Page 11 of 12

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:04 am
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No one in the Army is "put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat".

You have got to be kidding me. You think the military sent Sadam an e-mail requesting he give up power and he complied? I can't believe you actually wrote that. That was just retarded.

No, what's "retarded" is thinking that anyone joining the Army has a 100% chance of facing an enemy in combat. You don't know where you'll be deployed and you don't know whether you will be one of the people who actually gets fired upon.
I've known a lot of females in the military. Not too many of them were thinking "Oh we can be sent into combat, they just don't practice that policy" There's a reason females join the military, travel, guys and college money. That will cover 99% of the females I've known. Chances are the overall percentage isn't much different.

So? How does that change the fact that they signed their rights away and the government has the right to put them in harm's way if it so chooses? This tangent of yours is based on the notion that it would be somehow unfair to put women in harm's way because they were originally guaranteed never to see combat. I'm pointing out that they never had any such guarantee; an expectation is not a guarantee.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:52 am
by Rabidus_Lupus
Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:No one in the Army is "put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat".

You have got to be kidding me. You think the military sent Sadam an e-mail requesting he give up power and he complied? I can't believe you actually wrote that. That was just retarded.

No, what's "retarded" is thinking that anyone joining the Army has a 100% chance of facing an enemy in combat. You don't know where you'll be deployed and you don't know whether you will be one of the people who actually gets fired upon.
Who said that and why didn't you quote it? Oh, that's right, no one did say that, which means you're just making stuff up now.
I've known a lot of females in the military. Not too many of them were thinking "Oh we can be sent into combat, they just don't practice that policy" There's a reason females join the military, travel, guys and college money. That will cover 99% of the females I've known. Chances are the overall percentage isn't much different.

So? How does that change the fact that they signed their rights away and the government has the right to put them in harm's way if it so chooses? This tangent of yours is based on the notion that it would be somehow unfair to put women in harm's way because they were originally guaranteed never to see combat. I'm pointing out that they never had any such guarantee; an expectation is not a guarantee.
So you're saying it's ok for the government to be misleading?

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:01 am
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote: Who said that and why didn't you quote it? Oh, that's right, no one did say that, which means you're just making stuff up now.

You claimed that females are special because "they are not put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat". Since no recruit will "definitely meet the enemy in combat", this claim of yours was wrong when you first stated it, it was wrong when you defended it, and it continues to be wrong now that you are trying to pretend you never made it.
So you're saying it's ok for the government to be misleading?

Anyone who joins the army and thinks he or she has a guarantee of never being in danger is an idiot. It's the freakin' Army, not the Rotary Club.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:10 am
by Rabidus_Lupus
Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:Who said that and why didn't you quote it? Oh, that's right, no one did say that, which means you're just making stuff up now.

You claimed that females are special because "they are not put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat". Since no recruit will "definitely meet the enemy in combat", this claim of yours was wrong when you first stated it, it was wrong when you defended it, and it continues to be wrong now that you are trying to pretend you never made it.
First off, here's how it works. Spy satellites and other intelligence says an enemy stronghold is at position X. Next a squad or more is formed to go into position X in order to secure it. Now if that's not putting someone into a "position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat" then I don't know what is. Secondly, women are not sent into places, where a known enemy is hiding, in order to remove them.
So you're saying it's ok for the government to be misleading?

Anyone who joins the army and thinks he or she has a guarantee of never being in danger is an idiot. It's the freakin' Army, not the Rotary Club.[/quote]And you make more stuff up, please quote where anyone said "I won't end up in danger if I join the army."

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 4:53 am
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You claimed that females are special because "they are not put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat". Since no recruit will "definitely meet the enemy in combat", this claim of yours was wrong when you first stated it, it was wrong when you defended it, and it continues to be wrong now that you are trying to pretend you never made it.

First off, here's how it works. Spy satellites and other intelligence says an enemy stronghold is at position X. Next a squad or more is formed to go into position X in order to secure it. Now if that's not putting someone into a "position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat" then I don't know what is. Secondly, women are not sent into places, where a known enemy is hiding, in order to remove them.

Oh puh-lease, you were talking about expectations at time of recruitment, so my rebuttal was obviously meant to address that. If it will make you happy, I will clarify so that you can't nitpick any more, all right? "No male or female who is recruited into the US army will experience a 100% probability of encountering the enemy in combat as an immediate result of aforementioned recruitment.". There, happy now? Or would you like a legal secretary to check my phrasing?
So you're saying it's ok for the government to be misleading?

Anyone who joins the army and thinks he or she has a guarantee of never being in danger is an idiot. It's the freakin' Army, not the Rotary Club.

And you make more stuff up, please quote where anyone said "I won't end up in danger if I join the army."

You claim that it would be "misleading" for a female to join the Army and find herself in danger. And frankly, it's quite obvious that your argument has now devolved to pathetic semantics nitpicking. The base point remains: you have no case for denying women combat roles, and you have no case for acting as though women who joined the Army ever had or deserved a guarantee of never seeing combat.

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:51 am
by Rabidus_Lupus
Darth Wong wrote:
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:You claimed that females are special because "they are not put into a position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat". Since no recruit will "definitely meet the enemy in combat", this claim of yours was wrong when you first stated it, it was wrong when you defended it, and it continues to be wrong now that you are trying to pretend you never made it.

First off, here's how it works. Spy satellites and other intelligence says an enemy stronghold is at position X. Next a squad or more is formed to go into position X in order to secure it. Now if that's not putting someone into a "position where they will definitely meet the enemy in combat" then I don't know what is. Secondly, women are not sent into places, where a known enemy is hiding, in order to remove them.

Oh puh-lease, you were talking about expectations at time of recruitment, so my rebuttal was obviously meant to address that. If it will make you happy, I will clarify so that you can't nitpick any more, all right? "No male or female who is recruited into the US army will experience a 100% probability of encountering the enemy in combat as an immediate result of aforementioned recruitment.". There, happy now? Or would you like a legal secretary to check my phrasing?
So you're saying it's ok for the government to be misleading?

Anyone who joins the army and thinks he or she has a guarantee of never being in danger is an idiot. It's the freakin' Army, not the Rotary Club.

And you make more stuff up, please quote where anyone said "I won't end up in danger if I join the army."

You claim that it would be "misleading" for a female to join the Army and find herself in danger.
No, I don't. I was very specific in what I said, read it all over again.
And frankly, it's quite obvious that your argument has now devolved to pathetic semantics nitpicking.
This is because you are changing my words around to suit your needs
The base point remains: you have no case for denying women combat roles,
Yes I do, and it has been stated over and over. I'm not going to type it again.
and you have no case for acting as though women who joined the Army ever had or deserved a guarantee of never seeing combat.
Again you twist my words around forcing me to nitpick, as you put it. I never said, they are gauranteed not to see combat. I said they join, under the assumption, that they will never be sent into an area with known hostiles which will end up being "in combat".

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:54 pm
by Darth Wong
It is quite obvious to me that your latest tactic is to nitpick the way I'm refuting your claims, rather than defending your claims. So let me ask you to summarize; what are the reasons why women should not be placed in combat roles regardless of their individual abilities?

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:07 pm
by Rabidus_Lupus
Darth Wong wrote: It is quite obvious to me that your latest tactic is to nitpick the way I'm refuting your claims, rather than defending your claims. So let me ask you to summarize; what are the reasons why women should not be placed in combat roles regardless of their individual abilities?
There's quite a few, go back and read them. And you haven't refuted any claims, you just twist my words a little to fit your needs.

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:34 am
by Dr. Know Nothin
If some women want to go into combat, why stop them? I mean the women know the risks of getting toture and so do the men. Why is women getting totured, so much worse than a man getting totured? My dad has been in the military for over 20 years. He believes that women shouldn't go to combat for one reason and that reason is because of their periods can leave blood trails, but there are ways to prevent women from having periods. I agree with anyone who says that if a woman could past the same test as a man, let her go.

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:47 am
by Pit
Dr. Know Nothin wrote: there are ways to prevent women from having periods.

I don't think sending pregnant women into combat is a sensible idea. :wink:

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 1:50 pm
by Darth Wong
Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It is quite obvious to me that your latest tactic is to nitpick the way I'm refuting your claims, rather than defending your claims. So let me ask you to summarize; what are the reasons why women should not be placed in combat roles regardless of their individual abilities?
There's quite a few, go back and read them. And you haven't refuted any claims, you just twist my words a little to fit your needs.

If I summarize your arguments in a single post, you will no doubt accuse me of "twisting your words". That is why I ask you to summarize them instead. Why won't you? Afraid?

Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:47 pm
by bonelifer
What fabled army do you speak of? Conciencious Objecters, aren't kicked out of any army I've heard of. They make good medics, clerks, etc. Get your facts straight.

Rabidus_Lupus wrote:
NewGuy wrote: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.

Conciencious objectors are kicked out.

Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:24 pm
by riceplant
It seems to me that Rabidus_Lupus' arguments are not based on the ability of women, or any fault or handicap innate to women, but rather the view that the general public has on women. You mentioned someone called Jessica Lynch, but the question has to be asked, would the media have given such intensive coverage if it were normal for women to see combat? The main argument against women in combat, as I see it, is not their inability to cope in combat, but rather our inability to cope with them being in combat. This begs the question, is it worth allowing women into combat if they will draw such intensive coverage from the media if captured, because polititians will then commit troops to effect a rescue (This is assuming that polititians direct troops directly, in England it would be up to the MOD rather than the cabinet). Also if, as Rabidus states, women are a distraction to most fighting men, is it worth diminishing many men's combat ability to please the few women who wish to see combat? Remember that there will always be more male soldiers than female, as fewer females possess the natural aggresive drives of males.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:50 pm
by Rabidus_Lupus
riceplant wrote: It seems to me that Rabidus_Lupus' arguments are not based on the ability of women, or any fault or handicap innate to women, but rather the view that the general public has on women. You mentioned someone called Jessica Lynch, but the question has to be asked, would the media have given such intensive coverage if it were normal for women to see combat? The main argument against women in combat, as I see it, is not their inability to cope in combat, but rather our inability to cope with them being in combat. This begs the question, is it worth allowing women into combat if they will draw such intensive coverage from the media if captured, because polititians will then commit troops to effect a rescue (This is assuming that polititians direct troops directly, in England it would be up to the MOD rather than the cabinet). Also if, as Rabidus states, women are a distraction to most fighting men, is it worth diminishing many men's combat ability to please the few women who wish to see combat? Remember that there will always be more male soldiers than female, as fewer females possess the natural aggresive drives of males.
And that basically sums it up for me darth. Thanks riceplant, very well put. I can't see a good reason for allowing the very few women that want to go to combat, into combat. If it's not broke don't fix it. Arguments for that are that you could improve it. Unfortunately I see no way of improving our combat readiness by allowing a very few amount of women to go. Specially with the problems that could come out of it.

Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 1:56 pm
by Kail
The whole resistance to putting women in fighting position stems from gender roles in our society and a belief that men are more able combatants, among being superior to women in a number of ridiculious ways. I believe women and men deserve the same rights and responsibilities in a modern society, it includes military service.
As for female soldiers, check out Israel. They have had women in the army for a very long time.