• 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

So, IOW, we're talking about a subject which you have zero experience with. So, to compensate for that lack of experience and an acute inability to form a logical argument, it must be a flaw on my part.

Vets, who have served in combat units are telling you one thing, but that can't be right, because that doesn't match your view of the world. Therefore, we are ****ed up wimmin haters.

Am I getting this right?
According to Hatuey, your personal experience doesn't mean squat.

And, my personal experience shows that men are whiny, weak, crybabies in situations not as difficult as combat (according to you guys). I mean, if I had some that whined and cried, that must mean they ALL do. And if combat is worse than a 'vacation', then they must REALLY be pathetic in combat.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we shouldn't allow men in combat... based on my personal experience with men in life threatening, physically demanding, wilderness situations.
 
According to Hatuey, your personal experience doesn't mean squat.

And, my personal experience shows that men are whiny, weak, crybabies in situations not as difficult as combat (according to you guys). I mean, if I had some that whined and cried, that must mean they ALL do. And if combat is worse than a 'vacation', then they must REALLY be pathetic in combat.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we shouldn't allow men in combat... based on my personal experience with men in life threatening, physically demanding, wilderness situations.
Put ice on your head, it's swollen up. Like you're really all that. :roll:
 
Well I have seen conservatives do exactly the same thing. In this case I don't know if he is a liberal or not, irrelevant anyway as he has no clue what he is talking about.

I am a conservative, but I have far to many intelligent liberal friends including my wife to generalize like that.


Myself. I even know Liberals that are racist like a mother****er...:rofl

However, there aren't too many of those level headed Liberals posting on this forum.
 
According to Hatuey, your personal experience doesn't mean squat.

And, my personal experience shows that men are whiny, weak, crybabies in situations not as difficult as combat (according to you guys). I mean, if I had some that whined and cried, that must mean they ALL do. And if combat is worse than a 'vacation', then they must REALLY be pathetic in combat.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we shouldn't allow men in combat... based on my personal experience with men in life threatening, physically demanding, wilderness situations.

Yeah, men in general. I knew it!...:rofl
 
According to Hatuey, your personal experience doesn't mean squat.

And, my personal experience shows that men are whiny, weak, crybabies in situations not as difficult as combat (according to you guys). I mean, if I had some that whined and cried, that must mean they ALL do. And if combat is worse than a 'vacation', then they must REALLY be pathetic in combat.

Therefore, the only conclusion is that we shouldn't allow men in combat... based on my personal experience with men in life threatening, physically demanding, wilderness situations.

You realize this is going to go right over his head, right?
 
Myself. I even know Liberals that are racist like a mother****er...:rofl

Then perhaps they weren't really liberals, huh?

Is racism wrong though? How about sexism?
 
I actually agree with you totally about reduced standards can lead to reduced effectiveness in a combat unit. However, in my opinion, I just think with training and proper physical conditioning, there are plenty of women that can handle "combat" roles.

Also, there are plenty of women currently in harm's way and they are engaging the enemy and/or getting killed or injured in attacks along with their fellow male soldiers, because the "frontlines" are all over the place at times.

Here is an interesting article on this subject:
Roles in Question for Females in Warfare - ABC News

"...But right now there are 10,000 women serving in Iraq, more than 4,000 in Aghanistan. They have been fighting and dying next to their male comrades since the wars began.

"We're here, and we're right up with the guys," says Specialist Ashley Pullen, who was awarded a Bronze Star for valor in 2005 for her heroic action in Iraq where she served with a military police unit.

Technically they're restricted from certain combat roles. The Department of Defense prohibits women from serving in assignments "whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground."

Nevertheless, women serving in support positions on and off the frontlines, where war is waged on street corners and in markets, are often at equal risk. There have been 103 women who have been killed in Iraq and 15 others in Afghanistan.

What women can or cannot do in combat is not always clear in today's wars, and many say that the Department of Defense and Congress should reevaluate women's roles in modern warfare.

