• 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!

Navy will soon let women serve on subs

CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Medics are non combatants; are they exempt also?
Click to expand...

I just do not believe you were in the army with a comment like that. You could not have been. I think you are a youngster trying to act like an old man.

If you were, you would know medics most certainly are considered combatants in the Field. When required to they fight like everyone else.

All of this is basic knowledge. You are trying to make an argument that is nothing more than a fallacy. :sinking:

Are you going to bring up Chaplin's next? :lol:
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Doctors in the Army are officers without command. They are not leaders of men and considered non-combatants. They get the respect of the rank and pay, thats it. Same for Army nurses.

They are civilians in a support role and considered non combatants. They do not go through basic training, they go through ROTC.

They do not have to meet the physical requirements at all. Same with Chaplin's.
Click to expand...

So every one should meet infantry standards, except those who should not meet infantry standards? Gotcha, well thought out position there.

By the way, since this topic is about navy subs, isn't infantry standards kinda silly?
 
Redress said:
So every one should meet infantry standards, except those who should not meet infantry standards? Gotcha, well thought out position there.
Click to expand...

Redress, they are not required to have any standards as they are not considered solders. :roll:

Redress said:
By the way, since this topic is about navy subs, isn't infantry standards kinda silly?
Click to expand...

When talking about physical requirements, no. But your comment above was. ;)
 
Its a joke to say Navy Corpsman are non combatents.......They may not carry guns but they are in combat right along side their marine brothers.......sometime go to DC to the Viet Nam wall and see how many navy corpsmans names are on that wall...........
 
Blackdog said:
You have got to be ****ing kidding me. That is a recent issue. Since the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Aren't we discussing our CURRENT military? :doh

The whining about possibly lowering standards to accept women is happening TODAY. Yet, the military has already lowered its standards to accept sub-par men for four or five years, now.

The ZOMG! :shock: WE CAN'T LOWER MILITARY STANDARDS! argument falls flat.

:roll:
 
Glinda said:
Yes it is. Aren't we discussing our CURRENT military? :doh

The whining about possibly lowering standards to accept women is happening TODAY. Yet, the military has already lowered its standards to accept sub-par men for four or five years, now.

The ZOMG! :shock: WE CAN'T LOWER MILITARY STANDARDS! argument falls flat.
:roll:
Click to expand...

Can you prove that statement?
 
Glinda said:
Yes it is. Aren't we discussing our CURRENT military? :doh

The whining about possibly lowering standards to accept women is happening TODAY. Yet, the military has already lowered its standards to accept sub-par men for four or five years, now.

The ZOMG! :shock: WE CAN'T LOWER MILITARY STANDARDS! argument falls flat.

:roll:
Click to expand...

It does not make it fall flat at all. It quantifies it even more. ;)

It started with the introduction of females into the regular service. So your argument does indeed fall flat.
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
Redress, they are not required to have any standards as they are not considered solders. :roll:
Click to expand...

And yet they are soldiers. So yes, your argument is just as I presented it.


When talking about physical requirements, no. But your comment above was. ;)
Click to expand...

We are talking about navy subs. The navy has physical standards that measure overall fitness, which is appropriate for the navies mission.
 
I can remember PTs when I was in the Navy.....We use to call them JFKs as he was the first president to start them.........Honestly they were so easy to do.............anyone that could not pass them would have to be very out of shape.........
 
Redress said:
And yet they are soldiers. So yes, your argument is just as I presented it.
Click to expand...

No they are not soldiers, they are officers in pay grade only. They are not combatants and do not go through the same training at all. What part of that are you misunderstanding? You are presenting false information to justify an unjustifiable position. I mean I was only in the Army 12 years, what the hell do I know?

Redress said:
We are talking about navy subs. The navy has physical standards that measure overall fitness, which is appropriate for the navies mission.
Click to expand...

They are much the same across the Navy, Army and Air force. The Marines are the only ones with higher standards initially. Except in the case of Females of course.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
I can remember PTs when I was in the Navy.....We use to call them JFKs as he was the first president to start them.........Honestly they were so easy to do.............anyone that could not pass them would have to be very out of shape.........
Click to expand...

If you look up the regulations on them, that is the exact point of them, to measure basic overall fitness. As long as you where not very out of shape, you could handle your job in the navy.

Now when it came to heavy lifting, some could, some could not, but it never created much trouble. My first shop supervisor was very short(for which he was given nonstop hell) and there where certain things he simply could not due as a result, such as put a radar antenna into place, but this was never a real problem, since it was required to have more than one person doing the work anyway.
 
Redress said:
If you look up the regulations on them, that is the exact point of them, to measure basic overall fitness. As long as you where not very out of shape, you could handle your job in the navy.
Click to expand...

And yet females have even lower standards. Hmmm...
 
Blackdog said:
No they are not soldiers, they are officers in pay grade only. They are not combatants and do not go through the same training at all. What part of that are you misunderstanding? You are presenting false information to justify an unjustifiable position. I mean I was only in the Army 12 years, what the hell do I know?
Click to expand...

So they have not enlisted in the military? They are not subject to the UCMJ? Oh wait, yes they are, you are only creating an arbitrary distinction because your point does not actually work unless you do so, and even then falls apart because of this arbitrary distinction.

They are much the same across the Navy, Army and Air force. The Marines are the only ones with higher standards initially. Except in teh case of Females of course.
Click to expand...

We had this discussion in another thread, not sure if you where involved, but yes, the marine PFT standards are to measure overall fitness.
 
Navy Pride said:
I agree there day to day duties are not the problem...Their physical capabilities are........
Click to expand...

If they can do their day to day duties that is all that matters.

Since it is the Navy leadership who is reconsidering this rule it seems they know something that you don't. i.e. That women can do their jobs well enough to serve on subs. All the other PC stuff will fall in line when the sailors are told, "That's an order, son!"
 
Blackdog said:
And yet females have even lower standards. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

What part of measuring overall fitness is difficult for you? You are quick to point out that women are different, so maybe, just maybe, the number of situps to measure overall fitness is different too. And this turns out to be the case. Women also are allowed a higher percentage of body fat, since *gasp* women's bodies are different than men's.
 
"DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view."

What happens during the next draft if it happnes? Since they will be loosing the safty net of non-combat. Do you want your sisters, wifes and duaghters to be drafted? All things being equal of course.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
What part of measuring overall fitness is difficult for you? You are quick to point out that women are different, so maybe, just maybe, the number of situps to measure overall fitness is different too. And this turns out to be the case. Women also are allowed a higher percentage of body fat, since *gasp* women's bodies are different than men's.
Click to expand...

So if they cannot pass equal physical standards, the main argument of most here falls flat. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
So every one should meet infantry standards, except those who should not meet infantry standards? Gotcha, well thought out position there.

By the way, since this topic is about navy subs, isn't infantry standards kinda silly?
Click to expand...
No, you never know you might get boarded when you come up for air and have a fire fight. :lol:
 
Blackdog said:
So if they cannot pass equal physical standards, the main argument of most here falls flate. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Since the purpose is to measure overall fitness, and the different standards result in equal levels of fitness(cuz there are differences between the sexes), then in point of fact, they are measuring to equal standards.

Or do you propose we eliminate differences for age in the standards too? Should that 40 year old chief have to meet the same standard as the 18 year old? Are you seeing how illogical your position is yet?
 
Blackdog said:
"DoD noted that America's prior drafts were used to supply adequate numbers of Army ground combat troops. Because women are excluded by policy from front line combat positions, excluding them from the draft process remains justifiable in DoD's view."

What happens during the next draft if it happnes? Since they will be loosing the safty net of non-combat. Do you want your sisters, wifes and duaghters to be drafted? All things being equal of course.
Click to expand...

If we reach a situation where the draft is necessary, things are going to be dire enough that yes, I want them to be drafted.
 
Redress said:
Since the purpose is to measure overall fitness, and the different standards result in equal levels of fitness(cuz there are differences between the sexes), then in point of fact, they are measuring to equal standards.
Click to expand...

That was then, this is now. It is also to get you ready for the stresses of combat aboard ship or ground.

If a woman cannot pass the same physical standards as the men, they should not be in that MOS , period.

Redress said:
Or do you propose we eliminate differences for age in the standards too? Should that 40 year old chief have to meet the same standard as the 18 year old? Are you seeing how illogical your position is yet?
Click to expand...

My position is not, as age is not part of this. That is a completely different subject. This is about females being able to do the same job as a man where physical strength and endurance make a huge difference.
 
Blackdog said:
It does not make it fall flat at all. It quantifies it even more. ;)

It [lowering military standards] started with the introduction of females into the regular service.
Click to expand...

You are completely incorrect. Read the article I linked to once more - military standards for education, health, weight, morals, drugs, and criminal records were all lowered so more recruits could be sent to Iraq and Afghanistan to die. They were NOT lowered to encourage more women to enlist.

Here's another article about lowering military standards for all recruits:

Military Lowers Standards To Fill Ranks
The Army Is Taking Chances On Recruits With Rap Sheets

and another:

Army tops recruit goal by lowering standards

and another:

Army relaxes its standards to fill ranks
Critics say push to meet quotas may let unstable recruits join up

and another:

The Dumbing-Down of the U.S. Army

So.... you all can drop the argument that the military will have to lower its standards to permit women to serve on submarines. Military recruitment standards were lowered years ago.

:doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom