand...
I wish it were that way.... a lot less American soldiers would die in that case. They are constantly being bounded by rules having to call in their targets, not able to damage certain structures, not being able to bomb certain areas, and such.
 
Sarcogito said:
Frankly, I think PT requirements should be by MOS rather than gender. Seriously, why should a paralegal have to be held to the same physical standard as an infantryman, regardless of gender?
Click to expand...

Thats the militaries baliwick. Last I checked ALL Marines were riflemen FIRST then whatever their MOS was. I dont care what they do in that regard so long as it meets their needs.
 
wolfman24 said:
War is like a street fight where there is just one rule. THERE AREN"T ANY. Should there be? Of course but tell that to a guy who just saw his whole squad blown away or a squad who saw their buddies die in some gruesome way.

Most soldiers can hold it together and keep on going but its not easy and its not always.
Click to expand...

That line :roll: Is old. So soldiers just run around crazed and conducting their selves like headless chickens? The moment **** gets real everything goes out the window?

They're trained vigorously to overcome normal knee-jerk responses and such - there are rules and guidelines and when they're followed it enables them to regroup and make their way through **** situations.

When soldiers forget their training- they suffer consequences.
 
celticwar17 said:
I wish it were that way.... a lot less American soldiers would die in that case. They are constantly being bounded by rules having to call in their targets, not able to damage certain structures, not being able to bomb certain areas, and such.
Click to expand...

Viet Nam was a perfect example of that. One hand tied behind well you know.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That line :roll: Is old. So soldiers just run around crazed and conducting their selves like headless chickens? The moment **** gets real everything goes out the window?

They're trained vigorously to overcome normal knee-jerk responses and such - there are rules and guidelines and when they're followed it enables them to regroup and make their way through **** situations.

When soldiers forget their training- they suffer consequences.
Click to expand...

You apparently only read the top half now trying reading the whole thing.
 
wolfman24 said:
You apparently only read the top half now trying reading the whole thing.
Click to expand...

That didn't undo the fact that you stated there 'are no rules'

It's like this: "There are rules - sometimes soldiers forget what they are"
 
RabidAlpaca said:
So unbelievably true. I'm tired of them maxing their PT tests with 3 pushups and a 2 hour 2 mile run time. Start meeting male standards and you might start being treated like a male.



Have you been to war? If you had, you might have gotten the chance to see the difference between fighting with honor, and fighting like a coward.

While we're handing out teddy bears to little girls, the taliban are shooting the same little girls in the head for trying to educate themselves. Fighting cowards doesn't mean you need to become one.
Click to expand...

You know what I think about war and how it should be fought, and how much combat time Ive logged. I aint hashing that now. I am here for other fish.

I agree you with as far standards go. Hold everyone whatever their gender or lack thereoff to the same uniform standard for whatever it is they are supposed to do.

I had first hand experiance with how disperate standards screw things up in combat. My situtation was slightley different but applicable. People have a hard enough time understanding each other when they know the same language and have the same culture, imagine how it is when you have people from different parts of the world and dont speak your language and then attempt to get them to work together in a cohesive fashion. Herding cats anyone? Fun times. Lets just say that inconvienent is not the word I would use for that type situation. BOHICA, SNAFU, or FUBAR would be much better applied.

Back to the topic at hand yep definately got to have set standards. I absolutely agree. See even I can agree with Rabidalpaca old buddie old pal. :2razz::)
 
Aunt Spiker said:
That didn't undo the fact that you stated there 'are no rules'

It's like this: "There are rules - sometimes soldiers forget what they are"
Click to expand...

Taken out of context IF you read the whole thing. My point was that when something bad happens to a person they react as if there were no rules in many cases.

Your last comment is no different than what I said.
 
As has already been said earlier in the thread this has already been done by other countries and thrown right back out. It would be one thing if that wasn't the case, but it is. We will see the same thing that we see in firefighting ranks where they are given different standards and be considered as equal. The fact of the matter is that just weakens the unit as a whole is which anything but good. I wouldn't usually care about these matters all that much but this puts lives at risk that the nation is responsible for and so I can't agree.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
If they want to revisit the entire standards (as they have done and always continue to do over time) then that's fine.

I have and always will oppose gender-standards for areas of service where physical fitness and ability is key.
Click to expand...

I question if they are really key. Or just a way to limit female participation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom