• 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!

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:57]

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?


  • Total voters
    87
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

If they were the ones doing that, there would hardly be any women in the army at all. What you see now is the result of other people evaluating those standards for them.

While they do likely suffer from group think, they are capable of accomplishing the task. And just as I do here, as a control measure, they can bring other vices to the table. You guys seem to be painting a very poor picture of the military. I did not expect that.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Evaluate the standards themselves. Do they measure what is really needed.

Show me ANY evidence that is, in fact, what is going on. BTW, that was #1. Please try to keep the reply based upon the post quoted. Thank you.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Show me ANY evidence that is, in fact, what is going on. BTW, that was #1. Please try to keep the reply based upon the post quoted. Thank you.

I would if in the post quoted I said that was what was going on. I haven't said that. I have said is what they should do.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

I would if in the post quoted I said that was what was going on. I haven't said that. I have said is what they should do.

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that they are not, so if wishes were fishes....
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Whatever. The fact of the matter is that they are not, so if wishes were fishes....

Look, I was addressing someone else who claimed the standards were valid because they had been the same for a long, long time. This is the debate we were having. I think they need to be reevaluated.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Look, I was addressing someone else who claimed the standards were valid because they had been the same for a long, long time. This is the debate we were having. I think they need to be reevaluated.

We had separate but equal for a long, long time too, yet seemed to have not learned that lesson well either. We still have separate but unequal and that seems to be just peachy with those "equal rights for women" folks, that now want even more "unequal opportunity". It is absolutely insane to have different "minimum" requirements based on gender, race or anything else for a US gov't job. Imagine the outrage if a private company did that, the EEOC would have them in irons.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

We had separate but equal for a long, long time too, yet seemed to have not learned that lesson well either. We still have separate but unequal and that seems to be just peachy with those "equal rights for women" folks, that now want even more "unequal opportunity". It is absolutely insane to have different "minimum" requirements based on gender, race or anything else for a US gov't job. Imagine the outrage if a private company did that, the EEOC would have them in irons.

You're helping me out.

Continued reassessment is good policy. It isn't ever over.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Because it is not the only thing. Repetition helps, especially in learning rote habits, but is not good for evaluating. If you are repetitions the least effect thing, that's a bad strategy.

Not the habits, but the best of the best.

For instance, the woman from the article was one of the most qualified possible women to enter the infantry. And it broke down her body and she became infertile because of it.


Maybe this will put into perspective for you. She was a star college hockey player, and one of the strongest and top performing women of her academy. She says she could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200. Mind you, this is a women who probably trained for 5-6 hours a day. It too me two months in the 8th grade of 4 hours a week of weight training to reach 145 pound bench and 200 pound squat. The difference is testosterone, I have it, she doesn't.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Not the habits, but the best of the best.

For instance, the woman from the article was one of the most qualified possible women to enter the infantry. And it broke down her body and she became infertile because of it.


Maybe this will put into perspective for you. She was a star college hockey player, and one of the strongest and top performing women of her academy. She says she could bench press 145 pounds and squat 200. Mind you, this is a women who probably trained for 5-6 hours a day. It too me two months in the 8th grade of 4 hours a week of weight training to reach 145 pound bench and 200 pound squat. The difference is testosterone, I have it, she doesn't.

She was better qualified by what standard?

I'm a big fellow, strong. Even I fifty four, I bench 200 lbs. there were things I had difficulty with. I found that even for me, there were men too heavy to lift. I needed more than strength. I learned the ability to solve a problem was better than being strong. I question the entire notion that physical strength is the appropriate standard.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

She was better qualified by what standard?

I'm a big fellow, strong. Even I fifty four, I bench 200 lbs. there were things I had difficulty with. I found that even for me, there were men too heavy to lift. I needed more than strength. I learned the ability to solve a problem was better than being strong. I question the entire notion that physical strength is the appropriate standard.