As female aviators, military police officers, and civil affairs officers, about 80 percent of the positions in the Department of Defense and 70 percent in the Army are available to women, according to a RAND study. Women make up about 11 percent of the forces deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan..."

Did you read the rest of my post or are you just ignoring it like everyone else?
 
You realize this is going to go right over his head, right?

Because I'm stupid. Right?

See? That's the only argument that most Liberals can really come up with.
 
So, IOW, we're talking about a subject which you have zero experience with. So, to compensate for that lack of experience and an acute inability to form a logical argument, it must be a flaw on my part.

You don't know **** about my experience.

Vets, who have served in combat units are telling you one thing, but that can't be right, because that doesn't match your view of the world. Therefore, we are ****ed up wimmin haters.

Am I getting this right?

No, you're not even close to getting it right.

You are a ****ed up wimmin hater, because of your posts on this thread. :doh
 
Then perhaps they weren't really liberals, huh?

Is racism wrong though? How about sexism?

It depends on the situation. I've been in situations where a little of either wasn't necessarily a bad thing.
 
Because I'm stupid. Right?

No.

Because you completely missed the point of her post, i.e. it went right over your head.

See? That's the only argument that most Liberals can really come up with.

You don't know if I'm a liberal.

Please stay on topic.
 
It depends on the situation. I've been in situations where a little of either wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

Racism and sexism can be good depending on the situation?

Wow, I didn't expect you to take that bait.
 
By your comments alone we know it is pretty limited. My guess you are a teenager still living at home and in high school.

Not even close. Fits you though, with your insecurity about females.

ad-hom, nice.[/QUOTE]

No, just an observation. You've already thrown out more ad hominems (that's how you spell it) than I ever will on this thread.
 
By your comments alone we know it is pretty limited. My guess you are a teenager still living at home and in high school.


it's obvious that he's never been married...:rofl
 
Not even close. Fits you though, with your insecurity about females.

Forgive me if I don't believe you. How this has anything to do with females is anyones guess.

No, just an observation. You've already thrown out more ad hominems (that's how you spell it) than I ever will on this thread.

Not really, it is against the rules. I would have gotten warnings and/or a thread ban.

Since I am still posting here we can say that is another fabrication.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The personal attacks stop now. Some have already received infractions. Anyone who ignores this warning gets booted from the thread. At least.
 
I think it's about time that women are allowed to serve with their fellow mates! There has to be much red tape involved but this is another step towards the liberties that should be afforded to women.;)

If my step dad hears this story, which I am sure he has, he will complain why they didn't do this 30 yrs ago...lol.
 
The only thing that comes to mind with letting women serve on subs is that someone is going to say hey look that Petty Officer has seamen all over her. Or someone is going to say choo choo(train sound) when a chick walks by(because everybody ran train on her the night before)
 
Last edited:
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:

You're kidding, right? Medics are non-combatants.

I spent 7 years in the Army as a medic. We were taught that we were non-combatants. If we were captured, we were NOT POW's, but considered retained personnel. We could be armed with an M16, but could only use it to defend ourselves and our patients. If we used it offensively, we would lose our non-combatant status and if captured, we'd be considered POW's. Additionally, we could also be subject to trial for war crimes.

If you disagree with this, then back it up with a link from the Defense Department.
 
You're kidding, right? Medics are non-combatants.

I spent 7 years in the Army as a medic. We were taught that we were non-combatants. If we were captured, we were NOT POW's, but considered retained personnel. We could be armed with an M16, but could only use it to defend ourselves and our patients. If we used it offensively, we would lose our non-combatant status and if captured, we'd be considered POW's. Additionally, we could also be subject to trial for war crimes.

If you disagree with this, then back it up with a link from the Defense Department.

I don't have to back it up. That was then, this is now. Combat medics are armed and no longer wear the distinguishing cross because of the modern day battle field. Insurgents not being part of the Geneva convention do not recognize them a non combatants. Sort of defeats the purpose of us calling them non combatants huh.

Since our medics have to move with the troops and preform in the same conditions, it is important that they also be physically as prepared as the troops they are with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom