(Close Window)
Topic: Interesting Poll: Should women join the infantry
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 12, 2012 05:54PM)
So far there are around 50,000 votes in with 50% saying no. and 43% yes while 7% undiecided
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 12, 2012 06:15PM)
Link? What was the survey group? The "He-Man Woman Haters Club"?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 06:34PM)
Is the question whether they should be [i]permitted[/i] to if they would like to, or [i]required[/i] to (to the same degree as male military personnel, anyway) if they would not like to?
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jul 12, 2012 06:43PM)
Women should neither be permitted nor required to join the infantry combat teams of any of our armed forces.

We should treat our women better than that.

Besides which, their presence would degrade the effectiveness of the team, and would hardly be an improvement. More likely it would be a huge detriment.

http://cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp

Carrie
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 06:48PM)
They've done ok in Israel.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 06:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 19:48, LobowolfXXX wrote:
They've done ok in Israel.
[/quote]

:thumbsup:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 07:38PM)
Yes, they have done great in Israel and in other nations as well. We no longer have a draft. It is an all volunteer force. It seems fundamental to me that anyone who is physically and mentally capable of doing the job and who has volunteered for it should be permitted to.

BTW, as a de facto matter, we already have women in combat and they have served just as honorably and bravely as the men. There is no evidence to support the notion that they would "degrade" the combat force. That same argument was used to keep women from becoming police officers and firefighters and was also the basis of denying gays to right to serve openly. Put simply, it's pure discriminatory BS.

Equal Protection Under the Law isn't just a slogan.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 07:47PM)
Equal Protection also suggests that whether they want to or not, they (that is, those physically and mentally capable) be assigned to combat infantry units by the same mechanism and in the same proportion as their male counterparts.
Message: Posted by: motown (Jul 12, 2012 08:00PM)
Carrie, you couldn't be so wrong and out of date with your thinking.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 12, 2012 08:10PM)
Here is where I am coming from.
1. I was on the first combat ship with women.
2. I was in Israel and know the role women actually play.

Considering that insight and watching women in traditional male roles, tradiional due to physical attributes I have the right answer. The answer is some of y"all are so blinded by liberalism you are beyond full of &*$) but are oblivious to reality.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 08:50PM)
So you don't believe in equality under the law, then. I guess that's just a liberal thing.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 08:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Equal Protection also suggests that whether they want to or not, they (that is, those physically and mentally capable) be assigned to combat infantry units by the same mechanism and in the same proportion as their male counterparts.
[/quote]

Yes, but that wouldn't really come into play unless we re-instituted the draft, which isn't likely.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 09:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 21:52, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 20:47, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Equal Protection also suggests that whether they want to or not, they (that is, those physically and mentally capable) be assigned to combat infantry units by the same mechanism and in the same proportion as their male counterparts.
[/quote]

Yes, but that wouldn't really come into play unless we re-instituted the draft, which isn't likely.
[/quote]

I'm not aware of how enlisted troops are assigned to infantry and/or combat positions, so I wasn't sure if it was a relevant consideration with an all-volunteer force.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 12, 2012 09:14PM)
I have slightly mixed feelings.
On the one hand, I believe that if a woman can meet the minimum qualifications for a job then it's stupid to tell her she can't then do that job.
On the other hand, I keep thinking that I don't even like to see women get punched by a man, let alone shot. That might be an outdated mode of thinking in our PC times, but it's how I feel.

Overall, giving them a choice (again, provided they can meet the qualifications) wins out in my mind.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 12, 2012 09:22PM)
Bob it is not a question of equality under the law which is why I don't think you can grasp it. That is not a question of intellect but your ability to ignore the intellectual idea and look at the reality.

The simple facts are that women and men differ in how they think, I believe woman are more logical, and physically. While always exceptions you will find that men, and while this may hurt some this includes gay men who are men, are physically stronger than women and willing to do stupid things whilw women know better. I was watching a fire and a firefighter could not break through the roof with an axe. After a few minutes another firefighter came up and quickly broke though. I was shocked until the first one took of her hood. She physically was not equal of course they could always lower standards for men like the LAPD did.

In Israel women are NOT equal in combat roles. They are armed and in unit but in an offensive women are not out front. The reasons are physical and men having an internal instict to put protection of females first. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

I have seen women do jobs men thought they never could, they do great at management, so I am for em except I wouldn't let one land on a carrier. A few years ago at one point every female navy carrier pilot was dead due to accidents.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 12, 2012 09:25PM)
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146802589/foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines

A few excerpts, something here for both sides on the debate:

The number of countries that have opened frontline combat positions is also larger than you might think (or than media reports sometimes suggest). A 2010 survey by the British Ministry of Defense listed Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Sweden as countries that allow women in "close combat roles," defined as "engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with the hostile forces personnel." Australia joined that list in September 2011 when it opened its front-line units — including one of the largest contingents in Afghanistan — to women.

Even among the countries identified in the MoD survey, some restrictions remain. Dutch women are barred from submarines or the Marines. In France, submarines and riot-control units are off limits. While the French infantry is theoretically open to women, in practice they make up only 1.7 percent of combat troops.

In Israel, which is well known as one of the few countries where women are drafted, the policy is evolving. Santorum cited Israel as a country that doesn't allow women on the frontlines because of the psychological effect it has on men. But in fact, the Israeli military does allow women in the vast majority of combat positions.

Israel began including women in combat units after 1995, when a 23-year-old South African immigrant who arrived with a pilot's license from her native country was denied entry into the Air Force and successfully sued for discrimination. Since then, the Israel Defense Forces has gradually integrated more units in compliance with a Supreme Court order.

All told, only 12 percent of military positions in Israel are off-limits to women, including combat positions in the armored corps and infantry. But women can service in light infantry, artillery, and border patrol roles. More and more positions have been opened over time, though there are alsoreports that the IDF often doesn't accept women for units for which they are eligible and evacuates women during combat situations. Women comprise only 33 percent of the IDF due to a shorter length of service and a more lenient discharge system for religiously observant Jewish women. Recent years have seen the creation of the "Caracal Batallion" a mixed-gender infantry unit that patrols near the southern border with Egypt and the first woman commanding a sniper platoon.

Even in countries with no restrictions, women's participation in combat units is relatively rare. For instance, in Canada, which has had no restrictions since 1989, 17 percent of troops are women but women make up only 3.8 percent of combat troops.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 12, 2012 09:55PM)
Santa-

I realize you had a tough day and I'm really sorry for what you are going through.

But you didn't hurt my feelings at all. It's just that the statement "The answer is some of y"all are so blinded by liberalism you are beyond full of &*$) but are oblivious to reality" is really pretty offensive.

My daughter served in the Navy and was as capable as any man in her unit.

The qualities of being logical and less likely to to crazy things can actually be very beneficial in high stress situations. I stated earlier that I had no problem with women in combat roles provided they were physically and mentally capable of carrying them out. I don't think that is so unreasonable that it warrants a response that I am full of s**t and oblivious to reality.

The reality is that, as I said, women are already de facto in combat units.
Message: Posted by: Michael Baker (Jul 12, 2012 09:59PM)
Worked out pretty good in "Aliens", too.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 12, 2012 10:04PM)
If I could have three people from Aliens watching my back, it would definitely be Ripley, Hicks, and Vasquez. 67% women.
Message: Posted by: Octopus Sun (Jul 12, 2012 10:18PM)
I helped supervised the flight line at Williams AFB in Chandler AZ when the first women fighter pilots were being trained,
along with Iranian and Iraqi pilots being trained in out fighter pilot tech. 1979.
yes, the USA trained Iranian and Iraqi pilots in our battle tech. T37's and F5's

I see no reason why they should be not allowed in Battle, equal rights, they can have at it.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 12, 2012 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:54, acesover wrote:
So far there are around 50,000 votes in with 50% saying no. and 43% yes while 7% undiecided
[/quote]

Well so far only women can bring forth infants - so it's not too big a stretch to suggest they could stay on to take care of them.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jul 12, 2012 10:28PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 18:54, acesover wrote:
So far there are around 50,000 votes in with 50% saying no. and 43% yes while 7% undiecided
[/quote]

Well so far only women can bring forth infants - so it's not too big a stretch to suggest they could stay on to take care of them.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 12, 2012 11:31PM)
Most women in 'combat roles' does not mean they take part in offensive actions yeet they do serve in roles where they could be involved in a combat situation. There is a distinction which most will not get.

Bob tell your daughter that I was happy to pave the way for her. Even you have to understand a woman on a destroyer is considered a combat position but there are to my knowledge no women in a first line action on the ground physiclly taking on the action. Are there women called basic infantry? Sure. Does this mean they are the first on the beach? No.

The question was infantry, grunts, not techs, wielders, and mechanics, etc, absolutely and they do as good a job as anyone. Woman are intellectually and functional as men as are gays and all races. If you take 100 male grunt and 100 female grunts the only way the ladies can match the guys is to lower the physical standards. In case you wonder the standards do differ.

<alducci, please produce not a list of countries saying women are in actual combat roles, and not all combat roles are, but a list where those countries sent in those hard core ladies guns blazing directly against the enemy.

Last note. The best officer I served under was a woman and my best retired navy pal is a woman senior chief. I support women in the military.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 00:31, MagicSanta wrote:

The question was infantry, grunts, not techs, wielders, and mechanics, etc, absolutely and they do as good a job as anyone. Woman are intellectually and functional as men as are gays and all races. If you take 100 male grunt and 100 female grunts the only way the ladies can match the guys is to lower the physical standards. In case you wonder the standards do differ.

[/quote]

There's got to be [i]some[/i] overlap, though, no? What if you had 100 male grunts and 100 female, and you needed a group of 100 total. If the ten strongest women were weakest men, I agree that you shouldn't make a group up of 50 men and 50 women, but what's your take on a 90-10 split?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 13, 2012 12:40AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-12 19:15, balducci wrote:
Link? What was the survey group? The "He-Man Woman Haters Club"?
[/quote]

Not sure how to list the link as it is a poll on msn home page. Here is the link to the attached poll. When youi click onthe poll you just vote no real link. Here is the aarticle with it: http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/12/12684555-women-in-the-infantry-forget-about-it-says-female-marine-officer?lite

remember this is not asking about women in the service but rather in the infantry. There is a diffeence I assume you know.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 13, 2012 12:40AM)
Absolutely there is overlap in the general population which is why I specified grunts. If seperate standards then a higher percentage of woman would be in the top 100 of 200. If the male standard was used or the female standard I would say low single digits would make top 100. Put those ladies against civilian guys I would say well over 50% would be ladies, maybe as much as 80.

I will bsay that I served with one very tough and lovely woman named Katie who I know would have finished in the top five and was one of the few female divers and she passed the test for SEALS but she didn't want to be a shooter.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 12:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 01:40, MagicSanta wrote:
Absolutely there is overlap in the general population which is why I specified grunts. If seperate standards then a higher percentage of woman would be in the top 100 of 200. If the male standard was used or the female standard I would say low single digits would make top 100. Put those ladies against civilian guys I would say well over 50% would be ladies, maybe as much as 80.

I will bsay that I served with one very tough and lovely woman named Katie who I know would have finished in the top five and was one of the few female divers and she passed the test for SEALS but she didn't want to be a shooter.
[/quote]

Well, whatever the number is...you want low single digits, let's say it's 3 women who make the top 100. Should the final group still be the 100 men, or should it be the 97 men and the 3 women?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 13, 2012 12:46AM)
The latest fgures on this poll are as follows: 64k say yes, 77k say no, 10k undecided

Not sure how many of you served in combat conditions, but it may affect how you would vote.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 13, 2012 01:05AM)
Come on guys. Get serious here. There is no comparsion of a man vs a woman in combat when taking into consideration the whole picture not an individual case. If they are so equal and as competent as their male counterparts how come you do not see any women in the NFL if they are just as capable? Maybe it has something to do with strength and stamania and a mind set. Please don't try and tell me men women are on the same page when it comes to strength and the ability to inflict deadly force on an enemy. It is just not so.

I am not saying they cannot serve nor be denied the priviledge to serve. I am saying that the position in which they serve is what is important and the infanatry is not one that most women can accompish competently. That in no way diminishes their importance once they are in the armed forces. It only enhances their productivity if they are placed in a position in which they have the best chance of handling the duties involved. Not every man belongs in the infantry either. Just the odds are much better that a male is more apt than the female for this position.

I am definitely 100% behind women being in the Armed Forces if they so desire. It is the capacity in which they serve that I have some reservations.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 13, 2012 01:51AM)
Hey if you don't mind what may be done to women if POWs then more power to you. Why a woman would join to be a gruntis beyond me. Just don't pretend loading a rocket on a plane is the same as dropping into the bush for close combat. There is a difference just that some don't see in. I am sure the base in Chandler has plentyof combat types defending Arizona. When my ship got women we went from a support ship to combat so all the women suddenly fufilled combat roles. Same job, same place, but now "combat", what a load.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 02:11AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 02:05, acesover wrote:
Come on guys. Get serious here. There is no comparsion of a man vs a woman in combat when taking into consideration the whole picture not an individual case. If they are so equal and as competent as their male counterparts how come you do not see any women in the NFL if they are just as capable? Maybe it has something to do with strength and stamania and a mind set. Please don't try and tell me men women are on the same page when it comes to strength and the ability to inflict deadly force on an enemy. It is just not so.

I am not saying they cannot serve nor be denied the priviledge to serve. I am saying that the position in which they serve is what is important and the infanatry is not one that most women can accompish competently. That in no way diminishes their importance once they are in the armed forces. It only enhances their productivity if they are placed in a position in which they have the best chance of handling the duties involved. Not every man belongs in the infantry either. Just the odds are much better that a male is more apt than the female for this position.

I am definitely 100% behind women being in the Armed Forces if they so desire. It is the capacity in which they serve that I have some reservations.
[/quote]

Of course the odds are much better that a male is more apt than a female for that role; the question is what about those women who ARE suited for it?

As for the NFL...there are about 1,000 times more jobs available in the U.S. Armed Forces than in the NFL, so there's quite a bit more overlap.
Message: Posted by: Octopus Sun (Jul 13, 2012 02:15AM)
Santa, it sounds like you are offended because I mentioned the first female combat pilots being
trained at Willie AZ, I didn't train them.
All I did was make sure the flight line was ready each day for our pilots and tech support
QC was my specialty, I was given the job because I got the highest test scores out of a few hundred
I just did what I was told, then went home, puffed and drank till it was time
to go back and work.
then I got sent to Beruit.

willie was a training station, nothing else Santa
who knows w.t.f. they did after that
I could care less.
this was back in 79-81
just saying
who cares
I don't
never did

F it all
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 02:25AM)
I always loved that scene in "Starship Troopers" where the men and women were showering together.

It reminded me of Socrate's suggestion in "The Republic" that women exercise together with men down at the gym. Thing was, the primary exercise back in the day in Athens was wrestling, which was done oiled-up and in the nude. Almost the very next topic Socrates brings up is that in their "perfect city" they're going to have to completely control--100%!--all sexual activity. A perfect example of Socratic irony, perhaps?

Now, 2,500 years later, we also think up situations in which we could somehow control not only natural distinctions, but natural desires.

The problem with women on the front is the same with gays on the front: passion, desperation, fear, anger, and closeness in a fox hole might lead to desires in a fox hole, which would lead to distraction in a fox hole--a place where there ought not to be distractions.

Everybody knows this, but our love of tolerance wins out. There's nothing wrong with being a woman, and there is nothing wrong with being gay, and we want everyone to have an equal opportunity to follow their dreams.

But we also know that sex in a fox hole is probably a bad idea.

Maybe the sea change that needs to take place is this: we need to realize that war is also a bad idea. No one should want to be in a fox hole in the first place.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 13, 2012 04:54AM)
First, you cant integrate women with the men. I seem to remember an unusually high pregnancy rate when Desert Storm started and women and men were integrated to some degree.

I used to work in a maximum security prison. When an inmate got into trouble and had to be handcuffed and escorted to segregation, the worst thing the Captain could do would be to send a woman. A man shows up and it is no problem, the inmate walks across the rotunda in handcuffs with a male corrections officer walking beside him. Easy. A woman corrections officer shows up and there is no way that same inmate will let a woman lead him in front of all the other inmates to segregation. It was some honor thing. Can you imagine an all female combat unit against an enemy all male combat unit? Talk about giving the enemy some extra motivation not to retreat or surrender!

The NFL analogy is perfect. If a woman could quarterback a team to a super bowl, they would use her! Its all about money. There are no capable women who could do so, just like there are no capable women who can play in the NBA. Facts are facts.

What sucks is when you look at the facts. The local firemans and policemans training is different for the women. In one scenario, a male has to run to a car, pull a 165 pound dummy out of the car and carry him 20 yards to safety. He cant do it, he doesn't pass. For the women cadidates, they have to pull out a small sandbag and they are allowed to drag it 20 yards. Not the same standards.

The military standards for women verses men is drastically different. Not near as much is expected of them both physically and mentally.

I would have to assume most of those that feel women should be allowed in infantry "grunts" have never served our country in the military.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 05:17AM)
Thanks for clear thoughts, Stone. It seems apparent to this observer, that the folks who are strongest on advocating for women in equal and all roles in the military, i.e. in combat roles, are the same people who generally disparage the military, don't think we need a strong military, and in other ways obviously seek to weaken the military. I think they are advocating women in combat roles for the same reason, i.e. in order to weaken the military. This they hope will come about in two ways, first by putting women in roles for which they are not equally qualified, thereby weakening the units to which they are assigned, second, as Stone notes, by introducing a source of confusion and conflict within those units, further weakening them, and third, by utilizing the images of killed women soldiers to further discourage the whole people, and weaken their willingness to defend their country, their way of life, the Constitution, and their very lives.

By the way, Lobo & Bob, as Santa knows, women have not had, and generally do not have, combat roles in the I.D.F., although Israel is burdened with more self-hating, multi-cultural, post-modernist ideologues than even the United States.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 06:09AM)
Your assumptions about the motives of people who want equality in the military are mind-boggling. I'm reminded of one of the set pieces of George C Scott in Dr. Strangelove. Personally, I think the fewer people in the military the better, and the move to be more inclusive is because they've overextended themselves with all their wars and need more cannon fodder. Amazing how the bloodthirstiness is disguised as a fight for equality. When the criminal wars are over, and there is equality in the rest of the Society, then I'm willing to address this question.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 06:11AM)
Don't your comments prove my point? In the meantime, landmark, here is a photo that purportedly shows an IDF soldier in a state of readiness:

[img]http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/07/IDFMaybe0118.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 07:00AM)
No, my comments don't prove your point. Proving your point would be to show that all in favor of women in the military, including officers and policy makers, are deliberately trying to weaken the military.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 13, 2012 07:15AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 06:17, Woland wrote:
Thanks for clear thoughts, Stone. It seems apparent to this observer, that the folks who are strongest on advocating for women in equal and all roles in the military, i.e. in combat roles, are the same people who generally disparage the military, don't think we need a strong military, and in other ways obviously seek to weaken the military. I think they are advocating women in combat roles for the same reason, i.e. in order to weaken the military. This they hope will come about in two ways, first by putting women in roles for which they are not equally qualified, thereby weakening the units to which they are assigned, second, as Stone notes, by introducing a source of confusion and conflict within those units, further weakening them, and third, by utilizing the images of killed women soldiers to further discourage the whole people, and weaken their willingness to defend their country, their way of life, the Constitution, and their very lives.

By the way, Lobo & Bob, as Santa knows, women have not had, and generally do not have, combat roles in the I.D.F., although Israel is burdened with more self-hating, multi-cultural, post-modernist ideologues than even the United States.
[/quote]

Well said!
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jul 13, 2012 08:35AM)
The fact that standards are relaxed in order to get women into the ranks of, say, police or firefighters proves that standards will also have to be different for women to qualify for military combat positions, too. The forces of political correctness make it happen, whether it's publicized or not.

RowdyMagi5 is fully correct.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 08:38AM)
I wanna go to Israel.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 13, 2012 08:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 06:17, Woland wrote:

By the way, Lobo & Bob, as Santa knows, women have not had, and generally do not have, combat roles in the I.D.F., although Israel is burdened with more self-hating, multi-cultural, post-modernist ideologues than even the United States.
[/quote]
What does "have not had, and generally do not have" mean? It sounds like you are contradicting yourself. As for what Santa said, I am guessing his experience there dates from long before the Equality Amendment to the Military Service law was enacted in January of 2000 in Israel, so what he experienced is long out of date.

In any case:

What a female combat soldier in the Israeli Defence Forces' mixed-sex Karakal Battalion has to say:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518649.stm

And something from before:

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146802589/foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines

In Israel, which is well known as one of the few countries where women are drafted, the policy is evolving. Santorum cited Israel as a country that doesn't allow women on the frontlines because of the psychological effect it has on men. But in fact, the Israeli military does allow women in the vast majority of combat positions.

Israel began including women in combat units after 1995, when a 23-year-old South African immigrant who arrived with a pilot's license from her native country was denied entry into the Air Force and successfully sued for discrimination. Since then, the Israel Defense Forces has gradually integrated more units in compliance with a Supreme Court order.

All told, only 12 percent of military positions in Israel are off-limits to women, including combat positions in the armored corps and infantry. But women can service in light infantry, artillery, and border patrol roles. More and more positions have been opened over time, though there are also reports that the IDF often doesn't accept women for units for which they are eligible and evacuates women during combat situations. Women comprise only 33 percent of the IDF due to a shorter length of service and a more lenient discharge system for religiously observant Jewish women. Recent years have seen the creation of the "Caracal Batallion" a mixed-gender infantry unit that patrols near the southern border with Egypt and the first woman commanding a sniper platoon.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 08:55AM)
Hi balducci, I'm not contradicting myself, I was trying to say that Israeli women were generally not allowed in combat roles until recently, and that their inclusion in such roles reflects the same sort of self-hating post-modernism that the phenomenon has in the United States.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 13, 2012 08:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 05:54, rowdymagi5 wrote:

The local firemans and policemans training is different for the women. In one scenario, a male has to run to a car, pull a 165 pound dummy out of the car and carry him 20 yards to safety. He cant do it, he doesn't pass. For the women cadidates, they have to pull out a small sandbag and they are allowed to drag it 20 yards. Not the same standards.
[/quote]
Depends on what the tests are trying to determine. And I am not claiming to know.

But are they really about how much weight you can drag, or are they more about determining whether the candidates are physically fit and have the overall requisite agility and stamina?

Sure, some of the women cannot do the same tasks on the job as well as some of the men, but neither can some of the men. Furthermore, it all works both ways. E.g., if all women are not big and strong enough to hack a door down as fast as some men, perhaps some men are too big and slow to work in a tight situation requiring speed and agility.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 13, 2012 09:17AM)
I am anti War. Anti violence.

But it is a reality of life, sadly.

But hey, if we MUST fight, get EVERYONE IN who wants to fight I say!

We're using assault rifles and artillery nowadays btw...

Not broadswords.

I personally believe becoming the Police is more dangerous most of the times.

If women can do that, why not Infantry?

Women snipers in Russia did well, so what's the big deal?

They volunteered right? So it is THEIR choice.
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jul 13, 2012 09:33AM)
Balducci wrote: "But are they really about how much weight you can drag, or are they more about determining whether the candidates are physically fit and have the overall requisite agility and stamina?"

That's what training standards assess. That should be a no-brainer. If men are required to drag a certain load a certain distance, and women are only required to drag a lighter load a lesser distance, then each may be physically fit, but only one is up to the standard of a combat soldier.

Lowering standards for women is social engineering that does nothing to improve the quality of the force.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 13, 2012 09:45AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 07:11, Woland wrote:
In the meantime, landmark, here is a photo that purportedly shows an IDF soldier in a state of readiness:

[img]http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/07/IDFMaybe0118.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
"purportedly" is the key word. In reality, who knows what that photo really shows (except the obvious).

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4425657/Israeli-soldier-on-the-beach-in-a-bikini-holding-a-gun.html

It would not be the first time the IDF released staged photos to manipulate opinion, to make soldiers look friendly and cuddly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/13/israeli-military-gay-pride-photo

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-gay-soldiers-photo-is-misleading-military-source-says/

Of course, I do not mean to pick on the IDF ... most any military group around the world does the same sort of thing.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 09:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 10:45, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 07:11, Woland wrote:
In the meantime, landmark, here is a photo that purportedly shows an IDF soldier in a state of readiness:

[img]http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2012/07/IDFMaybe0118.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
"purportedly" is the key word. In reality, who knows what that photo really shows (except the obvious).

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4425657/Israeli-soldier-on-the-beach-in-a-bikini-holding-a-gun.html

It would not be the first time the IDF released staged photos to manipulate opinion, to make soldiers look friendly and cuddly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/13/israeli-military-gay-pride-photo

http://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-gay-soldiers-photo-is-misleading-military-source-says/

Of course, I do not mean to pick on the IDF ... most any military group around the world does the same sort of thing.
[/quote]

I haven't even read your post yet, Balducci. But I thought it was well worth quoting.

[everyone groans simultaneously at the Unhinged's sexism]
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 13, 2012 10:01AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 10:17, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I am anti War. Anti violence.

But it is a reality of life, sadly.

But hey, if we MUST fight, get EVERYONE IN who wants to fight I say!

We're using assault rifles and artillery nowadays btw...

Not broadswords.

I personally believe becoming the Police is more dangerous most of the times.

If women can do that, why not Infantry?

Women snipers in Russia did well, so what's the big deal?

They volunteered right? So it is THEIR choice.
[/quote]



While it may be their choice, they are not suited for the infantry. There are many roles women can take in the armed forces. But armed combat and the rigors of what occurs in the field is not one of them. If we have to go and look for one out of a thousand or five thousand that can do the job don't you think that tells you something? My choice is to be an NFL quaterback. Guess what. I didn't make it. I am not qualified.

Your comments about assault rifles and broadswords shows that it is obvious you were not in the armed forces. You watch to much TV and to many movies.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 10:06AM)
It seems like the best way to find the most qualified people would be test everyone.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 10:22AM)
From what I've read recently, the military is thinking that women are better suited for controlling drones than men are. Oh joy.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 13, 2012 11:01AM)
Octopus I am not offended at all. I am trying to lay facts to those hre who felt erving their countries was beneath them. The fact is that in order to make congress happy in 79 and 80 they changed jobs that were not considered combat positions to combat for the sole purpos o putting women into combat roles. Happened to the USS simon Lake which also shiftes from a shore duty to sea so now thanks to those eager young lasses I got sea and combat credit while defending St Marys Georgia.

I was also in Beiruit blowing things up....total women present in uniform that I saw....zero. I am sure the ai force had plenty of combat princesses in Sardena.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 11:05AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 11:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the best way to find the most qualified people would be test everyone.
[/quote]

Logical, straightforward and egalitarian solutions like that don't seem to be very popular around here.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 13, 2012 11:07AM)
I do think that the military and similar jobs should have uniform standards. If they're doing the same job then they should have to meet the same qualifications to do it.
My idea of equality is that everyone has the same shot at every job, and the most qualified candidates are chosen.
So if an exceptional woman does meet the same qualifications as the men (and I know a few who could) then let her do the job. And it might end up being that only 1% of those who qualify are women, or even 0%, but what I am [i]not[/i] talking about is just letting a few unqualified women in or using the lowered standards just to pacify a few critics.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jul 13, 2012 11:08AM)
As prior military, I have no problem with any qualified person in any position in the military.
As a father, I would not want my daughter in combat. But then again, I would not my son in combat either.

Tony
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 13, 2012 11:12AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 12:08, Tony Iacoviello wrote:
As prior military, I have no problem with any qualified person in any position in the military.
As a father, I would not want my daughter in combat. But then again, I would not my son in combat either.

Tony
[/quote]

This is my favorite post in this thread.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 12:44PM)
It's a good one, critter, but I remain rather fond of the three photographic posts.
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Jul 13, 2012 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 13:44, Woland wrote:
It's a good one, critter, but I remain rather fond of the three photographic posts.
[/quote]

That figures.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 13, 2012 01:15PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 12:05, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 11:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the best way to find the most qualified people would be test everyone.
[/quote]

Logical, straightforward and egalitarian solutions like that don't seem to be very popular around here.
[/quote]

It would be impossible to test people regarding their combat skills without putting them into combat.

So I disagree that Lobo was being particularly logical in this particular post.

(I always hesitate to disagree with Lobo, because his IQ is probably twice that of mine.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 01:19PM)
Short of actually pulling a trigger and killing someone there are innumerable ways to test someone's combat skills outside of actual lethal combat. That's what training and testing are all about. True, you aren't going to know until someone's actually under enemy fire if he's another Audie Murphy or if he's going to cut and run.

But you can get a pretty good idea.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 01:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 14:15, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 12:05, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 11:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It seems like the best way to find the most qualified people would be test everyone.
[/quote]

Logical, straightforward and egalitarian solutions like that don't seem to be very popular around here.
[/quote]

It would be impossible to test people regarding their combat skills without putting them into combat.

So I disagree that Lobo was being particularly logical in this particular post.

(I always hesitate to disagree with Lobo, because his IQ is probably twice that of mine.)
[/quote]

I disagree that it would be "impossible to test people regarding their combat skills without putting them into combat."

But I hesitate to disagree with Stone, because his IQ is probably thrice that of mine.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 13, 2012 01:24PM)
You should both agree with me because my IQ is in the high double digit range!
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 13, 2012 02:08PM)
[quote]That figures. [/quote]

It's the Carlsberg umbrellas that I like, Carrie. Lovely shade of green. And a very good beer.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 13, 2012 02:29PM)
Woman should join the infantry as soon as infants join the womenry.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 13, 2012 06:26PM)
If I round up to the next hundredths place, my IQ is 200! :D
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 13, 2012 07:00PM)
Man, I saw an Israli woman with an uzi in Haifa and she was stunning.

We need women in the military. Saves fellas a trip to town for a lil action.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 13, 2012 07:04PM)
I consider myself a pretty outgoing fellow when it comes to dealings with the opposite sex, but if you hit on a woman carrying an Uzi, you're definitely a braver man than I!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 13, 2012 08:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 15:29, S2000magician wrote:
Woman should join the infantry as soon as infants join the womenry.
[/quote]
You should get ten years in Leavenworth, or eleven years in Twelveworth.
Message: Posted by: kentfgunn (Jul 14, 2012 12:34AM)
FWIW,

I'm a retired submarine sailor. My views on these things are far more liberal than most posting here. But . . .



Click on and read this, please.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

It was written by a United States Marine.

Men and women are equal under the law. They can share the responsibility of raising children. They're even serving on my beloved submarines. Nobody that's pushing this agenda has talked to the Marines, male and female that have the answers.

Frickin' politicians.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 12:44AM)
Wasn't it the commandant of the Marines who was the last holdout on allowing gays to serve openly?

(Note that I have nothing against the Marines. One of the units I served with in the Navy was comprised of both Navy and Marine members. We usually suckered the Marines into doing the hard work!)
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 14, 2012 07:02AM)
I know some women in SCA who are quite lethal with a broadsword.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 14, 2012 07:12AM)
Yes only girls and gays in the forces worldwide should be the rule.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 07:17AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 19:26, critter wrote:
If I round up to the next hundredths place, my IQ is 200! :D
[/quote]
Before S2000 corrects you, that should be hundred's place. Or maybe that's part of the joke? :)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 07:28AM)
Since not all of us are Bob (grammarians, please comment on that construction) who has an encyclopedic memory for all things Lenny Bruce, I might mention Bruce's little bit about Lena Horne and apply that to the military question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7ZKm3m24Q

If the analogy is not clear, then think on this:
Would you rather have me or [url=http://www.vonda-ward.com/]Vonda Ward[/url] fighting. Hint: I faint at the sight of blood, especially my own.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 08:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 08:28, landmark wrote:
Since not all of us are Bob (grammarians, please comment on that construction) who has an encyclopedic memory for all things Lenny Bruce, I might mention Bruce's little bit about Lena Horne and apply that to the military question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf7ZKm3m24Q

If the analogy is not clear, then think on this:
Would you rather have me or [url=http://www.vonda-ward.com/]Vonda Ward[/url] fighting. Hint: I faint at the sight of blood, especially my own.
[/quote]

You have to know your example is flawed. You pick out a woman who is probably 1 out of 100,000 or more. How about if we match Vonda aganist Anderson Silva and see how she does. Don't use specifics to prove a general concept. It is a non point and not at all logical. Men are in general stronger and hve the physce for combat and agression more than woman. End of story. It has been tht way for thousands of years, and will contunue to be that way. Men are on the whole stronger more agressive. If it were the reverse some country would have figured it out years ago and would have used an army of women and conquered the world. :)

Why is it so important for many of you here to want to put women on the front lines of combat? Is there a reason for this? Are you trying to say they are equal in strength and have the same physcial capabilities as men? Well it isn't so. They can serve in the military in many different ways and in some instances I amsure do a better job than men. Combat is not one of them.

Why do women not compete aganist men in most athletic events? Let me answer. Because men have an advantage that is why. To put it another way and make it simpler. Men are in general stronger, more agressive, and better killers. Makes for a much better combat soldier than women. Hope that is blunt enough for you.
Message: Posted by: Danny Kazam (Jul 14, 2012 09:50AM)
Well said. Although some will think it's sexist, it's very true. We are created equal under the laws, but men and women are NOT created equal.

I got into a debate with a feminist once about women being able to do everything a man can do. I said Men can do everything women can do too, but some things not as well as women. The same thing goes for men. Women want to compete against men, but they want special rights to help them.

I still remember the video that was leaked online. It was of a female fire fighter in training. A couple of the firemen were filming her. She was not able to carry the fire hose up the ladder on her own, and you could hear a couple of men laughing about it. Those men got in a lot of trouble for filming that. But, the video showed something that is very serious. That woman was allowed to be a firefighter, yet, she was not able to do the simple task of bringing up a hundred pound hose up a ladder. I am not saying that there are no women who can bring a hundred pound hose up a ladder, but I've never heard of one applying for a firefighter job. Think about the men who were not able to pass the exame, and the women who passed because they didn't have to go through the same physical training.

Everyone's safety becomes in jeopardy when they make exceptions for miniroities who are not able to complete the tests and training necessary at the same equal level as everyone else.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 14, 2012 09:52AM)
No matter who you are, or think you are, there will always be those of greater and lesser ability than you.
Message: Posted by: Danny Kazam (Jul 14, 2012 10:00AM)
I was trying to edit my post, but I was late.

I was also going to add that it should never be about what men can do vs what women can do. To me it comes down to who can do the job the best, not who gets the job because they need to meet their minority quota. It shouldn't be about women and men. All that should matter is , can they do the job like everyone else. I know of a few women who could carry a hundred pound hose up a ladder, but they also have no intentions of being a firefighter.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 10:16AM)
Acesover-

You constantly seem to misstate what others are saying. If you read my earlier post carefully you will note that I said in a volunteer force women who are physically and mentally qualified should be permitted to serve in combat. I don't see the word "mandatory" in there, nor do I see a reference to lessening standards for women. It may well be true that only a few out of a hundred or thousand women may qualify, but so what? You seem to be saying that those few should not be permitted to serve in combat units, solely because of their sex.

I think that in that respect landmark's analogy is right on. You just don't appear to get it. Equality isn't dependent on whether or not you like it.

Hope that is blunt enough for you.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 14, 2012 10:34AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 09:58, acesover wrote:
Don't use specifics to prove a general concept.
[/quote]

You're so close!

Don't use generalizations to answer a specific question. Nobody on this thread has argued for lowering standards, or for a topsoil that's 50% women. If you need 100,000 people for a job, pick the best 100,000. If only one of them is female, then 99,999 of them should be men - not 100,000.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 11:25AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 11:34, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If only one of them is female, then 99,999 of them should be men - not 100,000.
[/quote]

I totally agree in theory. But in practice, I bet she'd end up having sex with one of the 99,999 men. Which I also would have no problem with, as long as it didn't take place on the front line. Actually, I'm not even sure that [i]that[/i]bothers me. As long as the front line doesn't become like Plato's Retreat, I guess I don't care one way or another.

But I still think it's silly to think that men and women could take showers together--like in "Starship Troopers"--without getting aroused. Heck, that's a good reason WHY men and women might want to take showers with each other.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 14, 2012 11:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 08:17, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 19:26, critter wrote:
If I round up to the next hundredths place, my IQ is 200! :D
[/quote]
Before S2000 corrects you, that should be hundred's place. Or maybe that's part of the joke? :)
[/quote]

When we get to this advanced level we have to use the royal "hundredths."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 11:41AM)
Stone wrote:
[quote]I totally agree in theory. But in practice, I bet she'd end up having sex with one of the 99,999 men.[/quote]

I'd say I'd bet that she'd end up being raped by one of the 99,999 and no one would be punished. It's a huge, generally unacknowledged problem in the military.

So, while I wanted to make my logical point which Bob and Lobo are in agreement with, I'm not going to pursue it further, because I think the larger issue is how can we stop sending boys [i]and [/i]girls for use as cannon fodder. The rest can wait.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 11:50AM)
Seems like you and I and Pakar are about the only anti-war people around. Or am I wrong? Sounds like a thread topic.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 14, 2012 11:54AM)
I changed mymind. Toss 100 pounds of gear on those women and put them on point. There is absolutely no difference between men and women in fact askin the sex of a person on a document should be outlawed. Go get em ladies, have fun.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 14, 2012 12:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-13 13:44, Woland wrote:
It's a good one, critter, but I remain rather fond of the three photographic posts.
[/quote]

That last one on the beach... I think real soldiers would have more muscle tone :P
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 12:23PM)
[quote]There is absolutely no difference between men and women in fact askin the sex of a person on a document should be outlawed.[/quote]

Not a joke. Some people really think so. [url=http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2012/07/sexless-at-harvard.html]From a "correction"[/url] published in [url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/7/3/vanidy-bailey-bgltq-office/][i]The Harvard Crimson[/i]:[/url]

[quote]An earlier version of this article used the pronoun “she” to refer to Vanidy “Van” Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun.[/quote]

As Cicero said, [i](Oratio in Catilinam Prima in Senatu Habita),[/i] "O tempora! O mores!"
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 12:25PM)
[quote] I think real soldiers would have more muscle tone [/quote]

In an all-volunteer army, yes. With universal military service, maybe not so much.
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 14, 2012 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 12:50, stoneunhinged wrote:
Seems like you and I and Pakar are about the only anti-war people around. Or am I wrong? Sounds like a thread topic.
[/quote]
I'm anti-war, but I don't think that will ever put a major dent in war's existence.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 14, 2012 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 13:33, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 12:50, stoneunhinged wrote:
Seems like you and I and Pakar are about the only anti-war people around. Or am I wrong? Sounds like a thread topic.
[/quote]
I'm anti-war, but I don't think that will ever put a major dent in war's existence.
[/quote]

True enough.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 14, 2012 01:45PM)
I should say I did not hit on the super hot uzi girl. She would have shut me.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 14, 2012 02:07PM)
Right in the teeth with the jew's harp.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 14, 2012 02:52PM)
Yeah. Dark skin, green eyes...good stuff.

Don't they already let women be basic infantry? If so is the question why don't we shoot mor of them?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 06:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 11:16, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

You constantly seem to misstate what others are saying. If you read my earlier post carefully you will note that I said in a volunteer force women who are physically and mentally qualified should be permitted to serve in combat. I don't see the word "mandatory" in there, nor do I see a reference to lessening standards for women. It may well be true that only a few out of a hundred or thousand women may qualify, but so what? You seem to be saying that those few should not be permitted to serve in combat units, solely because of their sex.

I think that in that respect landmark's analogy is right on. You just don't appear to get it. Equality isn't dependent on whether or not you like it.

Hope that is blunt enough for you.
[/quote]

Lets carry this to the n th degree. Lets say we bring bck the draft. So according to you we should draft all the women then qualify them and find the 1 in 100,000 that is qualified. That sounds really cost efficient. We will put 100,000 women through the rigors of boot camp for x number of weeks and come up with 1 or 2 . That is a great plan. Does that make any sense to you?

I have read here where you served in the armed forces if I am not mistaken. I did also in Nam and I have to be honest I have not seen a woman that I would want as my back up in what we encountered and had to endure. Call me sexist or whatever but if given the choice I will take the male every time in this situation. That is in no way putting down women but rather being realistic. I find it to difficult to find that 1 or 2 in 100,000 to make such a thing plausible. Combat is one thing and serving is another. Women definitely have their place in the armed forces and I will state again it is not in combat.

This might sound familar, Believe what you want. :)

I realize you say those that want to volunteer. But lets take it a step fuerther. How do you think their male counterparts will feel in a combat situation with a female team? That also has to be taken into consideration. I know my answer.

Almost forgot. Lets ask our wives how they feel about this. :)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 14, 2012 06:40PM)
As Stone has mentioned, I think, and others seconded, it's not only a question of whether women in general are qualified for combat roles, but the effect that mixing men and women in combat units can be expected to have on discipline and effectiveness.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 07:04PM)
Acesover-

Almost your entire response is irrelevant to what I wrote because I specifically states that my position was based on the fact that the military is now voluntary and that there IS NO DRAFT.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 14, 2012 07:06PM)
It's also irrelevant, because you could draft women, put the ones suited for combat in combat roles, and put the other ones in different roles.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 07:08PM)
Yes, that's true, but since my argument was based on the fact that there presently is no draft, I saw no need to address that point, even though I agree with you.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 08:43PM)
This is positively ridiculous. If something that is as ovbious as this cannot be agreed upon on this forum, nothing can.

You seemed to shy away from the question I asked how would their male counterparts feel about being supported in a life and death situation by females. What would your choice be? Now of course you will say the honorable thing and say if they are capable, yada yada and if you say that I will have to say you are full of it and you know it. You know you would want male back up in a life and death confrontation if strength and stamina come into play.

You can agree with whomever you want on here and give me all the reasons you want but you are wrong and in a combat situation probably dead wrong.

In all my experience in Nam I cannot think of one time where I feel a female would have made me feel as secure as my male counterparts did, NONE. I also feel that there decisions made that would not have been possible with a female present, yet these very decisions drew as closer together.

Of course my response on the draft is irrevelant because it does not fit your agenda. Did you forget there used to be a draf?. Would you think differently if there was still a draft? What difference would it make? Lets see here. You are equal to your male counterpart but if you do not want to be drafted you don't' have to because...because why? That is the whole jist of this discussion. Why do we consider females different? Becauses they are.

As I said in the beginning of this post I will repeat here: This is positively ridiculous. If something that is as ovbious as this cannot be agreed upon on this forum, nothing can.

If someone said this forum has a green background I am sure someone would say it is not really green it only looks that way when viewed by humans because of the light specturm. Also some animals only see black and white so it is not green to them. Besides if we view it tinted glasses on it is no longer green, so green is only green if you view it under certain conditions. You will get some people to agree woith that nonsense.

So if you want to believe that women are just as capable mentally, emotionally and physcially in a combat situation good for you. Believe what you want. I don't relly care. But if given the choice of who I want with me...well you know the answer to that. I really want to survive. It was difficult enough under the conditions we endured and if we employed females I am SURE I would not be here now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 14, 2012 09:16PM)
I think that if we can't agree that *some* women are more capable than *some* men in combat situations, than nothing can be agreed upon.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 09:44PM)
Acesover-

You're the one who started the thread. I gave my honest answer. Sorry you feel the need to call anyone who disagrees with you "ridiculous."

If you don't want honest answers, why did you bother starting the thread? Just so you could ridicule those who disagree with you?

Sorry, I gave up childish games a long time ago.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 10:29PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 22:44, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

You're the one who started the thread. I gave my honest answer. Sorry you feel the need to call anyone who disagrees with you "ridiculous."

If you don't want honest answers, why did you bother starting the thread? Just so you could ridicule those who disagree with you?

Sorry, I gave up childish games a long time ago.
[/quote]

No reason to feel sorry. You sound like a girl. :) This is nothing but an internet forum. Jeeez!

By the way nice change of gears with your last post. Childish games...like these discussions really mean something. You better get a life and top feeling sorry. These threads are nothing more than opinions, but some common sense should be used when forming opinions and when wrong people should own up to it. This time your wrong, common sense says so.

Honest answers would be fine. Opinions not so much. You gave your opinion not an honest answer. While you may believe it, which I fiind hard to believe you are wrong. Twist it anyway you want. Knock yourself out. Just ask yourself what would you prefer., 10 combat ready men or 10 combat ready females to help you survive in the jungle with 20 or 30 individuals trying to kill you? Now give your honest answer.

Someone who disagrees with me is not necessairly ridiculous, just some of thier opinions some of the time. :) Some times I may be considered ridiculous to others. So be it. However not this time. If you feel females are on an equal plain with males when trained for combat, good for you. I happen to disagree and so have countless countries and armies throughout history. To bad you weren't there to advise them and tell them they were wrong. They could have increased the size and power of their armies had you been there and went on to be victorious. Well if they read your comments here they will be ready next time. Sarcasm :)

By the way youi also posted this:If you don't want honest answers, why did you bother starting the thread? Just so you could ridicule those who disagree with you?

READ MY ORIGINAL POST. I did not start anything.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 14, 2012 10:33PM)
The threshold isn't that as a whole they're on "equal footing," but it's an impressive use of staging and misdirection, even by magic forum standards.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 10:35PM)
READ MY ORIGINAL POST. I did not start anything.
I seems like about the 6th poster threw a bunch at the fan and started it.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 14, 2012 10:41PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 22:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I think that if we can't agree that *some* women are more capable than *some* men in combat situations, than nothing can be agreed upon.
[/quote]

I would definitely agree with that. Some being the key word.

Finding them is the fly in the ointment and if you think about it, is it worth it? Or do you go with the overwhelming odds of getting it right with an all man combat infantry and have the right mix 99.9999% of the time.

Seriously do you think you could put together a batallion of competent combat ready females? I mean you are talking about assembling around 400 to a 1,000 combat capable females. When I say capable I mean capable of doing a mans job in the infantry.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 14, 2012 10:53PM)
Whatever.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 15, 2012 08:43PM)
Some [url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/11/navys-new-gender-neutral-carriers-wont-have-urinals/]news[/url] for all of my friends here who are former sailors:

[quote]The U.S. Navy's new class of carriers will be the first to go without urinals, a decision made in part to give the service flexibility in accommodating female sailors, the Navy says.

The change heralded by the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers – starting with the namesake carrier due in late 2015 – is one of a number of new features meant to improve sailors' quality of life and reduce maintenance costs, Capt. Chris Meyer said Wednesday.

Omitting urinals lets the Navy easily switch the designation of any restroom – or head, in naval parlance – from male to female, or vice versa, helping the ship adapt to changing crew compositions over time, Meyer said.
[/quote]

As Cicero said . . . .
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 15, 2012 09:50PM)
Actually, that's not a bad idea. It should also be implemented on the smaller ships. And, as a former sailor, I can tell you that just being able to change the designations of the heads isn't the only good reason.

Did you ever try to pee standing up on a rolling ship? Not a wise idea in the first place.

That said, how many of you have urinals in your homes? None? Didn't think so.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 05:24AM)
I think Tom Hanks had one. There was a flurry of news stories in the New York Times about a new trend in home bathroom design. Must have been 10 years ago.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 16, 2012 08:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-16 06:24, Woland wrote:
I think Tom Hanks had one. There was a flurry of news stories in the New York Times about a new trend in home bathroom design. Must have been 10 years ago.
[/quote]

Doesn't look like that "new trend" ever went anywhere.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 09:12AM)
Wish that were true with almost all of them!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 16, 2012 09:20AM)
Agreed. (We're probably thinking about different trends, but its good for me to be agreeable once in a while. :eek: )
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 16, 2012 09:30AM)
On 1,000s of topics, Bob, we would be perfectly in agreement. But it would be boring, to us and to others, to agree all the time.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 16, 2012 09:39AM)
This is true.
Message: Posted by: MickeyPainless (Jul 17, 2012 01:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-15 21:43, Woland wrote:
Some [url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/11/navys-new-gender-neutral-carriers-wont-have-urinals/]news[/url] for all of my friends here who are former sailors:

[quote]The U.S. Navy's new class of carriers will be the first to go without urinals, a decision made in part to give the service flexibility in accommodating female sailors, the Navy says.

The change heralded by the Gerald R. Ford class of carriers – starting with the namesake carrier due in late 2015 – is one of a number of new features meant to improve sailors' quality of life and reduce maintenance costs, Capt. Chris Meyer said Wednesday.

Omitting urinals lets the Navy easily switch the designation of any restroom – or head, in naval parlance – from male to female, or vice versa, helping the ship adapt to changing crew compositions over time, Meyer said.
[/quote]

As Cicero said . . . .
[/quote]

Just be sure to put the seat back down or all he)) will break loose! ;)
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 12:46PM)
I don't know how the Marine corps works, considering that the Army and the Marine Corps supply the only infantry units in the U.S. Military, but in the Army, everyone receives basic infantry training in basic training. They learn to shoot, move and communicate as well as other combat oriented tasks. After basic training, the recruit goes to their AIT, Advanced Individual Training, which they enlisted for at the recruiters office. If one enlists to be a helicopter turbine repair specialist then they go to learn that trade or MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) . If one enlists in Armor and cavalry then they go to learn that MOS. If they enlist to be a cook they go to learn that MOS. If they enlist for Infantry, they go on to learn advanced infantry skills. In order to qualify for whatever MOS the recruiters evaluate the potential recruits with a variety of tests to see if they qualify for that MOS or identify the MOS for which they are best suited. These tests are pretty accurate. I don't know why the civilian world does not use them. So, if a female is suited for the infantry then they will be identified as such in the assessment testing. If not, then these are the MOS fields what are open.

Could a woman be infantry material? I've met a few. The question as raised, is what will be the psychological, emotional and physical impact with the integration? The guys in combat arms units are high strung as the pressure is kept very high. They are notoriously male chauvonistic and, at times, brutal. If one does not fit in, or viewed as a weak link then they are weeded out.

It should also be noted that women are already able to become airborne and air assault qualified and many are. However, unlike Ranger or Special Forces schools, Airborne and Air Assault schools do not teach advanced training in any MOS they just teach you how to not kill yourself when you jump out of a helicopter or airplane.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 17, 2012 01:49PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-17 13:46, Dreadnought wrote:
. . . they just teach you how to not kill yourself when you jump out of a helicopter or airplane.[/quote]
Which is, admittedly, a valuable skill to have mastered (should you find yourself jumping out of a helicopter or airplane).
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 17, 2012 02:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 08:02, Steve_Mollett wrote:
I know some women in SCA who are quite lethal with a broadsword.
[/quote]

:ohyes: :applause:
Message: Posted by: Octopus Sun (Jul 17, 2012 02:13PM)
I don't have ground experience in combat.
I served as a Flight Tech.
To be honest I would not want a female counterpart even if she was capable.
Straight Up this is Old School prejudice.

I don't think ALL women, have the ability think in the terms needed to outright fight in combative situations.
Those who have been in actual ground, hand to hand, face to face, combat know what it takes.
Civi's have no clue, they fantasize about war etc through the media given to them.

Pencil pushers, and Techs like me,
we can only speculate as to the struggles and horrors,
because we saw the effects of our Brothers in the field,
and our Sisters in support roles.

I do/will always support a women's right to chose,
and if she wants to try, I say let them.
Who cares, it's who ever wins in the end.
I say take a clue from the current enemy,
they use their women in subversive roles, we can/should to.
When it comes to the safety of the people in this current situation,
we need everyone in sight, and undercover.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 02:36PM)
The other thing to think about here is how will society act? Saying you support women's rights and a woman's right to serve in the military and then to serve in a combat unit, especially, a front line unit is one thing. Actually assigning them and watching what happens is another.

Remember Somalia? The Battle of Mogodishu? Images and videos were plastered all over the internet, the news and print media of a dead and naked male soldier being drug through the streets. People were outraged. What happens when it is a woman, who was killed and stripped naked and drug through the streets? People were aghast to see women in support units come home with missing limbs. If they are infantry, then those numbers will be even greater.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 17, 2012 02:48PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 21:43, acesover wrote:

You seemed to shy away from the question I asked how would their male counterparts feel about being supported in a life and death situation by females. What would your choice be?

[/quote]

The answer is obvious really.

In a life and death situation?

Their male counterparts would love the support of anyone, male, female or dog even, if the dog could fire a gun.

It is hard enough to find anyone who will risk their lives for others, in combat and capable to do so, yet you want to turn them down?

This is not the UFC. You're the one watching too many Rambo Movies.

If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers, anyone can be lethal.

Hence my broadsword reference. Sarcasm btw that...

Again, I say, women in the police force have it worse on a daily basis imho...
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:48, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers, anyone can be lethal.
[/quote]

The big reason for this is psychological. Those that employ children to do their dirty work know how the majority of the world feels about children and they exploit that psychological weakness. With a woman's nurturing instincts, one could reason that this weakness could be exploited at a really magnified level. As a police officer, I've seen it.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 17, 2012 03:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:59, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:48, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers, anyone can be lethal.
[/quote]

The big reason for this is psychological. Those that employ children to do their dirty work know how the majority of the world feels about children and they exploit that psychological weakness. With a woman's nurturing instincts, one could reason that this weakness could be exploited at a really magnified level. As a police officer, I've seen it.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

If it can be exploited then exploit it to kill the enemy.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 17, 2012 03:10PM)
Nevermind, that was crass humor and I don't want anyone taking it wrong.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 03:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 16:05, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:59, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:48, Pakar Ilusi wrote:

If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers, anyone can be lethal.
[/quote]

The big reason for this is psychological. Those that employ children to do their dirty work know how the majority of the world feels about children and they exploit that psychological weakness. With a woman's nurturing instincts, one could reason that this weakness could be exploited at a really magnified level. As a police officer, I've seen it.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

If it can be exploited then exploit it to kill the enemy.
[/quote]

That's easy to say, however; people really don't have the stomach for the way warfare is supposed to work. If we really waged war the way it should be fought, in theory, there would be much less war. But, in actuality, we just try to civilize it by making laws and establishing boundaries on who, when, what, where, why and how we are to kill. Very few can stomach total war.

Once children are brought into the mix, then it doesn't matter if they were the aggressors, once someone kills a child then they are automatically viewed as the aggressor. It is a no win situation and those that employ children know that. The world may castigate them for using children, but they will go after the defending party with equal venom. No matter how much the world may deplore those using children, they will hate those defending themselves even more so; sympathies will quickly change side.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 17, 2012 03:22PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:36, Dreadnought wrote:
Remember Somalia? The Battle of Mogodishu?
[/quote]

Where have you gone, Dr. DeGenova? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 17, 2012 03:23PM)
Dreadnought, I meant exploit the women's strength at protecting their children to kill the enemy.

Not use children in war.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 17, 2012 03:43PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I9Xi2SezVY
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 05:08PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 16:22, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:36, Dreadnought wrote:
Remember Somalia? The Battle of Mogodishu?
[/quote]

Where have you gone, Dr. DeGenova? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
[/quote]

I had forgotten all about him.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 17, 2012 05:39PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 18:08, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 16:22, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:36, Dreadnought wrote:
Remember Somalia? The Battle of Mogodishu?
[/quote]

Where have you gone, Dr. DeGenova? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...
[/quote]

I had forgotten all about him.
[/quote]

I apologize for reminding you.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 17, 2012 05:53PM)
And you think my views are drastic.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 01:13AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-17 15:48, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-14 21:43, acesover wrote:

You seemed to shy away from the question I asked how would their male counterparts feel about being supported in a life and death situation by females. What would your choice be?

[/quote]

The answer is obvious really.

In a life and death situation?

Their male counterparts would love the support of anyone, male, female or dog even, if the dog could fire a gun.

It is hard enough to find anyone who will risk their lives for others, in combat and capable to do so, yet you want to turn them down?

This is not the UFC. You're the one watching too many Rambo Movies.

If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers, anyone can be lethal.

Hence my broadsword reference. Sarcasm btw that...

Again, I say, women in the police force have it worse on a daily basis imho...
[/quote]

You are posting about something you know nothing about nor have ever experienced (If eleven year old Vietcongs and Taliban kids can kill professionally trained soldiers) so I would say to you keep you rmouth shut as you have no idea how the children were used and how they killed or how they were killed. Don't go there you know nothing about it. You may think you know because you read something but you don't. If you did you would not compare those children with fighting forces. Please keep quiet about this as I will say again you don't know what you are talking about. I will just say that it has been a perfect description of "Mans inhumanity to man" as one could ever imagine. Just to end here do you believe the eleven year old Vietcongs as you call them were trained? Or were they just used? Think about it.


Your response to the question I asked does not in any way answer the question: Your answer was: Their male counterparts would love the support of anyone, male, female or dog even, if the dog could fire a gun. That comment shows your total ignorance of a soldier's mind set. He does not invite more casuaties just to have company when he dies. He is looking for help that will stop him from being killed. He is not looking for more victims which it seems you think is the answer. The VC have already done that with women and children and it is not a pretty sight. He does not need more casualties. More bodies is not the answer. Capable support is what is needed. It wil be found by capable trained and physcially and mentally strong males. Sorry if this sounds sexist. I have been there and while I am sure the females have great intentions they are not enough.

Endurance, stamina, fatigue, mind set, do these mean anything to you? It was stated before if women are as capable as you believe them to be where are they in Sports such as Baseball and football. They do not pit males aganist females in sports. Reason being the male is superior, that is not sexist that is just fact.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 18, 2012 01:21AM)
"Just to end here do you believe the eleven year old Vietcongs as you call them were trained? Or were they just used?"

If they were just "used" rather than "trained" as you put it, then wouldn't they have been even more fearsome / deadly had they been trained?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 02:06AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 02:13, acesover wrote:
You may think you know because you read something but you don't.
[/quote]

Aces, you've gotten real wild in this thread. Calm down. Pakar is just about the nicest, friendliest guy in this forum and you're going after him as if he's mentally retarded when he clearly is not.

I quoted the above statement because it is perhaps the most ignorant thing you have ever said. If reading doesn't count as knowledge then I must be about the stupidest guy on the planet, because most of what I know comes from reading.

The rest of what I know--the stuff that comes from life experience--makes me perfectly capable of empathy. I've suffered enough loss through cancer that I have no need to have cancer myself to know how horrible it is.

Not a single thing Pakar has said is worthy of the viciousness with which you are treating him. Back off, dude.

With love, and beer:

:stout:
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 18, 2012 05:09AM)
Acesover, those that are actually arguing with you on here are not even close to being capable of really understanding the role of a warrior in combat. To even think that a child could be even more "fearsome or deadly" is outright laughable.

Those who have not served have no idea. They think they know what courage, honor and committment means but they cant really grasp it.

Only two people really understand, fellow combat Veterans and the enemy, everyone else is merely speculating.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 06:02AM)
Yet another one of those, "if you don't know something as well as I do, you don't know anything at all" posts.

If we are all as ignorant as is suggested here, then why ought we have any respect whatsoever for veterans? If we can't understand [i]at all[/i], then don't bother to ask for our support.

I've never been a firefighter, but I admire firefighters. I didn't cry about 9/11 until I saw a picture in the newspaper of George Bush with his arm around a firefighter. Then I broke down and cried. My heart was filled with admiration for their courage, honor and commitment. We lost 343 heroes on that day.

I'm not sure how many of them were combat Veterans. Probably none of them. They were heroes, nonetheless.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 18, 2012 07:41AM)
I didn't say you should not have respect for those who served in combat roles. I just stated that if you had not served in a combat role, you really don't know and probably wont understand what Acesover was saying.

I respect Firefighters too, but I wouldnt begin to suggest how they should do their job or more improtantly , I wouldnt suggest that they should allow people to do the job that could cause casualties. So I probably wouldnt argue with a Firefighter about those issues.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jul 18, 2012 07:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 06:09, rowdymagi5 wrote:

Acesover, those that are actually arguing with you on here are not even close to being capable of really understanding the role of a warrior in combat. To even think that a child could be even more "fearsome or deadly" is outright laughable.
[/quote]
My point was that someone WITH training as a soldier and trained how to kill would be more "fearsome or deadly" than that same someone would be without training.

You really disagree with that?
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 18, 2012 08:21AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 08:57, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 06:09, rowdymagi5 wrote:

Acesover, those that are actually arguing with you on here are not even close to being capable of really understanding the role of a warrior in combat. To even think that a child could be even more "fearsome or deadly" is outright laughable.
[/quote]
My point was that someone WITH training as a soldier and trained how to kill would be more "fearsome or deadly" than that same someone would be without training.

You really disagree with that?

[/quote]


No, I misread yor statement, I agree.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 08:53AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 02:21, balducci wrote:
"Just to end here do you believe the eleven year old Vietcongs as you call them were trained? Or were they just used?"

If they were just "used" rather than "trained" as you put it, then wouldn't they have been even more fearsome / deadly had they been trained?
[/quote]

Do you know how they were used? Or are you just trying to make a point that 11 year olds are competent soldiers? Let me put it another way. They are sent to the slaughter and if one can distracat and or immoblize a combatant while being slaughtered they have served their purpose. That is a great plan. Invest your 11 year old.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 09:23AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 03:06, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 02:13, acesover wrote:
You may think you know because you read something but you don't.
[/quote]

Aces, you've gotten real wild in this thread. Calm down. Pakar is just about the nicest, friendliest guy in this forum and you're going after him as if he's mentally retarded when he clearly is not.

I quoted the above statement because it is perhaps the most ignorant thing you have ever said. If reading doesn't count as knowledge then I must be about the stupidest guy on the planet, because most of what I know comes from reading.

The rest of what I know--the stuff that comes from life experience--makes me perfectly capable of empathy. I've suffered enough loss through cancer that I have no need to have cancer myself to know how horrible it is.

Not a single thing Pakar has said is worthy of the viciousness with which you are treating him. Back off, dude.

With love, and beer:

:stout:
[/quote]

I can only respond to your post by saying. I was there I did not acquire my knowledge about Nam from sitting down in an armchair and reding a book then saying to myself, "Now I understand". I experienced it. I did things I never b elieved I could be capable of doing, but would probably do the same things again given the circumstances.

Adressing your reading commment. Did you learn to swim by reading a book? Did you learn to tie your shoelaces by reading a book? Experience trumps reading about it, sorry. Got to love academia. I just read how to do a hert transplant and you need one. Would yo uprefer Ido it or someone how has done it and experienced it before?

As far as your back off comment. You don't have the right to tell me or any other Viet Nam vet to back off, dude. Give it a rest and go read a book and tell me how horrible Viet Nam was. Tell me how you still smell death when the person next to you looses control of their bowels because they have just been killed and were talking to you a few seconds ago. Tell me how you experienced through reading how horrible Viet Nam was. How about if I tell you...Back off dude. Let me be blunt about it...shut your mouth because nothing but $#^t is coming out and it stinks. Until you were there and gave your all for 24/7 and then came home to be called a "baby killer" and ridiculed by those like yourself is kind of frustrating, no it goes beyond frusration. So I do not have tolerance for those people and if that includes you, then I do not have tolerance for you dude.

While I am sure you and your buddy Pakar are nice guys, don't speak of that which you do not comprehend. You are making a fool of yourself to anyone who was there and belitting their sacrifice.

I have not proof red this because I am upset it may be incoherent. I apo0logize to those who find it harsh but it is a very volatile topic with me.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 18, 2012 10:12AM)
No apologies needed. You shouldn't have to apologize.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 10:30AM)
The whole NVMS forum is going to dry up Pretty quickly if everyone adopts that "don't speak of that which you don't understand" standard.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 18, 2012 10:56AM)
Not only this forum . . .
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 11:46AM)
Aces, I'm one of the nice guys. I offered you a beer. All I said was, in essence, to be polite. You responded with rudeness to me that I didn't deserve. I will say "back off, Dude" anytime I think someone is acting out of line. If you think you frighten me, you'd be surprised how utterly and completely fearless I am with regard to the posts of invisible people on Internet forums. Sure, you might just blow a fuse and hop on an airplane and get on a train and take a taxi to come to my office and verbally abuse me in person, but I think I could handle that, too.

So yes, I have the right to tell you and any other Vietnam vet to take a few deep breaths and be polite, because I think you are being impolite.

Remember that you and I have always got along. If we aren't getting along right now, it may be that you've become inappropriately emotional and therefore rude. I forgive you in advance.

Now have that beer:

:stout:
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 11:53AM)
There is way to much testosterone in here. Maybe we need a woman's touch to get us rational again :)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 11:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 08:41, rowdymagi5 wrote:
I didn't say you should not have respect for those who served in combat roles.
[/quote]

You said, and I quote, "Those who have not served [as a combat warrior] have no idea. They think they know what courage, honor and committment means but they cant really grasp it." I then claimed that firefighters might know what courage, honor, and commitment means.

One can make an argument saying, "I have this experience, and I'm telling you it won't work", and I would buy you a beer and thank you for your opinion. But to make the argument that "if you weren't in Vietnam you cannot possible assess whether the inclusion of women in the infantry would be a good idea or a bad idea" is simply not logical. Go back a few pages and you'll find that I'm one of those who thinks it's a bad idea for women to serve in the infantry because of potential weakenesses caused by sexual desires. As a man who has had sexual desires for a woman, I know that a man can have sexual desires for a woman. As a man who has had those desires at inappropriate times, I know that a man can have those desires at inappropriate times. You and Aces would like me to believe that I know nothing about sexual desires at inappropriate times because I didn't serve in Vietnam. I think that argument is fallacious.

In addition, I called out aces for being rude. Then he proceeded to act like Walter Sobchack in "The Big Lebowski", and might have even been waving a Colt 45 at his computer monitor. From that I shall not demure.

Have a beer, rowdy:

:stout:
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 12:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 12:53, critter wrote:
There is way to much testosterone in here. Maybe we need a woman's touch to get us rational again :)
[/quote]

I'm providing the woman's touch. The guys just don't appreciate me for it 'cause I don't have mammary glands.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 12:05PM)
They help.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 13:05, critter wrote:
They help.
[/quote]

They do, indeed.

Next thing that's gonna happen is this: someone's gonna say that I can't provide the woman's touch because I ain't a woman. Then I'm gonna say, "but I've read a lot of books." Then someone's gonna call me an idiot and a coward because one can't possibly know anything about what it's like to be a woman if I'm not one, and I'm gonna agree. And then someone's gonna think that they're really clever because they beat...get this...an [i]unhinged person[/i] in an argument.

That's life at the Magic Café.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 12:12PM)
How do you spell "fallacious" anyway?

My spelling has gotten much worse over the years I've lived in Germany, and I cannot figure out how to turn the spellcheck in Firefox back on. In fact, I can't even figure out how it got turned off in the first place. Feel free to PM me with help.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 12:14PM)
I'm starting to think the entire planet is going violently insane. Or maybe it's just election season.

PS, you spelled it right.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 13:14, critter wrote:
I'm starting to think the entire planet is going violently insane. Or maybe it's just election season.
[/quote]

Like the Klingon "pon far" (or however you spell it) gone wild?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 12:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 12:46, stoneunhinged wrote:
Aces, I'm one of the nice guys. I offered you a beer. All I said was, in essence, to be polite. You responded with rudeness to me that I didn't deserve. I will say "back off, Dude" anytime I think someone is acting out of line. If you think you frighten me, you'd be surprised how utterly and completely fearless I am with regard to the posts of invisible people on Internet forums. Sure, you might just blow a fuse and hop on an airplane and get on a train and take a taxi to come to my office and verbally abuse me in person, but I think I could handle that, too.

So yes, I have the right to tell you and any other Vietnam vet to take a few deep breaths and be polite, because I think you are being impolite.

Remember that you and I have always got along. If we aren't getting along right now, it may be that you've become inappropriately emotional and therefore rude. I forgive you in advance.

Now have that beer:

:stout:
[/quote]

Frighten you? What are you on the play ground? I am not abouta frightening anyone. Y But before we go any further you are the one who got riled inthis discussion as a matter of fact you were not evenpart of it but decided to put in your two cents because you believe I upset your friend. You are the one who first used the phrase "back off dude" not me. Don't change the playing field.

Take a plane etc . I do not have that kind of time. The only time I ever offered to do that was to an iondividual from Canada that I apologized to and said I would take him and a friend to dinner at the restaurant of his choice. For some reason he declined and it was a genuine offer as him residing in Canada made it only a few hours away and I though it would be a nice diversion and at the same time not be that far from home if needed. However I digress.

However I do have to ask why you feel you have the right to tell me or any other Viet Nam vet to take a few deep breath...what gives you that right? While you may have the right legally it is morally and ethically wrong as you havae no idea what we went through yet you claim to know. You feel I was being impolite? Do you feel that the people who called us baby killers and other names and ridiculed us for serving out country while they sat home were being polite and wiwsh to join them?

Your statement about blowiing a fuse makes me laugh. Do you really think someone as yourself can make me blow a fuse? You can very much upset me, but blow a fuse...I think not. You are giving yourself way to much credit.

Yes we have gotten along and I believe will continue to get along in the future. But I am sensitive about what happened over there. Very sensitive and really do not want to hear from someone who did not experience what we did. If what you said was coming from a fellow VN vet I would be much more attuned to be tolerant and listen to what he had to say for I am sure that person would have a valid reason. I am not sure what your reason is for giving me a hard time because I came down on your bud. You were not even involved.

You said I responded with rudness that you did not deserve. Yes you did. You rudely got involved in something that did not concern you and are now trying to defend your position which is indefensible. You just butted in and you say I am the one being rude..duh. What am I missing here?

I am sure your bud can speak for himself he is a big boy. While I am sure he is grateful for you sticking your nose where it does not belong he is probably embarassed. He is a highly respected member of this forum and does not need you to speak for him.

I am also upset because I am not a big beer drinker...now if you offered me a manhattan. :)
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 12:53PM)
Oh, I love Klingons.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 18, 2012 01:07PM)
Make that a perfect manhattan . . .
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 01:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 13:46, acesover wrote:
...now if you offered me a manhattan. :)
[/quote]

Then have a manhattan. I would have offered you one, but there ain't no smiley for it.

Pakar is not "my" friend. He's "our" friend.

Thanks for serving our country. Thanks for going to Vietnam. Thanks for enduring things that I cannot even imagine.

But, you know, be nice in this bar. It ain't my bar, of course. But I'm the heaviest drinker here, so I sorta pay the bill. So be nice, please. It's a request, not a demand.

If you go back and re-read this thread, you'd find out that if you cooled down you'd see that I've not said a single thing geared to upset you, nor have I even disputed your position. That's what I meant by "take a deep breath". That means: wait and figure out who your enemies are. Here, in the Internet world, I am NOT YOUR ENEMY, but your friend. And for some weird reason you just shat all over me like I'm some piece of scum. I didn't deserve that. All I asked was that you be polite to our friend Pakar.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 01:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 12:59, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 08:41, rowdymagi5 wrote:
I didn't say you should not have respect for those who served in combat roles.
[/quote]

You said, and I quote, "Those who have not served [as a combat warrior] have no idea. They think they know what courage, honor and committment means but they cant really grasp it." I then claimed that firefighters might know what courage, honor, and commitment means.

One can make an argument saying, "I have this experience, and I'm telling you it won't work", and I would buy you a beer and thank you for your opinion. But to make the argument that "if you weren't in Vietnam you cannot possible assess whether the inclusion of women in the infantry would be a good idea or a bad idea" is simply not logical. Go back a few pages and you'll find that I'm one of those who thinks it's a bad idea for women to serve in the infantry because of potential weakenesses caused by sexual desires. As a man who has had sexual desires for a woman, I know that a man can have sexual desires for a woman. As a man who has had those desires at inappropriate times, I know that a man can have those desires at inappropriate times. You and Aces would like me to believe that I know nothing about sexual desires at inappropriate times because I didn't serve in Vietnam. I think that argument is fallacious.

In addition, I called out aces for being rude. Then he proceeded to act like Walter Sobchack in "The Big Lebowski", and might have even been waving a Colt 45 at his computer monitor. From that I shall not demure.

Have a beer, rowdy:

:stout:
[/quote]

OMG. I just read this post. Sexual Desires has nothing to do with combat competance. You are so far off base it is to the point of being silly. I am talking about physcial makeup, strengh, mental attituce, instinct, ability to withstand intolerable conditions and on and on. Got to be honest with you here. I cannot imagine being distracted sexually by any woman when someone is trying to kill me whether it is a VC or her husband. Maybe it is just me but I think it ruins the moment.

It is definitely not logicalfor women to be in a combat situation and being inViet Nam has nothingtodo with that logic. It is common sense. you use the best tools for the job and a woman is not the correct tool inthisinstance. How many times do you havea to be told they donot have the strenght or stamina of a man. Again I use the very valid arguement of women insports. The cannot compete with men. They are not physcialy capable and the same goes for combat. If they were you would see them in pro football and basseball if they could compete. If they were capable you would have Tennis and golf matches for women and men where they would compete aganist one another. You don't because they can't. Not rocket science just common sense.

When you can put together a female football team that can compete aganist the NFL or even college level players I will consider your point of view. Until then it is proof enough that one does not exist and I am quite sure never will. Not sexist just fact.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 01:23PM)
Who here likes cigars?
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 18, 2012 01:23PM)
OK, aces, we just have to disagree on this one. I'm sorry you think I'm stupid. But, you know, maybe I am.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 01:36PM)
Cohiba?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 01:44PM)
The sports analogy, IMO, is a very poor one.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 01:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 14:23, stoneunhinged wrote:
OK, aces, we just have to disagree on this one. I'm sorry you think I'm stupid. But, you know, maybe I am.
[/quote]

OK. So we disagree. Fine.

However If I was to call you stupid I would be laughed off this forum. You may be a lot of things but stupid is not one of them...far from it.

I am busy now, I am going out to start a womans football team...ok ladies...hit the showers right after the jumping jacks. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 03:07PM)
...and I'm going to go throw a punch at Laila Ali. Somebody had better wish us luck.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 18, 2012 06:23PM)
I've been following this thread for several days now, and thinking about the original post, and finally figured I'd add my five cents' worth (that's two cents adjusted for inflation).

First, just because I'm anal, I would want to define the OP a bit more, i.e., "women" and "infantry." I met a fair amount of women in the military, and they were as different as the men: some were good at one thing and some at others; some at all and some at none. A few looked like linebackers (with an attitude to match) and the rest didn't. In general, although I tend to agree with the "no" responses, I find it hard to make that generalization.

Then there's the term "infantry," and I'm going to guess that we're talking about a rifle company or a similar unit that takes part in close combat.

But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.

Along the same lines, someone above mentioned the tendency of American men to protect women, and here again I'd question whether the unit's effectiveness would be weakened by well-meaning guys playing big brother and endangering the unit instead of sticking to their training. Would I respond differently if the soldier next to me were hit, if it was a man or a woman? I can't answer that.

Finally, as a CO, I wouldn't want anyone in my unit to get captured, but I especially wouldn't want a woman to get captured. It's bad enough to be a male POW, but I can't even imagine (or want to) what our current adversaries would do with a woman. We had an issue a couple of years back, and it did raise some very interesting questions.

So, for me, it comes down to the purpose and the mission. Join the infantry and serve the country? Sure, no problem. Grab a SAW and go on a night raid? Probably not.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 06:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.
[/quote]

That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines, and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 18, 2012 07:01PM)
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"
Message: Posted by: Steve_Mollett (Jul 18, 2012 07:05PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 14:23, critter wrote:
Who here likes cigars?
[/quote]
I like them, but no longer smoke them for health reasons.
My favorites were the Hoyo De Monterey panatella, and the Cuesta Rey 95 Maduro.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 18, 2012 07:44PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 19:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.
[/quote]

That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, [b][i]If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines,[/b][/i] and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.
[/quote]

Regarding the part of your post I put in bold and italics, I think I know what you're saying here, but not sure. I think you are saying that the men have the opportunity to serve elsewhere in the military as opposed to an infantry unit in the front line which I agree with. If you meant they can serve in the infantry but serve elsewhere in the infantry besides the front line, then that place does not exist as even the rear echelon units (the S Shops, Personnel, Intelligence, Plans and Operations and Logistics) of the infantry are still considered the front lines. One may not be actively exchanging gunfire or taking part in hand to hand combat but they are most definitely, at the very least, one mortar round from becoming a grease spot. And if the tide changes, then they could very quickly be actively fighting for their life, which is what all soldiers fight for, no one fights for God, Duty Honor or Country.

As for wanting to prove something, in a way everyone who joins such units have something to prove to themselves, be it pushing themselves to their physical, mental and emotional extremes, or because family tradition. But if a person has something really extreme to prove, such as testing their courage or trying to prove something to someone back home, then yes they should be sent elsewhere. In an airborne drop, the last thing the jump master does is go person to person and ask them if they are scared. If they are not scared, then they don't jump.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 07:49PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:44, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 19:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 19:23, George Ledo wrote:
But the question is "should they join?" and here's where I start thinking in terms of a military unit and its purpose and its mission. First, as a CO, I'd want to know why (or if) she wants to be in the front lines: does she want to serve, or does she have something to prove? If she wants to serve, she can serve in another part of the infantry besides the front lines, and if she has something to prove, I'd want her re-assigned to another unit (and I'd do the same thing with a man). Nothing personal, but I wouldn't want my unit's effectiveness (and survival) weakened by someone with a personal issue.
[/quote]

That's so weird...I was just thinking that I'd ask the men the same thing. By the same logic, [b][i]If a man wants to serve, he can serve in another part of the infantry beside the front lines,[/b][/i] and if he has something to prove, I'd want him re-assigned.

So I guess I'm left with an all-female front line, or just no front line at all.


None of which is intended to attack the other prongs of your analysis.
[/quote]

Regarding the part of your post I put in bold and italics, I think I know what you're saying here, but not sure. I think you are saying that the men have the opportunity to serve elsewhere in the military as opposed to an infantry unit in the front line which I agree with. If you meant they can serve in the infantry but serve elsewhere in the infantry besides the front line, then that place does not exist as even the rear echelon units (the S Shops, Personnel, Intelligence, Plans and Operations and Logistics) of the infantry are still considered the front lines. One may not be actively exchanging gunfire or taking part in hand to hand combat but they are most definitely, at the very least, one mortar round from becoming a grease spot. And if the tide changes, then they could very quickly be actively fighting for their life, which is what all soldiers fight for, no one fights for God, Duty Honor or Country.

As for wanting to prove something, in a way everyone who joins such units have something to prove to themselves, be it pushing themselves to their physical, mental and emotional extremes, or because family tradition. But if a person has something really extreme to prove, such as testing their courage or trying to prove something to someone back home, then yes they should be sent elsewhere. In an airborne drop, the last thing the jump master does is go person to person and ask them if they are scared. If they are not scared, then they don't jump.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 18, 2012 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"
[/quote]

I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 18, 2012 07:52PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[

I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
[/quote]

yep.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 18, 2012 08:02PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:05, Steve_Mollett wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 14:23, critter wrote:
Who here likes cigars?
[/quote]
I like them, but no longer smoke them for health reasons.
My favorites were the Hoyo De Monterey panatella, and the Cuesta Rey 95 Maduro.
[/quote]

Excellent choices. I don't smoke them often enough to do any serious damage, only when I really need to relax will I bust out a cigar and some good Scotch.
My favorites are Graycliff, Cohiba, and Punch. I'm also a maduro guy. The darker the better.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 18, 2012 09:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:50, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"
[/quote]

I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Right on. But, personally, given the options I gave, I'd go with Laila.

Best-

Bob
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 09:46PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 22:04, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:50, Dreadnought wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 20:01, mastermindreader wrote:
Like you Laila Ali reference Lobo.

To paraphrase the old Lenny Bruce line- "Who would you rather have as your partner in a combat situation, a man or a woman?"

"What if the man is Woody Allen and the woman is Laila Ali?"
[/quote]

I didn't care who the person was, as long as they did their job, pulled their weight and, at times more than their fair share, and got down to the dirty business, I could care less about their gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, race or ethnic background.

Peace and Godspeed.
[/quote]

Right on. But, personally, given the options I gave, I'd go with Laila.

Best-

Bob
[/quote]

Well as long as we get to pick I take Anderson Silva. Now lets have some hand to hand combat. :) Of course this is just as silly as the Woody Allen senario. We are not playing a game here and choosing sides. Jeeez.

Do you guys stay awake nights thinking up these senarios? :)
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 18, 2012 10:05PM)
[quote]
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
[/quote]
Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 10:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 23:05, George Ledo wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
[/quote]
Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.
[/quote]

How is it not a Hobson's choice if whatever answer they give is going to be used to get them off the front line?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 18, 2012 10:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 23:05, George Ledo wrote:
[quote]
I'm saying nothing more nor less than what George is saying; he's giving women a Hobson's Choice - if they have something to prove, they're disqualified, and if they don't, then it's no big deal if they're reassigned. You could just as easily give men then same no-win decision.
[/quote]
Okay, I can see how you may have read that into my comment, so I guess it's my bad I wasn't clear.

It's not a Hobson's Choice. It's just a matter of figuring out why someone wants to be in the front lines. The days of soldiers being cannon fodder are over, at least in our Western society. Things are too complicated nowadays to just send a division of infantry against the other side and watch them break through or not break through. If I were a CO in a combat arms unit, I'd want professionals in the unit, people who understand the real purpose of the military and who want to do their jobs. I would not want John Wayne-wannabees or grown-up bullies or guys on steroids. When the doo-doo hits the fan, these are the first people who will panic, or forget their training, or start doing weird things, and endanger everyone else. That's why I'd find out why they want to be there.

This is not unique to the military. There are cops who want to protect and serve, and there are cops who are just grown-up bullies. There are doctors who want to heal, and there are doctors who want to play God. In my field, there are set designers who want to contribute to presenting a story, and there are prima donnas who just want to create monuments to themselves. And don't even get me started on people in "public service."

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but, for me, in a military scenario, the mission comes first. I want people who understand their purpose and who want to do the job, and who are physically and mentally qualified to do the job. If someone wants to be part of it, but doesn't meet my criteria for front-line duty, I would rather have them serve elsewhere. As someone pointed out above, the back-end people in an infantry unit could end up in the front end at a moment's notice, which is why I'd want everyone trained -- equally -- to do the front-end job. But that training is exactly where some (men and women) would fall by the wayside.

And that's the way I'd want it.
[/quote]

Obviously training is important. However it has been stated here as an example that women fire fighters do not have as stringent a course to pass as their male counterparts.

A lot of this discussion is not just about training but about the ability to perform certain tasks under extremely adverse conditions after said training. How about something like a combat situation. Carrying or dragging a wounded comrade that weighs say 160 to 180 lbs a quater mile while also keeping your weapon with you. Can most females do this in ideal conditions much less under adverse conditions such as in a jungle location with all sorts of distractions such as snakes, bugs and almost forgot to mention people who want to kill you? Not only do they need the strength but they need the stamina and mental attitude to survive in this kind of situation.

I can't see how any of you can sit there in front of your computers and honetly feel that a female is an equal on the battle front. Of course on further thought maybe I can, because that is what you are doing sitting in front of your computer and also never had to face the extremes of staying alive in a very hostile enviornment with the exception of "Call of Duty". :)

While all receive the training that does not make them a canadiate for serving on the front lines whether they are male or female. However I really have to feel you have to go with the odds in this situation and it is overwhelming in favor of a male coming out on top (no pun intended). :)

You need the best tool for the job and in this instance the odds are overwhelming in favor of the male. This probably like most discussions here can go on forever and nothing anyone says will sway either camp. So believe what you want. If you feel females are just as competent as males in combat good for you believe it and be happy. I just hope you never have to put your belief to the test.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 18, 2012 10:47PM)
Okay, got it. :)

If someone said to me, "I want to be out there because I'm the meanest SOB that ever came down the path," I'd start wondering if they (he or she) could follow orders - especially when the poop hits the fan. Just like in a sports team: can he or she be part of the team and help the team instead of doing it for himself at the expense of the team?

Now that you're making me think about it, maybe that's my bottom line: can this person be part of a team where everyone's life is on the line and where they all depend on each other?

If I feel he or she can (mentally and physically) be on the front line, I'll give them a chance; if not, I'd rather find a place where they can help without compromising the mission and putting other people's lives in danger.

Eisenhower and his staff did this repeatedly during WWII, both in Africa and Europe. They assigned and reassigned generals to specific commands according to their skills and abilities and temperaments. Patton was brilliant in the field, but Ike felt he couldn't stay out of trouble long enough to command a larger unit, so he was kept where he could be the most effective. Patton wans't happy about it, but he did his job and did it very well.

Am I clearer now?
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 18, 2012 10:55PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-18 23:42, acesover wrote:
Obviously training is important. However it has been stated here as an example that women fire fighters do not have as stringent a course to pass as their male counterparts.

A lot of this discussion is not just about training but about the ability to perform certain tasks under extremely adverse conditions after said training.

While all receive the training that does not make them a canadiate for serving on the front lines whether they are male or female. However I really have to feel you have to go with the odds in this situation and it is overwhelming in favor of a male coming out on top (no pun intended). :)
[/quote]
No argument there, and that's why I said they would all train equally. I have to believe that, under "realistic" close combat training, the less physically able people would fall by the wayside, and, like it or not, in reality that would probably include most of the female soldiers. I would not want to have my unit fail a mission (or get decimated) because some of the team could not meet the physical or mental demands of the job. Yes it happens, but I would feel it extremely important to go out there ready, not just politically correct. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 18, 2012 11:20PM)
I haven't noticed (though it may have happened) anyone arguing for reducing standards. I would fully expect and not have a problem with "most of the female soldiers" washing out on physical demands. I think the point at issue is, what about the ones who don't?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 18, 2012 11:44PM)
Yes, I agree with Lobo. I, too, have NOT argued for lowering standards. Believe it or not there ARE women who can compete effectively with men in sports and everything else. To bar them from any activity based solely on their sex is, in my opinion, patently wrong and an equal protection violation.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 12:21AM)
Are there actual women with low test scores out there wanting to be in the infantry? Do a survey of the infantry and ask how many would like to be something beside infantry?

The argument is simple, can some not to sharp woman who can carry around 80 pounds of gear and doesn't mind being a prisoner do so? And not lowering standards? They have never had the same physical standards. I cannot believe we have been reduced to wanting to send big strapping dopey girls out to get shot at.

Next week; not letting women into mens prisons is unfair to women.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 12:26AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 00:44, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, I agree with Lobo. I, too, have NOT argued for lowering standards. Believe it or not there ARE women who can compete effectively with men in sports and everything else. To bar them from any activity based solely on their sex is, in my opinion, patently wrong and an equal protection violation.
[/quote]

I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.

So which sports are you refering to? I may well be missing the ones to which you are referring . Possibly archery, darts, bowling, ping pong, maybe one of these.

I did not research them because I did not claim them to be able to compete competitively. I believe I know the answer without the research, and that is none. One of the few I could see them being able to compete because I believe it to be more of a discipline is competitive pistol shooting, but even there I doubt it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 12:39AM)
Again, the sports analogy is stupid. The question isn't whether as a group they can "compete equally" either on average or at the top levels; it's whether the most qualified women would be better than the least qualified men.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 12:41AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:21, MagicSanta wrote:
Are there actual women with low test scores out there wanting to be in the infantry? Do a survey of the infantry and ask how many would like to be something beside infantry?

The argument is simple, can some not to sharp woman who can carry around 80 pounds of gear and doesn't mind being a prisoner do so? And not lowering standards? They have never had the same physical standards. I cannot believe we have been reduced to wanting to send big strapping dopey girls out to get shot at.

Next week; not letting women into mens prisons is unfair to women.
[/quote]

If one of the criteria is not minding being a prisoner, there's going to be a shortage of men for the job, too.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 12:45AM)
Upper body strength. I was not aware that soldiers bench pressed each other out of dangerous situations. I think we've all learned something today.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 12:55AM)
Lobo, I think women prisoners might face a couple different issues but hey, some are in favor of it I guess. Lobo, can you make Mills College let us fellows in?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 12:57AM)
I don't know Mills, but if they take tax money, maybe...
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 01:24AM)
Acesover-

You wrote:

[quote]I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.[/quote]

No comparison? Men dominate completely?

Simply not true...

[b]9 Great Moments of Women Beating Men in Sports:[/b]

In golf, tennis, horse racing, WRESTLING, baseball and, get this, BEST WARRIOR. Some excerpts from the article:

[quote]Army – Sherri Gallagher Wins U.S. Best Warrior Competition

Contestants are judged on events like hand-to-hand competition, night firing and weapons familiarization to determine the best soldier in the U.S.

Gallagher, considered one of the best long-rifle shooters in the country, beat out 11 other dudes to be the first woman to win the title since the competition’s inception in 2001.[/quote]

And

[quote]Baseball – Jackie Mitchell Strikes Out Murderer’s Row

In 1931, the dynasty-mode New York Yankees played an exhibition game against the minor-league Chattanooga Lookouts, who featured a 17-year-old pitcher by the name of Jackie Mitchell. Jackie was a girl, but was taught the game from a very young age by her father. When she entered the contest in the first inning, she struck out Babe Ruth on four pitches, which caused him to vow to never bat against a woman again. She only needed three for the next guy—Lou Gehrig, whom we presume was more gracious.

Rather than inspire the second wave of the Women’s Movement right then and there, Mitchell’s contract was voided only days after by then-commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who subsequently declared women unfit to play baseball, saying that it was “too strenuous.”[/quote]

http://www.thesmokingjacket.com/entertainment/women-beat-men-sports

How about kick boxing?

[quote]Kick Boxing Battle

A kickboxing battle of the sexes version took place just after the above mentioned boxing match on October 21, 1999. Amateur Muay Thai fighter Deborah "Sunshine" Fettkether, with a 4-1-1 record, fought construction worker and first-time fighter Randy Pittman. In the fight, Fettkether easily defeated Pittman 59 seconds into the first round - Pittman had no idea what he was in for.[/quote]

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/boxing/women-versus-men.htm

Ever hear of soft ball pitching great Jennie Finch?

[quote]"Some big-timers refuse to face her," Cal Ripken, Jr. says. "Many feel it could be embarrassing."[27] In an interview with ESPN, Finch explained, "I was throwing them mostly rise balls and change-ups. They've never seen a pitch like that, you know? With the closer distance from the mound, I think it really surprises them how fast the pitch gets there. And especially with the rise -- when they're used to that over-the-top release point -- there is nothing else like it. The ball movement throws them off."[28]

In the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game, Finch struck out Albert Pujols, Mike Piazza and Brian Giles.[29] "I never touched a pitch," said Giles.[15] "Her fastball was the fastest thing I've ever seen, from that distance. It rises and cuts at the same time."[15][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Finch

There is no question that there are SOME women who are equally or more qualified then men in virtually any activity. That's not an opinion. It's just the way it is.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 02:27AM)
Odds of large numberd. Why do you want women in combat you don't like em?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 02:30AM)
Who said I wanted women in combat? I certainly never did. This isn't an issue of what I want, it's simply an issue of equality under the law. If a woman who has met the standards required of a combat assignment she should not be prohibited from that assignment solely by reason of her sex.

On the other hand, here is my answer to the original question, "Should women join the infantry?" No, of course not. But if they want to and are qualified, it isn't my place to tell them they can't.

(And of course I like women. I've been married to three. :eek:)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 03:46AM)
Now that I think about it, the original question doesn't really make any sense. I've never heard of anyone "joining" the infantry. You join the Army. Whether or not you're assigned to the infantry is up to them.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 19, 2012 04:50AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:26, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 00:44, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, I agree with Lobo. I, too, have NOT argued for lowering standards. Believe it or not there ARE women who can compete effectively with men in sports and everything else. To bar them from any activity based solely on their sex is, in my opinion, patently wrong and an equal protection violation.
[/quote]

I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.

So which sports are you refering to? I may well be missing the ones to which you are referring . Possibly archery, darts, bowling, ping pong, maybe one of these.

I did not research them because I did not claim them to be able to compete competitively. I believe I know the answer without the research, and that is none. One of the few I could see them being able to compete because I believe it to be more of a discipline is competitive pistol shooting, but even there I doubt it.
[/quote]

When Chyna was in the WWF, she had to compete with men because she totally overpowered the women.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 19, 2012 04:51AM)
I remember when the celebrity boxing was on t.v. and they pitted "Chyna" from the "Pro Wrestling" fame against fatso Joey Buttafuoco. Chyna was a big weight lifter and could actually lift up male wrestlers and body slam them. She was strong. Not your typical woman. She was very very athletic and they matched her up against an old out of shape man. A lot of my friends actually thought Chyna would win.

Buttafuoco EASILY dominated that fight. Wasnt even close. He knocked her all over the ring. They even gave her a more protective headgear to wear for more protection.

My point is that to compare men against women in combat is ludicriss. If they are "equal" then put the women with the men in Boot Camp and see how equal they are. You are only as strong as your weakest link.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Jul 19, 2012 04:52AM)
But can't you apply to be assigned to the infantry?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 05:11AM)
It is hard to compare Chyna, a former professional wrestler, to some of the women I listed in my earlier post. Why not compare Billy Jean King to Bobby Riggs?

Ed- Sure you can. Unless you're a woman, apparently. But to say you "joined" the infantry would be like a sailor saying he joined the Seabees.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 19, 2012 05:16AM)
Bob,

The reason I chose that as the example is because that is a form of combat. Albeit a very "sanitized" example, it still shows what happens when someone is trying to hurt you and the reactions. Physically Im sure Chyna could bench press more than Joey. She could probably beat him at most physical challenges. But when it comes right down to it, she cant compete in a fighting situation.

Tennis is an altogether different thing.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 05:19AM)
Did you read the link I posted above about Sherri Gallagher, the woman who won the Army's "Best Warrior" competition competing against eleven men? Here's a more detailed article about her directly from the Army:

http://www.army.mil/article/47144/First_female_selected_as_Best_Warrior__039_s_Soldier_of_Year/
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 06:54AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 02:24, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

You wrote:

[quote]I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.[/quote]

No comparison? Men dominate completely?

Simply not true...

[b]9 Great Moments of Women Beating Men in Sports:[/b]

In golf, tennis, horse racing, WRESTLING, baseball and, get this, BEST WARRIOR. Some excerpts from the article:

[quote]Army – Sherri Gallagher Wins U.S. Best Warrior Competition

Contestants are judged on events like hand-to-hand competition, night firing and weapons familiarization to determine the best soldier in the U.S.

Gallagher, considered one of the best long-rifle shooters in the country, beat out 11 other dudes to be the first woman to win the title since the competition’s inception in 2001.[/quote]

And

[quote]Baseball – Jackie Mitchell Strikes Out Murderer’s Row

In 1931, the dynasty-mode New York Yankees played an exhibition game against the minor-league Chattanooga Lookouts, who featured a 17-year-old pitcher by the name of Jackie Mitchell. Jackie was a girl, but was taught the game from a very young age by her father. When she entered the contest in the first inning, she struck out Babe Ruth on four pitches, which caused him to vow to never bat against a woman again. She only needed three for the next guy—Lou Gehrig, whom we presume was more gracious.

Rather than inspire the second wave of the Women’s Movement right then and there, Mitchell’s contract was voided only days after by then-commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who subsequently declared women unfit to play baseball, saying that it was “too strenuous.”[/quote]

http://www.thesmokingjacket.com/entertainment/women-beat-men-sports

How about kick boxing?

[quote]Kick Boxing Battle

A kickboxing battle of the sexes version took place just after the above mentioned boxing match on October 21, 1999. Amateur Muay Thai fighter Deborah "Sunshine" Fettkether, with a 4-1-1 record, fought construction worker and first-time fighter Randy Pittman. In the fight, Fettkether easily defeated Pittman 59 seconds into the first round - Pittman had no idea what he was in for.[/quote]

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/boxing/women-versus-men.htm

Ever hear of soft ball pitching great Jennie Finch?

[quote]"Some big-timers refuse to face her," Cal Ripken, Jr. says. "Many feel it could be embarrassing."[27] In an interview with ESPN, Finch explained, "I was throwing them mostly rise balls and change-ups. They've never seen a pitch like that, you know? With the closer distance from the mound, I think it really surprises them how fast the pitch gets there. And especially with the rise -- when they're used to that over-the-top release point -- there is nothing else like it. The ball movement throws them off."[28]

In the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game, Finch struck out Albert Pujols, Mike Piazza and Brian Giles.[29] "I never touched a pitch," said Giles.[15] "Her fastball was the fastest thing I've ever seen, from that distance. It rises and cuts at the same time."[15][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Finch

There is no question that there are SOME women who are equally or more qualified then men in virtually any activity. That's not an opinion. It's just the way it is.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

Ha, ha. Nine times. With a post like that I believe I made my point. Come on you are as they say grasping at straws. Give it a rest. Please face reality.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 07:15AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:45, critter wrote:
Upper body strength. I was not aware that soldiers bench pressed each other out of dangerous situations. I think we've all learned something today.
[/quote]

That is OK. I am sure there are many things you are not aware of. :)
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 07:49AM)
I just enjoy watcahing you guys dig up a few, very few instances tht an incident occured and use it as if it were the norm. Come on people, you can fool some of the people all...well you get my message.

Just for your information I knew of Sherri Gallagher long before you mentioned her as I have been interested in both pistol and rifle competition for many many years and while I do not compete any more I keep up on the news of the sport. I learned a long time ago that both rifle and pistol is more of a discipline than an endurance sport. I am quite sure that I can still shoot better scores then 85 90% of those in the armed forces but could not go into combat with any of them because of my age and physcial condition or I should say lack of physcial condition. In other words I could out shoot them but would be a lousy soldier at this time. Not to mention that I have yet to ever see a paper target shoot back. :

If the winner of a firefight was determined by who shot the most x's under timed fire I would definitely select Sherri. However if the winner was decided who came out of a fire fight alive that broke out while walking through the jungle and you were fired upon by an unseen enemy and probably lost 2 or 3 men instantly I would look elsewhere.
However I would love to have her as a sniper if she could emotionally handle it.
While this thread is not about Sherri she is a very unique individual and deserves a tremendous amount of credit and respect for her accomplishments and perhaps would make an excellent combat soldier. There must be something in her genes as her mother was also an exceptional competitive shooter.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 08:00AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 00:44, mastermindreader wrote:
Yes, I agree with Lobo. I, too, have NOT argued for lowering standards. Believe it or not there ARE women who can compete effectively with men in sports and everything else. To bar them from any activity based solely on their sex is, in my opinion, patently wrong and an equal protection violation.
[/quote]

This topic has never been about banning women. It is about their ability to function as COMBAT SOLDIERS under fire and duress. It is not about violating their rights. It is not a rights violation it is about them surviving and not endangering the lives of their fellow soldiers. As this is just getting weird I can only say that I served under very adverse conditions and none of the women I know would be able to stand up and do the things we did. For the MOST overwhelming part their bone stsructure is smaller and their muscle mass is smaller and I don't want to get into their emotional state as that could start another topic entirely but after 3 wives ask mastermindreader. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 09:29AM)
Acesover-

You were the one who said that in all of the sports you mentioned, women dominate COMPLETELY.

I have shown that is demonstrably false. And I guess you have no explanation for the fact that a woman won the Army's "Best Warrior."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 19, 2012 09:44AM)
Do you actually believe that women in basic training are held to the same standards as men? Have you spoken with anyone who has been through mixed-sex basic training at for example Fort Jackson in the past decade?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 09:57AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 10:44, Woland wrote:
Do you actually believe that women in basic training are held to the same standards as men?
[/quote]

Where do you get that conclusion from my posts? I have said repeatedly that I believe that women should not be restricted from any form of service BASED SOLELY ON THEIR SEX. I have also repeatedly said that those who may be allowed in combat roles should have THE SAME MENTAL AND PHYSICAL qualifications as the men.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 10:57, mastermindreader wrote:
I have also repeatedly said that those who may be allowed in combat roles should have THE SAME MENTAL AND PHYSICAL qualifications as the men.
[/quote]

I agree. Which I would hope would be based on the current physical fitness standards for men. Not by lowering the male standards in order to qualify more women. Look at what it takes to score a 300 PFT for male Marines and look what it takes to score a 300 for females. Making the male standard the standard for combat soldiers across the board would be a good first step.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:20, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 10:57, mastermindreader wrote:
I have also repeatedly said that those who may be allowed in combat roles should have THE SAME MENTAL AND PHYSICAL qualifications as the men.
[/quote]

I agree. Which I would hope would be based on the current physical fitness standards for men. Not by lowering the male standards in order to qualify more women. Look at what it takes to score a 300 PFT for male Marines and look what it takes to score a 300 for females. Making the male standard the standard for combat soldiers across the board would be a good first step.
[/quote]

I agree. And I am thankful that someone has finally understood the point Lobo and I have been making.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 10:29AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:45, critter wrote:
Upper body strength. I was not aware that soldiers bench pressed each other out of dangerous situations. I think we've all learned something today.
[/quote]

You don't think upper body strength is important to a combat soldier?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 19, 2012 10:34AM)
Thanks, Bob. I think you've answered the question regarding theoretical qualifications. What about concerns for unit cohesiveness and discipline?
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 10:36AM)
[quote]
I agree. And I am thankful that someone has finally understood the point Lobo and I have been making.
[/quote]

And if they didn't lower the standard I think the question would pretty much take care of itself. You'd have a very few women that made it through and it wouldn't be much of an issue. But honestly, I do believe that if they did that, and say 98 +/- percent of females who tried washed out, there would people saying it's an unfair situation and the standards need to be lowered. We'd be right back where we are. You can pretty much take that to the bank.

I'm sure when the issue of allowing women in the Military in the first place came up a lot of people said "as long as they can meet the same requirements as the men, I'm all for it". But then they realized that doesn't really work. That's why we have two sets of standards now.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 10:40AM)
My only point is this: Assume that 98% cannot meet the standards. Fine. The other 2% should be allowed in combat roles. As has been shown, there ARE women - admittedly not many - who CAN meet the standards and they should not be discriminated against based solely on their sex.

As to the sports issue - I still think its funny that after a woman pitcher defeated a men's team, the league ruled that women were no longer eligible to play. If that's not blatant sexism, I don't know what is. (See the link I posted earlier for the full story on this.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 06:19, mastermindreader wrote:
Did you read the link I posted above about Sherri Gallagher, the woman who won the Army's "Best Warrior" competition competing against eleven men? Here's a more detailed article about her directly from the Army:

http://www.army.mil/article/47144/First_female_selected_as_Best_Warrior__039_s_Soldier_of_Year/
[/quote]

Yes, but if they'd made them [i]box[/i]...
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 10:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:29, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:45, critter wrote:
Upper body strength. I was not aware that soldiers bench pressed each other out of dangerous situations. I think we've all learned something today.
[/quote]

You don't think upper body strength is important to a combat soldier?
[/quote]

Oh, I know it's important. But I think leg strength and endurance are more important. It was kind of intended as humor anyway.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 10:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:40, mastermindreader wrote:
My only point is this: Assume that 98% cannot meet the standards. Fine. The other 2% should be allowed in combat roles. As has been shown, there ARE women - admittedly not many - who CAN meet the standards and they should not be discriminated against based solely on their sex.
[/quote]

No, I know what you are saying. I think there are a whole host of reasons it's not a great idea. That's my opinion. But the physical requirements always seem to be the first argument people bring up. To me the answer is simple. Figure out the requirements an individual needs, based on the actual job, and apply it evenly across the board. And go from there.

The fact is there are two sets of standards right now. I don't think that's "fair" necessarily. Again, for several reasons. But if you are talking about combat infantry I believe there should one standard for anyone who chooses to become a battlefield combatant. And I think the standard should be quite high. It's no joke of a job.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 10:54AM)
I am not going to belabor my point of view. However please read what this contest consists of. Here is the link. http://www.army.mil/bestwarrior/2010/events.html

If you were a grunt and served tell me how most of these things come into play in a real situation. Like we need to know laws etc. I am sure we broke many laws in our tours and that is the real world not a contest. Go with your feelings that women are as capable and I wil go with mine. However my reson for the way I feel is because I was there. Yours is because you read something somewhere written by someone. Whatever. Can't forget that fast pitch girl. :)

I know that when in Nam, current events and and counseling and US government and the constitution really helped us immensely...your kidding right? Yet this is an integral part of the best warrior competition...well I guess none of my guys would have faired to well in this test. We just survied (that is some of us) and killed a few of the enemy along the way and...well better left unsaid.

It seems very little of this contest is based on "survival and killing" which is what I feel a combat situation is all about. You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. Believe what you want. I know what I believe so I Believe what I want. We can definitely coexist.

Just asking. Do you feel that best warrior competition means that the person who wins this competition is the most competent soldier in the armed forces and can overcome all other opponents in a combat situation? Or did they win some sort of contest that much of it has nothing to do with combat at all?

Not taking anything away from any of the winners and while winning this contest is something to be extremely proud of it has very litle to do with surviving in combat. Having said that I would have in my prime not even been able to qualify to compete other than in rifle. But I feel I came out a winner as I survived in real life and death situations and am here to talk about it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 10:58AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:54, acesover wrote:
Not taking anything away from any of the winners and while winning this contest is something to be extremely proud of it has very litle to do with surviving in combat. Having said that I would have in my prime not even been able to qualify to compete other than in rifle. But I feel I came out a winner as I survived in real life and death situations and am here to talk about it.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 10:59AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:52, critter wrote:
Oh, I know it's important. But I think leg strength and endurance are more important. It was kind of intended as humor anyway.
[/quote]

I know you were kidding. But if you had to do it for a while you might think different. "More important" is based on a situation. There are defiantely times where you need pure upper body strength and all the endurance in the world, or leg strength, won't do you a bit of good. I'm sure you can think of a few. That's why pullups, and flexed arm hangs for women, are one of the things that are tested in the basic physical fitness test. They don't test how many squats anyone can do.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 11:01AM)
Yeah, I can think of a bunch. I was just thinking of the specific instance of helping an injured comrade when I typed that. "Lift with the legs."
But, mostly, I just liked the visual.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 11:02AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:01, critter wrote:
Yeah, I was just thinking of helping an injured comrade. "Lift with the legs."
[/quote]

What if you have to pull them out of a hole? lol
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:58, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 11:54, acesover wrote:
Not taking anything away from any of the winners and while winning this contest is something to be extremely proud of it has very litle to do with surviving in combat. Having said that I would have in my prime not even been able to qualify to compete other than in rifle. But I feel I came out a winner as I survived in real life and death situations and am here to talk about it.
[/quote]
[/quote]

I don't know if this is a late April Fool's Day joke or something, but you do realize that *you* were the one constantly bringing up sports analogies when you thought they were "proving" your point. So, just to clarify, it's your position that the military warrior competition doesn't tell us anything about combat fitness, but we can learn a lot from professional tennis? Sometimes LOL doesn't say it.




