• 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

misterman said:
God I wish you could get him on that boat, and I could watch. :lol:
Click to expand...
Me too. :mrgreen:

I loved having sexist bastards in my raft. Made my day to have them under my control and punish them for 7 hours.
 
Blackdog said:
Again so what? This was 1 woman, just 1. Females make up 11% of the military. Not saying she did not, but I am wary of reports like this during war time. They also trump up reports from males as well.

I also have a feeling this is trumped up crap like Jessica Lynch. The Army has a habit of doing that.

This does not say much.
Click to expand...

Whether you want to believe that story or not, the fact remains, that there are women currently in the military that can physically handle carrying heavy gear and whatever else that is required. That is because they trained and got in shape.
 
Porchev said:
Whether you want to believe that story or not, the fact remains, that there are women currently in the military that can physically handle carrying heavy gear and whatever else that is required. That is because they trained and got in shape.
Click to expand...

She is not in a Combat MOS, I have no problem with that. I am talking about combat MOS positions. Infantry, Armor and Artillery. I know almost none of the women in the service presently can handle being a loader or part of a mortar crew. Hell, allot of guys can barely handle it.

Plenty of other positions exist within the military females can do well. Combat arms is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Just wanted to add we all know how bad female drivers are. You want to put that behind the T-stick of a tank? Or any armored vehicle!!!





























Just kidding, I could not resist. :cool:
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
Me too. :mrgreen:

I loved having sexist bastards in my raft. Made my day to have them under my control and punish them for 7 hours.
Click to expand...

Sexist bastards, or just men in general? Sounds like penis envy, to me.
 
Blackdog said:
She is not in a Combat MOS, I have no problem with that. I am talking about combat MOS positions. Infantry, Armor and Artillery. I know almost none of the women in the service presently can handle being a loader or part of a mortar crew. Hell, allot of guys can barely handle it.

Plenty of other positions exist within the military females can do well. Combat arms is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Women are doing more and more combat type roles...

"..With an increased operations tempo, female Soldiers are stepping up to take on some of the roles traditionally filled by males such as providing unit and convoy security.

Some units, including military police, are using an increasing number of females for patrols outside the wire. Despite this, there’s often only one female gunner in a particular convoy or patrol at a given time.

Women man all turrets for civil affairs unit

What makes the New York-based U.S. Army Reserve unit, A Company, 403rd Civil Affairs Battalion different is that it doesn’t have just one female turret gunner, but three. In fact, all of the turret gunners for this particular 10-person civil affairs team are females..."

Female Soldiers Protecting Convoys

ArnoldScoping.jpg
 
Porchev said:
Women are doing more and more combat type roles...

"..With an increased operations tempo, female Soldiers are stepping up to take on some of the roles traditionally filled by males such as providing unit and convoy security.

Some units, including military police, are using an increasing number of females for patrols outside the wire. Despite this, there’s often only one female gunner in a particular convoy or patrol at a given time.

Women man all turrets for civil affairs unit

What makes the New York-based U.S. Army Reserve unit, A Company, 403rd Civil Affairs Battalion different is that it doesn’t have just one female turret gunner, but three. In fact, all of the turret gunners for this particular 10-person civil affairs team are females..."

Female Soldiers Protecting Convoys

ArnoldScoping.jpg
Click to expand...

A civil affairs unit is about as far from being a combat unit as you can get. Not a very good example.

When the fit hits the shan, the 403rd civil affairs battalion isn't going to be the unit that is called in for combat support.

Sitting in a gun turret on a hummvee, or a deuce-and-a-half are far different than going on combat patrols, either dismounted, or mounted.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
A civil affairs unit is about as far from being a combat unit as you can get. Not a very good example.

When the fit hits the shan, the 403rd civil affairs battalion isn't going to be the unit that is called in for combat support.

Sitting in a gun turret on a hummvee, or a deuce-and-a-half are far different than going on combat patrols, either dismounted, or mounted.
Click to expand...

First the conversation in parts of this thread argues women can't physically hack it--which isn't true is many cases, but now it's about if the **** hits the fan? There are real combat operations going in right now that women in all branches of service are involved in (as I showed a few examples of), so what is it exactly they are not capable of doing?
 
