Women in combat.

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit »

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: Yes, it would be accepted. When in war, that's what happens. It's my job to make sure some of those people die for their country. I'd have a much harder time killing a woman that's trying to kill me, than a man. Quite frankly, I can't even say I would kill the woman if I'm the only one in danger. I'm sure you could do it easily, after all, she's equal in your opinion right?

I think, when the bullets are flying, that I would be either shooting anyone who looked at me funny, or hiding behind a tree and wondering if I had clean pants in my luggage.

But let's look at your actual point: You're saying that women would make more effective soldiers than men because men would rather run off and masturbate than shoot at them?
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

User avatar
bonelifer
Community Team Member
Community Team Member
Posts: 3482
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:35 pm
Name: William
Contact:

Post by bonelifer »

I for one would shot a female solder of an enemy army. The reason, she's the enemy and she'd shoot me. I mean if they took some physically/mental handicaped people and trained them to be soldiers then they would be some dead physically/mentally handicapped people. By that I mean I feel for them as they are handicapped but they are still armed and trained to kill the enemy. Likewise a woman that is armed and trained to kill the enemy is just as dangerous as the handicapped group and as well as the able bodied MALE.
Knowledge Base | phpBB Board Rules | Search Customisation Database
Image
Please don't contact me via PM or email for phpBB support .

Argumental
Registered User
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 1:51 am
Location: San Antonio TX
Contact:

Post by Argumental »

bonelifer wrote: I for one would shot a female solder of an enemy army.

Maybe a bit of a tangent here, but how about a 14 year old boy? Some of the same societies that think it is inhumane to allow women to fight, feel adolescent boys are ready for combat. Even in the US you only need to be 17, with parental consent.
Argumental.com Expanding Minds One Argument at a Time

kdaddy
Registered User
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by kdaddy »

It is my opinion that woman should be allowed to fight in combat. It has been mention that size and strength are the biggest argument to keep them out, along with the protective argument.

Now granted this was peace time but some of the advanced training I did had women involved. I can tell you right now I would certainly want some of those women with me in combat. Women are capable of pulling a trigger just as easily as the next guy 3-8 lbs of pressure I believe for most weapons.

In my mind the order of merit is as follows. Myself, My fellow soldiers {female and male equally} then the mission. Without the first two you don't have a mission nor can you complete it. I'm not talking about dragging the dead along. Their dead they will be left to morgue detail.

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus »

It's just my belief that they shouldn't be in combat. Either way, if they're going to end up in combat, people need to quit making a big deal about them becoming POW's and dieing. Must feel great when you're a male POW sitting in an Iraqi prison for a month while someone else is getting tons of publicity after being a POW for a few days. You know the guys aren't going to be the center of media attention for days on end when and if they are rescued. Who here has heard of Floyd James Thompson w/o looking it up. Now who's heard of Jessica lynch? The media usually covers things people care a lot about. Maybe I'm wrong here, but using common sense, it seems if the media's covering female POW's so intensively, perhaps people don't want to see females in this position.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: It's just my belief that they shouldn't be in combat. Either way, if they're going to end up in combat, people need to quit making a big deal about them becoming POW's and dieing. Must feel great when you're a male POW sitting in an Iraqi prison for a month while someone else is getting tons of publicity after being a POW for a few days.

The media is fickle. A black female soldier was captured at the same time as Jessica Lynch in Iraq, and got no publicity, no media interviews, no made-for-TV movie about her "heroic" travails, nothing. And do you remember Scott O'Grady? The pilot who made national headlines for going down in Bosnia and then finding his way out? The media can make darlings of men just as easily as women if it suits them. And none of this supports in any way your assertion that women can't or shouldn't handle combat.
You know the guys aren't going to be the center of media attention for days on end when and if they are rescued. Who here has heard of Floyd James Thompson w/o looking it up. Now who's heard of Jessica lynch? The media usually covers things people care a lot about. Maybe I'm wrong here, but using common sense, it seems if the media's covering female POW's so intensively, perhaps people don't want to see females in this position.

Obviously, there are some people who don't want that. You are proof of this. But that is not a reason to actually make a policy to appease those people.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus »

Darth Wong wrote: The media is fickle. A black female soldier was captured at the same time as Jessica Lynch in Iraq, and got no publicity, no media interviews, no made-for-TV movie about her "heroic" travails, nothing. And do you remember Scott O'Grady? The pilot who made national headlines for going down in Bosnia and then finding his way out? The media can make darlings of men just as easily as women if it suits them. And none of this supports in any way your assertion that women can't or shouldn't handle combat.
My apologies, I guess it's just white women and guys that excape on there own that get the bulk of media attention.
Obviously, there are some people who don't want that. You are proof of this. But that is not a reason to actually make a policy to appease those people.

But because there a few women that want to go to combat we should appease them?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

NewGuy
Registered User
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:40 am
Contact:

Post by NewGuy »

It the military will allow them and they want in - well what obvious reason not to? And don't say they could get killed, that is a risk everyone in the military is aware of.

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus »

NewGuy wrote: It the military will allow them and they want in - well what obvious reason not to? And don't say they could get killed, that is a risk everyone in the military is aware of.
Not all women want to go to combat. Then why'd they join the military you say? Because they aren't even allowed to go to combat, therefore no risk of going to combat. Well, let the one's that want to go, go. Ok, females now have a choice. Well, I'm a male, why don't I have the choice?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

NewGuy
Registered User
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:40 am
Contact:

Post by NewGuy »

Where did you read me mentioning forcing anyone? IF they want in AND IF the military will take them - then that is the only 2 parties that need be concerned.

NewGuy
Registered User
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:40 am
Contact:

Post by NewGuy »

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: Not all women want to go to combat. ....
Well, I'm a male, why don't I have the choice?
I am not across the rules of all <any> of the military rules such as that, but i don't see why that should be a problem. Regardless of gender if you want to be a non-combatant, thats fine with me. I don't see why it should be a women only option.

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus »

NewGuy wrote: Where did you read me mentioning forcing anyone? IF they want in AND IF the military will take them - then that is the only 2 parties that need be concerned.
Men are forced into combat if they are in the military, just so you know. Now, we'll examine this as if women are already in the military, since they are, not combat. So, some want to go to combat. I hate to repeat myself, but not all want into combat.
Now, let's assume the few that want to go, get their way. There's two ways to do this, either all females go to combat or they get a choice. Now let's say they all have to go, guess what, less women now join the military deminishing our numbers even more, because right now they are joining under the assumption they will not be put into direct combat with the enemy. Now the draft is instituded and more young people that don't want in the military are screwed.
The other side, they get a choice. Well now, as a guy, I'm saying why should they get a choice while we are forced? Let's see, I get paid the same amount of money to have to be in better physical condition, IE running faster and doing more push-ups. (I assume that right now there is a difference because it is expected that I'll go to combat and a woman won't) I also get paid the same amount to be forced to go to war when they get a choice. And I have to watch her back. (The last statement is simply based on my belief that the male is the protector in this life. If you'll look back through the posts it seems some people don't believe this. It's quite a shame. That's why I thought we were naturally stronger than women. They believe the naturally weaker should protect themselves.)
Now, who says the military wants women in combat? How do you know they aren't being pressured by polotics?
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

Rabidus_Lupus
Registered User
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 11:26 pm
Location: Belgium
Contact:

Post by Rabidus_Lupus »

NewGuy wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:Not all women want to go to combat. ....
Well, I'm a male, why don't I have the choice?
I am not across the rules of all <any> of the military rules such as that, but i don't see why that should be a problem. Regardless of gender if you want to be a non-combatant, thats fine with me. I don't see why it should be a women only option.
Because not everyone in the military wants to go to combat. So far I've been in the military for 5 years. I've been stationed in three different countries. I've known hundreds of soldiers. I've known two that volunteered to go to Iraq/Afghanistan. Two out of a few hundred, is not enough to carry out a single war.
If there is only one God, and he is the top of the chain of command in life, where did he come from?

NewGuy
Registered User
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:40 am
Contact:

Post by NewGuy »

Look, i feel that the conversation is breaking of into little tangents. I simply said regarding women in combat "If they want in - they want in" - now is moved to men not being able to be non combatants, which im sure is incorrect. Conciencious objectator is one title given to non combatants that i am aware of. Anyhow, all that aside, can we stay on topic? I think we all have really said all there is to say and now its drifting to men vs women rights. I myself believe the world should be competency based, but nonetheless, the military has their rules. If you really feel the need, perhaps lobby your local gov member.

User avatar
MHobbit
Former Team Member
Posts: 4761
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: There and Back Again

Post by MHobbit »

Rabidus_Lupus wrote: Because not everyone in the military wants to go to combat. So far I've been in the military for 5 years. I've been stationed in three different countries. I've known hundreds of soldiers. I've known two that volunteered to go to Iraq/Afghanistan. Two out of a few hundred, is not enough to carry out a single war.


They volunteered to join the Army. They know fully well that they may have to go into combat, even if that wasn't why they joined. Volunteering to join the Army, and then saying that you don't want to fight because you didn't volunteer for it [the fighting/combat part], is wrong.
Former phpBB MOD Team member
No private support is offered.
"There’s too many things to get done, and I’m running out of days..."

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”