[quote]
On 2012-07-19 01:26, acesover wrote:

I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.
I did not research them because I did not claim them to be able to compete competitively. I believe I know the answer without the research, and that is none. One of the few I could see them being able to compete because I believe it to be more of a discipline is competitive pistol shooting, but even there I doubt it.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 11:06AM)
[quote]acesover wrote:

You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. [/quote]

Easily the most ridiculous misstatement of my opinions that I have ever read. Congratulations.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 11:08AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:02, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:01, critter wrote:
Yeah, I was just thinking of helping an injured comrade. "Lift with the legs."
[/quote]

What if you have to pull them out of a hole? lol
[/quote]

So now it's back to the sexuality argument... :lol:
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 11:12AM)
Not to denegrate Sgt. Gallagher, it's a big deal what she did. But I do think that competition is a bit silly. If I thought for one minute that she was the finest "warrior" this country has to offer... I'd be downright frightened. I know that's probably an unpopular thing to say... But I'm saying anyhow.

I will make allowances that that's an Army competition. Maybe she is the best the Armys got. I'm still on team USMC.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 11:13AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:08, critter wrote:
What if you have to pull them out of a hole? lol
[/quote]

Hello!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 11:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 02:24, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover-

You wrote:

[quote]I definitely have to disagree and would like to know what sports that they can compete equally with a male. I will not even go with the extremely physcial sports such as baseball, basketball, or football. How about Tennis, Golf or even Billiards. There is no comparsion. Men dominate completely.[/quote]

No comparison? Men dominate completely?

Simply not true...

[b]9 Great Moments of Women Beating Men in Sports:[/b]

In golf, tennis, horse racing, WRESTLING, baseball and, get this, BEST WARRIOR. Some excerpts from the article:

[quote]Army – Sherri Gallagher Wins U.S. Best Warrior Competition

Contestants are judged on events like hand-to-hand competition, night firing and weapons familiarization to determine the best soldier in the U.S.

Gallagher, considered one of the best long-rifle shooters in the country, beat out 11 other dudes to be the first woman to win the title since the competition’s inception in 2001.[/quote]

And

[quote]Baseball – Jackie Mitchell Strikes Out Murderer’s Row

In 1931, the dynasty-mode New York Yankees played an exhibition game against the minor-league Chattanooga Lookouts, who featured a 17-year-old pitcher by the name of Jackie Mitchell. Jackie was a girl, but was taught the game from a very young age by her father. When she entered the contest in the first inning, she struck out Babe Ruth on four pitches, which caused him to vow to never bat against a woman again. She only needed three for the next guy—Lou Gehrig, whom we presume was more gracious.

Rather than inspire the second wave of the Women’s Movement right then and there, Mitchell’s contract was voided only days after by then-commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, who subsequently declared women unfit to play baseball, saying that it was “too strenuous.”[/quote]

http://www.thesmokingjacket.com/entertainment/women-beat-men-sports

How about kick boxing?

[quote]Kick Boxing Battle

A kickboxing battle of the sexes version took place just after the above mentioned boxing match on October 21, 1999. Amateur Muay Thai fighter Deborah "Sunshine" Fettkether, with a 4-1-1 record, fought construction worker and first-time fighter Randy Pittman. In the fight, Fettkether easily defeated Pittman 59 seconds into the first round - Pittman had no idea what he was in for.[/quote]

http://www.topendsports.com/sport/boxing/women-versus-men.htm

Ever hear of soft ball pitching great Jennie Finch?

[quote]"Some big-timers refuse to face her," Cal Ripken, Jr. says. "Many feel it could be embarrassing."[27] In an interview with ESPN, Finch explained, "I was throwing them mostly rise balls and change-ups. They've never seen a pitch like that, you know? With the closer distance from the mound, I think it really surprises them how fast the pitch gets there. And especially with the rise -- when they're used to that over-the-top release point -- there is nothing else like it. The ball movement throws them off."[28]

In the 2004 Pepsi All-Star Softball Game, Finch struck out Albert Pujols, Mike Piazza and Brian Giles.[29] "I never touched a pitch," said Giles.[15] "Her fastball was the fastest thing I've ever seen, from that distance. It rises and cuts at the same time."[15][/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennie_Finch

There is no question that there are SOME women who are equally or more qualified then men in virtually any activity. That's not an opinion. It's just the way it is.

Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

You seem to like to pick out specifics to prove a general point such as tthat lady softball pitcher. Well let me pickout a specific also...of course mine will be a man but lets matach them aganist each other as we have the best of both whereas you pick the best to pit aganist the norm. Better to compare apples to apples thanthe way you do it. The greatest softball player to have lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Feigner
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 11:14AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:06, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]acesover wrote:

You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. [/quote]

Easily the most ridiculous misstatement of my opinions that I have ever read. Congratulations.
[/quote]

I have no idea what the most ridiculous misstatement of one of my positions was, but I know who made it (and the other 9 on the top 10 list).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 11:16AM)
[quote]Women now make up 14.6 percent of the US military. Since 2001, more than 255,000 women have been deployed to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, where more than 120 have been killed and almost 700 wounded. Many women have earned combat awards for valor – including two Silver Stars. Women are killing the enemy, saving lives, and showing great bravery and valor in combat conditions. They are also crucial for searching local women and children for weapons at checkpoints and during raids, and engaging with the female population as part of counterinsurgency strategy.

Yet the Army is gaming the restrictions by assigning women to permissible positions, but attaching them to combat units to get the mission done. The current policy is a legal fiction, which not only degrades combat efficiency, effectiveness, and flexibility, but confuses military commanders.

Almost all the arguments against homosexuals serving openly in the military have been used to keep these 220,000 positions closed to women: Their presence will disrupt cohesion; there will be insurmountable privacy issues; there will be sexual tensions; they don't (as a class) have what it takes. Courts usually don't meddle in the business of military affairs, but last September, US District Court Judge Virginia Phillips decided such arguments were baseless for restrictions on homosexuals in the military. The secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Congress, and the president agreed. With this historic change, there are no more legitimate arguments for keeping qualified women out of any position in the military. Especially in a time of war, we need to pick the best "man" for every job, even if she is a woman.[/quote]

Complete article can be read at http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0128/US-military-s-last-barrier-to-equality-ban-on-women-in-combat
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 11:19AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:14, acesover wrote:
The greatest softball player to have lived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Feigner
[/quote]

Now this is threadworthy in itself and probably worth derailing this thread entirely. I LOVED the King and his Court!
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 11:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:06, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]acesover wrote:

You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. [/quote]

Easily the most ridiculous misstatement of my opinions that I have ever read. Congratulations.
[/quote]

Bob not misstating your opoinions . I am only stating what is in the contest, and just telling you how this contest is judged is kind of silly. If you use the criteria in this contest I am only pointing how useless much of it is and yet the winner is called the best or whatever warrior..
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:14, acesover wrote:
You seem to like to pick out specifics to prove a general point such as tthat lady softball pitcher.
[/quote]

What you seem to fail to realize (or at least do a remarkable job of failing to acknowledge) is that neither Bob, nor I, nor anyone disagreeing with you here is making a "general point."

In fact, it's quite the reverse. It is you who is using generalities to try to make a specific point. Nobody is saying that men and women, as groups, are equally physically capable.

What some of us is saying is that even if 99,995 of the 100,000 most capable are men, if you pick a unit of 100,000 and exclude women, you won't have the most capable out there. In fact, you'll have exactly what you are deriding - a unit in which some subpar members (the bottom 5) were selected because of their sex, not their qualifications.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 11:32AM)
Either acesover is intentionally misstating my position or he simply doesn't understand it. I am using specifics to demonstrate that generalities do NOT apply to ALL people. He is the one speaking in generalities and ignoring or dismissing any and all examples that prove that his generalities do not ALWAYS apply.

As to him misstating my position, I wish he would point out where I said anything as inane as:

[quote]You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. [/quote]

Sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous and false. I think that it is HE who feels that his being correct is all that matters- even if it means misstating my positions and attacking straw men.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 12:10PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:22, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:14, acesover wrote:
You seem to like to pick out specifics to prove a general point such as tthat lady softball pitcher.
[/quote]

What you seem to fail to realize (or at least do a remarkable job of failing to acknowledge) is that neither Bob, nor I, nor anyone disagreeing with you here is making a "general point."

In fact, it's quite the reverse. It is you who is using generalities to try to make a specific point. Nobody is saying that men and women, as groups, are equally physically capable.

What some of us is saying is that even if 99,995 of the 100,000 most capable are men, if you pick a unit of 100,000 and exclude women, you won't have the most capable out there. In fact, you'll have exactly what you are deriding - a unit in which some subpar members (the bottom 5) were selected because of their sex, not their qualifications.
[/quote]

In your hypothetical example of 100,000 and 99,995 you seem to believe that a 1 out of 20,000 makes a difference. There comes a point when the law of diminishing returns come into play when making decisions. How did you decide that 5 of these women out of the thousands upon thousands that apply are more apt to be more qualified?

Are you saying that we should test let us say 15,000 women to find 1 or 2 or 3 that is qualified? Because remember all of the applicants have the possibility of being on the front line. Lets be realistic here we are picking 100,000 combatants and you feel we shoud now try and find 5 women who are better fit then the least 5 combat ready males. If this is your theory you definitely belong in government because I cannot think of a more frivilous way to waste taxpayer money than your theory. Just pick the 100,000 men and be right 99,995 times out of 100,000 but leave out of the equation the 15,000 women applicants. There are many positions that they are more than capable of serving in. Why cause anxeity among the troops as they aleady have enough to worry about when heding into a combat situation without throwing women into the mix.

I am not saying that they are not willing to give their all. I am saying that for the most part a male is going to be more qualified (odds) and other males are going to be more at ease with a male for backing him up.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 12:14PM)
If you're in factor of sacrificing quality for arbitrary gender quotas, it's ok...you have lots of company. I just wouldn't have expected it from you.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 12:23PM)
Just saw a political commercial.....we can outsource our military.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 12:25PM)
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 12:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 12:32, mastermindreader wrote:
Either acesover is intentionally misstating my position or he simply doesn't understand it. I am using specifics to demonstrate that generalities do NOT apply to ALL people. He is the one speaking in generalities and ignoring or dismissing any and all examples that prove that his generalities do not ALWAYS apply.

As to him misstating my position, I wish he would point out where I said anything as inane as:

[quote]You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it. [/quote]

Sorry, but that is absolutely ridiculous and false. I think that it is HE who feels that his being correct is all that matters- even if it means misstating my positions and attacking straw men.
[/quote]

Don't bring into play the straw man. I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation. Read the first page of your comments. I amnot making it up. I will admit you sort of, and I say sort of, hedge what you say becausse you use the word qualify...but then go on to talk about fire fighters and such and we all know the qualifications are reduced for them. You also state that I believe it is your daughter is as capable as any man in the Navy or on the same ship which leads one to believe that either she is exceptional (and all of my daughters are exceptional in my eyes :) ) or you ae trying to prove that women in general are as competent in rigorous tasks as men. Well it isn't so.

So I am in no way mistating your position.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 12:27PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.
[/quote]

I can finally agree with what you are sayng here as most of my position has been from Nam. The conflicts now are quite different.

This does give pause.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 12:50PM)
What do you mean you are not misstating my position? Did you even read what you wrote and what I am specifically referring to? Here, I'll quote you AGAIN:

[quote]You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it.[/quote]

THAT IS NOT MY POSITION. IT IS A STRAW MAN.

I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, acesover wrote:
I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation.
[/quote]


Ok, this has been an interesting thread, but clearly this statement reveals that it's been a gag. Great joke!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 19, 2012 01:09PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-19 13:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If you're in [b][i]factor[/i][/b] of sacrificing quality . . . .[/quote]
I hope that you don't use that iPad for BBO.

Though it might explain some things . . . .
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 19, 2012 01:10PM)
Women have been fighting on the frontlines since the dawn of time - maybe not in the military, but they've been there fighting to protect their lives, children, homes...

As for them actually fighting in combat roles in the front lines of the military - I'm undecided - in which case I always come down on the side of democracy - if they can do the job - let them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:09, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-07-19 13:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If you're in [b][i]factor[/i][/b] of sacrificing quality . . . .[/quote]
I hope that you don't use that iPad for BBO.

Though it might explain some things . . . .
[/quote]

Fortunately for me (and you!) BBO doesn't work on the iPad.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 19, 2012 01:19PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-19 14:11, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On 2012-07-19 14:09, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-07-19 13:14, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If you're in [b][i]factor[/i][/b] of sacrificing quality . . . .[/quote]
I hope that you don't use that iPad for BBO.

Though it might explain some things . . . .[/quote]
Fortunately for me (and you!) BBO doesn't work on the iPad.[/quote]
Now . . . if only The Magic Café didn't . . . .
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 01:25PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, acesover wrote:
I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation.
[/quote]


Ok, this has been an interesting thread, but clearly this statement reveals that it's been a gag. Great joke!!
[/quote]

It has to be a joke, Lobo, because I can't believe that ANYONE who has read and understood my posts could conclude that is my position.

His statement is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. He completely misunderstands or intentionally mischaracterizes my (and your) position, and then attacks that mischaracterization.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 01:26PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:50, mastermindreader wrote:
What do you mean you are not misstating my position? Did you even read what you wrote and what I am specifically referring to? Here, I'll quote you AGAIN:

[quote]You may think differently and when being attacked you can quote the US constitution to the enemy and counsel him, maybe pass on some anger management ideas to calm him down. That should work. Bang your dead and so is your bud, you just bought the farm. You feel you are correct and that is all that matters. So be it.[/quote]

THAT IS NOT MY POSITION. IT IS A STRAW MAN.

I can only conclude that you are being intentionally obtuse.
[/quote]

It is obvious that you do not even know what the tests are in the contest you speak of when talking about the winner of your contest. They must know about the constitution, and understand certain laws and know how to counsel. Read what is in the contest and then tell me how it pertains to staying alive in combat. Le tme repeat staying alive in combat. STAYING ALIVE IN COMBAT..that is quite important, more so than understanding the constitution and counseling and whatever other things they put in there such as looking good is also one of the criteria.

That is what is meant when I say you may think differently when being attacked. I don''t think the above requirements are going to help. However they help win your contest for the ultimate warrior. Jeeez.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 01:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:25, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, acesover wrote:
I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation.
[/quote]


Ok, this has been an interesting thread, but clearly this statement reveals that it's been a gag. Great joke!!
[/quote]

It has to be a joke, Lobo, because I can't believe that ANYONE who has read and understood my posts could conclude that is my position.

His statement is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. He completely misunderstands or intentionally mischaracterizes my (and your) position, and then attacks that mischaracterization.
[/quote]

OK. Lets assume I don't understand your position. What is it? However I ask that your answer takes into consideration Viet Nam because you know that is where I have been arguing from.

I wil cocede that womencancompete woith men in combat and sports. They just can't win with any consistency. Not a difficult concept to understand. Even a blind chicken finds corn once in a while.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 19, 2012 01:41PM)
They do quite well in spelling bees also.

;( - You fixed it up before I posted. :)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 01:42PM)
Viet Nam has nothing to do with your original post any more than World War II or Korea do. The poll you cited at the outset was clearly about how people feel about women joining TODAY'S military.

If you want to know my position, just take a moment to actually read my posts carefully.

Then you will know.

I'm not going to waste any effort typing it out for at least the fifth time. But here it is as briefly and concisely as I can put it.

Women who can meet the same mental and physical standards for combat as men should not be refused combat assignment based SOLELY on their sex.

That is a far cry from your broad conclusion that I believe all women should be allowed to serve in combat.

When you just conceded that SOME women can, in fact, compete with men in combat and sports you effectively conceded to my entire argument.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 01:50PM)
I'm sorry Destiny, you're not allowed to talk about spelling bees unless you've competed in at least a regional level event. I believe that I'm the only one here with state spelling bee experience, so my opinion trumps all others, even the ones I don't understand. The rest of you just read about spelling bees. :P
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 01:53PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:26, acesover wrote:
Read what is in the contest and then tell me how it pertains to staying alive in combat. Le tme repeat staying alive in combat. STAYING ALIVE IN COMBAT
[/quote]

I can see where you thought a few days ago that playing golf had a lot to do with staying alive in combat.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 01:53PM)
I am confused by this thread.

Is the question concerning women having to opportunity to become infantry?

If so are you accepting that no standards be changed including that no ,special accomidations' be made due to their being women?

I doubt you are saying to take women and place them in the same living quarters and open bay showers and have them meet the exact same physical standards. I think ten seconds after saying to let them in special accomidations will start because we would have to.

You are, equal opportunity types, aware that there are special units, not all combat, which have standards based on height and body type? Should they also be forced to accept anyone and dismiss the standards?

What next? Outlaw same sex universities and private schools being forced to accept the other sex? What about black universities, should we force them to change their student body to reflect the state they are in?

There is one standard that certain jobs should have and that is physical for certain military, police, and fire fighting jobs. The fact is in the case of fire fighters and police the groups had lower standards which has not been a good thing and has cost lives.

I believe in equality and with some exceptions I have stated in jobs. Their are jobs in the military that people in wheelchairs etc could do and I don't have issues with them joining up and doing those jobs. Women can do any job the same as guys. It is limited to knack, brains, and desire. I, for example, could never be a nurse or doctor, I can't cut on people or give shots. I am thankful those people exists. When it comes to bosses I prefer a woman, always have. I am pro women, gay, minority, and pro myself as well yet I seem to have no one waving signs for me (Greenpeace 'save the whales' does not count). But if I am trapped in a building and I am not rescued because a 102 pound woman or man cannot break down the door I am going to be miffed.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 19, 2012 01:58PM)
I certainly believe they should have the same capabilities as the current incumbents to do the job and strongly disagree with changing standards in any job in order to look succesful in including the previously excluded.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 02:04PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:53, MagicSanta wrote:
I am confused by this thread.

Is the question concerning women having to opportunity to become infantry?

If so are you accepting that no standards be changed including that no ,special accomidations' be made due to their being women?

I doubt you are saying to take women and place them in the same living quarters and open bay showers and have them meet the exact same physical standards. I think ten seconds after saying to let them in special accomidations will start because we would have to.

You are, equal opportunity types, aware that there are special units, not all combat, which have standards based on height and body type? Should they also be forced to accept anyone and dismiss the standards?

What next? Outlaw same sex universities and private schools being forced to accept the other sex? What about black universities, should we force them to change their student body to reflect the state they are in?

There is one standard that certain jobs should have and that is physical for certain military, police, and fire fighting jobs. The fact is in the case of fire fighters and police the groups had lower standards which has not been a good thing and has cost lives.

I believe in equality and with some exceptions I have stated in jobs. Their are jobs in the military that people in wheelchairs etc could do and I don't have issues with them joining up and doing those jobs. Women can do any job the same as guys. It is limited to knack, brains, and desire. I, for example, could never be a nurse or doctor, I can't cut on people or give shots. I am thankful those people exists. When it comes to bosses I prefer a woman, always have. I am pro women, gay, minority, and pro myself as well yet I seem to have no one waving signs for me (Greenpeace 'save the whales' does not count). But if I am trapped in a building and I am not rescued because a 102 pound woman or man cannot break down the door I am going to be miffed.
[/quote]

Perhaps the confusion comes from chasing the straw men. If you read my posts and Bob's, you'll see no suggestion of, or support for, lowering standards. In fact, you'll see least a dozen references explicitly saying or strongly suggesting the exact opposite.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 02:12PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:53, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:26, acesover wrote:
Read what is in the contest and then tell me how it pertains to staying alive in combat. Le tme repeat staying alive in combat. STAYING ALIVE IN COMBAT
[/quote]

I can see where you thought a few days ago that playing golf had a lot to do with staying alive in combat.
[/quote]

and how did you arrive at that conclusion? Or are you back to the arguement where you believe women can compete with men on a level playng field in sports such as golf. If so...well Believe what you want. Its been tried and they cannot make the cut.

When you take the best of the best and pit them aganist one another the women lose. When you take the average ability of each group the women lose. When you take the worse of the worse in each froup the women lose.

However you like to take the best woman and compare her to the average male or the worst male and then you say , see she can compete.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 02:16PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 15:04, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Perhaps the confusion comes from chasing the straw men. If you read my posts and Bob's, you'll see no suggestion of, or support for, lowering standards. In fact, you'll see least a dozen references explicitly saying or strongly suggesting the exact opposite.
[/quote]

I think it comes down to whether or not a person really WANTS to see women in infantry roles. Or if they simply think they should be allowed if the person can meet the current standards of their male counterparts. I think some people are under the impression that you and Bob somehow want to see female grunts, when in fact you are just saying that someone who can meet the requirements should be allowed to become one..

Those people who would very much like to see women in those positions might agree at first with your position. But I have a feeling they would not be pleased with the amount of women who ulimately made it through. It wouldn't be long before they started calling for a lowered standard. Certainly these types of discussions took place back when the notion of allowing women in the armed forces first came up. And in the end what was settled on was two seperate standards for physical fitness. We have two standards in the interest of "fairness". Which means, I suppose, that somewhere along the line someone decided that true equality in that area didn't exist. Or at the very least was quite rare.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 02:20PM)
However if we can get the enemy to send its inferior troops aganist our best women troops I think the women MAY win. We should ask the enemy if they are willing to do this. :) :) :)
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 02:29PM)
War is not static even though its basic underlying principle is the same, that being the total and complete destruction of the opposing force by any means necessary. Most people cannot stomach that principle so they enact rules and laws trying to civilize it, nevertheless, the principle is to destroy the enemy.

What does change is the strategy and tactics. As Bob pointed out, today's wars are not regulated to a "frontline." This is due to many different reasons, chief and foremost, the enemy and the terrain. We are fighting an ideal not a specific enemy. Our front line is world wide not some particular chunk of land. Our terrain is urban, which is the most difficult because it has to be fought city by city, block by block, house by house. This type of terrain does not allow a front line as the battle is not just regulated to your direct front. Therefore, women and men, serving in traditional non-combatant roles (logistics, intelligence and especially the military police) are seeing greater military action as opposed to being safely tucked away in the rear. Women have answered the call and have stepped up and delivered. They may be in a hummer as opposed to an M1A1 or M1A deuce, or lugging an 85 lb ruck sack, but they are equipped with the same equipment and trained in the same tactics as their male counter parts.

In the future I foresee women in infantry units serving in combat roles. I do not see them being awarded a Ranger or Special Forces tab, because of a special condition required in passing those respective schools, however they are already assigned or attached to those units in a merely support role, which means they have to meet the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men. I do not know about SF units, but in a Ranger Bat they are housed in other barracks.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 02:35PM)
I don't know what a strawman is outside of Oz.

Here is the fact concerning physical testing in the Navy and Marines. I don't know about the army. The standards are and always have been different based on sex and age.

The issue about infantry from what I know, which isn't much since I intentionally avoided the mud crawling. In combat situations with actual combat and movement will not allow for special accomidations. So let's say that is acceptable and we have a pack of six foot tall 180 pound women (who bt military standards are sexy). Scoopin and poopin and staring at big words with the fella's and fornicating every few minutes girls with girls, boys wit boys. Boys wit girls, and one group of three girls and two guys. Let us also assume we programed the fella's to not following instinct and wanting to protect the women. We still have to deal with the fact that if captured rape and all that stuff will go on and I am bothered by that aspect. That is one thing we cannot control.

When I was in because we were the experiment and my stand was the same, what happens to prisoners. Heck, even in wars where they sent in children they tended to not send in women as troops.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 02:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 15:29, Dreadnought wrote:

however they are already assigned or attached to those units in a merely support role, which means they have to meet the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men. [/quote]

I agree with most of what you say. But that statement is not exactly true. I'm not trying to argue with you because I understand your general idea. But I think if you re-examine that statement you will understand what I mean as well.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 02:53PM)
I don't know why it's not true. I was in Ranger Bat and we had two women attached to us, one served in PAC and the other in supply, they were both assigned to the S shops not at company level. One was housed at 9th Avaition and the other at 9th Signal, I think that was the units they came from. One was there a year and one longer, I don't know how long as I came down on orders for Germany and she was still in PAC when I out processed. I knew of two women who wore green berets and had the 5th SF group on their shoulder. All were airborne qualified and none wore their particular unit's tab. The two women assigned to our battalion had to maintain their airborne qualification which meant, at times, a forced march with combat dress. When we went to the field, they went. If we deployed, they deployed with us.

To Santa: In terms of physical assessment.The army is the same way in terms of physical assessment, age and gender.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 03:00PM)
Also, Defcon levels change. I would imagine that Defcon 1 is the same. Defcon 1 (Nuclear War or invasion is imminent), during the Cold War era, called for, and I would imagine, still calls for, all able bodied citizens to include women and children. Just what role women and children would play, I have never been real sure of, be it manning a defensive position or helping out in medical and supply units.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 03:05PM)
I agree with Dread we just have to give seminars on sensativity to the enemy. It can be like OSHA, we require the enemy to pass a test and they get a special wrist band to wear.

We will even change the green beret song

Put rainbow bands upon their wrist
It indicates they chased their bliss
These burly people are Americas best
Let's ignore their arse and chest
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 03:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 15:53, Dreadnought wrote:
I don't know why it's not true. I was in Ranger Bat and we had two women attached to us, one served in PAC and the other in supply.

In terms of physical assessment.The army is the same way in terms of physical assessment, age and gender.
[/quote]

I don't know much about the Army but I believe you just explained why it's not true at the end of your comment. Someone in supply or PAC (is that personnel?) or admin in general takes the same annual PFT that everyone else does. Correct? There is no seperate PFT (I'm going say PFT because I'm not sure what the Army calls it. But I mean a Physical Fitness Test) based on MOS is there?

So a woman who went to admin school has not had to meet even the same physical requirements of a male who goes to the same school. Because there are seperate PFT's for men and women. Not to mention that Infantry Training school is more rigorous physically than most admin type schools. See what I'm saying?

So couldn't a person easily be attached to, or be stationed in, a "combat zone" without having met the same physical requirements as the infantry troops they are supporting? Or, in fact, not even met the same physical requirements as the men who share the same MOS?
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 03:07PM)
Those new lyrics make sense considering that statue they have. If you really want to pi88 off a green beret, just refer to that statue by it's nickname.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 03:17PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 15:35, MagicSanta wrote:
I don't know what a strawman is outside of Oz.

Here is the fact concerning physical testing in the Navy and Marines. I don't know about the army. The standards are and always have been different based on sex and age.

The issue about infantry from what I know, which isn't much since I intentionally avoided the mud crawling. In combat situations with actual combat and movement will not allow for special accomidations. So let's say that is acceptable and we have a pack of six foot tall 180 pound women (who bt military standards are sexy). Scoopin and poopin and staring at big words with the fella's and fornicating every few minutes girls with girls, boys wit boys. Boys wit girls, and one group of three girls and two guys. Let us also assume we programed the fella's to not following instinct and wanting to protect the women. We still have to deal with the fact that if captured rape and all that stuff will go on and I am bothered by that aspect. That is one thing we cannot control.

When I was in because we were the experiment and my stand was the same, what happens to prisoners. Heck, even in wars where they sent in children they tended to not send in women as troops.
[/quote]

A straw man is an easy-to-defeat argument that you attribute to your opponent, even though he doesn't hold it. you put words in his mouth, and set up the straw man so you can knock it down.

In this cases, Aces has repeatedly said or suggested that Bob and I believe that women in general can compete equally against men in physical contests - a ridiculous position that is easy to knock down. But the fact of the matter is that we haven't said anything of the sort. We've only ever said that SOME women are better than SOME men, and *those* women should have the opportunity.

Seriously, the opposing argument to me reads like something close to:

"White people are better than black people at hockey. There has never been a black player on a Stanley Cup Champion, and no team from Africa has ever won an Olympic medal. All good International hockey teams comes from overwhelmingly white countries. Therefore, there should be a rule that black payers aren't allowed to play in the NHL."


For more on straw men, do a user name search from one of our dearly departed whose name I won't mention. But it rhymes with "dance." Pretty much any random post will do.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 19, 2012 03:29PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-19 16:17, LobowolfXXX wrote:
But it rhymes with "dance."[/quote]
That's like a clue, isn't it?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 19, 2012 03:29PM)
Must be the American accent - when you say it with an Aussie accent it rhymes with crazy duck.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 03:30PM)
The Army PT test is not designed to break down by MOS. Every soldier takes the same PT test, push ups, sit ups and a two mile run based on their age and gender. Ranger units require all personnel to pass the test at the 18 year old level and score at least 90%. So, the women had to pass the test for an 18 year old female at the 90% level. There was also a quarterly 5 mile run that had to be completed, I can't remember the time, but it was a fast paced not a leisurely jog, since there was no Army standard for a five mile run, the standard was set by the Ranger Regiment and even the two females had to meet that standard. There was also a 25 mile forced march in combat dress, again the standard was set by the Ranger Regiment ( I think that was 3 or 3 1/2 hours). The only thing MOS centered is the MOS qualification test one had to take every year.

The current PT standards are, and I believe they were the same back in the 80's.

Men (18 yoa) Men (18 yoa)@90% Women (18 yoa) Women (18 yoa)@90%

Push ups (2 min. timed)
49 64 25 36

Sit ups (2 min. timed)
59 72 Same Same

2 mile run (Timed)
15:12 13:42 18:06 16:24

Also, Army basic training is broken down into two phases. The first phase is basic training which is basic infantry training which everyone receives which is 8 week. The second phase is the AIT phase (Advanced Individual Training. The length of AIT training is different depending on the MOS. Advanced infantry training (those people with the specific infantry MOS) is another 8 weeks. Some schools are shorter than that, others are much longer some were a year long.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 03:36PM)
Precisely Dreadnought.

That's why the statement "however they are already assigned or attached to those units in a merely support role, which means they have to meet the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men." is incorrect.

There are women attached to infantry units in support roles who have NOT met "the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men". That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, believe me.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 03:38PM)
Okay that table didn't turn out as readable as I thought it would, here it is again.

Push ups (2 min. timed)
Men (18 yoa) 49 / Men (18 yoa)@90% 64, Women (18 yoa) 25 / Women (18 yoa)@90% 36

Sit ups (2 min. timed)
Men & Women (18 yoa)59 / Men & Women (18 yoa)@90%72

2 mile run (Timed)
Men (18 yoa)15:12 / Men (18 yoa)@90% 13:42, Women (18 yoa)18:06 / Women (18 yoa)@90% 16:24

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 19, 2012 03:42PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 16:36, Marlin1894 wrote:
Precisely Dreadnought.

That's why the statement "however they are already assigned or attached to those units in a merely support role, which means they have to meet the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men." is incorrect.

There are women attached to infantry units in support roles who have NOT met "the same and more strenuous physical requirements as the men". That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, believe me.
[/quote]

Not incorrect, just semantics.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 03:46PM)
No. Not semantics. It's actually incorrect, but I will drop it.

Peace and Godspeed to you Sir. Thanks for your Service.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 04:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:25, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, acesover wrote:
I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation.
[/quote]


Ok, this has been an interesting thread, but clearly this statement reveals that it's been a gag. Great joke!!
[/quote]

It has to be a joke, Lobo, because I can't believe that ANYONE who has read and understood my posts could conclude that is my position.

His statement is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. He completely misunderstands or intentionally mischaracterizes my (and your) position, and then attacks that mischaracterization.
[/quote]

Alright lets me understand you. You are saying women should be allowed in combat situations with men as long as they qualify. Hmmmm as long as they qualify. What standards are the qualifications? Are they different then the men? Please answer.

By your logic we can accept 11 year olds into combat situations. All we havea to do is lower the standards or as you say qualifications. Now they are as you say qualified. Seriously now does that make sense?

When you passed your bar exam did they have lower standards for people not as smart as yourself? Do you think they should? I mean those people who want to be lawyers just as badly as you did. They went to college received the education but for some reason or other they could not make the grade. So by your logic those people should have a different set of standards to be judged on because they are having a hard time passing the bar exam. So lower the standard so they can pass. Let them defend the innocent. So what if they mess up...so let them back up their fellow soldiers in combat along with themselves so what if they are not quite as good as they should be. Lower the standards. Then they qualify.

Well I certainly don't want a lawyer defending me that can't pass the bar exam. Nor do I want help from someone in a combat situation who does not pass the same qualifications as I did but are there because they lowered the bar so they can be a combat soldier. If the womanis capable of doing everything their male counterpart can do fine. But as soon as you make exceptions because they are women it is off the table.

However what went on in Nam I personally do not think many women could handle what we encountered and how we responded.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 04:31PM)
How many times do you want me to answer the same question? I have said at least a half dozen times that they should have to meet the same physical and mental qualifications as the men.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 04:33PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:31, mastermindreader wrote:
How many times do you want me to answer the same question? I have said at least a half dozen times that they should have to meet the same physical and mental qualifications as the men.

I am now absolutely convinced that you haven't really read any of my posts very closely.
[/quote]

But they don't have to. That is the issue.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 04:34PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:20, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 14:25, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, acesover wrote:
I am not mistating your position at all. Your position is that women are as capable as men in a combat situation.
[/quote]


Ok, this has been an interesting thread, but clearly this statement reveals that it's been a gag. Great joke!!
[/quote]

It has to be a joke, Lobo, because I can't believe that ANYONE who has read and understood my posts could conclude that is my position.

His statement is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy. He completely misunderstands or intentionally mischaracterizes my (and your) position, and then attacks that mischaracterization.
[/quote]

Alright lets me understand you. You are saying women should be allowed in combat situations with men as long as they qualify. Hmmmm as long as they qualify. What standards are the qualifications? Are they different then the men? Please answer.

By your logic we can accept 11 year olds into combat situations. All we havea to do is lower the standards or as you say qualifications. Now they are as you say qualified. Seriously now does that make sense?

When you passed your bar exam did they have lower standards for people not as smart as yourself? Do you think they should? I mean those people who want to be lawyers just as badly as you did. They went to college received the education but for some reason or other they could not make the grade. So by your logic those people should have a different set of standards to be judged on because they are having a hard time passing the bar exam. So lower the standard so they can pass. Let them defend the innocent. So what if they mess up...so let them back up their fellow soldiers in combat along with themselves so what if they are not quite as good as they should be. Lower the standards. Then they qualify.

Well I certainly don't want a lawyer defending me that can't pass the bar exam. Nor do I want help from someone in a combat situation who does not pass the same qualifications as I did but are there because they lowered the bar so they can be a combat soldier. If the womanis capable of doing everything their male counterpart can do fine. But as soon as you make exceptions because they are women it is off the table.

However what went on in Nam I personally do not think many women could handle what we encountered and how we responded.
[/quote]



If you're seriously asking the question in your first paragraph, you aren't reading the replies.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 04:36PM)
JEEEZ! You asked for our opinions about whether women should be in the infantry or not! I gave you mine.

My position has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not standards are currently different for women. That wasn't the question.

You've already agreed with my entire argument when you wrote, "If the woman is capable of doing everything their male counterpart can do fine."
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 04:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:33, acesover wrote:

But they don't have to. That is the issue.
[/quote]

Ok, now I'm lost. At present women can't serve in the infantry at all. By any standard, right? I thought this was a theoretical discussion at this point. Did I miss an annoucement from the Pentagon or something?
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 04:40PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 16:29, Destiny wrote:
Must be the American accent - when you say it with an Aussie accent it rhymes with crazy duck.
[/quote]

This doesn't help because you people pronouce crazy as "cry-zee." At least, Crocodile Dundee does.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 04:43PM)
I am starting to get a clear picture. Not everyone is on the same page. Dread I think your numbers are accurate for our testing in the 80s. Of course elite and special units have higher standards. I, for example, did my test in shorts and running shoes while the weapons guys did in in cammies and boots. End of story is there isn't a standard that is same for all they have standards that they think makes things equal.

I like the bar exam question. I read some states wanting to improve the % of students passing test just lowered the passing score and amazingly the passing number of students went up, proof teachers did better as did students.

Lobo, thank you for the explanation on straw man. Like a scare crow the straw man distracts from the real point.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:37, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:33, acesover wrote:

But they don't have to. That is the issue.
[/quote]

Ok, now I'm lost. At present women can't serve in the infantry at all. By any standard, right? I thought this was a theoretical discussion at this point. Did I miss an annoucement from the Pentagon or something?
[/quote]

No. Acesover just keeps changing his argument. A few pages back he was saying that women should not be allowed in combat. Period. Now he has conceded that they should be able to serve if they can meet the same qualifications as men.

Whether or not women can be technically assigned to infantry or not is beside the point because, as has already been pointed out, they ALREADY serve in de facto combat positions because in modern urban warfare there are no front lines and the fight can be anywhere at any time.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 04:53PM)
[quote]
Whether or not women can be technically assigned to infantry or not is beside the point because, as has already been pointed out, they ALREADY serve in de facto combat positions because in modern urban warfare there are no front lines and the fight can be anywhere at any time.
[/quote]

That is true. But only technically. It's not really beside the point because I don't believe a woman can have an 03 MOS in the Marines for example. So yes a woman may find herself in combat, or under fire. Just like a male cook or HVAC specialist might. But she cannot be a Marine Corp rifleman by MOS. Plus there is no guarantee that there could never be a war with a frontline situation in the future. Despite the ever changing nature of warfare no one can say that for sure.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 19, 2012 04:56PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:43, MagicSanta wrote:
I am starting to get a clear picture. Not everyone is on the same page.
[/quote]
Yup.

Okay, just for the sake of (more :) ) argument, let's say we re-state the question:

Do you believe a woman should be allowed into a combat unit if she wants to be there and can pass the same physical and mental requirements as the men for that particlar unit?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 19, 2012 04:58PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-19 17:53, Marlin1894 wrote:
. . . there is no guarantee that there could never be a war with a frontline situation in the future. Despite the ever changing nature of warfare no one can say that for sure.[/quote]
I think you mean ". . . [b][i]because of[/i][/b] the ever-changing nature of warfare . . . ."
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Jul 19, 2012 05:18PM)
Women should be able to do anything legal that they want to do so long as they can reach whatever objective and relevant bar is set...
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 19, 2012 05:23PM)
Okay, can we at least agree that the term "front line," as used here, is not literal, but refers to any combat position that may encounter the opposing force, i.e., during a raid, patrol, attack, and so forth?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 05:25PM)
My answer, sir george, is no. There are factors beyond ability and desire. I am only refering to front line infantry not tanks or artillery.

One thing that is beyond the scope of this discussion is the fact that evey female I met who wanted to be out in the mud shootin and lootin was a nut job that shouldn't be in the service or be cops which is usually their other dream. I am not saying they are ball nuts but I would like to discuss it with a rational one. Like I said the toughest most self disciplined woman I knew in the service was a diver and didn't feel the need to be a shooter. I have never met a rational one.
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 19, 2012 05:35PM)
Fair enough, MagicSanta. Anyone else?

BTW, you don't have to call me sir - I work for a living. :)
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 05:37PM)
That is different thing George. Women should not be prohibited from a position just because they could be part of a combat situation. That would be far too limiting to the roles women take. For example women are on all types of surface ships now most designated as combat ships. Take the Stark, it had women killed on board but it was attacked and the potential didn't and shouldn't keep women off the ship. On the other hand, and I am sure someone will check, riverine (brown water) boats do not have women, again I am assuming, because they are tasked as close in assaault or SEAL platforms. Different gigs but more women were killed on the Stark than total riverine since reestablished.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 19, 2012 05:37PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 17:58, S2000magician wrote:
I think you mean ". . . [b][i]because of[/i][/b] the ever-changing nature of warfare . . . ."
[/quote]

Indeed. That's exactly what I meant to say. Thank you.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 05:38PM)
George made a navy joke!
Message: Posted by: George Ledo (Jul 19, 2012 05:41PM)
'scuse me... that was an Army joke. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 06:05PM)
Let me put this REALLY simply. And I believe I can safely speak for Bob here as well as myself, but I apologize in advance if I misstate his position (and I'm sure he'll correct me). But our position appears to be the same, and unless I'm badly misreading Bob's post, his seems to coincide with mine.

1. For the types of positions we're talking about, there should be a single standard, and it should be reasonably related to the job, i.e. not arbitrary and/or capricious.

2. Nobody who meets the standard should be excluded from the job on the basis of gender.

3. Nobody who fails to meet the standard should be included to the job on the basis of gender.

The end.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 19, 2012 06:59PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 19:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Let me put this REALLY simply. And I believe I can safely speak for Bob here as well as myself, but I apologize in advance if I misstate his position (and I'm sure he'll correct me). But our position appears to be the same, and unless I'm badly misreading Bob's post, his seems to coincide with mine.

1. For the types of positions we're talking about, there should be a single standard, and it should be reasonably related to the job, i.e. not arbitrary and/or capricious.

2. Nobody who meets the standard should be excluded from the job on the basis of gender.

3. Nobody who fails to meet the standard should be included to the job on the basis of gender.

The end.
[/quote]

+1
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 07:21PM)
Yes. That is exactly my position.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 08:00PM)
Mens standard or womens?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 08:13PM)
The standard that is appropriately and reasonably related to being able to do the job.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 08:36PM)
I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics. To make an analogy to American football, the physical qualities of a center or lineman are not the same as you'd find in the average quarterback.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 08:41PM)
We just got drunk and danced with big bottomed navy girls. Bob, I hope some day we can toss those gals into the fray.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Jul 19, 2012 08:52PM)
[quote]On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:
In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver.[/quote]
Ruth Westheimer.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 08:53PM)
My daughter served proudly in the Navy, you know. As did my son-in-law and I.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 08:54PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 21:52, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:
In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver.[/quote]
Ruth Westheimer.
[/quote]
Vunderful!
:eek:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 10:19PM)
Bob, where did they serve? When we first got the women on board we just staredbat em cuz we were scared to talk to them. I am kind of like the Susan B. Anthony of women in the navy....a guiding light of goodness regardless of what theofficial reports said.

Other that spec war I opened the door for women to do all jobs. Why with the navy and air force any woman would join the army is beyond me.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 19, 2012 10:31PM)
Santa-

Both my daughter and son-in-law were flight mechanics and served at various Naval Air Stations including two years at Whidbey Island NAS here in Washington. My son-in-law also served in the Persian Gulf during the Iraq War and after twenty years service now works in a civilian capacity at Andrews Air Force Base. My daughter served for eight years and is now a school teacher in Maryland where they live with my two granddaughters.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 11:08PM)
Wonderful! Maryland is the only state I want to visit that I have not been to solely for crabcakes.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 19, 2012 11:14PM)
I guess I am just sexist. I have to bow out of this. It is becoming to unsettleing for me to continue reading what I consider to be nonsense (my opinion) to the arguements put forth here and me tring to defend my position because of my experiences. I guess I am to biased in my views. I have pictures I am tempted to post but it would be beaking a trust. I believe they would change some opinions here.

I am sure I will be critized for this. Do you really believe this is a woman's job? These are just some pics of the war. These are not my pictures but rather pictures that can be found on the internet and probably considered PG. Just a quick peek to see what war produces. The reason for posting this link is to pose the question as to whether you believe this is a place for women. I know for sure it is not a great place for men. My favorite pic is # 12.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/in_pictures_the_vietnam_war_/html/1.stm

I realize this is not going to change anyones view but it makes me feel better posting them just to give you an idea where I am coming from.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 19, 2012 11:20PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 00:08, MagicSanta wrote:
Wonderful! Maryland is the only state I want to visit that I have not been to solely for crabcakes.
[/quote]

Maryland is the only state that had regiments serving on both sides at Gettysburg, too. One of the monuments on or near Culp's Hill has a somewhat-hidden dig at the Maryland troops that went confederate, as the monument (to one of the infantry regiments that fought for the Union), after listing games, troop strengths, etc., finishes "To Maryland's loyal sons."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 19, 2012 11:34PM)
Wasn't there a situation where one Maryland side caught the other and the officer in charge showed no mercy on them?

Acesover I don't get why some want women in assault units myself.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 20, 2012 03:10AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 19:59, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 19:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Let me put this REALLY simply. And I believe I can safely speak for Bob here as well as myself, but I apologize in advance if I misstate his position (and I'm sure he'll correct me). But our position appears to be the same, and unless I'm badly misreading Bob's post, his seems to coincide with mine.

1. For the types of positions we're talking about, there should be a single standard, and it should be reasonably related to the job, i.e. not arbitrary and/or capricious.

2. Nobody who meets the standard should be excluded from the job on the basis of gender.

3. Nobody who fails to meet the standard should be included to the job on the basis of gender.

The end.
[/quote]

+1
[/quote]

+2
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 20, 2012 04:14AM)
Yes, Lobo, there is a monument in Baltimore, across from the Art Museum near the Johns Hopkins University canvas, memorializing the last time in this life that two commanders met, Lee and Jackson on the eve of Chancellorsville. And a monument to the "Confederate Women" a few blocks north. The uniform that General Lee wore at Appomattox Courthouse was made by ladies in Baltimore, too.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jul 20, 2012 04:20AM)
I think the south lost the war at Chancellorsville. Not that they were winning before, but they had chances, and Jackson was the best field general on either side. 6 weeks letter, a lot of mistakes were made at Gettysburg. Who knows what might have happened?
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 20, 2012 04:36AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.
[/quote]

There most certainly is such a thing as "front line". Tell the Navy Seals and the Grunts in the Marines that todays military has no front lines. Somebody has to be the first in. What do you call the team that is going in and sweeping buildings and securing the area? Then when it is secured, the rest of the troops come marching in and set up.

There is more front line fighting going on than most realize. The liberal media has kept most of the stuff like this from us and most people really believe that the war is somehow "sanitized" now. Ask General Norman Schwarzkopf. People like him shoot straight about the war.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 20, 2012 07:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:

I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.

[/quote]

Yes, but to be fair the original question specified "infantry". Not "combat roles". So the discussion should probably stay near to that specific combat role. We discussed the fact that women serve in combat roles already. But they don't serve in the infantry.

Infantry is it's own occupational field. Tankers aren't infantry. Explosive ordinace specialists aren't infantry. Field artillery isn't infantry. Motor transpost isn't infantry etc.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Jul 20, 2012 08:15AM)
Bringing together the discussion of the Civil War and the main topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Emma_Edmonds
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 20, 2012 09:20AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 05:36, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.
[/quote]

There most certainly is such a thing as "front line". Tell the Navy Seals and the Grunts in the Marines that todays military has no front lines. Somebody has to be the first in. What do you call the team that is going in and sweeping buildings and securing the area? Then when it is secured, the rest of the troops come marching in and set up.

There is more front line fighting going on than most realize. The liberal media has kept most of the stuff like this from us and most people really believe that the war is somehow "sanitized" now. Ask General Norman Schwarzkopf. People like him shoot straight about the war.
[/quote]

Technically, in this war, there is no front line. Technically, this is not a war. I haven't been there but from what I hear from those who have, there isn't much security. There is no real demarcation line or forward edge of the battle area. At the most there is a forward line of friendly troops but in order to have a front line the forward line of enemy troops has to be established. In an urban combat environment, this is pretty hard to nail down. In Desert Storm there was a definite frontline.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 09:42AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 08:48, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:

I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.

[/quote]

Yes, but to be fair the original question specified "infantry". Not "combat roles". So the discussion should probably stay near to that specific combat role. We discussed the fact that women serve in combat roles already. But they don't serve in the infantry.

Infantry is it's own occupational field. Tankers aren't infantry. Explosive ordinace specialists aren't infantry. Field artillery isn't infantry. Motor transpost isn't infantry etc.
[/quote]

You're right. But the original poster quickly expanded his argument into his belief that women are generally inferior to men in sports and other fields as well. Strictly speaking many, if not most, combat roles in the Middle East aren't technically infantry related. War isn't really fought on that model any more and even the commanders in the field refer to combat positions rather that whether they are specifically infantry or not. (Navy Seals, for example, are hardly "infantry" but I doubt that anyone would dispute that they are a combat unit as are many others.)


Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 09:52AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 05:36, rowdymagi5 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 13:25, mastermindreader wrote:
I am fascinated by the reference to combat troops as being those "on the front lines." In most of today's combat situations there is no such thing. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq the are/were no real front lines. And as the Christian Science Monitor article I referenced earlier made clear, there are situations in such combat theaters of operations where women play vital roles in de facto combat assignments.
[/quote]

There most certainly is such a thing as "front line". Tell the Navy Seals and the Grunts in the Marines that todays military has no front lines. Somebody has to be the first in. What do you call the team that is going in and sweeping buildings and securing the area? Then when it is secured, the rest of the troops come marching in and set up.

There is more front line fighting going on than most realize. The liberal media has kept most of the stuff like this from us and most people really believe that the war is somehow "sanitized" now. Ask General Norman Schwarzkopf. People like him shoot straight about the war.
[/quote]

Actually, it is the so-called liberal media that has fought to bring this information to us. Sanitization was perhaps typified best when the previous administration forbid the media to photograph American coffins being returned to us.

Not surprised, though, that someone would try to make a partisan political snipe out of this.

And no, in urban guerrilla warfare there are no front lines. Yes, there have been battles in Iraq and Afghanistan that fit that model, but for the most part it doesn't apply in the day to day combat that is occurring now.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 20, 2012 10:33AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 10:42, mastermindreader wrote:
War isn't really fought on that model any more and even the commanders in the field refer to combat positions rather that whether they are specifically infantry or not. (Navy Seals, for example, are hardly "infantry" but I doubt that anyone would dispute that they are a combat unit as are many others.)
[/quote]

It's not about a model of war or anything. Infantry is, what infantry is. There are combat positions, some of which are infantry. Yes. Commanders in the field certainly know that. If commanders in the field group them all together when refering to them it's probably because they are adressing someone who doesn't understand the distinction. You can bet [i]they[/i] do.

It's not like they sit around and some commander says "ok we need to send some infantry troops over here" and another guys says "oh you mean some navy seals, and a couple of motor transport units, and some field artillery?" The first guy is going to come back with something like "I said infantry stupid". lol. Come on now.

Obviously it's not a big deal for the purpose of this discussion. Or among civilians. I was just pointing out that "combat roles" doesn't mean "infantry".

Which takes me back to an earlier point. The reason I drew the distinction was because earlier you said "Whether or not women can be technically assigned to infantry or not is beside the point because, as has already been pointed out, they ALREADY serve in de facto combat positions."

But it's not really beside the point. If there is a woman who wants to become a machine gunner, or mortarman (mortarperson?), or whatever. She currently can't. So, I don't think she would find the fact that she can't join the infantry "beside the point" if she went in and asked to become a machine gunner and they replied "No, you can't be a machine gunner. But hey! Why don't you join Motor T and learn to drive a truck? Maybe if you're lucky you will find yourself serving in a de facto combat position!"

That doesn't help that particular individual. See what I'm saying?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 10:45AM)
Yes. I understand your point. I just think that infantry/non infantry is an artificial distinction given the realities of urban warfare where most, if not all personnel, can be in combat situations at any given or unexpected moment.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 20, 2012 10:51AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 11:45, mastermindreader wrote:
I just think that infantry/non infantry is an artificial distinction given the realities of urban warfare where most, if not all personnel, can be in combat situations at any given or unexpected moment.
[/quote]

Oy. Fine. It's an artifical distinction. Words mean nothing. The fact that it is broken out as a seperate and distinct occupation within the armed forces means nothing. The fact that they have a distinct mission and role within the service means nothing. That they train for a specific mission seperately from the other occupations within the service means nothing. Because you "just" think so. Fine, fine. You win. It's all the same. My bad.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 11:09AM)
I think you just want to argue for arguments sake. I said I understood your position. Words do matter.

So does the reality of the day to day situation in urban warfare environments.

Sorry, but I'm weaning myself from pointless arguments with those who just want to pick a fight. It's a waste of time.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 20, 2012 11:13AM)
When you are the first to go in and face the enemy, call it what you want, I call it front lines. And most of you don't have any idea what your talking about because you get your information from the liberal media that spins it the way they want to spin it.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 20, 2012 11:14AM)
I will point out that there are darn few who are in the role of "front line" (My definition) and they sure don't want any women around them due to the nature of their work. That is just a fact, you can ask them if you don't think that is true, they will tell ya.
Message: Posted by: Tony Iacoviello (Jul 20, 2012 11:25AM)
I cannot speak of today's armed forces, but while serving in the USAF, I was recruited for an Army WO position. It was made clear to me, regardless of your MOS, you are a soldier first.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 20, 2012 11:48AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 12:09, mastermindreader wrote:
I think you just want to argue for arguments sake. I said I understood your position. Words do matter.

Sorry, but I'm weaning myself from pointless arguments with those who just want to pick a fight. It's a waste of time.
[/quote]

Unreal. Over the course of two or three posts I described as clearly I could a distinction that not everyone is aware of. I did it completely non-confrontationally, and only made direct references to you because it was your comments that I was responding to, and using to help illustrate the point. In no way was I trying to argue. And for that you repeatedly dismiss everything I said. Tell me the distinctions I drew don't matter anymore in this day and age. And that even though what I had said was true and correct it didn't really matter because you thought otherwise. And when I finally give up in exasperation, I am accused of trying to start an argument. It's unbelieveable.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Jul 20, 2012 12:28PM)
Bob, Marlin is one of the good guys.

I'd have PM'd you to tell you that, but you are not peeimable.

He's not arguing for argument's sake.
Message: Posted by: Marlin1894 (Jul 20, 2012 12:35PM)
Thanks Stone, I appreciate it. It doesn't matter. I should know better by now. I don't know why I was even surprised.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 12:57PM)
Marlin-

If I misunderstood you I apologize. But you post that I responded to seemed pretty dismissive of my position and I thought it was a bit condescending as well.

Let's smoke a peace pipe here as I think maybe we are both overreacting.

:eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 01:00PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 12:13, rowdymagi5 wrote:
When you are the first to go in and face the enemy, call it what you want, I call it front lines. And most of you don't have any idea what your talking about because you get your information from the liberal media that spins it the way they want to spin it.
[/quote]

Whatever.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jul 20, 2012 05:47PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 10:42, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-20 08:48, Marlin1894 wrote:
[quote]
On 2012-07-19 21:36, mastermindreader wrote:

I think that something that is being overlooked here is the obvious fact that different combat jobs require different physical skills and characteristics.

In combat, the skills of a long range sniper, for example, are significantly different than those of a tank driver. Combat roles, like almost everything else in today's society, have become increasingly specialized. Hand- to-hand combat requires different skills than those needed to disarm IED's. Some roles would seem to favor men and others would seem to favor women or are gender neutral in regards to the physical skills required to carry them out.

The statement that men are better suited than women for all combat roles - particularly in today's military - completely ignores the different skill sets required in different combat related specialties.

[/quote]

Yes, but to be fair the original question specified "infantry". Not "combat roles". So the discussion should probably stay near to that specific combat role. We discussed the fact that women serve in combat roles already. But they don't serve in the infantry.

Infantry is it's own occupational field. Tankers aren't infantry. Explosive ordinace specialists aren't infantry. Field artillery isn't infantry. Motor transpost isn't infantry etc.
[/quote]

You're right. But the original poster quickly expanded his argument into his belief that women are generally inferior to men in sports and other fields as well. Strictly speaking many, if not most, combat roles in the Middle East aren't technically infantry related. War isn't really fought on that model any more and even the commanders in the field refer to combat positions rather that whether they are specifically infantry or not. (Navy Seals, for example, are hardly "infantry" but I doubt that anyone would dispute that they are a combat unit as are many others.)


Good thoughts,

Bob
[/quote]

You know you get upset when someone calls you ricidulous but after reding this post of yours you are ricidulous. Read your first 5 or 6 posts on this topic. I believe I posted once which was the original post and did not mention a thing about who should serve or in what capacity they shuld serve. While you poste 5 or 6 times starting an arguement. There was no mentioin of inferiorty until you brought it up about fire fighters etc.

I only posted about an artcle and a poll being taken. And you went legally balastic about equal rights. So don't tell people here that the original poster said this or that. You started an arguement...wow what a surprise there. I believe you had 5 posts before I even postee a second time and I still did not mention anything about who could or should do what. So don't make up things. You instiated this not me. Sometime you are wrong on mighty one and some times you are just full of it...this time...well take your choice but beiing right is not one of the choices.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 05:58PM)
I have no idea what your problem is. It is clear that most of what has been posted is beyond your comprehension or that you are just being intentionally obtuse.

Just keep making stuff up if you like. I plan to just ignore any of your ridiculous rants.

Have fun.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Jul 20, 2012 06:10PM)
I do not think women and children should be fighting.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Jul 20, 2012 06:59PM)
Yes, but what about besides in this thread.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 20, 2012 09:25PM)
This reminds me of something. It is known that I diidnt care if gays join the service, we had em and no problem though I think most were smart enough not to tell everyone.

I seem to have missed the articles on the tens of thousands of frustrated gay folks marching witg an American flag in one hand and a rainbow in the other as they signed up. Also missed where thousands of servicemen and women proudly marched out of the closet, some with medals of honor around their necks. Can y"all put up links so I can swell with pride? Thank you.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 20, 2012 10:38PM)
You mean people like Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal-spares-decorated-veteran-air-force-aviator/

Do a Google search on "gay war heroes." You may be surprised.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 20, 2012 10:52PM)
Bob, I knew a gay SEAL, I am asking about the thousands of gays I heard waiting to join, did the join or still waiting until after pride week? Note I don't give out the term hero easili.
Message: Posted by: critter (Jul 20, 2012 11:15PM)
My Dad was a hippie SEAL. That makes less sense than a gay one...
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 20, 2012 11:43PM)
This gay seal looked like a young Tom Selleck and was a warrior. He was what one would call effeminent but at 6'4 and trained too kill no one bothered him and he earned respect from his team. I knew hippy squids. Most were drafted and liked the job and benefits so they made careers out of it. Heck, the only real gung ho shoot em all military types I ever met were never in the military. Kinda like the craziest religious typed are rarely running a church.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2012 12:36AM)
Maybe a bit off topic because it involves a straight male who joined the Army, the following is nonetheless illustrative of how hard it is to determine who is fit for combat duty based solely on physical characteristics:

The five foot five, one hundred and ten pound young man tried several times to enlist, but was declined by both the Marines and Army paratroopers as too short and underweight. The Navy also turned him down for being underweight. The Army finally accepted him and he was sent to Texas for basic training. During a session of close order drill, he passed out. His company commander tried to have him transferred to a cook and bakers' school but the young man insisted on becoming a combat soldier...

He went on to become the most decorated American soldier of WWII and received the Medal of Honor. His name was Audie Murphy.

You can never tell who the heroes will be.

Good thoughts,

Bob
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 21, 2012 12:50AM)
Audie Murphy is cool. He won the MOH after getting so mad he went ape sh*t on the Germans. If he did that today liberals would insist he be charged with war crimes. He was too light to enlist, good thing there was a war huh?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2012 01:13AM)
Why would liberals insist he be charged with war crimes? There was nothing criminal about it. His company was attacked by German tanks and infantry and what he did was heroic. I don't understand the need to politicize it. (Murphy was a registered Democrat at the time of his death, for what it's worth.)

Here's the official citation of the circumstances that resulted in his being awarded the Medal of Honor:

[quote]Second Lt. Murphy commanded Company B, which was attacked by six tanks and waves of infantry. 2d Lt. Murphy ordered his men to withdraw to a prepared position in a woods, while he remained forward at his command post and continued to give fire directions to the artillery by telephone. Behind him, to his right, one of our tank destroyers received a direct hit and began to burn. Its crew withdrew to the woods. 2d Lt. Murphy continued to direct artillery fire, which killed large numbers of the advancing enemy infantry. With the enemy tanks abreast of his position, 2d Lt. Murphy climbed on the burning tank destroyer, which was in danger of blowing up at any moment, and employed its .50 caliber machine gun against the enemy. He was alone and exposed to German fire from three sides, but his deadly fire killed dozens of Germans and caused their infantry attack to waver. The enemy tanks, losing infantry support, began to fall back. For an hour the Germans tried every available weapon to eliminate 2d Lt. Murphy, but he continued to hold his position and wiped out a squad that was trying to creep up unnoticed on his right flank. Germans reached as close as 10 yards, only to be mowed down by his fire. He received a leg wound, but ignored it and continued his single-handed fight until his ammunition was exhausted. He then made his way back to his company, refused medical attention, and organized the company in a counterattack, which forced the Germans to withdraw. His directing of artillery fire wiped out many of the enemy; he killed or wounded about 50. 2d Lt. Murphy's indomitable courage and his refusal to give an inch of ground saved his company from possible encirclement and destruction, and enabled it to hold the woods which had been the enemy's objective.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audie_Murphy
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 21, 2012 02:22AM)
Because he didn't offer his understanding to the Germans and explain ti them that not all Nazis were bad and as such say he would stop his Aggression and allow the Germans to retreat while Audie tried to understand their belief system.
Why the mear fact they called the Germans the enemy bis hate speach, only a small % of Germans are bad the rest were following cultural beliefs.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 21, 2012 02:47AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-21 03:22, MagicSanta wrote:
Because he didn't offer his understanding to the Germans and explain ti them that not all Nazis were bad and as such say he would stop his Aggression and allow the Germans to retreat while Audie tried to understand their belief system.
Why the mear fact they called the Germans the enemy bis hate speach, only a small % of Germans are bad the rest were following cultural beliefs.
[/quote]

You change German to Nazi and I'll agree. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 21, 2012 02:56AM)
You sure? Looks like at one point I used Nazi rather than Germam. Change it how you like though.
Message: Posted by: rowdymagi5 (Jul 21, 2012 05:21AM)
Uh oh, your going to stir up the apologist's for America. We are the evil ones that are causing all the problems!

Example: When the terrorists in the Afghani army turned on the Americans soldiers who were training them, it became our fault the soldiers were getting assassinated because as the liberal media put it, we shouldn't be there in the first place.

Same with when they accidentally burned the Koran, liberal media had the soldiers backs there huh?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Jul 21, 2012 07:24AM)
Hi Bob,

Audie Murphy is a great example. Another might be Alvin York, who when he was initially in training, felt that he was a "conscientious objecter," who while willing to die for his country, did not think he could carry a weapon, or kill any enemies. His C.O. gave him a 2-week pass to go back to Tennessee and pray on it, offering him a discharge if he just couldn't do it. He decided to return to camp, and you probably know the rest of the story. (The recent discovery and recovery of 20 .45 ACP cases that probably came from his most famous exploit is a fascinating example of modern archaeological thinking and technique.)

I'd also mention the incredible heroism of Desmond Doss. Don't want to spoil anyone's discovery of his example, if you don't know about Desmond Doss, look it up!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 21, 2012 07:37AM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-21 03:56, MagicSanta wrote:
You sure? Looks like at one point I used Nazi rather than Germam. Change it how you like though.
[/quote]

That you did, that you did. :ohyes:

Missed it.

Change Nazi to Mohammedians, I'll agree more.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2012 10:22AM)
The myth of the liberal media has been debunked so many times that I'm amazed that some still believe it.

http://makethemaccountable.com/myth/LiberalMedia.htm
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 21, 2012 11:45AM)
That "Liberal media" propaganda, touted by the conservatives, is proof that if you say it longer and louder than anyone else, then it will eventually become believed as truth.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Jul 21, 2012 11:55AM)
Absolutely. From the article I referenced in my last post:

[quote]“The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.

“Not only are these folks ultra-conservatives, but the people they hire to voice their opinions are so far to the right, they give independent journalism a dirty name.”[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dreadnought (Jul 21, 2012 12:00PM)
That first paragraph almost made me spit coke all over my screen.

Thanks for that link.

Peace and Godspeed.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 21, 2012 12:37PM)
Mohamamedian? People who do Islamic stand up?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 21, 2012 12:57PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-21 13:37, MagicSanta wrote:
Mohamamedian? People who do Islamic stand up?
[/quote]

Sumthin' like that... :ohyes:

That's what they really are, followers of Muhammad.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jul 21, 2012 01:03PM)
Oh...well if they pass the physical they can join the infantry.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Jul 21, 2012 01:07PM)
[quote]
On 2012-07-21 14:03, MagicSanta wrote:
Oh...well if they pass the physical they can join the infantry.
[/quote]

The League of Shadows they are. :goof: