US POWs

[Dowding]

On the strength issue, why not just accept women that DO meet the criteria?

I bet there are some women out there that do, and I don't mean those manish steroid pumping ones.

[batdog]

Cost...you'd have to accept large numbers to test/train. This would cost alot of money and be extreamly unproductive number wise.  You couldnt just say... were going to have a pre test then allow those that make it to join up. They'd have to do the same for males...and alot of the males would fail at first as well. The difference is that the males could be brought up to speed much quicker than the females w/the same standards.

Its all about time Dowding.... 8-12weeks to turn a dumpy Video game playing marshmellow wannabe into something that resembles a soldier.

[Fishu]

What right does US gov. have to refer in geneva convention after the afganistan war?
The fact is, US took prisoners in the war, didn't declare them as prisoners of war and took to a prison camp, where obviously some have been tortured and even died as the cause.

Not only human rights violation, but also against the geneva convention.

Now, those two things suddenly are important for US Gov. again.
Such a bunch of jerks you guys got in US Gov.

[Vermillion]

Fishu, go read more about the geneva convention.

Understand that terrorists (Al Qaeda) or irregular/insurgent troops are not covered by the Geneva convention.  PERIOD.

In fact, if your captured fighting in civilian clothing, you are subject to battlefield summary execution.  Just as in the current war, these Iraqi Fedayeen and militia units that are ambushing troops in civilian clothing are not covered by the Geneva convention.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Fishu
What right does US gov. have to refer in geneva convention after the afganistan war?
The fact is, US took prisoners in the war, didn't declare them as prisoners of war and took to a prison camp, where obviously some have been tortured and even died as the cause.

Not only human rights violation, but also against the geneva convention.

Now, those two things suddenly are important for US Gov. again.
Such a bunch of jerks you guys got in US Gov.

Not prisoners of war if they are not in uniform and identifiable as military combatants, I believe. The guys running around in towels are the one's in violation of the rules of combat.

[Fishu]

Guys.. many of those captured in afganistan, who ended to US, did not even carry a weapon, but were rather arrested.

How exactly were they combatants in civilian clothes in that case?

[Animal]

I didnt know you needed superhuman upper body strenght to be a good leader or an excellent marksman.

I didnt know you needed many years of evolution to have courage under fire.

Granted, I didnt see any women under combat (not being in combat myself) but I did see women being better leaders than most of the men around, and I saw women who shot better with a rifle than most men around.

And if you think all men in the army are strong guys, wrong. Take a stride around an army base. Mostly they are average. With a nice exersice routine an already sturdy gal could easily have above average strenght compared to the men around them (in the ARMY at least, know nothing about Marines)

And as pilots, well lasz2 go to an AF or Navy base, go look for ANY female pilot in a bar, walk up to her male buddies and tell them your little female inferiority theory and I would love to film their reaction.

I agree though that women should not join teams like special forces, but really, if a woman enters the trial hell week and passes it, something most men cant even get half past, how can you deny her the right to be in?

[lazs2]

I've run through all this with kanth but.. to boil it down.

animal.. are you saying that you treat women exactly as you treat men?  I know you don't and would have very little respect for you if you did.

for every testosterone pill popping "female" weight lifter there are 1000kr more normal females that you and I have to deal with on a daily basis... not la la "the way the world should be " but day to day reality... how we see and treat women is formed by that interaction in our daily lives... how we react to women being shot or tortured or captured or raped is formed by that day to day interaction... you can't change that in a couple of months or switch it on and off.

as for combat... Why bother weeding out the useless women.. your chances that a man can fight another man are good enough with the training we have..  I can beat the crap out of those women and I am 53 years old... they have a limit on age they don't want to bother to see if I am 'capable"  they don't want an old fart in with all them youngsters... they are right.

wonder how many women combat troops the Brits have?
lazs

[batdog]

Believe me..if it was workable SOMEBODY in history would of done it.

 Women can SHOOT... THEY CAN FLY.... etc. They simply lack the lung and muscule capacity that a male has... they lack the potential as well.

 There is a reason why the males take one PT test and the women another.

[Dowding]

We have no frontline infantrywomen. Although female army officers are trained exactly the same way as their male counterparts, including squad based combat exercises etc.

But we do have frontline flyers. There's a few all female Tornado combat crews. And they are very capable, or they wouldn't be there and wouldn't be entrusted with multi-million pound combat aircraft.

Lastly, the BBC recently did a program called 'SAS - are you tough enough?'. Basically the premise is that a bunch of ultra fit wannabes are put through a series of trials which emulate the real SAS selection procedure, condensed into a short amount of time. The guys who are doing the assessing and setting the tests are all ex-SAS people, so they know what they are doing. The first series took part in Britain, the newest series moved to the Malasian jungle.

Out of a mixed group of 26 men and women, there were 3 women and 4 men left after one week of all sorts of tough stuff, including a mock torture session (white noise, sleep deprivation, mainly pyscological stuff).

By day 16 there were just 2 men and 2 women left - the third women was binned because she just didn't have the strength.

The winner was a woman, as decided by the opinions of six ex-SAS people.

[Fishu]

Lasz,

Women are often very dedicated and strong willed soldiers.
I'd say more so on average than males.

[lazs2]

fishu...  I have no problem with what you say... I am merely pointing out that it doesn't matter.... all things considered..

you can get a blind man to be a good bus driver if you work at it hard enough but it's not worth the effort. or the risk.
lazs

[batdog]

Originally posted by Dowding
We have no frontline infantrywomen. Although female army officers are trained exactly the same way as their male counterparts, including squad based combat exercises etc.

But we do have frontline flyers. There's a few all female Tornado combat crews. And they are very capable, or they wouldn't be there and wouldn't be entrusted with multi-million pound combat aircraft.

Lastly, the BBC recently did a program called 'SAS - are you tough enough?'. Basically the premise is that a bunch of ultra fit wannabes are put through a series of trials which emulate the real SAS selection procedure, condensed into a short amount of time. The guys who are doing the assessing and setting the tests are all ex-SAS people, so they know what they are doing. The first series took part in Britain, the newest series moved to the Malasian jungle.

Out of a mixed group of 26 men and women, there were 3 women and 4 men left after one week of all sorts of tough stuff, including a mock torture session (white noise, sleep deprivation, mainly pyscological stuff).

By day 16 there were just 2 men and 2 women left - the third women was binned because she just didn't have the strength.

The winner was a woman, as decided by the opinions of six ex-SAS people.

LOL... can you say TV...

Look I LOVE the idea of strong chicks. My wife works out, has for years and years. She knows ladies who have trained for years and years. They cant hold a candle to me endurance wise or str wise. Its a simple fact. Its a law of averages. Oh..there are women out there who could nodoubt smoke the sh(* outta me..but they are the rare exception, not the rule.

[Kanth]

Whether you like the idea or not, women can do the job.

 you guys are pointing out boxing, are pointing out the olympics..are even saying you could beat up a woman..

well when war consists of two people punching the **** out of each other in the middle of a ring, you will begin to have a leg to stand on...and I only say begin because still there are some women who would in.

But war doesn't go like that, and it hasn't since mankind became tool users.

get real and quit watching so much tv...america's women don't all look like cheer leaders and super models.

[batdog]

Originally posted by Kanth
Whether you like the idea or not, women can do the job.

 you guys are pointing out boxing, are pointing out the olympics..are even saying you could beat up a woman..

well when war consists of two people punching the **** out of each other in the middle of a ring, you will begin to have a leg to stand on...and I only say begin because still there are some women who would in.

But war doesn't go like that, and it hasn't since mankind became tool users.

get real and quit watching so much tv...america's women don't all look like cheer leaders and super models.

Yea... but they still gotta be able to hump the load. 70 to 100+ pounds of equipment for a full combat load. THIS sort of thing is the problem. Its not the ablity to fight..to shoot to respond to pressure... its simply the ablity to carry the same loads and also do the job.

Women are not the physical equals in the area's that matter for ground troops, period. You can argue till your face is blue but its a simple fact.