She was better qualified by the standard the armed forces feels best prepares its soldiers. If you think you have a better standard, feel free to share with us. But simply saying "oh I'm sure there is a better one" is useless. I'm sure anything could be just alittle better. But considering what the stakes are, the army can't afford to be too far off what is the "perfect standard" whatever that may be. Too much is at stake. It's easy for you to say, "oh lets construct a new standard" when you have no idea what the requirements are in combat. You have no idea if our standards are even bad. Yet you want us to "rethink our standards" considering the input of "all affected parties." Basically, what you are saying is taking a bunch of non-armed forces activist groups and intellectuals, and saying that they know better for the army then the actual armed forces do. Until you start providing evidence, for what you would improve, and how you would improve it, your vague statements have absolutely zero value. Of course we should constantly rethink our standards. But you are making a faulty assumption that the armed services doesn't rethink theirs on their own and someone else needs to come in and do it for them.

You need enough strength to get the job done, which in the army is a lot more then you think. There is a reason there are standards, because that is the amount of strength/conditioning that the army sees you as needing to do the job efficiently. More then 90% of women just don't have enough to be even close. Which is why they have gender based standards.

I'll repeat again, the armed forces is a matter of life and death. It is no place for social experiments imposed by feminists and ivory tower intellectuals. The standards are there for a reason. Women don't meet those standards. I believe the sexes are equal, and women are better then men in many other aspects, but fitness and physical performance isn't one of them. There are currently positions where the standards are obtainable for women. And hey, if every now and then a woman comes along who can keep up with the male standards for the army, great. But, I don't want to hear any of this having it both ways, "we are all created equal so both men and women should be allowed to fight in the armed forces, oh but lets have two separate standards for them."
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

You need enough of it to get the job done, which in the army is a lot more then you think. More then 90% of women just don't have enough to be even close. Which is why they have gender based standards.

Not sure that's true.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Not sure that's true.

Thousands of armed officials, deployed troops, and ranked officers would disagree with you.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

This is a pointless thread, as is the replies (that I have read). Here's to making mine worth something.....

Women in the miltary wish to risk their lives as much as any man. This should not be the question. It's actually a stupid question since history has shown plenty of women willng to pick up the sword or pick up a musket to defend their children. Our own history should make Americans ashamed of the idea that only a man can **** up an enemy. If you don't know what I'm talking about, salivate over your ignorance.

Bringing it to present day, first we have to acknowledge that their is a graaaaaave difference between a woman in the Air Force or Navy and a woman in the Army and the Marine Corps. I mean let's be honest, what woman in the Air Force, safe on an air base, is risking her life? It's the woman soldier on the ground on the supply run that runs into ambush on a supply run (with her weapon locked up in the rear of her vehicle ((Jessica Lynch)) that is risking her life. It's the Marine woman on the ground that runs into an IED situation (not trained to be a Jessica Lynch) that is risking her life. The difference here is the training in which each branch values the person signing the dotted line. Sorry Army, but own it. Anyway...

The point being that women are in the combat zone and have been for some time. Period. There are no lines of offense or defense in our present and future wars. There have not been any lines since America decided to discover warfare post Cold War after 9/11. The Marine Corps' decision to officially declare that there is "no longer a ban on women in a combat zone" merely relflects the fact that women have been in the combat zone since 2003. This does not mean that women should be placed into infantry roles. Far from it and for good reason. This merely means that no matter what the MOS, women are in combat just like any man in any other MOS. Hell, I had an Osprey electrical mechanic filling the role of Grunt security on my special missions 17 man Mentor Team embedded with Afghans just last year (the year ended with 13 members left). None were women. But this only means that we dont purposefully place them in harms way. However, in the end, plenty are in Motor T billets and Supply Billets and find themselves on runs that replenish those special teams. There is a lot of highway between a main base and those special teams and only a select amount of bodies to provide security for those runs. The nature of today's and the future's warfare is that roles need filled with bodies and those roles will be in harms way.

We could start a draft so as to fill the roles with all men, but I suspect that most Americans would rather bitch about what a woman's role in war is than stepping up and replacing them in it. It's simple. If you wish to replace a woman in a combat role, sign up. If not, shut the **** up and breathe the free air some one else is providing. For those that have served in the past and now complain about the changing of the times........die or get with the advancing civilization's program. Not that our pathetic stagnating current politics suggest advancement...but I'm sure you get my point. The sad thing is that the 19 percent that voted negatively to this poll as of this post is probably representative of the "leaders" that run our country today. Who's for a coup?
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

You need enough strength to get the job done, which in the army is a lot more then you think.

It's a nice fantasy to make our branch feel good about itself, but let's be honest.

Strength in the Army brought us....

Jessica Lynch,

Abu Ghraib,

Pat Tillman,

Black Hawk Down,

Most of the friendly fire in the Gulf War....

Mai Lai in Vietnam.....

Leaving equipment and wounded, retreating in Korea...

Reliance on the Marines to defend Paris during WWI...

Hell we can go as far back as Custer.

The point is that the Army's strength relies upon people overlooking that the Army actually brings us plenty of embarrassment and shame. And it is masked by hiding behind the broad description of "military," which makes us all share the shame as if we are all a part of it. No one in the Navy, Air Force, especially the Marines, likes to hear that an Army **** up is yet another "military" issue.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

It's a nice fantasy to make our branch feel good about itself, but let's be honest.

Strength in the Army brought us....

Jessica Lynch,

Abu Ghraib,

Pat Tillman,

Black Hawk Down,

Most of the friendly fire in the Gulf War....

Mai Lai in Vietnam.....

Leaving equipment and wounded, retreating in Korea...

Reliance on the Marines to defend Paris during WWI...

Hell we can go as far back as Custer.

The point is that the Army's strength relies upon people overlooking that the Army actually brings us plenty of embarrassment and shame. And it is masked by hiding behind the broad description of "military," which makes us all share the shame as if we are all a part of it. No one in the Navy, Air Force, especially the Marines, likes to hear that an Army **** up is yet another "military" issue.

Let's edit that one.


What institution doesn't bring us dishonor and shame at one point or another? We aren't a Japanese society where we can just execute our failed leaders. So when it comes to something like the armed services, which draws its strength from the support of our country, sometimes its better to not make a scene about things.
 
So let me see if I'm getting this right. We should just let anyone who wants to join special forces without any type of pre-selection because in your mind physical ability doesn't matter?

Should we open up the NBA to players under 5 foot tall? How about 120 pound NFL linemen. Awesome according to this thread ( or some of the people in it) training and desire to compete is all that matters.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

You forget, I only speak for myself, and I have questioned the standards from the beginning. Jerry and I discussed it quite a bit earlier. I think the military largely suffers from group think, and that some lack he courage to question their assumptions.

:roll:

It's not an assumption that speed and strength are important in combat. That is an observed reality.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

They certainly don't want to be summarliy excluded from better paying positions or ones that will help promote them because it might involve combat. That would be the only sane way anybody should "want" be in combat, because it is their job and they are trained for it.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Let's edit that one.


What institution doesn't bring us dishonor and shame at one point or another? We aren't a Japanese society where we can just execute our failed leaders. So when it comes to something like the armed services, which draws its strength from the support of our country, sometimes its better to not make a scene about things.

....And that's why the Army guarantees you a continual display of bad behavior with every war. The willingnees to look the other way is exactly why sons and daughters in the Army are under trained and unprepared for the realities of life in a combat zone. Every branch is without perfection. But Look at the record of each branch and ask yourself why the Army stands out like it does. Or don't bother and continue pretending that there's no institutional discipline problem in the Army for which we are all, as "military," lumped in. Comments from Army Generals going back to World War I suggest otherwise.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

You must have somehow overlooked the many posts relating to the revolutionary concept of reducing the weight of the kit. It's been done to death.



Don't worry, guns make everything gender equal anyway (according to some characters who post here).

It is not an admission. There is nothing wrong with the level of fitness women attain. It is simply a different level from men. US women are often giants, like Euros standing on a box. Possibly fitter and stronger than some foreign national male adversaries.

Yeah, I can see why I'm wasting my time here. You're so dense you don't even understand why soldiers have to carry gear, or why them being on the same level of physical fitness would be important. Not sure what kind of warfare you're imagining from your big comfy chair, but the war in afghanistan is fought in the mountains, with heavy gear.

Your position is actually really insulting to women. "No really, we're weaker, and that's ok! It's better that we drag the team down instead of having to do the same things the men do. I men hey, they should be chivalrous and carry our gear for us"

....And that's why the Army guarantees you a continual display of bad behavior with every war. The willingnees to look the other way is exactly why sons and daughters in the Army are under trained and unprepared for the realities of life in a combat zone. Every branch is without perfection. But Look at the record of each branch and ask yourself why the Army stands out like it does. Or don't bother and continue pretending that there's no institutional discipline problem in the Army for which we are all, as "military," lumped in. Comments from Army Generals going back to World War I suggest otherwise.

It probably has a lot to do with the Army being substantially larger and actually doing more. It's easy to control a smaller group of marines off on the side with their one specific task. And yes, there have been plenty of marine embarassments.

But hey, by all means, tell me why the Army is completely incompetent in combat zones. Something tells me you don't actually have a god damn idea how we fight, and more than likely you're just letting your arrogance and overly zealous marine pride run rampant in order to boost your ego on internet forums.
 
Last edited:
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

See? Josie and Viv are proving that women belong in combat. Look at the slapping and hair-pulling here.

You wish.

Yeah, I can see why I'm wasting my time here. You're so dense you don't even understand why soldiers have to carry gear, or why them being on the same level of physical fitness would be important. Not sure what kind of warfare you're imagining from your big comfy chair, but the war in afghanistan is fought in the mountains, with heavy gear.

I understand, no view but yours matters (to you).

The entire north of this country is used for military training and I am looking at the Trident missile base from where I sit. It is obvious soldiers carry gear and sometimes for long distances and that being the case it is equally obvious the weight of the gear will have to be reduced if women are involved. The only reason it will take time to do that is men are in control of the military and you need a jemmy to make men change anything.... "We don't like change. We just like men. Sir yes sir"...

Your position is actually really insulting to women. "No really, we're weaker, and that's ok! It's better that we drag the team down instead of having to do the same things the men do. I men hey, they should be chivalrous and carry our gear for us"

Stick your chivalry up your arse. I work with sexist twits day and daily and they don't get away with it any more than you will. Women will go into combat if they decide to and will be effective there, as they are in the other forces. If men can do it, women will romp it and the force will improve for their presence. No doubt the women will end up carrying the bulk of the military burden as they already carry the bulk of every other job that needs properly done.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will.

-Mahatma Gandhi


It's amazing what you can do when you are in a hostile/emergency situation.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

You wish.



I understand, no view but yours matters (to you).

The entire north of this country is used for military training and I am looking at the Trident missile base from where I sit. It is obvious soldiers carry gear and sometimes for long distances and that being the case it is equally obvious the weight of the gear will have to be reduced if women are involved. The only reason it will take time to do that is men are in control of the military and you need a jemmy to make men change anything.... "We don't like change. We just like men. Sir yes sir"...



Stick your chivalry up your arse. I work with sexist twits day and daily and they don't get away with it any more than you will. Women will go into combat if they decide to and will be effective there, as they are in the other forces. If men can do it, women will romp it and the force will improve for their presence. No doubt the women will end up carrying the bulk of the military burden as they already carry the bulk of every other job that needs properly done.

LOL, in the same post that you say women are too weak to carry proper gear, and should have to carry less, you go on to say that women will end up carrying the bulk of the burden.

Jesus, you're just trolling now.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

I don't see why you can't understand women Police exist in the world. And even, can you believe it, firefighters. Some women are even capable of restraining full grown males, should the need arise and dragging them about the floor when they are resisting arrest. Nurses manhandle patients every day of the week. Now get over my shoulder, you dead weight.

Have you lost track. We're talking about the military and women being able to pass physical fitness tests.



War is directed by political will. Political will at the moment is moving toward female soldiers in combat.

Are you being serious? This is getting to be so ridiculous that I can't tell anymore. Can anyone really be so dense? Yes, women can join, AS LONG AS THEY CAN PASS THE PHYSICAL FITNESS TEST. I put that in caps just for you, hoping you will be able to see it and understand it this time. They have to be able to carry their OWN gear, which ends up weighing a lot because there are a lot of things people need when they are out in the middle of nowhere. Do you understand that part? Also, if one of the bigger guys who could perhaps weigh over 250 pounds easily, goes down in a fire fight with the enemy and is in the danger zone, the women in the unit HAVE to be able to pull and/or carry this man out of danger's way. Part of being part of a unit is being able to defend, back up and rescue other people in your unit. Do you understand that?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

No doubt the women will end up carrying the bulk of the military burden as they already carry the bulk of every other job that needs properly done.

Let's get down to what this is REALLY about.....

Who was he?
 
Back
Top Bottom