Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Render

US servicewomen challenge combat role ban

58 posts in this topic

Good. I'm glad you feel justified and fulfilled in what you chose to do. I hope you also felt it was necessary.

And if you believe that you going to the mid-east made it possible for me to drive, vote, work, etc...I was doing all of that before you went to war and likely before you were born. You weren't fight Hitler or Hiorohito.

I may not have been there, but men like me were and always have been. However, what I was saying was not that I or we provided YOU with that... We all know you were born in the US and therefore most of those things came easy... and its easy for you to sit here and judge them as you have no clue as to who they really are... "miserable lives" indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that several countries, including Canada, has allowed women to serve in combat roles for decades with no deal breaking problems. If we can do it I don't see why it would be a problem for the US to put the policy in place.

And OverSword I believe you mean that you're against interventionism, not against war. Protecting your country against a foreign invader is still a war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My young nephew is in the US Army, and his intentions are noble, just like yours.

However, (and he understands this just like many did back in 1970) you, him and me might have THOUGHT we were serving our country, but in reality, we were serving the government, and the two are not the same.

Our country and its government are 2 separate entities. They are not the same thing, though the powers-that-be are thrilled when people think they are the same. Indeed, the propaganda ALWAYS blends the two and makes them indistinguishable.

And in case you have not realized it yet, General Eisenhower understood full well that the marriage of government and industry is an UNHOLY one. He warned future generations to beware. Sadly, we ignored him, and those who control things are in very firm control, and have been for years. Contemporary american 'wars' are but military aggression in advancement of empire.

Dont forget that this thread isnt about my intentions or "nobility"... its about equal rights and the fact that these women want to serve as equals their male counterparts. I have no delusions about what our government is, if you, any of you, would take the time to read anything I post you would see that I am for the people, not the government. The current AND past administrations have so damaged this country in the last 50 years that its almost unrecognizable. As far as the government is concerned, you could call me a minimalist. They should keep their noses out of industry and let people live for themselves. As for my time in the middle east, yes, that was for my country. Those who are not there, truely do not know. It is my humble opinion that its better to stop the enemy abroad that to wait for them to land on my porch. The last time they knocked on our door, we lost thousands of lives. Now to your bolded statement. Please explain this "Empire" theory. Because when I sit back and take it all in, I dont see it as empire building...... Now, the romans had an empire, they moved in, conquered an area and then left behind their own people to control what was left of the decimated population. This is also the same thing the Russians did to Afghanistan...... Conquer and rule as a tyrant. Now, the US has moved in and changed alot of that. Now, if you are talking about the fuel situation.... Why would we be building an empire for China? As thats who will be building the pipeline the conspiracy nuts yelp about constantly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Dred, don't get me wrong. I have no doubt that you and the vast, vast majority of American servicemen and women are good conscientious loyal people.

The empire that Babe is reffering to is an economic empire. Money is the reason our troops are mobilized. off topic here but OPEC has a deal with the USA mad by Nixon in the 70's that they will only sell oil for dollars. Since the worlds economy is based on oil that made the US dollar the default currency determining the value of every other currency in the world. Any action to change that system mobilizes our war machine. Saddam Hussein, while under UN sanctions, was only permitted to trade oil for food and medicine. The reason we went to war with Iraq, a nation that had no provable involvment in 9/11, was because we discovered they were covertly selling oil for euros. That undermined the worlds economy by setting a dangerous precedent. So we took him out. Iran recently proposed a system to trade thier oil for gold, now despite the fact that the former head of the CIA said they are not trying to develop nukes, we are threatening them. Since they have no nukes the question would logically be, why? the answer seems obvious to me. The really sad part about Iran is that the country is f'd up because of actions by the USA and UK on behalf of British Petroleum's oil interests. We overthew the democratically elected government of Iran because they wanted to nationalize thier oil industry and keep some of thier own money. We installed a dictator, the shaw of iran, and naturally they overthew him and replaced him with a system hostile to us, thier proven enemies. Pretty much it's our meddeling since WWII that is to blame for how the entire middle east is. Corrupt, repressive, backwards.

All of the things I've pointed out here are just the tip of a very big, very dirty iceberg. War does not stop war. At some point we will start fixing all of this through fair dealing and correct behaviour or there will be a recconing.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no.

The real problem is young service men and women wanting to have sex, thus leaving(or not observing) their assigned posts.

Then, as stated previously, the natural instinct for a male to protect a female which "might" compromise a hard mission.

Just my opinion. Nothing against women at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

....

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 have to agree with these two points. When I was a Combat Engineer, there were times were I had to carry my SAW, a 30 pound rucksack of gear, a 20 pound demolision bag, and one or two 40 pound shape or cratering charges... and come out of our M113 RUNNING, at night, in the woods, for hundreds of yards at a time.It is not work for Gloria from Tiffanys Manhattan.

But, if a woman has the physical ability, I'd say let her do it. It might be trouble... maybe a LOT of trouble... at first. But, eventually things would settle down.

I can imagine an infantry company of 100 people, with 95 guys and 5 women being very tense sexually, with 90% of the guys being 18 to 24 years old. I was 23 when I went in and was the Grandpa of my basic training. Of like 100 guys, I was one of like 6 or 7 that were old enough to buy liquor. I think everyone, except young men, that young men are extremely Stupid.

I also agree that if women were lost in hand to hand fighting, or captured, the New media would crucify the military in the Court of Public Appeal.

If a woman wants to fight and die for their country.

So be it.

Let women fight.

Agree. As long as they can perform their job to expectations.

However, the military already has different expectations for females.

The PT test requires less then half the number of push ups and sit ups for women compared to men of the same age.

http://usmilitary.ab...army/a/afpt.htm

However, (and he understands this just like many did back in 1970) you, him and me might have THOUGHT we were serving our country, but in reality, we were serving the government, and the two are not the same.

Our country and its government are 2 separate entities. They are not the same thing, though the powers-that-be are thrilled when people think they are the same. Indeed, the propaganda ALWAYS blends the two and makes them indistinguishable.

Yet the sacrifice of those who join the military is not diminished, it is the government uses of the military that should be held up to Public Scorn, not the military itself. It is like blaming teachers for student failures, when their hands are tied by Federal, State and Local laws.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont forget that this thread isnt about my intentions or "nobility"... its about equal rights and the fact that these women want to serve as equals their male counterparts. I have no delusions about what our government is, if you, any of you, would take the time to read anything I post you would see that I am for the people, not the government. The current AND past administrations have so damaged this country in the last 50 years that its almost unrecognizable. As far as the government is concerned, you could call me a minimalist. They should keep their noses out of industry and let people live for themselves. As for my time in the middle east, yes, that was for my country. Those who are not there, truely do not know. It is my humble opinion that its better to stop the enemy abroad that to wait for them to land on my porch. The last time they knocked on our door, we lost thousands of lives. Now to your bolded statement. Please explain this "Empire" theory. Because when I sit back and take it all in, I dont see it as empire building...... Now, the romans had an empire, they moved in, conquered an area and then left behind their own people to control what was left of the decimated population. This is also the same thing the Russians did to Afghanistan...... Conquer and rule as a tyrant. Now, the US has moved in and changed alot of that. Now, if you are talking about the fuel situation.... Why would we be building an empire for China? As thats who will be building the pipeline the conspiracy nuts yelp about constantly.

A good post, showing a few misunderstandings.

The central misunderstanding, and a common one held by many, is that the events of 11 September were as represented.

They were not. They were staged by bad guys in very influential positions within the US government, and within the international community.

Saddam Hussein's ragtag and defeated army, non-existent navy and air force, were no more a threat to the US than the man in the moon.

But you're right that the thread is about women serving in combat. Generally speaking, I'm against it for the reasons I've already posted here.

That said, the Pentagon has never once in my life, even when I was in the US Army, asked my opinion about anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no.

The real problem is young service men and women wanting to have sex, thus leaving(or not observing) their assigned posts.

Then, as stated previously, the natural instinct for a male to protect a female which "might" compromise a hard mission.

Just my opinion. Nothing against women at all.

Men and women want to have sex all the time, regardless of thier job, you dont tend to see office workers running off to broom cuboards in pairs to roger each other after 20 mins.

Male and femal police manage to work side by side without being overcome with lust mid arrest, ignore the suspect and leap into the back of the nearest car to get it on.

We are not slave to our base instincts and that such wants exist has no bearing on a persons employment be it in the armed forces or otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good post, showing a few misunderstandings.

The central misunderstanding, and a common one held by many, is that the events of 11 September were as represented.

They were not. They were staged by bad guys in very influential positions within the US government, and within the international community.

Saddam Hussein's ragtag and defeated army, non-existent navy and air force, were no more a threat to the US than the man in the moon.

But you're right that the thread is about women serving in combat. Generally speaking, I'm against it for the reasons I've already posted here.

That said, the Pentagon has never once in my life, even when I was in the US Army, asked my opinion about anything.

Just because you keep repeating a conspiracy theory doesnt make it true. We have been over this with one another several times and you have yet to provide proof of anything. So please dont try to use it as a factual basis of arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, no.

The real problem is young service men and women wanting to have sex, thus leaving(or not observing) their assigned posts.

Then, as stated previously, the natural instinct for a male to protect a female which "might" compromise a hard mission.

Just my opinion. Nothing against women at all.

Based on the experence of the other nations who already have women serving in combat, and have had them serving for decades, this is not a problem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you keep repeating a conspiracy theory doesnt make it true. We have been over this with one another several times and you have yet to provide proof of anything. So please dont try to use it as a factual basis of arguement.

Just because you keep repeating a conspiracy theory, and just because the government and the media ALSO repeat that theory, does not make it true. You offer a sword that cuts both ways.

Mine is not really a conspiracy theory, although one could certainly be developed. Mine is a simple statement supported by the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence--the official theory is a lie. It is false, and it is grossly inaccurate.

Yet, it is the very foundation of your world view, and for you it is a justification for the expenditure of blood and treasure.

That's a personal problem soldier, and it ain't mine. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Men and women want to have sex all the time, regardless of thier job, you dont tend to see office workers running off to broom cuboards in pairs to roger each other after 20 mins.

Male and femal police manage to work side by side without being overcome with lust mid arrest, ignore the suspect and leap into the back of the nearest car to get it on.

We are not slave to our base instincts and that such wants exist has no bearing on a persons employment be it in the armed forces or otherwise.

But, those police officers don't live together and end up isolated for weeks or months at a time in close quarters... now do they.

Yet, police still have fratinization rules that same as the military to discourage issues that are bound to come up, even in a civilian setting.

Based on the experence of the other nations who already have women serving in combat, and have had them serving for decades, this is not a problem at all.

And Americans don't treat sex the way that other nations do. In France and Germany you'll find topless ads in the newspapers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because you keep repeating a conspiracy theory, and just because the government and the media ALSO repeat that theory, does not make it true. You offer a sword that cuts both ways.

Mine is not really a conspiracy theory, although one could certainly be developed. Mine is a simple statement supported by the preponderance of the circumstantial evidence--the official theory is a lie. It is false, and it is grossly inaccurate.

Yet, it is the very foundation of your world view, and for you it is a justification for the expenditure of blood and treasure.

That's a personal problem soldier, and it ain't mine. :no:

Im not going to argue this with you again, its useless. Lets not derail this thread any further. If the topic at hand were up for a vote, id say Hell Yes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still ambivalent about whether women should be allowed in combat, but tending against it, for the simple reason that fraternization between the sexes probably works against combat readiness and efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** aclu, first they challenge so females can go to combat, but after dozens or so casualties they will sue army for not providing safe posts, and not ensuring their safety.

imo, this challenge has to be dropped, and aclu declared terrorist organisation, and let females soldgers take care of threat. if female soldgers anything like female cops, i feel sorry for entire aclu.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like if you can't spell it, you don't know what one is.

When a person criticizes an outfit that defends the USConstitution, we're in a pretty sad state.

Which I already knew.... :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like if you can't spell it, you don't know what one is.

When a person criticizes an outfit that defends the USConstitution, we're in a pretty sad state.

Which I already knew.... :no:

comming from you it has a lot of weight, lol, NOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the source Aztek, I am flattered! :tsu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, those police officers don't live together and end up isolated for weeks or months at a time in close quarters... now do they.