Porchev said:
First the conversation in parts of this thread argues women can't physically hack it--which isn't true is many cases, but now it's about if the **** hits the fan? There are real combat operations going in right now that women in all branches of service are involved in (as I showed a few examples of), so what is it exactly they are not capable of doing?
Click to expand...


Engaging in combat is what combat units do...:rofl
 
apdst said:
Sexist bastards, or just men in general? Sounds like penis envy, to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have issues with women. Don't be afraid, they won't hurt you. Too much. If they even talk to you.
 
misterman said:
Sounds like you have issues with women. Don't be afraid, they won't hurt you. Too much. If they even talk to you.
Click to expand...

I don't have issues with women since I came to grips with the fact that they're all crazy. It's all good.

Didn't take long for that accusation to come out. Why do Librulz have to always go there?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Engaging in combat is what combat units do...:rofl
Click to expand...

WTF? Are you inferring no women have been killed in combat (or participated in combat) in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
apdst said:
I don't have issues with women since I came to grips with the fact that they're all crazy. It's all good.
Click to expand...

Yeah, every female on the planet is crazy. It's not you. :roll:

Look, if you have woman troubles, there are lots of cheap books you can buy from ads in the back of comic books that can help you get over your shyness and talk them into believing you're not a loser. It probably won't work, but you can try. It's too late to try it on Rivrat though.
 
Porchev said:
First the conversation in parts of this thread argues women can't physically hack it--which isn't true is many cases, but now it's about if the **** hits the fan? There are real combat operations going in right now that women in all branches of service are involved in (as I showed a few examples of), so what is it exactly they are not capable of doing?
Click to expand...

No, this is about females being in certain units of the military.

My argument has nothing to do with certain women being able to do some of the jobs. They can and do. My argument is that invariably to get more women into a combat MOS, the standards will be reduced as they have been EVERY TIME before without exception for the women only.

This reduced standard (as I have shown multiple times in other posts already) will lead to reduced effectiveness of our combat units. You can not have a weak link in a fire team or any other team.

If they could meet the same standards as the men do, then by all means let them do the job. If they can't they need to be washed out just like the guys. The problem is feminists etc will scream discrimination AND AS IN EVERY CASE I HAVE ALREADY POSTED the standards for them will be reduced, period. It is the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
Porchev said:
WTF? Are you inferring no women have been killed in combat (or participated in combat) in Iraq and Afghanistan
Click to expand...

How did you get that out of what he said? He did not imply any such nonsense.
 
misterman said:
Yeah, every female on the planet is crazy. It's not you. :roll:

Look, if you have woman troubles, there are lots of cheap books you can buy from ads in the back of comic books that can help you get over your shyness and talk them into believing you're not a loser. It probably won't work, but you can try. It's too late to try it on Rivrat though.
Click to expand...

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?
 
apdst said:
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?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. :mrgreen:
 
Blackdog said:
Pretty much. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Yep..........:rofl

That's why I don't like Librulz. bascially, they believe they're smarter than the rest of us and we should just all shut the **** up and do what they tell us too and **** what we have to say about it, because we must be afflicted with some sorta phobia, or 'ism.
 
apdst said:
Yep..........:rofl

That's why I don't like Librulz. bascially, they believe they're smarter than the rest of us and we should just all shut the **** up and do what they tell us too and **** what we have to say about it, because we must be afflicted with some sorta phobia, or 'ism.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Blackdog said:
No, this is about females being in certain units of the military.

My argument has nothing to do with certain women being able to do some of the jobs. They can and do. My argument is that invariably to get more women into a combat MOS, the standards will be reduced as they have been EVERY TIME before without exception for the women only.

This reduced standard (as I have shown multiple times in other posts already) will lead to reduced effectiveness of our combat units. You can not have a weak link in a fire team or any other team.

If they could meet the same standards as the men do, then by all means let them do the job. If they can't they need to be washed out just like the guys. The problem is feminists etc will scream discrimination AND AS IN EVERY CASE I HAVE ALREADY POSTED the standards for them will be reduced, period. It is the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

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