• 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!

Should females be allowed to specialize as infantry in the military?

Should women be allowed to specialize as infantry

  • Yes, and they should be integrated with the males

    Votes: 44 46.3%

  • Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units

    Votes: 11 11.6%

  • No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training

    Votes: 25 26.3%

  • No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Other....

    Votes: 9 9.5%
  • Total voters
    95
Lerxst said:
Thank you.
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome.

If your position is that women lack the emotional and physical aptitude for combat then it is a sexist opinion. It's not PC hogwash.
Click to expand...

Well, technically, what I said was a "sexist opinion" but you and I both know that word carries implied connotations with it, and I don't believe said connotations should apply to myself. Labels have a way of distorting an argument.

If there are any women anywhere that are suited for combat then your position is bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I'm not limiting my position to just combat. I'm talking about a prolonged combat tour with an infantry platoon. It's different. Having said that, I stand by my position. Sure, there may be one woman out there who can do it, but generally speaking, I believe they are incapable of such.
 
Voidwar said:
No it doesn't you propaganda peddler. Your pro-life commercial is completely off topic, as a fetus is no parallel whatsoever to an enemy soldier.
Click to expand...

Lerxst said:
This is completely irrelevant and not even remotely related to the topic at hand. It's also quite classless.
Click to expand...
actually it is spot on, sorry :2wave:
 
gree0232 said:
How does death defend life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Those concepts are a societal, not an individual choice.

In any nation rises up and seriously intends to take those collective rights away from our society, there is nothing that YOU alone, as an individual, can do to stop them.

What is needed is a collective entity that trained, equipped, and formed to fight as efficiently as possible to attack and destroy that enemy as quickly as possible.

You individual desire can only be defended collectively. What is a question is how best to that, and allowing women in to defend a principal in peace may result in its loss in war.

Currently, the defense of that liberty is all expiditionary, should that process come home and truly involve the survival of our society as a whole it would very much become necessary for women to make that choice you speak of.

However, to send young men and women off to war aware that there are problems that may effect unit cohesion in the face of the enemy is tantamount to murder unless you you know of ways to mitigate them.

I know of know way to keep 19 year old men full of infantry machismo from acting like horny young men nor do I know how to stop equally horny young women from sleeping them. That sort of behavior, and the competition it creates, can easily result in needless deaths in combat.

As someone who has lead troops in battle, that is not a risk that I would take lightly.
Click to expand...

Are we still arguing about integrating women into all male combat units?

There is a place for women in combat arms, you cannot intelligently deny this. Integrating them with males is a bad idea, I'll agree with that. But I think this discussion is fully inclusive of the capability of women to be warfighters.

To this end, nobody has proven they are incapable. To suggest this is sheer folly as there is no precedent on the matter. Only opinion.
 
Ethereal said:
You're quite welcome.



Well, technically, what I said was a "sexist opinion" but you and I both know that word carries implied connotations with it, and I don't believe said connotations should apply to myself. Labels have a way of distorting an argument.



I'm not limiting my position to just combat. I'm talking about a prolonged combat tour with an infantry platoon. It's different. Having said that, I stand by my position. Sure, there may be one woman out there who can do it, but generally speaking, I believe they are incapable of such.
Click to expand...

Obviously I disagree with you, but I appreciate the clarification of your position.

Peace.
 
And to clarify, I should not have chosen the answer I did in the poll because it doesn't actually reflect my sentiment on the matter. As my first post stated, I think integration is a bad idea. An all female infantry unit is feasible.
 
Voidwar said:
Factual description, and on topic. Throw me another beachball down the middle.
Click to expand...

Oh, when you attack the person of another poster, it's allowed, but when someone comments on your MO, you whine like a shelter dog.

Duly noted.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Tell it to Deborah Samson.

Deborah Sampson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Well, how about you explain it to me. I have seen quite a bit of death, and most of it is completely useless.

We may want to think that death hold meaning, but the reality in war is often no more than looking the wrong way and getting shot as a result. A dead body accomplished nothing.

In war, the principals that are defined are defined by the leaders of the victor not by the soldiers on the battlefield. Ergo, we must prepare our forces properly to accomplish that victory as quickly as possible.

Death's only meaning in war is through victory or defeat. Tremendous acts of courage and cowardice show wars humanity even the face of horror, but the individual acts are only significant in the larger struggle to achieve victory.

So please, explain to me how death alone defends those principals? Explain it when less than 1% of our society is currently fighting in the two wars our society committed us to? (Three is you count the clandestine War in Terror).

There are many ways to defend liberty, but dying isn't a terribly effective method.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh, when you attack the person of another poster, it's allowed,
Click to expand...

Where did I do that ? I called a propaganda peddler a propaganda peddler for engaging in propaganda peddling. How is that an attack ? It is simply the bald fact of the matter I was calling him out on. Calling his comment "propaganda" is specifically targeting his argument, and not his person. :doh

Catz Part Deux said:
but when someone comments on your MO, you whine
Click to expand...

Incorrect. I dispense lessons to them about latin terminology and what is and isn't ad hominem, and what is and isn't off topic. You know what is off topic in this thread about females specializing as infantry ? A pro-life public service announcement, among other things.
 
Last edited:
gree0232 said:
Well, how about you explain it to me. I have seen quite a bit of death, and most of it is completely useless..
Click to expand...

You've created a strawman here. Sometimes, it is necessary to stand up and fight. That means being WILLING to die, but it doesn't mean that ideally, people DO die.

A lot of jobs that are worth doing involve the risk of death.

IF I fall on a grenade to keep it from killing my children, was my death worthwhile? IF I fall on a grenade to keep it from injuring my co-workers, parents, friends, or my significant other, is that death worthwhile?

Death means what we think it means, nothing more, and nothing less.

I've seen a lot of senseless death in the past 19 years. Kids shooting kids for no apparent reason.

But, I've also seen a lot of people RISK death to save other people, sometimes while being injured themselves. And that does, in fact, seem worthwhile to me.

Why should women be judged less capable or worthy of self-sacrifice?

Tell me, if a woman carries a pregnancy to term, but refuses chemotherapy because it might harm her infant, and then succumbs to cancer, isn't she still a hero? Does her death mean nothing?
 
Lerxst said:
Are we still arguing about integrating women into all male combat units?

There is a place for women in combat arms, you cannot intelligently deny this. Integrating them with males is a bad idea, I'll agree with that. But I think this discussion is fully inclusive of the capability of women to be warfighters.

To this end, nobody has proven they are incapable. To suggest this is sheer folly as there is no precedent on the matter. Only opinion.
Click to expand...

You really think that our society is willing to throw 800 young women into the teeth of a prepared defense? (As BN's are the level were the exclusion begins).

And where would we integrate this all female BN? The 82nd? You think a bunch of male paratroopers are going to sit by while a bunch of women go into the meat grinder?

How will locals react in a counter-insurgency to having a company of women show up to defend them? Do you really think that they, be the very definition of their ENTIRE female entinty will not create attacks in a society that hasn't accepted YOUR eqilitarian views regarding women?

Who will lead them? Female infantry officers?

And how will our enemy react when he is attacked by women? When he singles the unit our for attack? When they deliberately capture and rape a few of them? Again, what would have happened if it had been a couple of young women rather than young men from the 101st who were yanked off a Baghdad street and tortured and killed?

You have avoided that question before, but you are ready to commit entire Battalions of women to battle when you cannot face the reality of only two women in the reality of te infantry battle?

Our entire logistics systems exists upon the basis of integration, and you want to return to segregation? A concept that ultimately had to be abadnoned.

Simply because you say there is no rational reason to exclude them, by separating them, making them unique and defining them as women, rather than infantrymen, you have created a slew of additional problems and what you certainly have not solved the problem of inequality.

The idea is to win wars. The idea is not to use combat as some sort of proving ground for moral concepts best debated away from battle.

We can deal with something as dangerous as a battle and equality when my sons can freely enter all women only colleges. No one will die if we get that one wrong, someone WILL die if we screw up the infantry.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
Where did I do that ? I called a propaganda peddler a propaganda peddler
Click to expand...

calling his comment "propaganda" is specifically targeting his argument, and not his person. :doh
Click to expand...
True. But that's not what you did. You specifically labeled HIM in an insulting way, hence ad hominem.

What you did is EXACTLY what you whined about Lerxst doing. At least try to be consistent in your whining.
 
gree0232 said:
You really think that our society is willing to throw 800 young women into the teeth of a prepared defense? (As BN's are the level were the exclusion begins).
Click to expand...
Don't women enjoy the same benefits of living in this society? Aren't they equally called upon to defend it?

Where does equality stop? While we sit on our hands and watch the menfolks go off to die?
You think a bunch of male paratroopers are going to sit by while a bunch of women go into the meat grinder?
Click to expand...

Do male paratroopers sit by and watch while ANYONE goes into the meat grinder?

How will locals react in a counter-insurgency to having a company of women show up to defend them? Do you really think that they, be the very definition of their ENTIRE female entinty will not create attacks in a society that hasn't accepted YOUR eqilitarian views regarding women?
Click to expand...

Oh, so we should let barbaric, dark ages societies set our policies.
Who will lead them? Female infantry officers?
Click to expand...

I doubt that most women would have difficulty following male officers.

And how will our enemy react when he is attacked by women? When he singles the unit our for attack? When they deliberately capture and rape a few of them?
Click to expand...

Do you fail to understand that most women have internalized the concept of rape in a way that you NEVER will. And, if women choose to risk that circumstance, who are you to say that they are not entitled to do so?
The idea is to win wars. The idea is not to use combat as some sort of proving ground for moral concepts best debated away from battle.
Click to expand...

Do we have an unlimited amount of male recruits? I'd prefer to use female volunteers OVER male draftees.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
True. But that's not what you did. You specifically labeled HIM in an insulting way, hence ad hominem.

What you did is EXACTLY what you whined about Lerxst doing. At least try to be consistent in your whining.
Click to expand...

False, because Lerxst was factually incorrect and thus his posting was "e-libel". Further, an admonition to stay on topic, is inherently on topic, while a falsehood laden smear campaign is not.

Propaganda. The very fact that I used the term is proof that my comment was directed at his argument and not his person. Q.E.D.
 
WI Crippler said:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...nsiders-lifting-combat-ban-female-troops.html

That is the discussion that has given birth to this particular poll.

I want to be clear with the question here. I am asking if you think females should be allowed to serve as infantrymen(persons?) in the military. That means, they are not a cook or aircraft mechanic who has some basic infantry skills gleaned from either boot camp, or extra infantry training like the Marines put all personnell though.

What we are asking is if you think women should be allowed to be grunts.
Click to expand...

Not sure, I have no problem with them serving in combat as fighter and helicopter pilots and what not but I'm not sure if they're physically capable of going infantry not to mention what would happen to them if they were captured by today's enemy.
 
Last edited:
Voidwar said:
Incorrect. I dispense lessons to them about latin terminology and what is and isn't ad hominem, and what is and isn't off topic. You know what is off topic in this thread about females specializing as infantry ? A pro-life public service announcement, among other things.
Click to expand...
so women killing on a masive scale has no bearing on whether or not they are capable of killing? noted
thanks for clearing that up :2wave:
 
Agent Ferris said:
She's the Terminator now get it straight. lol
Click to expand...
OMG how many pages ago was that? somethings are not worth reviving 10 pages later

Summer is, but...

I do not know what it is about her, that makes her so sexy, but she is despite not being attractive


EDIT OMG make that a 40 page retread
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
Abortion is off topic. So let's quit trying to go down that path.
 
DeeJayH said:
so women killing on a masive scale has no bearing on whether or not they are capable of killing? noted
thanks for clearing that up :2wave:
Click to expand...

Women being able to kill is self evident based on evidence that has nothing to do with abortion. Your use of abortion in this issue was pretty obviously an attempt to get a reaction, and not to add to the discussion.

Edited to add: Oops, sorry Talloulou, you posted while I was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom