• 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

For civilized peoples it does. International law, ROE, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and a plethora of treaties which limit what we can and cannot do.

Fools and a their foolish notions. Civilized war. :roll: I am reminded of the term Jumbo Shrimp.
 
Hate to break it to you, but Service Members don't go to combat for little pieces of ribbon and brass.
Civilians seem obsessed with medals for some reason. Nobody in the military would volunteer for a dangerous assignment for a freaking medal.

You are both putting words into my mouth. I never said that people only go into combat for medals. I said there is only one advantage to a front line combat assignment: medals. Without combat, your chances of becoming a General officer are much, much lower... unless you are female and get a "diversity" pick, and even then you are probably at least closely related to combat (helicopter pilot, flight doc/nurse, etc).

I was enlisted in the Air Force, and there they used medal points toward promotion. I don't know how it works in the other services, but even as enlisted you are not competitive for rank-up without the medals. Then again, you rank up according to your AFSC (MOS) and compete with others of your AFSC, so in some cases you have to get the medals just to get back on the playing field (but, again, only among those that share your same job description). If that's the same in other services, then as far as enlisted are concerned not being able to earn medals does not hurt your chances of promotion, seeing as how if you can't be in a combat specialty then you aren't in competition with people who are going to naturally have more medals than you.

With officers of all branches, however, it is very difficult to see a star without some heavy combat time under your belt. Unless you have a specialty like being a doctor or a lawyer, you're pretty much screwed when it comes to hitting anything over 0-5. Then again, we are starting to see more and more "diversity" picks, for lack of a better word. And I'm not using "diversity" in the sense of Twofor on 30 Rock either; for the longest time Intel officers had a glass ceiling for making O-9 and O-10 for having a lack of combat experience (read: medals). The upper echelons of rank are starting to get more and more picks from non-combat specialties, because the JCS pretty much declared that's what has to be done now. And very much in the 30 Rock, affirmative action sense - it doesn't hurt if you're a woman, or a minority (or both).

So, seeing as how there are already methods to combat the singular drawback of being barred the most dangerous of career paths within the Armed Forces... why would anyone fight for the "right" to get shot at more than they have to?

And we don't call the enemy by denigrating terms to "dehumanize" them. We know damn well that they're people, regardless of how we describe them. Words don't mean a damn thing when you're getting shot at.

The psychology is on my side on this one. When you refer to a German as a kraut or Jerry, or an Asian as a Jap or a squint or a slant or a gook, you are no longer referring to them as a person. You have made them an item, a thing, a target to fill your reticule. Humans have done this throughout our entire recorded history, even as far back as the Babylonians repurposing the Sumerian mother-god Tiamat into a heinous beast that was the font of all evil. You see, if you aren't like us, then YOU must be "the bad guys," and we can kill you with a clear conscious.

In the naval/aeronautical tradition, enemy troops on other ships are not people, they're "the enemy." But when that ship gets sunk, all of the survivors stranded in the water are "souls," as in, "the ship went down with 100 souls aboard, twenty souls got out in time"... until you pick them up out of the water, at which point they are then "prisoners".

This phenomenon is widely rampant today in the world of politics, most especially in the terms of overgeneralizaton, i.e. "all conservatives must necessarily be bigots," or "all liberals must necessarily be stupid and gullible." This accomplishes the same feat of taking an individual person out of any future equation and replacing them with a "thing" that just happens to be stupid/bigoted/something we can fundamentally disagree with on everything, and both parties have used this to package popular ideas with unpopular ones.

Sociologists and historians often view dehumanization as central to some or all types of wars. Governments sometimes represent "enemy" civilians or soldiers as less than human so that voters will be more likely to support a war they may otherwise consider mass murder.[citation needed] Dictatorships use the same process to prevent opposition by citizens. Such efforts often depend on preexisting racist, sectarian or otherwise biased beliefs, which governments play upon through various types of media, presenting "enemies" as barbaric, undeserving of rights, and a threat to the nation. Alternatively, states sometimes present an enemy government or way of life as barbaric and its citizens as childlike and incapable of managing their own affairs. Such arguments have been used as a pretext for colonialism.[citation needed] The Holocaust during World War II and the Rwandan Genocide have both been cited as atrocities predicated upon government-organized campaigns of dehumanization, while crimes like lynching (especially in the United States) are often thought of as the result of popular bigotry and government apathy. Anthropologists Ashley Montagu and Floyd Matson famously wrote that dehumanization might well be considered "the fifth horseman of the apocalypse" because of the inestimable damage it has dealt to society. When people become things, the logic follows, they become dispensable - and any atrocity can be justified. Dehumanization can be seen outside of overtly violent conflicts, as in political debates where opponents are presented as collectively stupid or inherently evil. Such "good-versus-evil" claims help end substantive debate (see also thought-terminating cliché).
 
Last edited:
Women in combat should be treated the same as men in combat in the same situations. I don't want to hear about men who will "protect women" more than they will "protect their own comrades in arms". Soldiers are soldiers. Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality. The USA is at war. Women who serve are at war. I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.

