NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This female pilot kicks ass! It's time America got over its sexism and gave women the same opportunities as men. Congress needs a swift kick in the butt!


Female Pilots Get Their Shot in the Iraqi Skies (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601382.html)
Men Say Women Are Proving Skills in Direct Combat


By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 27, 2006; Page A01

TALL AFAR, Iraq -- Buzzing over this northern Iraqi city in her Kiowa scout helicopter, a .50-caliber machine gun and rockets at the ready, Capt. Sarah Piro has proved so skillful in combat missions to support U.S. ground troops that she's earned the nickname "Saint."

In recent months of fighting in Tall Afar, Piro, 26, of El Dorado Hills, Calif., has quietly sleuthed out targets, laid down suppressive fire for GIs in battle and chased insurgents through the narrow alleys of this medieval city -- maneuvering all the while to avoid being shot out of the sky. In one incident, she limped back to base in a bullet-riddled helicopter, ran to another aircraft and returned to the fight 10 minutes later.

"They call her 'Saint Piro' -- she's just that good," said her co-pilot, Chief Warrant Officer Todd Buckhouse, a 19-year Army veteran who has worked with Piro on two tours with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq.

"There was no one I wanted to hear more on a raid than her. She's a spectacular Army aviator," said Maj. Chris Kennedy, executive officer of the regiment, which is returning home this month.

Female helicopter pilots like Piro are demonstrating their valor in Iraq in one of the few direct combat roles women are officially allowed to perform in the military. Their missions often put them at risk of being hit by enemy machine-gun fire and rockets, and require them to shoot back. Piro's unit, Outlaw Troop, lost three of its eight Kiowas after insurgents shot them down over Tall Afar, and four or five others were hit by enemy fire, U.S. officers said. On Piro's first tour in Iraq, her wingman hit a wire and crashed into the Euphrates River. She and Buckhouse made an emergency landing and jumped into the water to try to save the two aviators, but they had already perished.

Despite the dangers, a growing number of women have chosen the job since the 1990s, and today about 9 percent of women in the Army are aviators. There are four female pilots in Piro's troop of 33 soldiers. "I didn't want to be a staff officer. I wanted to be an operator," said Capt. Monica Strye, 29, of San Antonio, commander of Outlaw Troop. "I wanted to have more of a combat role."

But while proving their competence in the air, female aviators say they still face obstacles from the predominantly male military on the ground. "It's far better than when my mother was in the military, but we still have a long ways to go," said Strye, whose mother was an Army nurse in Vietnam. "I know I constantly have to prove myself."

And even as the 360-degree battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan are exposing women to combat as never before, policies excluding women from ground combat units have not been eased, but instead face increased scrutiny in Congress.

Under a law signed last month, the Defense Department must submit to Congress this year a report on the assignment of women, particularly in the Army, to ensure compliance with existing Pentagon policy, which was also codified by the law. The law requires that before opening any new positions to women, the Defense Department must tell Congress what justifies the change and observe a 30-day waiting period.

The legislation, while greatly watered down from earlier versions that would have rolled back opportunities for women, still limits the Pentagon's flexibility in adjusting to new wartime realities, critics say. It was passed over the objections of Pentagon leaders, including Army Secretary Francis Harvey, who said the change was not necessary. "We have opinions on the law, but it's now the law and we will abide by it," Harvey said in an interview last month.

Congressional critics say the change sends the wrong message to women in the military, especially the thousands now serving in Iraq. Women make up about 15 percent of the active-duty members in the military. Tens of thousands of women have served in Iraq; 48 have been killed and more than 350 wounded in action, according to Pentagon figures.

At Outlaw Troop's base outside Tall Afar, the flight line hummed with aircraft coming and going around the clock. Piro, Strye and other pilots fly demanding six- to eight-hour missions in full body armor.

[ This article is two pages long. To read the rest of the article, go here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/26/AR2006022601382_2.html). ]

You're right--anyone physically able to handle the job ought to be able to do it. That's one of the things I love about the remake of Battlestar Galactica--the sense of meritocracy in that universe. Starbuck is the best pilot in the fleet, and her sex is never an issue.

Thats a pilot not a foot soldier. I've already posted all my points in other threads so I'll just run them down real quick.

1. A female in the ranks of men in front line conditions destroys the comradery and brotherhood that men develope during wartime to cope. The army has researched this thoroughly and it is pretty much common sense. Men tend to protect women and this can endanger operations. Also fights can break out between the men over the women.

2. If you seperate females into their own unit to avoid number 1 the physical factors are multiplied ten-fold. You now have an entire unit that would not be as physically strong as an equal male unit begging the question "what would happen when they come into contact with enemy all male units?" and "why would you ever want to make a unit of front line soldiers that are simply not going to be as physically able as others?"

3. Martial arts and training can lessen the physical gap but at the same time you could have trained strong males in the same arts and they would still be stronger. Once again "equal rights" to be on the front line getting killed don't outweigh basic wartime strategy and the avoidence of the loss of life. Bone mass is naturally significantly lower in women so even if the muscle strength was equal the women would be more prone to broken bones.

4. A draft of women for the front line would be disastrous since most women can not build mass nearly as quickly as almost all males. The few males who can't physically handle a quick training to put them in shape for war quickly during a draft are not allowed into the military. Why would this be different for women? A soldier on the front lines carries extremely heavy loads all the time often upwards of 80 pounds just in the normal line of duty with higher loads switching between members. Many women simply could not handle this physically as easily.

5. In extremely poor conditions that can occur on the front lines of a war a womens natural cycle can become an extra sanitary problem. It is hard enough to keep soliders healthy on the front lines as it is. Pills can stop the cycle but it isn't always possible to get enough ammo and bullets nevermind extra medical concerns.

Bravo to women who serve in the military. They can kill people from miles away in aircraft with the best of them and do almost every job in the military. Direct front line service is just plain foolish though. War is no place to let emotion get in the way of strategy.

a 19-year Army veteran

Good read, but - am I the only one being a little, how shall I put it, :eek: when I read this?

edit: deleted the important word...

I have no doubt women can equal men as weapons systems operators and support staff. But rifle, grenade and bayonet work, no. They just don't have the stamina. My grandfather clocked up 4 years of near-continuous urban warfare experience, and there's no doubt about it, pilots, drivers and snipers - yes, assault infantry - no.

EDIT: I should add that the Red Army had virtually all roles open to men and women alike, so it's tried and tested stuff.

Thats a pilot not a foot soldier. I've already posted all my points in other threads so I'll just run them down real quick.

1. A female in the ranks of men in front line conditions destroys the comradery and brotherhood that men develope during wartime to cope. The army has researched this thoroughly and it is pretty much common sense. Men tend to protect women and this can endanger operations. Also fights can break out between the men over the women.

2. If you seperate females into their own unit to avoid number 1 the physical factors are multiplied ten-fold. You now have an entire unit that would not be as physically strong as an equal male unit begging the question "what would happen when they come into contact with enemy all male units?" and "why would you ever want to make a unit of front line soldiers that are simply not going to be as physically able as others?"

3. Martial arts and training can lessen the physical gap but at the same time you could have trained strong males in the same arts and they would still be stronger. Once again "equal rights" to be on the front line getting killed don't outweigh basic wartime strategy and the avoidence of the loss of life. Bone mass is naturally significantly lower in women so even if the muscle strength was equal the women would be more prone to broken bones.

4. A draft of women for the front line would be disastrous since most women can not build mass nearly as quickly as almost all males. The few males who can't physically handle a quick training to put them in shape for war quickly during a draft are not allowed into the military. Why would this be different for women? A soldier on the front lines carries extremely heavy loads all the time often upwards of 80 pounds just in the normal line of duty with higher loads switching between members. Many women simply could not handle this physically as easily.

5. In extremely poor conditions that can occur on the front lines of a war a womens natural cycle can become an extra sanitary problem. It is hard enough to keep soliders healthy on the front lines as it is. Pills can stop the cycle but it isn't always possible to get enough ammo and bullets nevermind extra medical concerns.

Bravo to women who serve in the military. They can kill people from miles away in aircraft with the best of them and do almost every job in the military. Direct front line service is just plain foolish though. War is no place to let emotion get in the way of strategy.

1) Then the problem is not the female but the men.
2-4) We would not be substituting female troops for male troops we would be supplementing. By your logic we should not allow south east asians in combat, but prefer samoans, due to similar mass related problems (as long as we're looking at averages and not individuals). Would you prefer to only deploy the better half of your infantry? Numbers matter.
5) If you are so out of touch with supplies, the lack of tampons is no more an unsantary risk than the lack of toilet paper.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/myths.html

1. A female in the ranks of men in front line conditions destroys the comradery and brotherhood that men develope during wartime to cope. The army has researched this thoroughly and it is pretty much common sense. Men tend to protect women and this can endanger operations. Also fights can break out between the men over the women.
9. The "women have an advese efffect on unit cohesion and male bonding" claim:
Well this one has been so overworked, especially by people who have never served in a mixed unit, that it is getting tiresome.
The reality is that "during Desert Storm the combat support units, ships, and aircrews with women performed their missions well even under direct fire. When the action started the mixed units and crews bonded into cohesive effective teams. According to Captain Cynthia Mosley, commander of an Army combat support company that was in the thick of the action during the ground attack into Iraq: "When the action starts every soldier does what they've been trained to do - nobody cares whether you're male or female. It's just - can you do the job?"
According to studies conducted by the Military Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences "Trust, respect for tactical skill and a metaphor of familiaism - the good unit speaks and acts as if they were members of a family - the better the unit performs." (In this respect since when does the family exclude mothers, sisters, daughters and wives - are they not all women?)
There is also a lot of evidence that mixed-gender units in foreign militaries performed more effectively than single-gender ones - in North Vietnam and El Salvador for example. American commanders of experienced mixed-gender units noticed a similar pattern of positive dynamics - the women worked harder to gain approval and the men worked harder not to be outdone. This was quite evident in the Gulf.
And what about the astronauts? You don't hear of any problems in space relative to unit cohesion. The men and women of NASA, military and civilian, have been performing as a "cohesive unit" on space flights for years.
Sources: "Ground Zero" by Linda Bird Francke; U.S. House Committe on Gender Discrimination in the Armed Services and NASA.
Source: Major General Jeanne Holm in "Women in the Military - an Unfinished Revolution".

11. The "men only want to protect women" claim:
Fatherly generals stand up and preach that women don't belong in the military because the goal of all men is to protect women - and that the men will be so busy protecting the women they won't do their job.
Well then if that's the case why do we have figures like this?

"On average each fiscal year from 1990 to 1996, 23.2 per 1000 spouses of military personnel experienced a violent victimization."
-FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.

"The rate of violent victimization of spouses in the U.S. military has steadily increased from 18.6 to 25.6 per 1000 during the same time period."
FY90-96 Spouse and Child Maltreatment, Department of Defense.

"More than 8,000 active duty women were abused by their spouses from 1990 to 1995. Half of the cases involved abusers who were also in the military."
Department of Defense, December 1996.

"Eighteen percent of the victims in a sample of incidents were active-duty members."
Department of Defense, October 1996.

"One in four female service members under age 50 has been physically abused."
Women Veterans' Experiences with Domestic Violence and Sexual Harassment, Drs. Murdoch and Nichol, 1993.

In 1997, the Defense Department reported a substantiated rate of abuse of 22 cases per 1,000 spouses. The Navy rate for that same year is 12 per 1,000. The Bureau of Justice Statistics places the average national rate of victimization for women from 1992 to 1996 at about eight per 1000.

One answer to the "men only want to protect women" spiel is in a great quote by Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, Civil War Medal of Honor recipient - "You men are not our protectors... If you were, who would there be to protect us from?"

2. If you seperate females into their own unit to avoid number 1 the physical factors are multiplied ten-fold. You now have an entire unit that would not be as physically strong as an equal male unit begging the question "what would happen when they come into contact with enemy all male units?" and "why would you ever want to make a unit of front line soldiers that are simply not going to be as physically able as others?"
7. The really rampant "dual physical standards" claim:
The media is always harping on this and so are the men in the military - in part they are right to complain - but this issue has more sides than the pentagon. Not only are there dual standards, there are probably octuple standards.
Each branch has different standards - not only for women, but for men, for older men, and "invisible" standards for the higher ranking officers and NCOs.
Nothing is standard between the services with respect to physical fitness requirements and they have been admonished to change them and catch up to fair and equitable standards based on gender, age and varied physiological abilities.
The GAO recently looked into this issue in depth - here is a brief from their report -
"There is a widespread perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the ability to perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences among service members by age and gender."

One hopes that these changes will address the fact that the ability to do 30 pushups does not constitute being a better soldier - especially when measured against the ability to do aerobic exercises - given that women can sustain aerobic exercises longer than men. Or that pitting upper body strength against lower body strength has anything to do with the ability to operate complicated equipment, fly jet aircraft, or fire sophisticated weapons. Brains, not brawn should be the watchword.
Hasn't anyone noticed that separate standards are a way of life in the rest of the world? Professional golf has the PGA and the LPGA - different strokes for different folks. Basketball has the NBA and the WNBA - neither sex is expected to play the other's game. The Olympics has men's events and women's events - so what's the big deal about the military creating different sets of standards for age, sex, and as qualifiers for particular jobs?

The rules are totally different with respect to physical standards for combat arms. According to Lt General Claudia Kennedy the following is the reality:
"These are the facts: Soldiers enlisting in the combat arms, who are by regulatory definition all men , undergo both Basic and Advanced Individual Training in gender-segregated (all male) units in what is known as One Station Unit Training. Therefore there are no women trainees to "weaken" the combat arms as political critics persist in implying. Their argument is without merit."

5. In extremely poor conditions that can occur on the front lines of a war a womens natural cycle can become an extra sanitary problem. It is hard enough to keep soliders healthy on the front lines as it is. Pills can stop the cycle but it isn't always possible to get enough ammo and bullets nevermind extra medical concerns.
4. The "extra time going to the bathroom" claim:
Critics and opponents of women in the military often state that "women will delay troops in the field by having to undress to go to the bathroom" - or "women pilots take more time on relief breaks".
The reality is that intelligent miltary women have discovered female products like "The Lady J" and "Freshette" - female portable urinals used by female campers, aviators, and mountain climbers. As for the other necessary function - both genders have to bottom strip for that. So face it guyz - the day has come when women can stand up to - well you know the rest.

10. The "women can't endure the rough living conditions in a combat zone" claim:
Get a grip - do you think they stayed at a luxury hotel in the Gulf?
According to General Holm: "Many U.S. military women lived like grunts in the field. They slept in coed tents so cramped that if anyone turned over you knew it and under lean-tos set up beside the trucks they drove. They endured blistering heat and the lack of privacy. They ate MREs, guzzled bottled water, went days without showers and put powder in their hair instead of washing it."
Source: Major General Jeanne Holm in "Women in the Military - an Unfinished Revolution".

Bravo to women who serve in the military. They can kill people from miles away in aircraft with the best of them and do almost every job in the military. Direct front line service is just plain foolish though. War is no place to let emotion get in the way of strategy.
13. The "Feminization of the Military" lament:

This babbling treatise belongs in the 8-track graveyard along with the rest of the "Archie Bunker" philosophies. It's usually prattled by a short-timer with about two years served, over thirty years ago, who has gone on to other things. To advocate denying the equal opportunity education, training and benefits of military service to women, and to hawk the feminization lament as a reason is condemnation without reason.

The armed forces draw their members from our modern society - it follows that the make up of the services must reflect that society from which they are drawn. Feminism is not the catalyst behind women volunteering to serve nor is it the motivator. Ask the women who served long before feminism was a pop-culture term. Do those who espouse a womanless military also want it to be a plebian corps with philistine standards or a skilled modern force trained and equipped to maintain peace worldwide?

If they are willing to get shot to protect my scrawny ass god bless them and have fun:D

Wait so is there like a stove in the cockpit? :D
...Just Kidding all woman, I think it's great that you can get the chance to play an active role in combat.

True, the majority of women could probably not make it as infantry. But some could.
Simply don't change the other standards for infantry. Those women that can make the cut get to be infantry. We'll end up with our infantry majority male but not all-male.

Also, the IDF has women in combat roles. Back in the War of Independence, they had girls in their mid-teens shooting Uzis and hurling Molotovs right and left. They need every soldier they can get.

As someone with combat experience (0302, 0-2) i can honestly say that i would not want a woman in my patrol ever. My experience is completely in afghanistan in mountains so i dont know how it translates over to iraq too well. After a 6 hour foot patrol, thats right no humvees in the rocky terrain in high altitudes, even the strongest man would be wiped. We brought a female journalist on one of our patrols and we had to call in a medivac because she was complaining of being tired. Listen, the object of warfare is not to be equal to all, it is to win the war.

Anyone stupid enough to volunteer to be thrown into the front lines and shoot at people and be shot at should be allowed to do so. Male, female, gay or straight, the physical strength differences exist within as well as between the groups, and all the rest of the differences make no difference at all, except to the patriarchal setup that runs the military.

5. In extremely poor conditions that can occur on the front lines of a war a womens natural cycle can become an extra sanitary problem. It is hard enough to keep soliders healthy on the front lines as it is. Pills can stop the cycle but it isn't always possible to get enough ammo and bullets nevermind extra medical concerns.

This is a bit of a misnomer, since tampons and maxipads actually make for extremely effective sterile bandages in an emergency. Ergo, having a bunch of them around wouldn't nearly be the burden you suggest since they are effectively dual purpose.

As someone with combat experience (0302, 0-2) i can honestly say that i would not want a woman in my patrol ever. My experience is completely in afghanistan in mountains so i dont know how it translates over to iraq too well. After a 6 hour foot patrol, thats right no humvees in the rocky terrain in high altitudes, even the strongest man would be wiped. We brought a female journalist on one of our patrols and we had to call in a medivac because she was complaining of being tired. Listen, the object of warfare is not to be equal to all, it is to win the war.
So make the women who want in on combat pass the exact same physical qualifiers. Hell, a lot of male journos you brought on the patrol would probably be in the same shape, the difference is that they would be less likely to bitch about it for fear of ridicule, warranted or not.

Ever seen the famed Newt Gingrich speech when he griped about women in combat? It's great, and it shows he has no knowledge of modern warfare.

Not impressed.

Women have every right to be just as miserable as men. If they want to fight, let them. In the air, on land, it doesn't matter. The only caveat is that men and women should be subject to exactly the same standards in training and afterward. We don't need anymore Kara Hultgreen's coddled through flight school and turned loose into situations that were above her ability to handle.

Bravo Zulu to Saint Piro. I have no doubts she is a fine aviator and a true hero(ine).

Thats a pilot not a foot soldier. I've already posted all my points in other threads so I'll just run them down real quick. <snip>

Clearly you have no personal experience fighting alongside women.

Not impressed.
Doesn't give a shit.

Clearly you have no personal experience fighting alongside women.
The Marine Corps was wise enough to leave women at home during the Gulf War. I have served on CVs and CVNs with women on board and the efforts to accomodate them usually look like the makeshift efforts that they were.

Think about how a carrier is designed. Maximum and highly efficient use of space is important. So there are large bunkrooms, rather than small staterooms, common heads, rather than private lavatories, and very little privacy anywhere. Now, when you start to carve out space for women, it's darned difficult to do it in a way that doesn't affect the normal flow of traffic.

Without planning for women in the design stage of a ship, it's almost impossible to accomodate them properly. That's reason enough, in my mind, to leave the women sailors at home.

The Marine Corps was wise enough to leave women at home during the Gulf War. I have served on CVs and CVNs with women on board and the efforts to accomodate them usually look like the makeshift efforts that they were.

Think about how a carrier is designed. Maximum and highly efficient use of space is important. So there are large bunkrooms, rather than small staterooms, common heads, rather than private lavatories, and very little privacy anywhere. Now, when you start to carve out space for women, it's darned difficult to do it in a way that doesn't affect the normal flow of traffic.

Without planning for women in the design stage of a ship, it's almost impossible to accomodate them properly. That's reason enough, in my mind, to leave the women sailors at home.

IMO, you are thinking of the presence or absence of women from an entirely logistical perspective. Thank God our commanders take more factors into consideration.

Without going into the physical strength differences, without going into hygiene, without debating potential problems with sexual tension... all of which have been debated a hundred times before in this forum...

How can we ask our soldiers to put on a uniform and go defend freedom, if half of our own citizens are not free to put on that uniform?

If freedom is worth defending, it is worth defending universally. Even in the face of your own opposing preferences.

Who says women shouldn't serve on the front?

Menopausal women are scary as hell, and they'd be even scarier to the terrorists who think bombing military checkpoints is fun...

IMO, you are thinking of the presence or absence of women from an entirely logistical perspective. Thank God our commanders take more factors into consideration.

Without going into the physical strength differences, without going into hygiene, without debating potential problems with sexual tension... all of which have been debated a hundred times before in this forum...

How can we ask our soldiers to put on a uniform and go defend freedom, if half of our own citizens are not free to put on that uniform?

If freedom is worth defending, it is worth defending universally. Even in the face of your own opposing preferences.
A logistical point of view is a practical point of view. Why should a system that has worked well over the years be turned upside down to accomodate some social experimentation?

I don't have any particular objections to women serving. But there is a time and a place for everything. First there must be significance. Don't turn the Navy on it's head for a couple dozen feminists. Wait until there is some demand from the women already serving for sea duty. Second, don't take a perfectly functional ship and make it co-ed. Wait until properly designed ships are available. Last, why is it that the only way to defend freedom is to serve in combat arms? Most men don't even do that.

I'v said before about the UK MOD trialing women's capabilities as front line 'grunts' and didn't go well, but IMO, i think women do a better job in things like logistics than men due to the natural multi tasking ability(i know its a generalisation, but is mostly the case),and are prized assets in this role.

A logistical point of view is a practical point of view. Why should a system that has worked well over the years be turned upside down to accomodate some social experimentation?

The English monarchy "worked well over the years" too. People still wanted their rights. Hence "some social experimentation" was conducted anyway, and voila! The United States.

I don't have any particular objections to women serving. But there is a time and a place for everything. First there must be significance. Don't turn the Navy on it's head for a couple dozen feminists. Wait until there is some demand from the women already serving for sea duty. Second, don't take a perfectly functional ship and make it co-ed. Wait until properly designed ships are available.

Clearly women want to serve, or there would be no need to "accomodate" them. There are over 200,000 (http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/) women serving in all branches of the US military today. That's hardly a couple of dozen feminists. FYI, I used to be one of them.

Does making a ship co-ed somehow make it non-functioning? You know as well as I do that the Navy is not going to sideline billions of dollars worth of combat ships so they can add a few extra heads. This is about men bitching because it's less convenient to have women aboard. It's pretty much always less convenient to those in the majority (read: in power) to be fair and do the right thing. If the Revolutionary War will not suffice for an example here, see the Civil War, the Hawaiians, and the Native Americans for further instances of this being so.

Last, why is it that the only way to defend freedom is to serve in combat arms? Most men don't even do that.

Nobody said it was. But if a woman chooses to defend her freedoms and principles by picking up a weapon and serving her country, who are any of us to stop her? It should be her choice.

It's simple really, if women pass physical requirements thent there is no reason that they could not serve. The men who have problems just need to get over their prejudice that always occurs when women take over what is seen as a "man's role." Get over yourselves you chauvinistic pricks!

More on women and combat!


I agree with this statement. Moron women should be sent into combat. Just as ugly chicks need to go to beauty school.:D

5) If you are so out of touch with supplies, the lack of tampons is no more an unsantary risk than the lack of toilet paper.[/QUOTE]

utter crap in my opinion u can live without toilet papper "my bro does it", but women its harder to go a few months without em....

5) If you are so out of touch with supplies, the lack of tampons is no more an unsantary risk than the lack of toilet paper.

utter crap in my opinion u can live without toilet papper "my bro does it", but women its harder to go a few months without em....[/QUOTE]
Something a little more interesting than the lack of toilet paper and tampons is the pregnancy rate among women soldiers and sailors. I've seen figures as high as 15% of women in the Desert Storm theater were evacuated because of pregnancy. Maybe that's high. But the rate for men is zero point zero percent. That's another good argument for keeping women out of combat. Whatever the reason for their pregnancy, they have succeeded in doing what the enemy could not -- removing another soldier from the battlefield.

Bah! I thought this thread was about woman on woman combat. That would have been much better.

Doesn't give a shit.
Not surprised, o brave Tight-With-Shit.

There is a simple answer to all "can women be soldiers?" stuff. Judge individuals on their own merits, not their sex. One sentence, problem solved. Next!

COMMENTARY: This female pilot kicks ass! It's time America got over its sexism and gave women the same opportunities as men. Congress needs a swift kick in the butt!
Yup, gotta keep those warm bodies going over to Iraq, be they male or female!! :rolleyes:

U.S. Army recruiting down, terrorist recruiting up (http://www.westuexaminer.com/articles/2006/02/24/opinions/molly_ivins/molly03.txt)

• Over 2,200 Americans have been killed in action in Iraq and 16,000 seriously wounded. Because we are doing a better job saving the lives of the wounded, those who survive often have devastating injuries from which there is no recovery.

• The number of terrorist attacks per day in Iraq grew from 55 in December 2004 to 77 per day in December 2005.

• The remaining allies in Iraq plan to withdraw 25 percent or more of their 22,000 troops this year.

• Because of its total misjudgment of the war in Iraq, the administration has failed to enlarge the regular Army and has therefore put the entire institution under immense strain. The “stop-loss” refusal to let people leave at the end of their enlistments now affects 50,000 soldiers, and mobilization of the reserves and extended service are a form of draft.

Never mind trying to keep enlistment rates up by inducting women. Time to start withdrawing troops from Iraq so that they may enjoy their "democracy".

Next thing you know, you will be supporting 15 year old combatants. :rolleyes:

Another chica doing a traditionally male job in the military:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2004/a111604a.html

((And I knew this girl growing up!))

I see no problem with women in the forces. Go to any decent martial arts gym, there will always be one or two women who are capable of kicking almost everyone else's asses. They would have no problem with the psysical demands of combat (At my dojo there is an eight year old girl who can probs take out me, when she is grown up she will have no problem with this!). The problem of morale is non-existent, in anchient greece one of the city states and an army comprised entirely of homosexuals, the idea being that there would be greater morale and comradery. It worked. I see a slightly similar thing here. The sanitary problems, although something that needs to be sorted, is not so terrible. I myself have asthema, and so do many in the forces. It is a problem that needs to be fixed certainly, but it does not stop you from joining.

I see no problem with women in the forces. Go to any decent martial arts gym, there will always be one or two women who are capable of kicking almost everyone else's asses. They would have no problem with the psysical demands of combat (At my dojo there is an eight year old girl who can probs take out me, when she is grown up she will have no problem with this!). The problem of morale is non-existent, in anchient greece one of the city states and an army comprised entirely of homosexuals, the idea being that there would be greater morale and comradery. It worked. I see a slightly similar thing here. The sanitary problems, although something that needs to be sorted, is not so terrible. I myself have asthema, and so do many in the forces. It is a problem that needs to be fixed certainly, but it does not stop you from joining.

Yep, it was 'women for babies,men for pleasure'.Not my cup of tea but each to there own.

Another chica doing a traditionally male job in the military:

http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/nov2004/a111604a.html

((And I knew this girl growing up!))
She's definitely got the right attitude. She's not going to get any slack from a bunch of Marines, that's for sure.

As has already been said, if anyone wants to pursue a military career and is able to pass the relevant muster, why not.

I'm reminded of the (probably apocryphal, almsot certainly chauvinisticly inspired) tale of the female artilleryman[1] in Bosnia (or wherever the tale is set), who came under fire (a couple of shots, not getting seriously close) from some militia-type position on an opposing hillside. She fired back, letting loose $large_number_of shots on the 'aggressor' and almost certainly obliterating it many times over. When asked "Why did you fire $large_number_of times at the enemy position?" she replied, "I only had $large_number_of rounds".

I've done a cursory check of the web and not easily managed to find this tale, so it's probably an Urban Legend (can't find it in Snopes, though, from a cursory glance) so I present this only as a curiosity. Not a fact, and certainly not my opinion. (Mind you, while the Welsh Women in red shawls may or may not have intentionally fooled the hungover French invaders in 1797 that they were a Redcoat army, a woman such as Gemima 'Fawr' sounds as formidable as any of the local soldiers around at the time... ;)

[1] I'm not going to play my own part in the condescention that the feminised version might be taken as, but will apologise to any lady who would rather be a chairwoman than a chairman, etc, if that is their own will.

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.

As has already been said, if anyone wants to pursue a military career and is able to pass the relevant muster, why not.

I'm reminded of the (probably apocryphal, almsot certainly chauvinisticly inspired) tale of the female artilleryman[1] in Bosnia (or wherever the tale is set), who came under fire (a couple of shots, not getting seriously close) from some militia-type position on an opposing hillside. She fired back, letting loose $large_number_of shots on the 'aggressor' and almost certainly obliterating it many times over. When asked "Why did you fire $large_number_of times at the enemy position?" she replied, "I only had $large_number_of rounds".

I've done a cursory check of the web and not easily managed to find this tale, so it's probably an Urban Legend (can't find it in Snopes, though, from a cursory glance) so I present this only as a curiosity. Not a fact, and certainly not my opinion. (Mind you, while the Welsh Women in red shawls may or may not have intentionally fooled the hungover French invaders in 1797 that they were a Redcoat army, a woman such as Gemima 'Fawr' sounds as formidable as any of the local soldiers around at the time... ;)

[1] I'm not going to play my own part in the condescention that the feminised version might be taken as, but will apologise to any lady who would rather be a chairwoman than a chairman, etc, if that is their own will.

I don't know about Bosnia I'm sure it has happened a few times but the real story that I have heard that you can probably find quite easily online is in the American Revolutionary war. Since the battles were often very close to the families of the soldiers it was someone's mother or wife or sister and she came over when the artillery men died And fired the cannon throughout the battle. That one is a fact but I care not to look it up right now. Take a look if you like.

------Addressing other posts throughout the thread below line---------------

Causing a war is an issue of society and culture but winning it is not. It really doesn't matter if some women can or can't fight on the front lines there are plenty of 18-30 year old men who can be drafted. We have no need to try to incorporate women into the front lines. 'Equality' is not and has never been a deciding factor in the front lines of the military. Everything from your basic job to the weapon you carry is decided on physical and mental ability. Yes, a human male from a race that is smaller than another will have that held against them. Their duty will be different depending on ability. Women as a gender are at the lower end of the human spectrum of human physical ability.

As for the rest of the women who could physically handle the job just fine men are the problem. It is not the women's fault. Any possibility of pregnancy, infighting over relationships, special treatment, rape, sexual harassment, or loss of troop cohesion due to the fact that female-male relationships can be much more intense than just brotherly ones is enough risk to not even try putting women on the front lines. It is unnecessary and if anything the military should engage in as little unecessary risk as possible. A logical view on the matter is extremely important.

Don't say "women in the military" women are already in the military that is not even an issue. This is only about the front line. I agree with putting women in every single other role.

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.
Do all us civilians a favour and drop the patriarchal bullshit. The only thing that matters is running countries, not propping up your fantasy-life, erm - letting you "protect us".

We don't need your damn "protection". Stop promulgating the propaganda, pally.

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.

Thank you, Mr Powell, now do you mind if the civilians continue to have a mere discussion? It's not like making decisions for a doctor... no one here is in a position to make the military's decision on the matter. Not even you, I'll wager.

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.

Well I've known some very stupid doctors...

Anyway, your assumption that we know nothing is insulting, to say the least. I know quite a bit, having done a decent amount of research on the army. Your 'job' is in a democratic society to obey the will of the people. Which is not deciding to go off on some sexist rant :rolleyes:

Throughout history women have fought alongside the men, why should we in our modern society be any different, just because we have female equality?

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.
But you forget that the military serves the civilian interests of the country. My class at Annapolis was 'integrated' and we hated it. Women have gone on to be both valiant officers and troops, as well as major pains in the butt. The problem that we always faced was equal application of standards.

Kara Hultgren was the poster child for Equal Opportunity in Naval Aviation. She was passed through stages of training without demonstrating the same ability as a male aviator was required to do. Her ultimate fate wasn't pretty. She crashed while landing on a carrier during some lousy conditions. Washing her out when the time was right would have saved her and a RIO.

My only beef with women serving in combat arms, and let me make the distinction clear, those in combat arms are those that goe toe to toe with the enemy. My only beef is that the addition of women to a fighting force is likely to cause enough disruption that it will reduce the effectiveness.

The disruption of pregnancy evacuation has already proved itself. The rate of women evacuated from Desert Storm and from Bosnia is higher than for men. That reduces the strength of a fighting unit as well as any enemy bullet or bomb.

The disruption of accomodations is another beef. In a close enviroment like a CV or CVN, there isn't room to berth women properly. It's even worse on a SSN or SSBN.

Other than a vague concept of fairness, there really isn't much reason to experiment with the best military force in the world. But Devil Dog, remember who you work for. If they want to do it, you'll have to make it work.

Semper Fi, Buddy.

I hate it when servicemen and women act like they're somehow better than the rest of us. They're not. They never earned any special entitlement to opinions. Those who do their job and move on, well done, those who chat shit about protecting defenseless (weak? ignorant?) citizenry need to get over themselves. They're no better than some financial services executive who thinks he's Master of the Universe just because he drives a sports car and gets to gamble with other people's money. :rolleyes:

Seriously guys, this is a military issue not one for civilians. For civilians like yourselves to judge military issues is like a plumber making decisions for a doctor, it doesnt work. All you have is speculation based on what you "heard" and have no actual experience. You focus on how to better run the country and let us do our jobs and protect you. The military is here to win wars, not to fulfil the dreams of people to serve. We will not do anything that will jeopardize our ability to win wars with minimal casualties.

Interestingly enough, most of the top brass in the military, as well as most officers who have commanded women in combat situations (it happens all the time right now in Iraq) are fully in favor of allowing anyone, regardless of gender, do a job they are able to do.

It is Congress who keeps deciding that they can't...

I hate it when servicemen and women act like they're somehow better than the rest of us. They're not. They never earned any special entitlement to opinions. Those who do their job and move on, well done, those who chat shit about protecting defenseless (weak? ignorant?) citizenry need to get over themselves. They're no better than some financial services executive who thinks he's Master of the Universe just because he drives a sports car and gets to gamble with other people's money. :rolleyes:

As controversal as this point may be, I agree. I have great respect for the job the military does and have some family members and friends either already serving or currently finishing ROTC in college to be officers. However, you are just doing your job and you are supposed to be serving everyone else who is paying for you to be doing your job. I have thought about joining the military many times but decided there were other places in which my skills would be better. If there was a conflict that was actually important or that I believed in I would sign up or willingly be drafted. (you can think I'm full of it or not I don't give a shit I know what I would do)

Military service is, to me, a very respectable career but not an entitlement. Of course I'm not talking to anyone in particular and from my experience most people I know in the military don't consider it one. There are however those that do and much like police officers that think they are above civilians they are sadly mistaken.

Kara Hultgren was the poster child for Equal Opportunity in Naval Aviation. She was passed through stages of training without demonstrating the same ability as a male aviator was required to do. Her ultimate fate wasn't pretty. She crashed while landing on a carrier during some lousy conditions. Washing her out when the time was right would have saved her and a RIO.

I agree. There have to be equal standards for all.

My only beef with women serving in combat arms, and let me make the distinction clear, those in combat arms are those that goe toe to toe with the enemy. My only beef is that the addition of women to a fighting force is likely to cause enough disruption that it will reduce the effectiveness.

The disruption of pregnancy evacuation has already proved itself. The rate of women evacuated from Desert Storm and from Bosnia is higher than for men. That reduces the strength of a fighting unit as well as any enemy bullet or bomb.

The disruption of accomodations is another beef. In a close enviroment like a CV or CVN, there isn't room to berth women properly. It's even worse on a SSN or SSBN.

Why should they be bunked different from the men? When they join they know what they are letting themselves in for. The pregency issue can be solved by some pretty severe punishments for those who get pregnent, it is their fault after all.

Other than a vague concept of fairness, there really isn't much reason to experiment with the best military force in the world. But Devil Dog, remember who you work for. If they want to do it, you'll have to make it work.

Semper Fi, Buddy.

Not best in the world buddy. Not by a way. That 400 billion a year is going nowhere fast. But that discussion is for another thread... The point is it isn't about experimentation, it is about giving those who are capable of it a chance to fight on the line for their country. No matter what their sex is. I agree that they should be tested as the men are though, because they cannot slow anyone down.

I don't know about Bosnia I'm sure it has happened a few times but the real story that I have heard that you can probably find quite easily online is in the American Revolutionary war. Since the battles were often very close to the families of the soldiers it was someone's mother or wife or sister and she came over when the artillery men died And fired the cannon throughout the battle. That one is a fact but I care not to look it up right now. Take a look if you like.No, I could imagine... ;)

Actually, I find the real-life histories of the kind that partially inspired Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment are quite intruiging. Perhaps more from the POV that for all the known cases there must have been many not discovered... ;)

I hate it when servicemen and women act like they're somehow better than the rest of us. They're not. They never earned any special entitlement to opinions. Those who do their job and move on, well done, those who chat shit about protecting defenseless (weak? ignorant?) citizenry need to get over themselves. They're no better than some financial services executive who thinks he's Master of the Universe just because he drives a sports car and gets to gamble with other people's money. :rolleyes:
There is one thing a combat veteran brings to a discussion that you don't. Experience. That experience doesn't mean your opinion is worthless, but that they have earned a right to express theirs. And when they do, it's worth your while to listen before you dismiss them.

No, I could imagine... ;)

Actually, I find the real-life histories of the kind that partially inspired Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment are quite intruiging. Perhaps more from the POV that for all the known cases there must have been many not discovered... ;)

Yea it was kind funny there was a painting of that particular battle from the American Revolution in my history book in highschool and it had the women shooting the cannon topless because her shirt had been blown off or something since it was just a blouse. Even though that probably would happen if you wore a blouse to battle it was pretty funny that they just couldnt' resist incorporating breasts into a cool battle scene.

By the way her name was Margaret Corbin. I unfortunately couldn't find a picture of that painting though ;) .

All i'm saying is that you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do his job. I'm not gonna discuss all day how you are doing your job wrong so show the same courtesy. Also, don't tell me that you pay my salary because we all pay taxes in case you forgot. If you were never in the military or experienced combat then you have no way of knowing what it is like. Just like i don't know what it is like to be a civilian your whole life. I know equality and democracy are valued in the civilian world but in the military world they take a backseat to accomplishing the mission. Remember, unlike other careers, we put ourselves in the enemies fire, risking our lives, and we don't want to be "experimented" on by having women in the fray. Equality means nothing when everyone is dead and there is no one to be equal.

I agree with the military guy. God save us if the army is run by the rest of us.
They know what they are doing, so let them do it.

There is one thing a combat veteran brings to a discussion that you don't. Experience. That experience doesn't mean your opinion is worthless, but that they have earned a right to express theirs. And when they do, it's worth your while to listen before you dismiss them.
Yeah, cheers for that, my grandfather did 4 years as a battalion commander on the Eastern Front, others in my family included a submarine pilot and reservist paratrooper. Remember, in Russia military service is compulsory and people have done their share of fighting. As far as my family goes, I am actually an exception in never wearing a military uniform. So I know that military people have something to contribute to discussions on the military, but "STFU civvy" is not one of them. ;) And that is what the USMC leathernecks' opinion was - that non-military have nothing to contribute to the debate.

I never said military people weren't entitled to an opinion, I said I have an issue with those who believe theirs is superior because of the fact of their service. This fascist streak does sometimes rear its head - eg earlier General debates on whether military service should be considered as a prerequisite for the vote.

Its common sense that someones opinion is superior on a subject they know about compared to someone who has no idea.

My dads a plumber. Probably knows a helluva alot more about plumbing than I do and I would never doubt his opinion.

My grandad was in the navy. Probably knew helluva alot more about running a boat than I do.

My Great grandad fought in the battle of the Somme. Probably knows a helluva alot more about fighting in the trenches than I do.

All i'm saying is that you wouldn't tell a doctor how to do his job. I'm not gonna discuss all day how you are doing your job wrong so show the same courtesy. Also, don't tell me that you pay my salary because we all pay taxes in case you forgot. If you were never in the military or experienced combat then you have no way of knowing what it is like. Just like i don't know what it is like to be a civilian your whole life. I know equality and democracy are valued in the civilian world but in the military world they take a backseat to accomplishing the mission. Remember, unlike other careers, we put ourselves in the enemies fire, risking our lives, and we don't want to be "experimented" on by having women in the fray. Equality means nothing when everyone is dead and there is no one to be equal.

I don't pay taxes, as I'm a minor, and so if it makes you happy you can disregard all I am about to say. But don't say that equality and democracy has nothing to do with your job. It has everything to do with your job. Your job is essencially to defend our country and our ideoligies (sp) against others. You are fighting for, in effect, equality and democracy, among other things. And there are others risking their lives too, you know. Aid workers in africa, for one. Do not make the mistake of thinking you are above everyone else. Equality means everything when at least two people still live on this earth.

Its common sense that someones opinion is superior on a subject they know about compared to someone who has no idea.
Yeah, but you'd still argue with them if they said STFU noob, you're not entitled to an opinion. I did originally agree that women on the front line was a bad idea, but must contest the assertion that as someone with second-hand knowledge from family, my observation does not count.

Im not saying that you know nothing, im just saying dont tell me what you "know" when you have no experience. Fighting a war is not like politics, more like being a doctor in the sense that you can't debate about it unless you have spent a great deal of time studying it and actually doing it. You are looking at from a political standpoint where you can have an opinion. When lives are on the stake opinions mean nothing, only facts do. Having an opinion about wether we should allow women into the 03/11b fields is like having and opinion about wether 1+1 equals 2 or if it equals 3. There are only the things that work and those that don't.

Im not saying that you know nothing, im just saying dont tell me what you "know" when you have no experience. Fighting a war is not like politics, more like being a doctor in the sense that you can't debate about it unless you have spent a great deal of time studying it and actually doing it. You are looking at from a political standpoint where you can have an opinion. When lives are on the stake opinions mean nothing, only facts do. Having an opinion about wether we should allow women into the 03/11b fields is like having and opinion about wether 1+1 equals 2 or if it equals 3. There are only the things that work and those that don't.

Eh. Look back through history. Women fighting has worked pretty well as far as I can see. Where is your source? All the info I've got says Women+Army=Good. And I'm not looking from a political standpoint. I am looking from a practical standpoint, and an ethical one.

Hey man I've seen the frontline! CS:S style fools! Girls are noobs man, I always own them!

Im thinking of joining the army, but what if I get lag out there man? I might die? And I've heard theres no respawn points in RL!

Couldnt help it.
All this military talk.

BOOM headshot! BOOM headshot!
(I can dance all day, I can dance all day!)

Moto the wise, yes we do defend things like democracy and equality, but since when was taking a platoon wide vote on every manuever we were undertaking a smart thing? In the military we give up our freedoms to defend yours because you cant fight a war with a "free" force. If we did then there would be mass desertions. Just because we defend an ideology doesnt mean that we can practice it while we are defending it. Having women in the 11b/03 fields will be bad for the military but if i am ordered to have them in my platoon then i will because the military is not a democracy.

Hey man I've seen the frontline! CS:S style fools! Girls are noobs man, I always own them!

Im thinking of joining the army, but what if I get lag out there man? I might die? And I've heard theres no respawn points in RL!

Couldnt help it.
All this military talk.

BOOM headshot! BOOM headshot!
(I can dance all day, I can dance all day!)
I think resolving human conflicts through masked ninja keyboard duels conducted by "champions" is a better way of doing things than war.

If a woman is trained well enough to be equal (or even better) than a male soldier, she well deserves to be in the army. If she is a good fighter (especially with regards to martial arts training), she should be allowed to fight in close combat. The Army is an apparatus of the State, nothing more, nothing less. It is not a state within a state. It will bow to the will of the State. Ergo, if women can perform as well or better than men, these women should be allowed in. And save the "only we know how to run the army" trash. Doctors are often told how to do their jobs, and often have to revise their practises. Nothing in this world is carved in stone. Well, except idiocy.

Im not saying that you know nothing, im just saying dont tell me what you "know" when you have no experience

Why not?

People routinely discuss things that they themselves have not personally experienced and there's nothing wrong with that.

Fighting a war is not like politics, more like being a doctor in the sense that you can't debate about it unless you have spent a great deal of time studying it and actually doing it.

Au contraire, people can and do debate about doctors without having to BE one.

And while fighting a war is not like politics, we're not fighting a war here, this is a forum for discussion and discussion is what's happening.

You are looking at from a political standpoint where you can have an opinion. When lives are on the stake opinions mean nothing, only facts do.

Lives are not "on the stake" from this thread.

And yes, shocking as it may be, people CAN have an opinion.

Having an opinion about wether we should allow women into the 03/11b fields is like having and opinion about wether 1+1 equals 2 or if it equals 3.

No, it isn't. Mathematics is hard science: there is nothing to debate about the conclusion.

This isn't hard science. There are no "shoulds" in mathematics. The two are not comparable.

You're entitled to your opinion, and other people are entitled to theirs. Get over this and stop trying to regulate who gets to discuss what.

Eh. Look back through history. Women fighting has worked pretty well as far as I can see. Where is your source? All the info I've got says Women+Army=Good. And I'm not looking from a political standpoint. I am looking from a practical standpoint, and an ethical one.
Agreed. Simply because a soldier is the one giving the opinion does not make it any more valid.

Europa maxima, so your telling me that you are going to walk in on a surgery and tell the experienced surgeon how to perform it? I sure as hell don't want to be a patient at that hospital.

Europa maxima, so your telling me that you are going to walk in on a surgery and tell the experienced surgeon how to perform it? I sure as hell don't want to be a patient at that hospital.
You are trying to equiparate surgery with fighting? Seven years of medical training vs military training? Saving a life vs taking it? Whereas medical knowledge is confined, knowledge on fighting and so on is not. Many experts on combat exist outside the military. Ergo, you have no monopoly on information.

Oh, and by the way, if I did have medical knowledge, even if I was not a surgeon, and I saw the surgeon making a mistake, I would correct him.

Europa maxima, so your telling me that you are going to walk in on a surgery and tell the experienced surgeon how to perform it? I sure as hell don't want to be a patient at that hospital.

I don't think he is, just as he won't walk to the front line and try and tell all your army chums that they are doing it wrong. I believe he wishes to do the equivelent of trying to get a medical practice to be revised because there is a problem with it. Takes some research to see there is a problem, but not always seven years in med school. Same principle here. It is a policy that has no practical application, and the original declaration is firmly within the reals of the politics that you seem to dismiss.

Yes i am equating surgery to warfare, because you can study warfare for ten years and still not be a master. Plus, during a surgery, its just you trying to help someone, in warfare its you trying to accomplish your mission while someone else is trying to stop you from doing it.

I don't think he is, just as he won't walk to the front line and try and tell all your army chums that they are doing it wrong. I believe he wishes to do the equivelent of trying to get a medical practice to be revised because there is a problem with it. Takes some research to see there is a problem, but not always seven years in med school. Same principle here. It is a policy that has no practical application, and the original declaration is firmly within the reals of the politics that you seem to dismiss.
Exactly. The same applies to any sphere of life, most of all the government and its economic policies. This "we know better than you" attitude held by some is what stymies progress.

Im not saying that you know nothing, im just saying dont tell me what you "know" when you have no experience. Fighting a war is not like politics, more like being a doctor in the sense that you can't debate about it unless you have spent a great deal of time studying it and actually doing it. You are looking at from a political standpoint where you can have an opinion. When lives are on the stake opinions mean nothing, only facts do. Having an opinion about wether we should allow women into the 03/11b fields is like having and opinion about wether 1+1 equals 2 or if it equals 3. There are only the things that work and those that don't.
I'm gonna speak for everyone and say that your arguments might be better received if you applied just a little more tact. Next, I don't think any of us would mind hearing about why you don't think women are compatible in 03/11-land. My experience is all aviation, so I've got plenty of experience having to climb up a deck then down another just to avoid where the ship has carved out a section for women's berths. I'm sure you have reasons for your opinions, too.

The thing is, my opinions on this matter, though based on second-hand information, carry as much weight as anyone else who gets to vote in my country. The army is merely a political instrument, and while a serving soldier may have some sort of direct input into the decision making process, ultimately the military is forced to adapt to whatever its civilian masters tell it to do. One man, one vote. Sure, an ex-serviceman may have direct experience, but his influence on policy is no greater than mine, whether we agree or disagree. This is just as well, as a military with a mind of its own is a dangerous thing.

So, even though I lack first-hand experience, my entitlement to an opinion is equal, and through the mechanisms of the democratic system, the weight of my opinion is equal. Indeed, in spite of a lack of first-hand experience, my opinion may still turn out to be more reasonable, if subsequent experience supports it. After all, mere experience does not guarantee that the individual who has acquired it, has drawn the right conclusions.

Yes i am equating surgery to warfare, because you can study warfare for ten years and still not be a master. Plus, during a surgery, its just you trying to help someone, in warfare its you trying to accomplish your mission while someone else is trying to stop you from doing it.
Ah, so warfare is more complex than surgery. Yes. Especially brain surgery. God, they should rise the IQ tests for the military to 150, since only a genius can be in it. No. Warfare is as simple as kill or be killed. It is redundant. Saving lives is always of significance.

Women have proven to excel in combat and put up with dire circumstances. There is no reason to exclude them from the military. If men have a problem with it, it is for them to adapt. Not women. If a woman can outperform a man, she has all the right to be there.

The thing is, my opinions on this matter, though based on second-hand information, carry as much weight as anyone else who gets to vote in my country. The army is merely a political instrument, and while a serving soldier may have some sort of direct input into the decision making process, ultimately the military is forced to adapt to whatever its civilian masters tell it to do. One man, one vote. Sure, an ex-serviceman may have direct experience, but his influence on policy is no greater than mine, whether we agree or disagree. This is just as well, as a military with a mind of its own is a dangerous thing.
Indeed. It is little more than an arm of the state, which in turn is the slave of the people whom it represents.

So, even though I lack first-hand experience, my entitlement to an opinion is equal, and through the mechanisms of the democratic system, the weight of my opinion is equal. Indeed, in spite of a lack of first-hand experience, my opinion may still turn out to be more reasonable, if subsequent experience supports it. After all, mere experience does not guarantee that the individual who has acquired it, has drawn the right conclusions.
Exactly. And there are actually experts on combat out there, some of them ex-soldiers, who know far more than current soldiers. Many of these train women to fight, many of these are women, many of them support women in the army.

Bottom line, one of the most vital components of any fighting force is tradition and your forces history. The only thing that gets you through a six hour patrol in full battle rattle in 120 degree heat is knowing that you have to honor those who came before you by putting yourself throught the pain. Having women in infantry roles messes up the tradition because your no longer fighting for something that has been in existence and you have no one who came before you and you dont have to keep the honor going. Your fighting for a completely new institution and have no motive to make yourself suffer and complete the mission.

Wow. So what you are defending is tradition? Laughable. In ancient times, only aristocrats were allowed to fight. In ancien regime France, the nobles actually excluded others from higher ranks in the military due to their right of blood to be the elite. So what you want is tradition to prevail. Then perhaps the nobility should be restored, and social mobility should be ended. That would make more sense.

Traditions change. Oh, and by the way, women actually can have honour. In the Victorian times they were even called the devout gender, because of their sense of propriety. Many were nuns, devoted to religion. Even the rare few female Knights (and Samurai) in history more than proved their valour.

Ah, so warfare is more complex than surgery. Yes. Especially brain surgery. God, they should rise the IQ tests for the military to 150, since only a genius can be in it. No. Warfare is as simple as kill or be killed. It is redundant. Saving lives is always of significance.

Women have proven to excel in combat and put up with dire circumstances. There is no reason to exclude them from the military. If men have a problem with it, it is for them to adapt. Not women. If a woman can outperform a man, she has all the right to be there.
Some women have proved up to the task. Most men are able to be trained. You do the Venn diagrams. The idea that women can always be successful in direct combat is pretty damned hypothetical.

Some women have proved up to the task. Most men are able to be trained. You do the Venn diagrams. The idea that women can always be successful in direct combat is pretty damned hypothetical.
Then those women who are successful should be allowed to fight. It should be based on ability, not gender.

Neu Leonstein,

Saluton,
I *bow* to what you said. Great write!

It:sniper:the ego-trippers out there!

I only quote part of it below, but I enjoyed all of it.

Gxis Revido,
Senjoro Rafe
The Rafe System

Neu Leonstein wrote:

The armed forces draw their members from our modern society - it follows that the make up of the services must reflect that society from which they are drawn. Feminism is not the catalyst behind women volunteering to serve nor is it the motivator. Ask the women who served long before feminism was a pop-culture term. Do those who espouse a womanless military also want it to be a plebian corps with philistine standards or a skilled modern force trained and equipped to maintain peace worldwide?

Bottom line, one of the most vital components of any fighting force is tradition and your forces history. The only thing that gets you through a six hour patrol in full battle rattle in 120 degree heat is knowing that you have to honor those who came before you by putting yourself throught the pain. Having women in infantry roles messes up the tradition because your no longer fighting for something that has been in existence and you have no one who came before you and you dont have to keep the honor going. Your fighting for a completely new institution and have no motive to make yourself suffer and complete the mission.

Horseshit!

"Oh no, I have no pride in my profession... cuz there are women in it now, and there didn't used to be. Now I refuse to fight!"

Some women have proved up to the task. Most men are able to be trained. You do the Venn diagrams. The idea that women can always be successful in direct combat is pretty damned hypothetical.

And not one I think anyone here supports. However if a woman can go through basic and beyond, I see no reason why she shouldn't be allowed on the front line.

And not one I think anyone here supports. However if a woman can go through basic and beyond, I see no reason why she shouldn't be allowed on the front line.
Precisely. If a woman can excel in combat (some women can outdo men with equivalent training even), then she should be endorsed.

Horseshit!

"Oh no, I have no pride in my profession... cuz there are women in it now, and there didn't used to be. Now I refuse to fight!"
Heh you certainly didn't hear doctors or advocates saying that...or wait, they did, they failed. Too bad that women can actually be as good as men. What ever is the world coming to. :rolleyes:

Bottom line, one of the most vital components of any fighting force is tradition and your forces history...Your fighting for a completely new institution and have no motive to make yourself suffer and complete the mission.
Continuity? All the militaries of the world have been radically reorganised many times. The dissatisfied conscript military that went to Vietnam is not the volunteer professional one you have seen. The continuity is an illusion. Similarly the US armies that went to war as recently as WW1 and WW2, cannot be compared, culturally or organisationally with the one today. In WW2, the US sent an army segregated by race to fight the Nazis, for god's sake! Talk about an irony that tastes bitter today. In many other countries the discontinuity is even greater - with armies routinely fighting for competing political ideologies at different points over the course of a century - the flag and name of their country itself changing. Everyone fights for a new institution. Everyone is taught to believe they are fighting for an old one.

Listen Santa Barbara, you dont know the meaning of hard work, you probabley think that taking a 3 mile run is difficult. You need MOTIVATION to put youself through the kind of pain that we do. Our tradition is a major source of that motivation. To take that away from us in the name of equality is a foolish thing to do that only jeopardizes your safety and ours. Its all in the head, the second that you take any of our motivation away is the second that our weak, civilized minds start to say that we shouldn't be doing this for other people because they dont do it for us. In order to keep on goin you cant let your human wants get in the way of the needs of your fellow marines and that of the United States of America. Taking that little bit of motivation away from us will allow that civilized side of us to represent itself in our minds and let us say that we shouldn't be putting ourselves through this because they don't do it for us. I can't tell you how demoralizing it is to go to a mall and see a fat peice of shit sitting and eating a cinnabon after an intense day of shopping. We need that source of motivation to keep going, dont take it away.

USMC, you are pathetic. You need women excluded from the army to be motivated? Simply fighting for God and country is not enough? Fighting with a person who believes in a common cause is not enough simply because she is a woman? Hell, if people thought this way, why not segregate society entirely! Women demotivate men...so they should live separately. That way men can retain their moral. Your sole motivation and source of moral is pride in what you yourself do. Your arguments against women in the army are worthless. And if you cannot control your sexual urges, then the problem lies with you.

And keep in mind, that "fat" person eating a cinnabon after a day of intensive shopping is your wage-giver. Don't get too high and mighty for your own good. The Army is a public service that drains private funds, much like the parasite that the Government is. Don't make a bad situation worse.

We will still fight, but it makes it a helluva lot easier to get my men to do what they are supposed to do when they have high morale. Did i say that women demotivate us directly? no. I simply stated that in order to maintain high morale we have to keep the tradition going and have it be believable. If introducing women into the infantry is going to hurt it in any way then why would we do it?

We will still fight, but it makes it a helluva lot easier to get my men to do what they are supposed to do when they have high morale. Did i say that women demotivate us directly? no. I simply stated that in order to maintain high morale we have to keep the tradition going and have it be believable. If introducing women into the infantry is going to hurt it in any way then why would we do it?
Inconsequential. Traditions change. Times change. It will only hurt the army due to individual idiocy on part of male soldiers.

Listen Santa Barbara, you dont know the meaning of hard work, you probabley think that taking a 3 mile run is difficult.

:rolleyes:

You need MOTIVATION to put youself through the kind of pain that we do. Our tradition is a major source of that motivation. To take that away from us in the name of equality is a foolish thing to do that only jeopardizes your safety and ours.

Tradition changes. See my earlier comments about tanks that you conviniently ignored.


Its all in the head, the second that you take any of our motivation away is the second that our weak, civilized minds start to say that we shouldn't be doing this for other people because they dont do it for us. In order to keep on goin you cant let your human wants get in the way of the needs of your fellow marines and that of the United States of America. Taking that little bit of motivation away from us will allow that civilized side of us to represent itself in our minds and let us say that we shouldn't be putting ourselves through this because they don't do it for us.

If "My fellow soldiers all have penises" is your only source of motivation, you need serious help.

Saluton,
It is to you as well, Upper Botswavia, that I *bow*. So few people these days willing to put their ego on "silent".

I PERSONALLY believe "the body will do what the mind demands". i.e.:
Someone wants to defend their country/unit/family/own lives...let them! It does not matter weither they be male, female, gay, bi, straight, in drag, or transgender. Nor does it matter what country they come from. Nor the language, or religion...they will still kick azz to the best of their ability, only better after training...

If you have to go to the bathroom/shower/sleep/etc. in the field, you will...and you know that no one else gives a damn what is or is not between your legs or what you get sexually excited about, because you carry a weapon, and probably saved their lives a few times.

Those of you who do not understand what I wrote, try this: Spay/Neuter your ego ASAP!!! Read the FACTS, not the hysteria!

Gxis Revido,
Senjoro Rafe,
The Rafe System

Upper Botswavia wrote:
Anyone stupid enough to volunteer to be thrown into the front lines and shoot at people and be shot at should be allowed to do so. Male, female, gay or straight, the physical strength differences exist within as well as between the groups, and all the rest of the differences make no difference at all, except to the patriarchal setup that runs the military.

It's come a long way since my mother was in the WACs. Learning to use a weapon was optional.

As far as feminine hygeine goes, tampons were invented by two WWI nurses who found the diapers worn by menstruating women back then cumbersome. The original tampons were rolled up bandages. The word tampon comes from the French word for bandage.

I for one find the notion that women are constitutionally unable to perform as well as men in combat to be ridiculous. So they don't start with the same upper body strength or stamina[1]: it may take them more time and effort, but any healthy woman can train until she meets the Army's requirements. And, yes, the requirements should be the same for both sexes, because the hardships and dangers of being in the field are the same for everyone.

Any woman can be as intelligent, resourceful, and tough as any man - perhaps even more so. Being female does not make a person unable to handle a gun, operate complex equipment or devise and carry out strategic and tactical plans. They just have to learn it, like anyone else.

Also, the whole problem of women "disrupting the camraderie" (yes, it's spelled "camraderie," people) of a unit on the battlefield is utterly stupid. That's the male soldiers' problem, not the women's problem. The guys will just have to learn to control themselves. And as far as the "protecting the women" thing goes, well, any woman who has what it takes to enlist and complete training is sure to come down like a ton of bricks on any male soldier who tries to coddle her.

Lastly, like a male soldier, a female soldier can cope with harsh conditions and biological needs (like menstruation) without causing problems for her unit. After all, she has to keep up just like everyone else - and she'll find a way to do it.

Willing women should not be barred from serving on the front lines because some chauvanistic soldiers, officers, and/or Congressmen have ridiculous ideas about what a woman is or is not capable of.

[1]The "stamina" thing is debatable - women have stronger legs than men and they are biologically designed to weather ordeals such as, say, the long and painful process that is the miracle of childbirth

Europa, How is the morale of our forces inconsecuential? You're saying that the institution that has won every war it has been told to carry out except for one controversial one is made up of idiot males? Santa Barbara, the fact that my fellow marines are males is not the source of motivation, it is the tradition that is a motivation and the bonding that occurs between males.

I for one find the notion that women are constitutionally unable to perform as well as men in combat to be ridiculous. So they don't start with the same upper body strength or stamina[1]: it may take them more time and effort, but any healthy woman can train until she meets the Army's requirements. And, yes, the requirements should be the same for both sexes, because the hardships and dangers of being in the field are the same for everyone.
Furthermore, martial arts training can sidetrack strength altogether, or at least limit it as a factor, depending on the martial art. A woman at the height of her fitness and an expert in martial arts can make an overwhelmingly powerful fighter. She should not be excluded merely because of gender.

Europa, How is the morale of our forces inconsecuential? You're saying that the institution that has won every war it has been told to carry out except for one controversial one is made up of idiot males? Santa Barbara, the fact that my fellow marines are males is not the source of motivation, it is the tradition that is a motivation and the bonding that occurs between males.
It is inconsequential if it is your own personal idiocy that weakens it. Then you are no longer a soldier, merely a chauvinist with an ethos too weak to accept women alongside you. You no longer believe in the cause, just what you want it to be. You are defending your country on our payroll. You are not defending some vague tradition.

Other professionals overcame this idiotic bias. Maybe soldiers should start waking up too.

Though I'm in nowhere near that shape now, I certainly could have outdone your average guy straight out of high school. I was looking at joining the Marines at the time. (Didn't work out, I'm too blind)
At 5'7" and 117 pounds, I could leg press 700 pounds. (though I could only bench about 100) I could sling all but the heaviest guys over my shoulder.
Our strengths may be in different places, but guys aren't so much more fit for combat as people (esp congress) seems to think. Women frequently have superior lower body strength. I could always get a guy to surrender in a game of wrestling by wrapping my legs around his chest and squeezing until he couldn't breathe.(even better if wrestling evolves into something more fun)

You're right--anyone physically able to handle the job ought to be able to do it. That's one of the things I love about the remake of Battlestar Galactica--the sense of meritocracy in that universe. Starbuck is the best pilot in the fleet, and her sex is never an issue.

I know this is a long way down the thread for a direct reply but...Farscape too! The Peacekeepers didn't make any distinctions with regard to gender. ;)

Europa, How is the morale of our forces inconsecuential? You're saying that the institution that has won every war it has been told to carry out except for one controversial one is made up of idiot males? Santa Barbara, the fact that my fellow marines are males is not the source of motivation, it is the tradition that is a motivation and the bonding that occurs between males.

My friend is in the Reserves and her being female hasn't hindered unit bonding in any way. Genders don't bond, people do.

Though I'm in nowhere near that shape now, I certainly could have outdone your average guy straight out of high school. I was looking at joining the Marines at the time. (Didn't work out, I'm too blind)
At 5'7" and 117 pounds, I could leg press 700 pounds. (though I could only bench about 100) I could sling all but the heaviest guys over my shoulder.
Our strengths may be in different places, but guys aren't so much more fit for combat as people (esp congress) seems to think. Women frequently have superior lower body strength. I could always get a guy to surrender in a game of wrestling by wrapping my legs around his chest and squeezing until he couldn't breathe.(even better if wrestling evolves into something more fun)
Indeed. Many women do have an advantage here. Better balance and flexibility, as well as proportionally longer legs, also help with kicks. Regardless, martial arts training can sidetrack or even entirely nullify strength, depending on the art (deflective ones tend to do the latter more often). Thus, a woman well versed in martial arts can be a force to be reckoned with.

Europa, How is the morale of our forces inconsecuential? You're saying that the institution that has won every war it has been told to carry out except for one controversial one is made up of idiot males? Santa Barbara, the fact that my fellow marines are males is not the source of motivation, it is the tradition that is a motivation and the bonding that occurs between males.
Yeah, you know a couple of generations ago the same was said of blacks. Absolutely hilarious, how American soldiers who went off to fight a racist regime, firmly believed that blacks undermined morale and team cohesion in mixed units, and they were best deployed in segregated units at the rear, in logistics and engineering. They could fill sandbags, they could fix and drive trucks, but no, we can't have them sharing a front-line trench with the white boys. Black man, flying a plane? LOL! They can't handle it. OK, well we'll create an experimental unit and see how they do in the Mediterranean theatre...

You were saying something about tradition? Exact same stuff was said back then, you know. People feeling threatened, devalued, fearing for the combat effectiveness of their units, arguing against allowing black men train as pilots, then fly fighters. But they proved they could fly the planes OK. They proved they could fight in the infantry OK, without dragging down the military's combat effectiveness and standards of conduct.

Would you really question today, the wisdom of allowing black men to fight as equals by the side of their white comrades? See, now you're just rolling out the same faux tradition crap.

We will still fight, but it makes it a helluva lot easier to get my men to do what they are supposed to do when they have high morale. Did i say that women demotivate us directly? no. I simply stated that in order to maintain high morale we have to keep the tradition going and have it be believable. If introducing women into the infantry is going to hurt it in any way then why would we do it?

Hmm, change a few words and that sounds like the reasoning people gave when objecting to integrating blacks and whites in the military.

[1]The "stamina" thing is debatable - women have stronger legs than men and they are biologically designed to weather ordeals such as, say, the long and painful process that is the miracle of childbirth
Indeed. Higher flexibility can also allow them to absorb high levels of pain easier due to being more elastic.

Hmm, change a few words and that sounds like the reasoning people gave when objecting to integrating blacks and whites in the military.
Beat you to it. :p

Double race card. Damn, that's a good hand. :D

Beat you to it. :p

Double race card. Damn, that's a good hand. :D
:p

Just 'cause I can't type.

I would have to say that there would have been good reason to keep black and white troops apart in world war II if we didn't need many more forces. This is not a question of morality but one of common sense. If we are in a superior position in the war and we have no problems then why would we risk our victory by changing something. During peacetime then it would be morally inconceivable to not do what is right and mix the races/sexes in roles as long as all parties are equally capable. However, in the middle of a war, this is not the kind of change that we need.

We will still fight, but it makes it a helluva lot easier to get my men to do what they are supposed to do when they have high morale. Did i say that women demotivate us directly? no. I simply stated that in order to maintain high morale we have to keep the tradition going and have it be believable. If introducing women into the infantry is going to hurt it in any way then why would we do it?

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that men wouldn't be motivated by having women in the military?

That's funny. Most of the 'macho' guys I know hate being outdone by women. If the women are performing to the same standard the guys usually perform at, it's practically a given that the guys will then break their necks trying to go the extra mile to outdo her. I would consider that extra motivation, not a lessening of motivation.

We will still fight, but it makes it a helluva lot easier to get my men to do what they are supposed to do when they have high morale. Did i say that women demotivate us directly? no. I simply stated that in order to maintain high morale we have to keep the tradition going and have it be believable. If introducing women into the infantry is going to hurt it in any way then why would we do it?

You keep saying "we" as if you speak for the entire military, while most of the top officials in the military, as well as many of the officers, have no problem with women being included at all.

On top of that, every military member I have *ever* spoken to has stated that, if the woman can pull her own weight, they have no problem at all with having her there. (They also state that they have no problem with a gay enlisted man).

It seems to me that you are actually a chauvinistic minority in the military.

I know this is a long way down the thread for a direct reply but...Farscape too! The Peacekeepers didn't make any distinctions with regard to gender. ;)
These are the kinds of fantasy that makes some folks think that women, in general, are up to the task of aggressively seeking out and killing an enemy. We have plenty of real evidence that there are some women that can perform the task. But, aside from this thread and maybe this forum, I don't see such a great groundswell of demand for equal participation that the DoD should be required to initiate any special programs to accelerate the participation of women in combat roles. Let the changes occur naturally and a good balance will be achieved.

Just remember -- Women on a ship are bad luck.

These are the kinds of fantasy that makes some folks think that women, in general, are up to the task of aggressively seeking out and killing an enemy. We have plenty of real evidence that there are some women that can perform the task. But, aside from this thread and maybe this forum, I don't see such a great groundswell of demand for equal participation that the DoD should be required to initiate any special programs to accelerate the participation of women in combat roles. Let the changes occur naturally and a good balance will be achieved.

Just remember -- Women on a ship are bad luck.
Agreed. :) If a woman can fill a role, she should be allowed to do so. In time, the balance will be achieved as you said.

Its fine that they you think they should, but is there a need and what are the positives for the force as a whole?

Err that they can be recruited as able soldiers? What is the positive in recruiting men who are less able on the sole basis that they are male? None. It should be based on pure ability, not gender.

Err that they can be recruited as able soldiers? What is the positive in recruiting men who are less able on the sole basis that they are male? None. It should be based on pure ability, not gender.
I tend to agree. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can satisfy the physical and mental demands of being a soldier or marine, and who truly wants to be, should be able to serve ... period.

Find me a woman who can pump out a minimum 17 pull-ups and sub 18:00 3 mile and a high and tight haircut and she'll do fine in my platoon. However i have never encountered a female with these characteristics. I don't know of any males (at least in my company) who cant score at least a 275 on the marine pft. I dont know any woman who can do that with male standards. If you can find me that 1% of the female population and they want to be infantry then so be it. But until they can pass the physical requirements of men and they have a high and tight hair cut(trust me, you don't want long hair when you go long periods w/o showers) dont tell me they should be. Also, you don't make this kind of fundamental change to your force structure when you have a good thing going and you are in the middle of a war. After were disengaged then w/e.

I tend to agree. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who can satisfy the physical and mental demands of being a soldier or marine, and who truly wants to be, should be able to serve ... period.
Of course. Any problems flowing from males not being able to adapt are their personal problem, not the female's.

Find me a woman who can pump out a minimum 17 pull-ups and sub 18:00 3 mile and a high and tight haircut and she'll do fine in my platoon. However i have never encountered a female with these characteristics. I don't know of any males (at least in my company) who cant score at least a 275 on the marine pft. I dont know any woman who can do that with male standards. If you can find me that 1% of the female population and they want to be infantry then so be it. But until they can pass the physical requirements of men and they have a high and tight hair cut(trust me, you don't want long hair when you go long periods w/o showers) dont tell me they should be.
If they can pass them though, they should be in, no matter how many can. If it's 20% of the female population, then 20%. If 1%, then 1%. If 50%, then 50%. Ability and not gender should be the basis of it.

Europa Maxima, you say that any problems that he males have doesnt matter. But are they not the majority in the military? I believe you've said the military is just an extension of our democratic government. If the majority has a certain viewpoint shouldn't that viewpoint be adopted?

Europa Maxima, you say that any problems that he males have doesnt matter. But are they not the majority in the military? I believe you've said the military is just an extension of our democratic government. If the majority has a certain viewpoint shouldn't that viewpoint be adopted?
No. Entry requirements should be based solely on ability. Otherwise it's a majoritarian dictatorship, ie the majority oppresses the minority. The Army is not a minority. It is a branch of the government itself. So it doesn't quite work that way. It would be the same as blacks putting a bar on entering government for whites, were blacks the majority.

Of course. Any problems flowing from males not being able to adapt are their personal problem, not the female's.
Exactly. The great majority won't have any problems with it, being the professional soldiers they are. The UCMJ will take care of the rest. :D

Europa Maxima, you say that any problems that he males have doesnt matter. But are they not the majority in the military? I believe you've said the military is just an extension of our democratic government. If the majority has a certain viewpoint shouldn't that viewpoint be adopted?
Not in the military, bro. You know that.

But in the military you want to have the majority of your force fighting to the best of their ability not the minority of it.

If you can find me that 1% of the female population and they want to be infantry then so be it.
You're aware that there are more hardcore units than the Marines in which women do serve successfully, right?

YAMAM for example.

Indeed, the entire IDF is an excellent example of the fact that women can fight just as well as men. Whether they fight fighter jets or they slug it out in the urban combat of the refugee camps, they are there.

But in the military you want to have the majority of your force fighting to the best of their ability not the minority of it.

Yes, and your chauvinistic attitudes are in the minority. Thus, it is *you* who should be cut out in the case of women being allowed in the military, not the women who could do the job better than you while you whined that there were people wearing tampons near you.

Personally, I hate the idea of discriminating simply because of sex. For combat intensive jobs (particularly ground and maybe sea mind you) I believe a standard should be set. A single standard. It might vary from branch to branch, but that's reasonable as each branch has it's own particular missions. <br> If an individual can meet those standards, it shouldn't matter. Already people with special conditions take to the field, they just have to remember to bring their medication, inhalers whatever...so why not tampons right along with? It might be assumed that somebody that could meet said standards would be able enough to compensate for whatever limitations they might have. <br> A blind standard set high enough to cover all foreseeable physical and mental requirements to me seems to be the idea. Whomever can meet them, man or woman, shouldn't matter. For reasons like this it might be that I'll never make it past mid level bureaucrat when I go active duty myself.

But in the military you want to have the majority of your force fighting to the best of their ability not the minority of it.
Yes, but that does not mean suppressing a minority which can perform as well, or even outperform, the majority simply because the majority is biased.

As someone with combat experience (0302, 0-2) i can honestly say that i would not want a woman in my patrol ever. My experience is completely in afghanistan in mountains so i dont know how it translates over to iraq too well. After a 6 hour foot patrol, thats right no humvees in the rocky terrain in high altitudes, even the strongest man would be wiped. We brought a female journalist on one of our patrols and we had to call in a medivac because she was complaining of being tired. Listen, the object of warfare is not to be equal to all, it is to win the war.

You're comparing trained infantrymen to a journalist?

My gut says most male journalists would be SOL as well...

You're right, in that is someone isn't tough enough to handle that shit, they don't deserve to be there. But if a woman is tough enough, why not?

I actually believe a poll was just taken throughout the military by marinecorpstimes.com/armytimes.com and it showed that the vast majority of military personnel do not want females in combat roles.

I actually believe a poll was just taken throughout the military by marinecorpstimes.com/armytimes.com and it showed that the vast majority of military personnel do not want females in combat roles.
That is their problem. If a woman can outperform a man, she should be in. Bias is no excuse. The Army is a public service, not private.

Personally, I hate the idea of discriminating simply because of sex. For combat intensive jobs (particularly ground and maybe sea mind you) I believe a standard should be set. A single standard. It might vary from branch to branch, but that's reasonable as each branch has it's own particular missions. <br> If an individual can meet those standards, it shouldn't matter. Already people with special conditions take to the field, they just have to remember to bring their medication, inhalers whatever...so why not tampons right along with? It might be assumed that somebody that could meet said standards would be able enough to compensate for whatever limitations they might have. <br> A blind standard set high enough to cover all foreseeable physical and mental requirements to me seems to be the idea. Whomever can meet them, man or woman, shouldn't matter. For reasons like this it might be that I'll never make it past mid level bureaucrat when I go active duty myself.

This is fine so long as the standard has something to do with combat capability.

As it stands, much of the standards in the military are basically, "Must be physically fit." This translates to different standards for men and women because of basic biological differences. For instance, a man should have a lower body fat percentage than a woman - naturally. A woman should have more lower body flexibility than a man - naturally. And so forth. Thus, if the standard is simply a given level of physical fitness, the actual set standards would have to be different - while acheiving the same goal.

If, on the other hand, the standard is, "must be able to carry X amount of equipment for X amount of time through X terrain," then you could certainly set the same standards for both men and women.

But in the military you want to have the majority of your force fighting to the best of their ability not the minority of it.
They'll fight to be best of their ability because they're well-trained, professional soliders who know how to follow lawful orders, not because there are or are not women in uniform.

This is fine so long as the standard has something to do with combat capability.

As it stands, much of the standards in the military are basically, "Must be physically fit." This translates to different standards for men and women because of basic biological differences. For instance, a man should have a lower body fat percentage than a woman - naturally. A woman should have more lower body flexibility than a man - naturally. And so forth. Thus, if the standard is simply a given level of physical fitness, the actual set standards would have to be different - while acheiving the same goal.
True and agreed.

If, on the other hand, the standard is, "must be able to carry X amount of equipment for X amount of time through X terrain," then you could certainly set the same standards for both men and women.
Exactly.

Europa, YES!!! Even if you find 300 women who can perform as well as men in combat roles, they will not outperform them. Especially since special operations forces consist of entirely male units (another debate which i feel more strongly about) they will not outperform them. Would you rather have 300 mediocre troops or 80,000 of the best infantry in the world? in response to post 124

Women infantry, I can picture it now...

"YOU GOD DAMN ASSHATS AMBUSHED MY SUPPLY TRUCK??? I CAN'T GET MY MIDOL?!?!?"!

But no tribunal for war crimes, even after the 3rd village disappears. No male judges with enough guts, and all the female judges would understand the mitigating circumstance...

This is fine so long as the standard has something to do with combat capability.

If, on the other hand, the standard is, "must be able to carry X amount of equipment for X amount of time through X terrain," then you could certainly set the same standards for both men and women.

Yeah, more or less what I was talking about. Kinda like some of the Spec. Forces candidates I see running around until the strongest remain. Same concept, except less intensive.

Europa, YES!!! Even if you find 300 women who can perform as well as men in combat roles, they will not outperform them. Especially since special operations forces consist of entirely male units (another debate which i feel more strongly about) they will not outperform them. Would you rather have 300 mediocre troops or 80,000 of the best infantry in the world? in response to post 124
What if they do outperform them though? And if they perform as well as a man, they earn the position as well, it's no different.

...80,000 of the best infantry in the world?
You mean Gurkhas?

Women infantry, I can picture it now...

"YOU GOD DAMN ASSHATS AMBUSHED MY SUPPLY TRUCK??? I CAN'T GET MY MIDOL?!?!?"!

But no tribunal for war crimes, even after the 3rd village disappears. No male judges with enough guts, and all the female judges would understand the mitigating circumstance...
How very funny.

But there are other factors besides ability. As i've stated before the military is not about being fair but about winning wars. If it could possibly cause unforseen complications then the change should take place in a controlled environment during peacetime. Its not right to risk lives just because somebody wants to be infantry.

But there are other factors besides ability. As i've stated before the military is not about being fair but about winning wars. If it could possibly cause unforseen complications then the change should take place in a controlled environment during peacetime. Its not right to risk lives just because somebody wants to be infantry.
Since when are we in war? -_- And how is it risking lives if a woman is an equally, or even more, skilled combatant? Your bias is not justifiable.

I lost two marines so dont ever fucking tell me that we aren't at war. Mabye you can't feel the war where you've been but trust me we are. I know that you couldn't possibly understand losing people under your command so don't say anything like that again.

I lost two marines so dont ever fucking tell me that we aren't at war. Mabye you can't feel the war where you've been but trust me we are. I know that you couldn't possibly understand losing people under your command so don't say anything like that again.
Emotional appeals. Firstly, I am not American. My statements apply to all militaries in democracies. Secondly, the world at large is not at war, and a vast majority of the American military is entirely disengaged. So it's hardly a war situation.

I lost two marines so dont ever fucking tell me that we aren't at war. Mabye you can't feel the war where you've been but trust me we are. I know that you couldn't possibly understand losing people under your command so don't say anything like that again.
We're not at war.

My country isn't at war. The US isn't at war either. Nobody declared it - remember? Because war is bad, so we just send our kids to die without calling it a war.

And your bias isn't justifiable. There is no reason women can't join on principle. It won't be many anyways, but those that want to should be able to.

I was enlightening your simple ass to the realities of the modern world. Wether or not you have to go out and risk your life and those of others just understand that others do. I don't know any 03's in the marines who havn't seen combat in the middle east so dont say that we are disengaged. Whenever people are dying at the hands of the enemy and they are killing the enemy, we are at war. Wether you acknolwedge it or not, people are dying for the iraqi/afghani people so that they can have a future. I dont see your country doing anything for the world or yourself.

Neu, its called fourth generation warfare, look it up.

Accomodations....

I can see issues with toilets.

But I've gone to small backwoods lodges where there was exactly one room in the one open cabin - and snow outside. Co-ed housing with strangers. Some people (both sexes) would change in their sleeping bags, most figured that the other sex had already seen enough playboys or playgirls that it didn't matter much who saw them changing... Pity that it's easier to redo a ship than people's attitudes (not that it's easy to redo that ship...)

I was enlightening your simple ass to the realities of the modern world. Wether or not you have to go out and risk your life and those of others just understand that others do. I don't know any 03's in the marines who havn't seen combat in the middle east so dont say that we are disengaged. Whenever people are dying at the hands of the enemy and they are killing the enemy, we are at war. Wether you acknolwedge it or not, people are dying for the iraqi/afghani people so that they can have a future. I dont see your country doing anything for the world or yourself.
Or are they dying to spread American imperalism? They have brainwashed you well, I'll give you that. As for my "simple ass, " at least I still possess the power of lateral thinking.

A point that has so far not been brought up is the one that I feel is most imporatant: Capture

Back in WWII, a British female SOE agent was captured by the Gestapo. She was gang raped in order to get information out of her. And when I say gang raped, I'm not talking five men. I'm talking 30. Plus she was also subjected to the more usual tortures.

When she had finally talk, it didn't stop there. They took British PoW's out of their camps, raped her infront of them to extract information from them.

There are many other stories like this, and there is there is even a story of a woman being purposeful impregnated so as to kill the child as a torture method.


Plus, there is the logical question: if the army could double their size, why don't they? And saying male chauvenism is not a logical argument. Those in charge of these descisions do so on logic only.

Spreading american imperialism? Last time i checked we didn't conquer either nation. Last time i checked we have kept civilian casualties to the lowest rate ever in a full-scale war. Last time i checked, there haven't been any attacks on american soil since 9/11(mission accomplished in my book). Last time i checked iraqi water supplies and electrical service is much greater than it was under Saddam. Last time i checked, the afghani people have a chance at a future for the first time in their history.

A point that has so far not been brought up is the one that I feel is most imporatant: Capture
And you think guys aren't getting raped as a method of torture? :rolleyes:

Spreading american imperialism? Last time i checked we didn't conquer either nation. Last time i checked we have kept civilian casualties to the lowest rate ever in a full-scale war. Last time i checked, there haven't been any attacks on american soil since 9/11(mission accomplished in my book). Last time i checked iraqi water supplies and electrical service is much greater than it was under Saddam. Last time i checked, the afghani people have a chance at a future for the first time in their history.
Last time I checked, the US is ensuring itself a satellite nation in the Middle East, a constant flow of oil and a means of spreading it's economic influence, ie- Economic imperialism.

Oh yes, because you are really likely to find thirty gay men willing to rape another man working in a PoW camp or an interrogation centre :rolleyes:

Oh yes, because you are really likely to find thirty gay men willing to rape another man working in a PoW camp or an interrogation centre :rolleyes:
Rape is about power; not attraction.

Do you have any idea how much money we have poured into both nations? Last time i checked iraq was importing oil because its new economic boom has overwhelmed its oil producing industry. Definately not selling it to us. And if you're not even american why do you care about the american military?

Do you have any idea how much money we have poured into both nations? Last time i checked iraq was importing oil because its new economic boom has overwhelmed its oil producing industry. Definately not selling it to us. And if you're not even american why do you care about the american military?
I never said I care specifically about the American military. I refer to all militaries in democracies.

Rape is about power; not attraction.

Opinion, not fact. And there are very few cases of heterosexual men raping other men...

Still doesnt respond to my other points

Opinion, not fact. And there are very few cases of heterosexual men raping other men...
Within the military though?

And it is not an opinion. Studies have proven rape to be primarily driven by power. Even some women rape because of the power they feel. Read any legal journal on rape.

The Marine Corps was wise enough to leave women at home during the Gulf War. I have served on CVs and CVNs with women on board and the efforts to accomodate them usually look like the makeshift efforts that they were.

Think about how a carrier is designed. Maximum and highly efficient use of space is important. So there are large bunkrooms, rather than small staterooms, common heads, rather than private lavatories, and very little privacy anywhere. Now, when you start to carve out space for women, it's darned difficult to do it in a way that doesn't affect the normal flow of traffic.

Without planning for women in the design stage of a ship, it's almost impossible to accomodate them properly. That's reason enough, in my mind, to leave the women sailors at home.

With bathrooms, as long as there is a toilet women are fine. I personally can hold it in for about 7 hours and most of my female friends can wait up to 5 hours so it is not like that would be a big issue most of the time. Why make there privacy? I mean yeah people need privacy but why in this situation? As long as the men are not animals and pervs and will behave themselves there shouldn't be a problem.

I lost two marines so dont ever fucking tell me that we aren't at war. Mabye you can't feel the war where you've been but trust me we are. I know that you couldn't possibly understand losing people under your command so don't say anything like that again.
You aren't at war.

You're realizing the greedy, self-serving dreams of old men in suits. That's right. Old men in suits. Old men in suits who don't give a flying fuck about you, your two marines, or anybody else in that sprawling box of kitty litter known as Iraq.

Still doesnt respond to my other points
What? That you're making a future investment in the region?

Isn't investing in a region a good thing? You know, it kinda allows the local economy to grow substantially.

Isn't investing in a region a good thing? You know, it kinda allows the local economy to grow substantially.
It also kinda allows the US an uninterrupted flow of oil from a stable democracy as opposed to a whimsical dictator.

Boby own pipe, back up ur comments with hard evidence.

Within the military though?

And it is not an opinion. Studies have proven rape to be primarily driven by power. Even some women rape because of the power they feel. Read any legal journal on rape.

The logic is the same for civilian or military, it is still a person with a persons instinct. A heterosexual man is just as likely to rape a man be he civilian or military. If rapist's just raped anything, then surely the number of males raped and females raped would be equal? Whilst I agree that power is a large part of it, there is a level of attraction involved in motives

Or are they dying to spread American imperalism? They have brainwashed you well, I'll give you that. As for my "simple ass, " at least I still possess the power of lateral thinking.
No, you're just blinded by your own prejudices. You and I have discussed this before.

That we pay for. I see how its better for Russia and France ro get all the oil instead of us who actually are trying to help the nation instead of supporting the dictatorship for oil.

The logic is the same for civilian or military, it is still a person with a persons instinct. A heterosexual man is just as likely to rape a man be he civilian or military. If rapist's just raped anything, then surely the number of males raped and females raped would be equal? Whilst I agree that power is a large part of it, there is a level of attraction involved in motives
Oh certainly, but that doesn't mean a male won't be raped by another male. Either way, if a woman lets herself into the military she knows she will face considerable risk. If she decides to join anyway, noone should stop her. Also, if a group of soldiers decides to perform a group-rape they will shame their military, and in an age of just warfare, this will look very bad on it.

That we pay for. I see how its better for Russia and France ro get all the oil instead of us who actually are trying to help the nation instead of supporting the dictatorship for oil.
It's different if you do it to secure the oil though, instead out of the good of your hearts. Nations are self-interested. That is reality.

No, you're just blinded by your own prejudices. You and I have discussed this before.
What prejudices? That nations are not all inherently self-interested? They are.

Do you have any idea how much money we have poured into both nations? Last time i checked iraq was importing oil because its new economic boom has overwhelmed its oil producing industry. Definately not selling it to us. And if you're not even american why do you care about the american military?
He doesn't. He just likes to think he and his ilk are superior to Americans, so he caps down on us at every opportunity. He's a troll.

He doesn't. He just likes to think he and his ilk are superior to Americans, so he caps down on us at every opportunity. He's a troll.
Wow pretty heavy accusation. When I agree with you all is fine and well, when I don't I am a troll. Double standards.

Oh certainly, but that doesn't mean a male won't be raped by another male. Either way, if a woman lets herself into the military she knows she will face considerable risk. If a group of soldiers decides to perform a group-rape they will shame their military, and in an age of just warfare, this will look very bad on it.

The enemies we are likely to go to war against are hardly likely to care about how the international community percieves them (and, incidentally, unlikely to tolerate homosexual activity). And it is not the woman that faces considerable risk, it is the entire military. They don't just torture people for the hell of it, they do it to gain information that they can use to better combat there enemies.

The enemies we are likely to go to war against are hardly likely to care about how the international community percieves them (and, incidentally, unlikely to tolerate homosexual activity). And it is not the woman that faces considerable risk, it is the entire military. They don't just torture people for the hell of it, they do it to gain information that they can use to better combat there enemies.
Err they can still torture a man for information? That doesn't change.

Oh, now i see why we went into iraq. To secure our high gas prices and burn all our old stinky oil in military machines. That way we can use all of iraqs new good oil that there isnt enough of for even iraq. Try making sense next time.

Yes, but most other tortures are fairly ineffective (even scopolomine has major flaws). The woman I mentioned in earlier posts was able to stand up to the other tortures, but broke when raped.

Oh, now i see why we went into iraq. To secure our high gas prices and burn all our old stinky oil in military machines. That way we can use all of iraqs new good oil that there isnt enough of for even iraq. Try making sense next time.
Iraq has a lot more oil than just enough for your war machines. Furthermore, if Iraq is only the first piece of the puzzle, it is a small sacrifice. The US will better be able to pressure nearby nations not to cut off oil flows.

Oh, now i see why we went into iraq. To secure our high gas prices and burn all our old stinky oil in military machines. That way we can use all of iraqs new good oil that there isnt enough of for even iraq. Try making sense next time.

While it's obvious that he is quite biased, he is right about the people in power. They are the imperialistic type. They probably are in Iraq for econimic imperialist reasons, but oil isn't the only business war provides.

Yes, but most other tortures are fairly ineffective (even scopolomine has major flaws). The woman I mentioned in earlier posts was able to stand up to the other tortures, but broke when raped.
Either way, it still does not excuse excluding women from the military. Stronger tortures can be used on men too.

Where is any of your proof for this? I mean i could say that anyone who walks in front of my house is just trying to position themselves to steal everything i own but that wouldnt be very logical. Same deal. You can't believe anywhere in your heart that we went to take out a dictator and start a new democracy to combat radical islam?

Where is any of your proof for this? I mean i could say that anyone who walks in front of my house is just trying to position themselves to steal everything i own but that wouldnt be very logical. Same deal. You can't believe anywhere in your heart that we went to take out a dictator and start a new democracy to combat radical islam?
Sorry, but I can't. No nation is selfless. For a nation to suffer such huge costs involved in warfare there has to be an ulterior motive, even if it is just increased influence in the area.

Either way, it still does not excuse excluding women from the military. Stronger tortures can be used on men too.

And they can also be used on women, but they will still have the other aces up the sleeve of rape, impregnation, and the males protective instinct (yes, instinct) towards women. In war, political correctness is far less important then military neccessity.

And they can also be used on women, but they will still have the other aces up the sleeve of rape, impregnation, and the males protective instinct (yes, instinct) towards women. In war, political correctness is far less important then military neccessity.
None of which justify their exclusion.

And when in the military, investing in birth control is not a bad idea.

What is wrong with increased influence if it has side effects of democracy being spread and radicals losing support. Because as a region becomes more economically tied to us the less they will be predisposed to aiding our enemies, islamic terrorists, and thus they will lost footing and slowly faze out of exsistence.

So, you would rather have your nation destroyed by an enemy then be a little politically incorrect?

ANd you do realise it works both ways round?

A pilot cannot be colour blind, yet only men suffer from colour blindness. Thus, a large proportion of men are excluded. Do you think we should allow colour blind people to be pilots because it is sexist?

What is wrong with increased influence if it has side effects of democracy being spread and radicals losing support. Because as a region becomes more economically tied to us the less they will be predisposed to aiding our enemies, islamic terrorists, and thus they will lost footing and slowly faze out of exsistence.
Hence it is done based on self-interest.

But it is good for everyone and therefore it is a WAR
(unlike your belief) which is worth fighting.

So, you would rather have your nation destroyed by an enemy then be a little politically incorrect?

ANd you do realise it works both ways round?

A pilot cannot be colour blind, yet only men suffer from colour blindness. Thus, a large proportion of men are excluded. Do you think we should allow colour blind people to be pilots because it is sexist?
They clearly lack the ability to carry out the task. It is not the same. If a woman has the ability to belong to the military, it should be allowed to her. Furthermore, the more the military develops measures to counter torture and not to break under it, the less a liability a woman being raped will be. For this to happen, she would have to be caught first as well. Some soldiers sacrifice themselves to avoid torture.

But it is good for everyone
As a side-effect. It makes the US's intentions none the nobler.

IMO, you are thinking of the presence or absence of women from an entirely logistical perspective. Thank God our commanders take more factors into consideration.

Without going into the physical strength differences, without going into hygiene, without debating potential problems with sexual tension... all of which have been debated a hundred times before in this forum...

How can we ask our soldiers to put on a uniform and go defend freedom, if half of our own citizens are not free to put on that uniform?

If freedom is worth defending, it is worth defending universally. Even in the face of your own opposing preferences.

Very nicely put.

Hence it is done based on self-interest.
Yes, but when is it ever not? It's not like any nation will do anything out of the kindness of it's heart.

They clearly lack the ability to carry out the task. It is not the same. If a woman has the ability to belong to the military, it should be allowed to her. Furthermore, the more the military develops measures to counter torture and not to break under it, the less a liability a woman being raped will be. For this to happen, she would have to be caught first.

I agree. Find me a woman who can't be, or can't be broken by, gang raped, impregnated, and used to appeal to mens instinct, then I would be all for her serving on the front line...

Yes, but when is it ever not? It's not like any nation will do anything out of the kindness of it's heart.
EXACTLY. What irritates me is when people say it is done to serve a higher purpose, other than self-interest.

Its not just a simple side effect. Its a calculated strategy that allows for it. I dont see what your problem is with the U.S. if these good things come about which you admit to.

I agree. Find me a woman who can't be, or can't be broken by, gang raped, impregnated, and used to appeal to mens instinct, then I would be all for her serving on the front line...
Impregnation can be avoided by birth control measures. Gang-rape can be avoided as the military constantly develops counter-torture measures. Appealing to male instinct I will not accept as an argument. That is clearly a male problem to begin with.

Its not just a simple side effect. Its a calculated strategy that allows for it. I dont see what your problem is with the U.S. if these good things come about which you admit to.
The only calculated strategy is serving the US's own interest. The side-effect is there either way.

I can't speak for the politicians motives, but i've been to countless breifings about our mission and know what it is. The militaries mission is too build a safe and thriving iraq/afghanistan w/o influence from terrorist organizations. we have a strategy to accomplish this.

I can't speak for the politicians motives, but i've been to countless breifings about our mission and know what it is. The militaries mission is too build a safe and thriving iraq/afghanistan w/o influence from terrorist organizations. we have a strategy to accomplish this.
I know. The military is only a tool of the Government itself. I am referring to political motives on part of Government.

Tell me, what are the negatives to the world of what you think the U.S.'s motives are and i'll restate the positives

Impregnation can be avoided by birth control measures. Gang-rape can be avoided as the military constantly develops counter-torture measures. Appealing to male instinct I will not accept as an argument. That is clearly a male problem to begin with.

Oh, yes, because a captured female soldier is clearly going to be given the pill? Or maybe we should rape all women as part of their basic training to ensure that she won't talk? Or maybe we should genetically engineer men so they don't have their protective instinct (which, as it is an instinct, you can't change through training!)?

Tell me, what are the negatives to the world of what you think the U.S.'s motives are and i'll restate the positives
My point is not this. My point is that the US should at least be candid about its motives, or at the very least not expect people to blindly believe them to be true.

So you admit that very little negative comes from the U.S.'s motives and much positive does? wether the motives are good or not?

Oh, yes, because a captured female soldier is clearly going to be given the pill? Or maybe we should rape all women as part of their basic training to ensure that she won't talk? Or maybe we should genetically engineer men so they don't have their protective instinct (which, as it is an instinct, you can't change through training!)?
They could be forced to take the pill before going into combat. Furthermore, women in higher ranks with access to more sensitive military information could be psychologically trained to resist the pressure of a rape. It is possible under simulation technology. The protective instinct again is a male problem. If a man realises who needs the protection more, he should use his logic and protect that person.

So you admit that very little negative comes from the U.S.'s motives and much positive does? wether the motives are good or not?
Very little negative, no. More positive than negative? Maybe. Right now the entire Arab world is angry at the West, and is constantly targetting it as a result of the US invasion. The situation is getting worse, not better. Furthermore, were the US to get control of all the world's oil, well that would be a very undesirable situation. One nation with almost all the world's oil is not something I would envision as being positive.

It is targeting it because of propagandists and people who think like you. If people would look at the facts instead of what people skew for their own benefit then the world would be much better off.

It is targeting it because of propagandists and people who think like you. If people would look at the facts instead of what people skew for their own benefit then the world would be much better off.
What facts? The world economy is moving to a meltdown. This form of aggression was the last thing we needed.

Its not like we're gonna steal oil. We pay for every drop that we get or did you forget that little detail in all the propaganda you are fed.

One nation with almost all the world's oil is not something I would envision as being positive.

True, plus the fact that we shouldn't be concentrating on getting oil since it is a resource that will run out in the forseeable future.

Ah well... we can't expect much if our president used to own an oil mining company.

The world economy is going in the dumps? The only economy that is suffering is that of europe (who refused the war in iraq by the way). The U.S. economy is #1 in the world and is very large. Japans is growing. China and India have unprecedented economic growth.

Its not like we're gonna steal oil. We pay for every drop that we get or did you forget that little detail in all the propaganda you are fed.
You would pay a LOT less than before. And if US firms were to be allowed to open there and take control of the oil, they as a monopoly could sell it for appreciably higher prices to the rest of the world.

But there in lies the problem with your theory. You say U.S. firms (emphasis on the plural). How can there be a monopoly if there are multiple firms controlling the oil?

The world economy is going in the dumps? The only economy that is suffering is that of europe (who refused the war in iraq by the way). The U.S. economy is #1 in the world and is very large. Japans is growing. China and India have unprecedented economic growth.
Europe's is doing just fine. No, it's not that. The world has very limited resources, and growth is happening very fast. Nation's GDPs are groing disproportionally high to available resources. It is going to cause a meltdown. The US is also extremely indebted by the way. China is facing major problems from within, and the US is having to shut down many of its firms due to foreign competition. Not everything is peachy.

But there in lies the problem with your theory. You say U.S. firms (emphasis on the plural). How can there be a monopoly if there are multiple firms controlling the oil?
Cartels? There is one now, but it's not as integrated as it could be. Firms can easily collude and form a cartel, especially with oil. They can thus act jointly as a monopoly and charge ludicrously high prices.

It is true that the U.S. is in debt i will give you that. But the only "problems" that china is facing is a growing movement toward democracy. But i wouldnt really call that a problem. im tired so im ending the debate until tomorrow.

All I can say about women being in the front likes is that I don't the idea...but if women want to do it and you can't stop them, then make sure that the phisical standards are met. If they can meet those standards they can at least have a shot at going...

It is true that the U.S. is in debt i will give you that. But the only "problems" that china is facing is a growing movement toward democracy. But i wouldnt really call that a problem. im tired so im ending the debate until tomorrow.
China is fragmenting from with in. You are right, China's problem is democracy. It may not be a problem in a wider context, but for China itself it is a massive concern. Anyway, I am tiring too. Thanks for a rather interesting debate.

Boby own pipe, back up ur comments with hard evidence.
I don't see how there's much point. Why don't you ask Eutrusca about how it feels knowing you're fighting battles night & day on the other side of the planet - on scant little else but the whims of flatulent, drunk old men with unspoken agendae?

Edit: And it's spelled "Bobs", not "Boby", Mr. Latherknock.

Do you have any idea how much money we have poured into both nations? Last time i checked iraq was importing oil because its new economic boom has overwhelmed its oil producing industry. Definately not selling it to us. And if you're not even american why do you care about the american military?
You may know something about the military, but you don't know anything about the energy industry. :p

Last time I checked, Iraq had lost a third of its production capacity compared to pre-war levels, and had it sabotaged as fast as it could be repaired. It is selling oil, actually. Otherwise US sailors wouldn't have been killed protecting an offshore tanker terminal (exports were delayed for several days at the time). It has enjoyed no economic boom, in fact the Iraqi economy is in even worse shape than before. Internal energy consumption (and availability) has actually fallen compared to pre-war levels. In spite of this, fewer oil is available for export, as a result of the aforementioned production capacity destruction.

You are entitled to your opinion however. Keep that share price rising. :)

I was enlightening your simple ass to the realities of the modern world. Wether or not you have to go out and risk your life and those of others just understand that others do. I don't know any 03's in the marines who havn't seen combat in the middle east so dont say that we are disengaged. Whenever people are dying at the hands of the enemy and they are killing the enemy, we are at war. Wether you acknolwedge it or not, people are dying for the iraqi/afghani people so that they can have a future. I dont see your country doing anything for the world or yourself.

THat's fine. It's a war then. So all the people being held by the military are POW's then, right?

THat's fine. It's a war then. So all the people being held by the military are POW's then, right?
Victims of the ambient morality. America isn't alone in defining right and wrong according to its immediate needs.

A pilot cannot be colour blind, yet only men suffer from colour blindness. Thus, a large proportion of men are excluded. Do you think we should allow colour blind people to be pilots because it is sexist?

This is untrue. Men are more likely to suffer from color blindness than women, but it is not exclusively male.