Author Topic: Women in war (Read 2481 times)

Kanth · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:09:00 PM »

War sucks, but it's sometimes neccesary.

Women have been and will continue to voluntarily go to fight and die for all of our freedoms.

Some of you here at home would easily yank those very freedoms out from under them for their own good.

America land of the free home of the brave, only for some.

Ya tell it to some of these hero's families. I'm sure they will understand where you are coming from. Afterall it would have saved their daughters and wives from dying.

hypocrites.

At least we caught up to Russia 50+ years later in the way of freedom to fly fighters.

lump it.

miko2d · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:13:28 PM »

There is no argument that great majority of women (and quite a lot of men) are totallly worthless as soldiers due to specifics of their physique, hormonal balance, gender-related mental and intellectual differences, etc.

Nevertheless, if a particular woman proves her fitness by passing stndard tests that males are supposed to pass and does not require special accomodations, there is no way - compartible with our concepts of "freedom" - to deny her the right/privilege to serve.

miko

udet · « **Reply #32 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:18:10 PM »

I came in contact with many girls in Army or Air Force ROTC, and some of them are pretty normal, while others are a bit rough around the edges. Overall I think women fit in the military pretty well.

Wlfgng · « **Reply #33 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:21:42 PM »

Quote

Nevertheless, if a particular woman proves her fitness by passing stndard tests that males are supposed to pass and does not require special accomodations, there is no way - compartible with our concepts of "freedom" - to deny her the right/privilege to serve.

exactly. nothing hypocrytical about that !

gofaster · « **Reply #34 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:24:07 PM »

MIA - Army Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, 23, of Tuba City, Ariz., 507th Maintenance Company, Fort Bliss, Texas.

Seen here checking her equipment prior to shipping out with her unit.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/gifs/breaking/0324war-hopi.jpg

Kanth · « **Reply #35 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:28:12 PM »

I couldn't agree with you more. (er both of you.)

Quote

Originally posted by Wlfgng
exactly. nothing hypocrytical about that !

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #36 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:29:24 PM »

Hortland has it.

It isn't whether or not they are able to serve, or they should be allowed to serve- it's that men will typically go above and beyond to save a lady.

"blah blah blah" respond with rhetorical BS, it's been proven in combat that men will go to great lengths for the ladies.

This greatly inhibits fighting units, and CAN lead to more lost lives.

Placing women in combat roles on the front lines has proven in the past to lead to more loss of live because the men will do more to save/protect the women than vice versa or in a same sex outfit.

The thing with the Russians 50 years ago is that they were all female and all male squadrons. They weren't mixed like our military is.
-SW

midnight Target · « **Reply #37 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:37:14 PM »

Sorry SW, but that excuse is just too similar to the reasoning behind the refusal to intigrate the military back in the 30's and 40's.

"The white troops just don't trust the black troops, how can a man fight with someone he doesn't trust?"

A true statement, but worth changing nonetheless. As is the normal reaction of male soldiers to the female soldiers. They should be treated equally, and never will until they are given equal opportunity to serve.

lazs2 · « **Reply #38 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:41:03 PM »

miko... there is no way that having women in the service and especially in combat units does not affect everyone. simply passing the lowered standards that would be required is not enough..

I am saying that they are a huge pain in the butt to accomadate and that they are at the very least... disruptive. I think the jews found out that reality is more important than some PC concept.

further...we don't need em... why complicate things if we don't need to... there is precedent for discrimination in the service much less combat units. Age will keep you out regardless of ability.

There are some jobs that women do not belong in. If they force their way in it allways lowers the standards and effieciency and... in most cases, risks lives needlessly. That is the down side. I see no up side.

seriously folks... men and women are different. Most men and women accept that and want it that way. A combat unit with women in it is a less capable unit. Lives are at stake here.

and wlfgang... I don't know if there are women that can kick some sissies butt.. I don't find that any more acceptable than me hitting women tho... I can't walk on broken glass and I can't break boards (i don't think) with my hands but I can sure as hell break those women with my bare hands. I don't care what any of the PC types say... or even our libertarian friend... This is not a matter of personal freedom or "equality" or feminism... this has to do with basic morals and genetics. I think the world would be la worse place with women combat soldiers.
lazs

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #39 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:41:20 PM »

This isn't integrating races here MT, this is integrating sexes.

Whether it's the 1st century, 20th century or 800000th century- basic animal instincts will always be with us, and that is the natural drive of the male to protect the female.

This has been proven in combat.

While the reason you left for the black/white integration is nonsense. In fact it was because the white guys hated the black guys, and people in the upper brass realised this would probably lead to the black guys getting shot in the back and/or the war not being fought against the enemy but amongst themselves.
-SW

midnight Target · « **Reply #40 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:46:14 PM »

Replace "trust" with "hate" if you wish. The meaning is similar enough to make the point... which you seem to have missed.

miko2d · « **Reply #41 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:46:27 PM »

AKS\/\/ulfe: "blah blah blah" respond with rhetorical BS, it's been proven in combat that men will go to great lengths for the ladies.

In some cultures people so greately care about preventing unfaithfullness of wives - with ensuing commotion, hoslility, waste of resources and even loss of life - that they routinely perform clitorectomy on little girls which makes them unable to enjoy sex and have a motivation for extramarital affairs.

Everything that was ever done by anyone can be rationalised. But there are things that are incompatible with our culture that were considered worthy of some "loss of life".

Besides, a soldier who gets himself killed for no good reason is a failure of his instructors.

And of course there are quite real reasons besides the imaginary willingness of males ito rrationally "risk their lifes for females" that account for greater losses in mixed units. The majority of currently serving females have no business being in the military and got there only because the standards for them were drastically lowered - perverting the principles of equality and interests of the service.
When you have soldeirs who are not fit, you always risk the whole unit - whether the weaklings are males or females.

Lasz - I am sure with real standards there would not be many women in the service. But those would not cause the loss of efficiency that you attribute to gender rather than the double standards. In fact any such perceived loss would be amply compensated by personal qualities of such outstanding women that managed to pass the muster.
When you deal with such small samples, the statistics becomes unapplicable and personal qualities make all teh difference.

miko

Kanth · « **Reply #42 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:48:27 PM »

I didn't think you would post this..I knew you realized it but didn't think you'd post it.

Knowing it and watching what these people have to say is more telling when they don't know what we're looking at in them.

I'm sure some will discount it and go on, however, so the game continues.

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry SW, but that excuse is just too similar to the reasoning behind the refusal to intigrate the military back in the 30's and 40's.

"The white troops just don't trust the black troops, how can a man fight with someone he doesn't trust?"

A true statement, but worth changing nonetheless. As is the normal reaction of male soldiers to the female soldiers. They should be treated equally, and never will until they are given equal opportunity to serve.

midnight Target · « **Reply #43 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:51:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kanth
I didn't think you would post this..I knew you realized it but didn't think you'd post it.

Knowing it and watching what these people have to say is more telling when they don't know what we're looking at in them.

I'm sure some will discount it and go on, however, so the game continues.

LOL... you expected me to keep quiet?

lazs2 · « **Reply #44 on:** March 27, 2003, 12:54:19 PM »

miko... we have to deal with reality... in the U.S. wherever women are allowed in dangerous positions it causes the standards to be lowered. That is the reality. I am dealing with that. Your theory sounds good about "freedom" but the reality is that gender squews the equation every time.. I personaly believe that's how it should be.
lazs