So long as they pass all of the requirements that men would have as far pysical condition ect. then I agree with you. If women get a watered down tailered bull**** version, then quite frankly all they are gona end up doing is getting themselves killed. Theres a reason there are standards in PT and the like. Weeding out people that cant hack it being one.
 
I didn't read the article before I posted. It's about the eighty-six thousandth time this issue has come up. My bad.

If these female Service Members want to be Infantry, more power to them, but I don't see them complaining about the "inequality" in the PT standards. If they can pass the male standards of the PT test at a minimum of 70%, and maintain that, then by all means, let them in. If not, they can go back to being mechanics, medics, pilots, surgeons, heavy equipment operators, cooks, administrative personnel, electricians, drivers, Sappers, lawyers, Military Police, intelligence personnel, and all those other important roles which they feel aren't good enough.
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.


Fools and a their foolish notions. Civilized war. :roll: I am reminded of the term Jumbo Shrimp.
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.
 
The psychology is on my side on this one.
lol, ok.

When you refer to a German as a kraut or Jerry, or an Asian as a Jap or a squint or a slant or a gook, you are no longer referring to them as a person.
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?

You have made them an item, a thing, a target to fill your reticule.
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.

Humans have done this throughout our entire recorded history, even as far back as the Babylonians repurposing the Sumerian mother-god Tiamat into a heinous beast that was the font of all evil. You see, if you aren't like us, then YOU must be "the bad guys," and we can kill you with a clear conscious.


In the naval/aeronautical tradition, enemy troops on other ships are not people, they're "the enemy." But when that ship gets sunk, all of the survivors stranded in the water are "souls," as in, "the ship went down with 100 souls aboard, twenty souls got out in time"... until you pick them up out of the water, at which point they are then "prisoners".

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

This phenomenon is widely rampant today in the world of politics, most especially in the terms of overgeneralizaton, i.e. "all conservatives must necessarily be bigots," or "all liberals must necessarily be stupid and gullible." This accomplishes the same feat of taking an individual person out of any future equation and replacing them with a "thing" that just happens to be stupid/bigoted/something we can fundamentally disagree with on everything, and both parties have used this to package popular ideas with unpopular ones.
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.
 
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.
That's one thing that kept me pissed off. Some chick gets her max, then gloats about it like she's the "bees knees", baddest mother****er in town. Congratulations lady, you were able to pass my minimum score.
 
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.

Do you watch sports? Do you have a "home team" and engage in rival behavior? Have you ever said something like "GO BLUE! Beat the Suck-eyes! Ohio fans are the worst!"?

Or, how about this. I am a veteran of the Air Force - do you consider me "less" of a serviceman than you?
 
Do you watch sports? Do you have a "home team" and engage in rival behavior? Have you ever said something like "GO BLUE! Beat the Suck-eyes! Ohio fans are the worst!"?
No, I don't care for sports at all.

Or, how about this. I am a veteran of the Air Force - do you consider me "less" of a serviceman than you?
I consider you as somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, concerning this particular subject.
 
No, I don't care for sports at all.

Do you know someone who does this? Have you ever heard any of your friends or relatives same something like, "Giants fans are doucebags," or, "Raiders fans are felons"?


I consider you as somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, concerning this particular subject.

Your opinion is noted.
 
Do you know someone who does this? Have you ever heard any of your friends or relatives same something like, "Giants fans are doucebags," or, "Raiders fans are felons"?
Do I know people who talk ****? Yeah. So what?




Your opinion is noted.
Just for ****s and giggles, what was your MOS?
 
So long as they pass all of the requirements that men would have as far pysical condition ect. then I agree with you. If women get a watered down tailered bull**** version, then quite frankly all they are gona end up doing is getting themselves killed. Theres a reason there are standards in PT and the like. Weeding out people that cant hack it being one.

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?
 
Do I know people who talk ****? Yeah. So what?

Then you know people who engage in group identity. Do you believe them when they say that all Giants fans are douchebags? Or, do you at least believe that they believe it?

Just for ****s and giggles, what was your MOS?

1A8X1

And yourself?

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?

Because that paralegal isn't just a paralegal. That may be their primary function, but in the worst case scenario of a base being overrun, that paralegal is fighter. And you have to be in shape to deploy. Imagine being in 130 degree heat, and then having to don MOPP gear. If you're out of shape, you're toast pretty quickly. You've now become a liability as opposed to an asset.
 
Then you know people who engage in group identity. Do you believe them when they say that all Giants fans are douchebags? Or, do you at least believe that they believe it?
Considering that they also work closely with those people, and do people things with those people, no. I don't believe they really think all of the people who support their opposing teams are douchebags. They just say it because making people mad is funny.



1A8X1

And yourself?

So you were Signal Intelligence. I was 62B/91L, heavy construction equipment mechanic, assigned to the 501st in Korea, and the 2nd Engineers in WSMR.
 
Because that paralegal isn't just a paralegal. That may be their primary function, but in the worst case scenario of a base being overrun, that paralegal is fighter. And you have to be in shape to deploy. Imagine being in 130 degree heat, and then having to don MOPP gear. If you're out of shape, you're toast pretty quickly. You've now become a liability as opposed to an asset.

Fine, but the PT test doesn't test that. And by that reasoning there is also no excuse for lowering the standards as you get older, which they do. If we are going to go on the reasoning that anyone could get overridden at any moment then perhaps everyone should have to meet the standards of an 18 year old male. As someone who has administered more PT tests to Colonels than Privates, I can say we would have to boot a lot of senior personnel.

There is a tradeoff in that the tougher you make the physical standards the less likely you are going to be able to fill your ranks with otherwise qualified personnel who may be even more proficient in their given skill set.
 
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?

Because some General said so. It doesn't have to make sense, the almighty brass declareth it so.
 
War has boundaries? Ever?
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.
 
Considering that they also work closely with those people, and do people things with those people, no. I don't believe they really think all of the people who support their opposing teams are douchebags. They just say it because making people mad is funny.

The point I was making was about group identity. I'm from Michigan, and there is a deep seated hatred of all-things-Ohio here for some reason. Perhaps it all stems from the UofM/OSU rivalry, or perhaps it goes back to Toledo. Who knows. But the thing is, the opposing team's coach has to be escorted out of the stadium by police after the game is over. This is standard practice in either stadium. And it's not unheard of in other places. The point is, when someone gets so wrapped up in group identity like that - calling names, physically intimidating, casting aspersions on one's parentage - it can actually lead to violence. The propaganda masters in WWII knew this. Look at an old war-era poster of a "jap" with sharp teeth, beady eyes, talon-like fingers... they were physically painted as monstrous. We didn't do that to make them look friendlier. Names serve the same role to some extent, because you can call that guy a person, and you can call yourself a person... but nobody can call you a jap! It's a mark of difference, and that is the first step on the path to dehumanization.

So you were Signal Intelligence. I was 62B/91L, heavy construction equipment mechanic, assigned to the 501st in Korea, and the 2nd Engineers in WSMR.[/QUOTE]

More specifically, I was an Airborne Cryptologic Linguist. But all of my friends were maintenance and support. I pretty much hated other linguists. Smug bunch of a-holes.
 
Fine, but the PT test doesn't test that. And by that reasoning there is also no excuse for lowering the standards as you get older, which they do. If we are going to go on the reasoning that anyone could get overridden at any moment then perhaps everyone should have to meet the standards of an 18 year old male. As someone who has administered more PT tests to Colonels than Privates, I can say we would have to boot a lot of senior personnel.

There is a tradeoff in that the tougher you make the physical standards the less likely you are going to be able to fill your ranks with otherwise qualified personnel who may be even more proficient in their given skill set.

That is an interesting point about the age limits. I mean, an older person does not possess the physical capability of a younger person (with rare exception). If we apply that to females, then we could surmise that, ceterus paribus, the average female does not possess the physical capability of the average male. So, does that mean we discriminate against the females by holding them to the male standard (which isn't personal discrimination so much as discriminating standards), or do we let them have lesser standards but treat them as having lesser capabilities?

With older men, you have experience, so there is a tradeoff. They may not be as physically fit (some of them are though), but they aren't necessarily the ones leaving the command tent, either. With females, I suppose the trade off would be a warm body to punch buttons and work calculators, but limited career path options.

Yeah, I guess I fail to see the problem. I still can understand why someone would fight for the "right" to see combat, though. It's kind of what any action you take is trying avoid, at least in theory: kill them today so you don't have to fight them tomorrow. In a perverse way, the goal of fighting is peace.
 
Well I know the Israelis and UK both did studies on women in combat front line units and both came to the conclusion it was a bad idea. The Israelis actually pulled women out after having them for years. This says to me outside of my own anecdotal evidence women on the front lines depending on the job I have no real problem with. However when it comes to infantry, armor and artillery, no freaking way.
 
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.

Kind of a different direction, but still, when really fighting for your survival, there are seldom any barriers for anyone. However, when you choose wars, against enemies that can't defeat you, and choose to be imperialistic, imposing your will on others, only an immoral people torture, abuse, and commit horrific acts sanctioned and excused by the people and the government.
 
For civilized peoples it does. International law, ROE, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and a plethora of treaties which limit what we can and cannot do.

Don't argue those things, but in context of the thread, who can kill? Fight? Are the rules the same everywhere?
 
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

Until we no longer have tits and ***** we'll still be considered differently situated.

I'd be surprised otherwise.

The concept makes me nervous because women are given substandard fitness standards - I think it's bull**** - it lets the weak in where there should be no weakness.

(I know I know - all the response arguments heading my way. I've heard it all. I don't care. I only support equalized standards for everyone - if a guy can't under perform and be in, then women shouldn't be able to under perform and get in, either)
 
Until we no longer have tits and ***** we'll still be considered differently situated.

I'd be surprised otherwise.

The concept makes me nervous because women are given substandard fitness standards - I think it's bull**** - it lets the weak in where there should be no weakness.

(I know I know - all the response arguments heading my way. I've heard it all. I don't care. I only support equalized standards for everyone - if a guy can't under perform and be in, then women shouldn't be able to under perform and get in, either)

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom