• 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

No, I'm actually saying, why can't they?

I don't know? My disagreement is based on the physical requirements for sub life and ground combat based on 12 years of military service.

I also don't think that was his point.
 
Xena.jpg


Xena disagrees with you bitch.

I could kick Xena's ass on a bad day. :2razz:
 
I take your word for it. Thanks.

This could get really carried away !! Instead of SEALS the female special forces could have the MERMAIDS in the NAVY. Instead of Rangers they can have the BATONNETTES !! And the Air FORCE can have something real nice and female like the DOVES or maybe the SWAINS. That way there will be the equality that the social liberals like and the real special forces would not be hurt. I have no idea what to call the MARINE female special forces.

The only problem is that the female special forces would not be allowed to actually serve in combat but they can go to parades and games and ceremonies.

I wrote this with a bit of T and Cheek but seriously guys combat is no place for women and special forces are for combat so forget about it as they say in New York !!
 
Last edited:
If you had taken the time to read the thread you would have seen that I said I could care less one way or the other but I can tell you there will be a lot of people against it including the most important of all the wives of the submariners.........

You are arguing this from the wrong perspective Navy. Just argue from the fact that a submarine is not like a ship and the accommodations simply can not be met.
 
The Royal Norwegian Navy became the first[citation needed] navy in the world to permit female personnel to serve in submarines, appointing a female submarine captain in 1995,[66] followed by the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) in 1998 and thereafter Canada and Spain,[67] all operators of conventional submarines.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military]Women in the military - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
I don't know? My disagreement is based on the physical requirements for sub life and ground combat based on 12 years of military service.

I also don't think that was his point.
I would contend that, if they meet the requirements you mention, they should be allowed to participate.
 
If you had taken the time to read the thread you would have seen that I said I could care less one way or the other but I can tell you there will be a lot of people against it including the most important of all the wives of the submariners.........
It was a joke Navy.

I've read the whole damn thread.
 
I don't believe women in the Navy can be a Navy SEAL or EOD.
 
I would contend that, if they meet the requirements you mention, they should be allowed to participate.

I do not mean to sound sexist but I do not think women could pass the training Navy SEALS go through. I really do not. The difference between a SEAL and everybody else in the Navy is the difference between you riding your bike and Lance Armstrong riding his bike. It is not the same thing. At all. I mean you're both doing the same thing. But you're really not.
 
ok fine but when was the last time Norway got into a global war ? Ok they did have some fun as guerilla fighters during WW II after they got invaded by the FATHERLAND GANG !!!

The Red Army had a good number of women on the front lines in WWII
 
I do not mean to sound sexist but I do not think women could pass the training Navy SEALS go through. I really do not. The difference between a SEAL and everybody else in the Navy is the difference between you riding your bike and Lance Armstrong riding his bike. It is not the same thing. At all. I mean you're both doing the same thing. But you're really not.

Doesn't matter if you think they could or not. Doesn't matter even if none of them could. What matters is that they're at least given the chance to try.
 
I do not mean to sound sexist but I do not think women could pass the training Navy SEALS go through. I really do not. The difference between a SEAL and everybody else in the Navy is the difference between you riding your bike and Lance Armstrong riding his bike. It is not the same thing. At all. I mean you're both doing the same thing. But you're really not.

I went to a survival school At Warner Springs in the moutains of California one year and it was 20 below.......There were 6 Seals in our class and you don't know the half of it......I almost thought those guys were not human......
 
I went to a survival school At Warner Springs in the moutains of California one year and it was 20 below.......There were 6 Seals in our class and you don't know the half of it......I almost thought those guys were not human......

Meh. I took 4 Navy SEALS down the river once on an "Xtreme" whitewater trip.

I wasn't impressed. I made them cry uncle by mile 9 in a 24 mile trip. :lol: Bunch of cocky, arrogant, sexist bastards, too. I never took so much pleasure in flipping the raft repeatedly as I did with those guys.
 
Meh. I took 4 Navy SEALS down the river once on an "Xtreme" whitewater trip.

I wasn't impressed. I made them cry uncle by mile 9 in a 24 mile trip. :lol: Bunch of cocky, arrogant, sexist bastards, too. I never took so much pleasure in flipping the raft repeatedly as I did with those guys.

Yeah, right...........:rofl

Since we are telling sea stories, I saw a training film on Navy Seals one time it included guys jumpimg off 12 story buildings. Parachuting with half chutes so they could get down faster//////going on 100 mile hikes.........living off the land, escape and evasion (I was there for this) eating roots, roaches, ants, spiders...I ate the roots but starved otherwise...Lost 20 lbs in 5 days.........
 
Last edited:
We need to separate the conversation slightly...

Women on subs is a "housing" and sex issue.

Women in the infantry, et al is a physical issue.
 
What housing and what physical issues?
Yes, I want to know.

What factors would stop them from hotbunking like and with every other enlisted person on the sub (assuming you have to hotbunk on said sub)?

Because they are female?

Because the others are male?

Why?
 
Yes, I want to know.

What factors would stop them from hotbunking like and with every other enlisted person on the sub (assuming you have to hotbunk on said sub)?

Because they are female?

Because the others are male?

Why?

Indeed. If the women don't want to serve in close quarters with men without segregated quarters, then said women don't need to be on the sub. Or men, for that matter.
 
You calling me a liar?

Well, of course you are. I mean, if I wasn't impressed by your SEALS, I must be lying, right? :roll: :lol:

Poor Navy, there, there. *pat pat*


Nah, if it make you feel good go for it but there will be no women seals....take that to the bank,,,,,,,,
 
Doesn't matter if you think they could or not. Doesn't matter even if none of them could. What matters is that they're at least given the chance to try.

Agreed as long as the standards are the same for both men and women. I have seen some fire departments develop lesser standards for women firefighters. My stance if the job requires "X" to be done. Then anyone doing the job needs to be able to do it.

To bring things to equal footing, why don't we have all women over 18be required to register for a military draft. Restart the draft, for women only for the number of years men had to be subject to a military draft.
 
What housing?

Women on a sub is a housing issue. Regardless of how you feel on the matter, having women on a submarine would create the problem of "where to put them". On a sub, all the guys use the same bathroom gay or straight. The need to create a separate bathroom(and once again, regardless of how you feel about it - it would have to happen as our military is not co-ed as far as those facilities are involved) would create an ergonomic issue for submarines that is simply more of a trouble than simply not letting women go on subs. It is not as simple as 'let the ones who want to do it, do it' because that is not how the military works. You have to change rules, regulations, see how those rules and regulations will affect others, etc etc etc. It is the reason Obama simply can't say "let gays serve". The courts have already ruled that it is not that simple.
 
Last edited:
Women on a sub is a housing issue. Regardless of how you feel on the matter, having women on a submarine would create the problem of "where to put them". On a sub, all the guys use the same bathroom gay or straight. The need to create a separate bathroom(and once again, regardless of how you feel about it - it would have to happen as our military is not co-ed as far as those facilities are involved) would create an ergonomic issue for submarines that is simply more of a trouble than simply not letting women go on subs.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Women as Green Berets? They just can't hack it physically. Even if there was one woman who could, why change everything just for her?
 
Nah, if it make you feel good go for it but there will be no women seals....take that to the bank,,,,,,,,
If what makes me feel good? Go for what? :confused:

And no, I won't take that to the bank since it would be a losing bet. If you guys REALLY think that no woman could EVER pass the SEAL training, they why haven't they opened it up for women to try? I mean... what's the harm? There's no risk, right? No woman could EVER succeed. :roll: Right?

Agreed as long as the standards are the same for both men and women. I have seen some fire departments develop lesser standards for women firefighters. My stance if the job requires "X" to be done. Then anyone doing the job needs to be able to do it.
YES. When I was ROTC, I argued and argued with my CO about this very thing. That the women's requirements were less than the men's. I told him repeatedly that all that did was set women up for failure in the military and create a burden on the men. It was, and still is, completely unfair to both genders.

To bring things to equal footing, why don't we have all women over 18be required to register for a military draft. Restart the draft, for women only for the number of years men had to be subject to a military draft.
Absolutely.
 
Back
Top Bottom