Yet, police still have fratinization rules that same as the military to discourage issues that are bound to come up, even in a civilian setting.

And Americans don't treat sex the way that other nations do. In France and Germany you'll find topless ads in the newspapers.

No you don't ... Jesus.. what is it with you Americans thinking Europe is showing naked ppl everywhere. Americans show far more sexually graphic images everywhere than Europeans.

In America you could have half naked billboards on busses and every streetcorner. That's not the case in Europe. Get your facts straight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

The lawsuit launched on Tuesday says they are barred from 238,000 positions, but also alleges that they are already serving unofficially in combat units.

So all the ppl using arguments that it's impossible for women and that men start to act like beasts on viagra should review their opinions since it's already a reality, but it's unofficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Americans don't treat sex the way that other nations do. In France and Germany you'll find topless ads in the newspapers.

When it comes to sex Americans and Canadians have very similar moral viewpoints. Women has been serving in combat roles in the Canadian military for decades. So again I don't see it being any problem at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you don't ... Jesus.. what is it with you Americans thinking Europe is showing naked ppl everywhere. Americans show far more sexually graphic images everywhere than Europeans.

In America you could have half naked billboards on busses and every streetcorner. That's not the case in Europe. Get your facts straight.

Huh? I lived there for 2 years in the 90s. In Germany. I read the daily paper quite often, with German friends to tell me what some things meant, and there were Definately topless women in the newspapers. 100% true. If this is not true anymore, that could be since it has been almost 20 years and maybe Germans are more prudish then there were in 1994.

There certainly are lots of scantily clad women on billboards in the US. But, no nipples are showing, unlike in many places in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

So all the ppl using arguments that it's impossible for women and that men start to act like beasts on viagra should review their opinions since it's already a reality, but it's unofficial.

I thought I read that rapes in US units sent to Afghanistan and Iraq had been on the increase.

1/3rd of women in military get raped.

The Pentagon Is Camouflaging the Truth About Rape in the Military

The 2011 report validates our worst fears. The data shows that the military's handling of sexual assaults is getting worse, much worse. Charges, courts-martial and convictions plummeted, but there is absolutely no indication that sex crimes decreased.
Without fundamental reform this problem will only get worse. Perpetrators know they stand little chance their crime will even be reported. And, in the unlikely event it is reported, there is very little chance they will suffer any meaningful consequence.

So here we have a military with a sex crime problem, and what is to be done?? Why send more women out with those poor overstressed, overworked, undersexed teenage men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? I lived there for 2 years in the 90s. In Germany. I read the daily paper quite often, with German friends to tell me what some things meant, and there were Definately topless women in the newspapers. 100% true. If this is not true anymore, that could be since it has been almost 20 years and maybe Germans are more prudish then there were in 1994.

There certainly are lots of scantily clad women on billboards in the US. But, no nipples are showing, unlike in many places in Europe.

Oh, looks like you are right...

As of March 2012...

At least with this one newpaper. Quite probably there are other papers that still do publish nude/topless advertisements.

Germany's Biggest Selling Newspaper Will No Longer Feature Topless Women On Its Front Page

http://www.businessinsider.com/bild-topless-nude-front-page-2012-3

Germany's biggest-selling newspaper scraps photos of topless women

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/09/germanys-biggest-selling-newspaper-scraps-photos-topless-women/

Bild added that there will continue to be "sexy" photographs in the newspaper, however they would be "more modern, better packaged.

Sorry lads, she's moved to page 3! German newspaper bans topless models from front page after International Woman's Day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112971/German-newspaper-bans-topless-models-page-International-Womans-Day.html

More than 5,000 woman have bared their breasts in the newspaper since 1984.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to sex Americans and Canadians have very similar moral viewpoints. Women has been serving in combat roles in the Canadian military for decades. So again I don't see it being any problem at all.

And how many units with front line women are stationed in war zones?

From what I'ver read the numbers are in the hundreds, where the US sends troops into dangerous situations in the hundreds of thousands. So it would seem logical that the US would have many, many more cases where sex became an issue, due to stress and combat conditions.

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

Not knocking on the Canadian military, just saying that the Canadian Gov does not send its units out into stress as willingly or in the numbers that the US does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.