96 replies to this topic

[Stellar]

Antilles, on 25 January 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Anyone who has served in the military knows that women are the soft target.

Not because they aren't as capable and in many cases almost as strong, but because the men will always go in to save them or to defend them.

How do you screw around with the enemy when they have female combatants?

Go after the women.

Women should not be front line grunts. They put their male counterparts in an untenable position. No man worth his name is going to walk away and leave a woman behind. That's just the fact. And women can argue up and down and around but the basic fact is, they put the men they serve with in danger.

There are many service positions behind the lines that women can fill way better than men.

Ridiculous, and simply untrue. In the Canadian military we allow women in the infantry and this is not an issue,

[bacca]

We already have female casualties in war, not being on the front lines does not mean no deaths...

I want to make sure I understand some of the points here....men are unable to control themselves and continue to do their job properly if there is a female who is in danger or harmed therefore women should not be allowed? And this makes sense to anyone?

Women on the front lines will somehow harm the military how exactly? What will a woman do that is so harmful?

And since women cry at movies they will somehow have mental breaks or be unable to cope with seeing bad things? This is such a sexist comment it makes me feel sorry for anyone who would still be so backward to believe it!

[little_dreamer]

Lucky for me that I'm getting too old to be drafted.

What I found strange is that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, and probably taller and possibly stronger than some men who have already participated in combat.   There's a lot of variation in human size and anatomy.

[Corp]

Good news. If they're qualified for the positions there's no reason why they should be banned from them.

[aztek]

i have nothing against it, will see how it'll work in real world

[pallidin]

Well, I guess the up-side to this, if there is any,
is that a US female soldier held hostage can rest assured that 200 special ops men are after a rescue, uh sex, uh, rescue.

Edited by pallidin, 25 January 2013 - 05:58 PM.

[pallidin]

But seriously, I don't know what it is about a man's desire to more protect a female-versus-male.

Maybe it's 'cause our mothers nurtured us far more than our dads, and we thus have some "hard-wired" desire to protect.

I don't know. But I do know that I would be MUCH MORE concerned about a female soldier injury than a males.

But maybe that's just me. I LOVE women.  

Edited by pallidin, 25 January 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[Thanato]

Being a soldier and having been to Afghanistan. I can tell you that I had no more want to protect female soldiers then I did male soldiers. After all they are all soldiers. Sure I was more concerned about specific trades of soldiers because they didnt recieve more combat related training, but for the women who where out with us in the CLPs if they had to they could shoot just as good as the men. If a soldier can do there job then hell let them.

~Thanato

[tapirmusic]

This is all another secret communist attempt to weaken the family in the U.S.A. and pave the way for an unstoppable government to control all aspects of your life.

How?

By allowing women to serve in the front lines sets a precedent.  Once this is accepted, then women will be included in the draft.  Then a draft will be called, which will take away mothers from their families, and create more people that will be dependent on the government to survive.  Inch by inch, the enemy within gains a better foothold...

[THE MATRIX]

Looks likes the males posters here who are against women in combat are feeling threatened. LOL!

[Raptor Witness]

It's Obama and the Defense Department's gift to Hillary upon her departure from the State Department. I can't imagine what her legacy will be, beyond the Arab Spring, so this is her conciliation prize.

They're establishing a mindset for 2016, when she can play Joan of Arc. It's hard to imagine a female Commander in Chief, when you can't see them on a white horse at the head of a troop of men.

[Likely Guy]

I've never witnessed, in any forum, such an initial gang tackle of sexist statements.

Step back for a minute. Women are generally smaller, thereby having quicker reflexes.

Modern war isn't about '300 Spartans', hacking it out on a causeway. It's about reflex. If a woman can take that place, why not?

[Antilles]

Stellar, on 25 January 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

Ridiculous, and simply untrue. In the Canadian military we allow women in the infantry and this is not an issue,

Prove it.

[Likely Guy]

little_dreamer, on 25 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Lucky for me that I'm getting too old to be drafted.

What I found strange is that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, and probably taller and possibly stronger than some men who have already participated in combat.   There's a lot of variation in human size and anatomy.

At 5' 6", you're taller than Audie Murphy. Apparently he was 5' 5", 110 lbs.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

[Frank Merton]

aztek, on 25 January 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

i have nothing against it, will see how it'll work in real world

Exactly