Quote
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a challenge on behalf of four US servicewomen against a ban on women being deployed in most combat roles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20521754
3
US servicewomen challenge combat role ban
Started by
Render
, Nov 28 2012 09:09 AM
57 replies to this topic
#1
Render
-
- Member
-
- 1,862 posts
Psychic Spy
- Joined:23 Nov 2009
- Gender:Not Selected
Posted 28 November 2012 - 09:09 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-20521754
#2
Corp
-
- Member
-
- 6,799 posts
Telekinetic
- Joined:19 Jun 2008
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ottawa
Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:59 PM
Good for them.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
#3
Dredimus
-
- Member
-
- 811 posts
Paranormal Investigator
- Joined:21 Dec 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Huntsville, Al
Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:23 PM
Speaking as a soldier..... Awesome! Some of the best gunners I knew were female... The only "issue" I could see arising from females in combat is the male mentality to take care of them, which may or may not distract the male soldier but I think that will melt away as long as they are training side by side at NTC or elsewhere.
#4
Babe Ruth
-
- Member
-
- 4,883 posts
Alien Abducter
- Joined:23 Dec 2011
- Gender:Not Selected
- Location:27North 80West
Posted 28 November 2012 - 07:51 PM
Not strongly, I object to women in combat only because it seems the probability of rape goes up.
We already know that it's pretty high, and very well covered up, and that includes women employed by Halliburton and others in the war zone.
Don't have an opinion on whether or not it has a negative influence on combat readiness, but would not be surprised if it did.
We already know that it's pretty high, and very well covered up, and that includes women employed by Halliburton and others in the war zone.
Don't have an opinion on whether or not it has a negative influence on combat readiness, but would not be surprised if it did.
#5
OverSword
-
- Member
-
- 8,162 posts
Non-Corporeal Being
- Joined:16 Oct 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle WA USA
-
Take 3 deep breaths
Posted 28 November 2012 - 08:55 PM
These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.
Messed up values and morals.
Messed up values and morals.
#6
Babe Ruth
-
- Member
-
- 4,883 posts
Alien Abducter
- Joined:23 Dec 2011
- Gender:Not Selected
- Location:27North 80West
Posted 28 November 2012 - 10:05 PM
What you said OverSword, what you said sir! 
#7
Merc14
-
- Member
-
- 1,612 posts
Psychic Spy
- Joined:03 Mar 2011
- Gender:Male
- Location:Virginia, USA
Posted 29 November 2012 - 02:31 AM
The Marines opened up positions for women in the school that trains infantry combat officers. Of the 80 women that were eligible, two applied resulting in one of them quitting the first day and the second dropping for medical reasons.after two weeks. 26 of the 107 men also dropped out the first day so this is no walk in the park but they aren't exactly kicking the doors down to run a platoon in the corps. The Marines said they will keep offering positions to women.
You asked for Obamamerica, now you are going to get it. Stand by for suck.
#8
Dredimus
-
- Member
-
- 811 posts
Paranormal Investigator
- Joined:21 Dec 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Huntsville, Al
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:56 AM
OverSword, on 28 November 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:
These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.
Messed up values and morals.
Messed up values and morals.
Way to over simplify the life of a soldier as well as being derogatory and sexist in 4 short sentences.... I myself was a combat engineer, airborne, sapper.... I have no blood lust, but I served my country proudly and did what was required of me to survive and move through different situations. These women want the same right.
#9
Corp
-
- Member
-
- 6,799 posts
Telekinetic
- Joined:19 Jun 2008
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ottawa
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:06 PM
OverSword, on 28 November 2012 - 08:55 PM, said:
These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.
Messed up values and morals.
Messed up values and morals.
Complete foolishness. They're not looking to murder people, neither are the male soldiers. What they want is the right to be treated on the same level as the men. Nothing more.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse...A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
#10
Wyrdlight
-
- Member
-
- 1,090 posts
Psychic Spy
- Joined:14 Jun 2009
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:10 PM
This is a positivie step forward, there is no real reason why woman cant fight on frontline combat roles.
There are minor issues in regards to men tending to be protective of women etc but the military fosters a "care for your comrades" attitude anywhere, indeed the unconditional support of comrades under fire to the point of risking and indeed giving up your own personal saftey for the sake of others is central to how armies function.
In short, you take a bullet for the person next to you, whether there male, female or anything else.
Women can be just as fit as men, most cannot ever quite attain the level of brute strength that men can, but never the less they are more than capable of lugging most standard military kit alongside the men, plus bodyarmour and weapons are getting lighter as time goes on for the most part.
A woman with a gun can shoot and kill as a well as a man, so sex is mostly irelevant.
There are minor issues in regards to men tending to be protective of women etc but the military fosters a "care for your comrades" attitude anywhere, indeed the unconditional support of comrades under fire to the point of risking and indeed giving up your own personal saftey for the sake of others is central to how armies function.
In short, you take a bullet for the person next to you, whether there male, female or anything else.
Women can be just as fit as men, most cannot ever quite attain the level of brute strength that men can, but never the less they are more than capable of lugging most standard military kit alongside the men, plus bodyarmour and weapons are getting lighter as time goes on for the most part.
A woman with a gun can shoot and kill as a well as a man, so sex is mostly irelevant.
#11
OverSword
-
- Member
-
- 8,162 posts
Non-Corporeal Being
- Joined:16 Oct 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle WA USA
-
Take 3 deep breaths
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:14 PM
Dredimus, on 29 November 2012 - 05:56 AM, said:
Way to over simplify the life of a soldier as well as being derogatory and sexist in 4 short sentences.... I myself was a combat engineer, airborne, sapper.... I have no blood lust, but I served my country proudly and did what was required of me to survive and move through different situations. These women want the same right.
#12
Wyrdlight
-
- Member
-
- 1,090 posts
Psychic Spy
- Joined:14 Jun 2009
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:20 PM
OverSword, on 29 November 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:
Forgive me for not thanking you. I'm against war and believe you were in a war based mainly on lies.
Regardless of whether or not said war was based on lies, demeaning the position of those who risk thier lives to do a difficult and dangerous job does you no credit.
Out of intrest, how far would you carry your "against war" argument? If your nation was invaded and those around you were being herded into pens and mown down by machinegun fire, would you consider it reasonable to fight back? or would you consider it better to lie back and die?
#13
Taun
-
- Member
-
- 3,306 posts
Government Agent
- Joined:19 May 2010
- Gender:Male
- Location:Tornado Alley (Oklahoma)
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:39 PM
I really only have four objections to this...
1. The male 'protective instinct' (mentioned earlier) - and it can be overcome in time - though it could possibly lead to higher casualties in the mean time...
2. The very real possibility that standards for Infantry "persons" would be lowered to account for physical ability differences between the genders... A 'leg' Infantrymans combat load is pretty heavy - moreso if they are a specialist (communications, heavy weapons, etc) a fully loaded out infantryman can easily carry an extra 80 -100 pounds - routinely... That is about 3/4ths of what a typically fit female will weigh... Airborne Infantry can carry even more at times - after all if you don't bring it with you, you don't have it...
3. Quite a few of our potential enemies are rather 'chauvanistic' (to say the least)... Quite of few of those who would be willing to surrender to a male soldier, would refuse to do so to a female - resulting in higher casualties on both sides, and potentially greater loss of intelligence due to few prisoners to question... We are already facing this problem to a degree in Afghanistan, and that is to female soldiers who are not 'front line' troops...
4. Morale loss at home due to larger numbers of young females returning home dead... This may sound chauvanistic to some - and perhaps it is... but emotionally we, as a society, are more shocked by the death of a young woman than we are by the death of a young man ... Both are tragic, and both are equally painful to the family, but society as a whole is more willing to accept the loss of a male soldier than a female one... This can lead to loss of morale - or equally possible - heightened anger at the enemy - resulting in escalation...
I served in the US Army for 34 years, both in Combat Arms (Infantry, Artillery) and Support (Communications, Intel, Maint, etc)... I've served with some fantastic female soldiers, and some not so fantastic - just like the males... And I have served under female officers and NCO's just as willingly as male - so I don't think I am unreasonable in my objections...
These are just my thoughts... If these points can be overcome - then fine... Otherwise, IMO it is just a case of using the Military for forced social engineering...
(editted several times because I can't spell)
1. The male 'protective instinct' (mentioned earlier) - and it can be overcome in time - though it could possibly lead to higher casualties in the mean time...
2. The very real possibility that standards for Infantry "persons" would be lowered to account for physical ability differences between the genders... A 'leg' Infantrymans combat load is pretty heavy - moreso if they are a specialist (communications, heavy weapons, etc) a fully loaded out infantryman can easily carry an extra 80 -100 pounds - routinely... That is about 3/4ths of what a typically fit female will weigh... Airborne Infantry can carry even more at times - after all if you don't bring it with you, you don't have it...
3. Quite a few of our potential enemies are rather 'chauvanistic' (to say the least)... Quite of few of those who would be willing to surrender to a male soldier, would refuse to do so to a female - resulting in higher casualties on both sides, and potentially greater loss of intelligence due to few prisoners to question... We are already facing this problem to a degree in Afghanistan, and that is to female soldiers who are not 'front line' troops...
4. Morale loss at home due to larger numbers of young females returning home dead... This may sound chauvanistic to some - and perhaps it is... but emotionally we, as a society, are more shocked by the death of a young woman than we are by the death of a young man ... Both are tragic, and both are equally painful to the family, but society as a whole is more willing to accept the loss of a male soldier than a female one... This can lead to loss of morale - or equally possible - heightened anger at the enemy - resulting in escalation...
I served in the US Army for 34 years, both in Combat Arms (Infantry, Artillery) and Support (Communications, Intel, Maint, etc)... I've served with some fantastic female soldiers, and some not so fantastic - just like the males... And I have served under female officers and NCO's just as willingly as male - so I don't think I am unreasonable in my objections...
These are just my thoughts... If these points can be overcome - then fine... Otherwise, IMO it is just a case of using the Military for forced social engineering...
(editted several times because I can't spell)
Edited by Taun, 29 November 2012 - 05:41 PM.
#14
OverSword
-
- Member
-
- 8,162 posts
Non-Corporeal Being
- Joined:16 Oct 2007
- Gender:Male
- Location:Seattle WA USA
-
Take 3 deep breaths
Posted 29 November 2012 - 05:58 PM
Wyrdlight, on 29 November 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:
Regardless of whether or not said war was based on lies, demeaning the position of those who risk thier lives to do a difficult and dangerous job does you no credit.
Out of intrest, how far would you carry your "against war" argument? If your nation was invaded and those around you were being herded into pens and mown down by machinegun fire, would you consider it reasonable to fight back? or would you consider it better to lie back and die?
Out of intrest, how far would you carry your "against war" argument? If your nation was invaded and those around you were being herded into pens and mown down by machinegun fire, would you consider it reasonable to fight back? or would you consider it better to lie back and die?
Edited by OverSword, 29 November 2012 - 06:32 PM.
#15
Wyrdlight
-
- Member
-
- 1,090 posts
Psychic Spy
- Joined:14 Jun 2009
Posted 29 November 2012 - 06:34 PM
OverSword, on 29 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:
If a foriegn army invaded they would not have to start hearding me and mine into camps and machine gun them before I was fighting back. But since Afghanistan doesn't have an army invading the USA I don't have to worry about that. Too bad they can't say the same.
So, your not against war?
Your merely against a wars fought under certain premises?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
