|
And for a bit of a history lesson, the Mongols never conquered Russia. Sec, I got something for you homey; Conquer; to gain or acquire by force of arm. So to say that the Mongols conquered Russia, including the Russian Principalities, Novgorod, and the arctic fucking circle (another metaphor, stay with me baby) isn't accurate. When historians draw boundary line around empires it is for a good reason, as seen in Mongolia by the 13th century Mongols which is directly under Mongols. I noticed you being a dunce the entire thread chief, the coaches of your golf team never said consistency was a bad thing right?
Just a slight correction, they actually kind of did conquer Russia (and they are the only group in history credited with doing so). They conquered the various different principalities and forced them to give tribute to the Mongolian throne. Another important note to mention is that Russia wasn't actually a centralized country at the time of the Mongolian Horde, so it's a little bit more complicated to define Russia as being "conquered", but they are.
|
On November 12 2009 11:19 TwoToneTerran wrote:
Any human being, man, woman or hermaphrodite, capable of meeting the expectations of the army, should be fully allowed. Medical costs are different per person and the numbers seem inflated from intentionally putting in incapable women as some sort of political motive. If the vast majority of male frontline soldiers we allowed in never passed their tests successfully, I bet the average male cost would go up too. Cut the crap and hold every person to the regular standards and there will be plenty of women who pass and are valuable soldiers.
Any soldier guilty of sexual harassment of another officer shouldn't have been a soldier to begin with. If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us. This goes for both men and women assaulters.
It's disgraceful and plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting. It's obvious that the average woman in western society isn't fit for it, but neither is the average male in America, either. The sexism in this thread is putrid and it's upsetting that so many people voted so black and white on "No" for allowance.
Dude, you have NO idea what you are talking about. Period.
The topic at hand is women in the fucking INFANTRY. You all cling on to this politically correct idea of "if a man can do it, so can a woman" just to be looked upon as mature and a modern day asshole.
You have to look at the facts. Which the OP did in fact post.
The facts are: Women lack the upper body strength - And no I don't mean getting through fucking boot camp. I mean carrying 80 LBS of gear during a fight, or possibly having to carry a wounded soldier to safety, or a million other things required on the field of battle.
Women are a distraction to the male soldiers. There is sort of a beer goggles effect when in a theater of operations. Every female looks more attractive. This is common knowledge in the military community.
Men have a carnal instinct to protect women. This would be magnified on the field of battle when a female infantry solider gets torn up. Men might crap out on their training and do something to endanger themselves or those around them.
Everything would have to change to cater to a woman's need on the front lines. new rules would be created, new facilities.
Men are faster, stronger, and can take more punishment.
And when it comes down to a battle confidence and troop morale is everything. If soldier's don't trust each other outside the wire they cannot succeed. All they have is each other. How would a male soldier fight along side of a woman if he felt someone better could be in her place instead? All this just to have fairness and equality? This would cost lives.
"Cut the crap and hold every person to the regular standards and there will be plenty of women who pass and are valuable soldiers."
In the Army? Yes defiantly, pile the women in line.
In the Infantry? No.
"If they don't have the mental stability to stop from treating other human beings as dirt when the time calls for it, then they're the exact opposite of the person we'd want representing us."
Are you sure about this? Think about the people in the infantry. They almost have to be able to do such things. An infantry solider has to lose all feeling, push on, and destroy human beings. This is something you just don't understand, and never could. Trust me, you want these people out there in the fight.
"plain disgusting to automatically disregard women of being capable of fighting"
It's very interesting you said this actually.
Because you automatically disregard women of NOT being capable of fighting when you, in fact, have no idea about it at all.
I am all for women in the military. And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit.
|
United States42685 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit.
Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
|
On November 12 2009 08:58 baal wrote:
I think everyone has the right to die protecting the economical interests of their corrupt politicians, regardless of gender and sex.
Who are we to say to women "no, you cannot throw your life away raping a sovereign country so EXXON can pump oil out of it".
You are the biggest troll of all time.
|
On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit. Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Some women are, but I think women are held to different standards in the military. So ultimately, you have inferior soldiers.
Also... gross
|
You're forgetting a really important thing:
If women were in the military, we'd not have as many wars / rape / violence / etc.
|
On November 12 2009 13:25 Culture wrote:
You're forgetting a really important thing:
If women were in the military, we'd not have as many wars / rape / violence / etc.
We're talking about the infantry...
I fail to see how women in the infantry would prevent wars or violence. Rape, maybe?
|
On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit. Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men.
Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand.
She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid.
She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
|
United States42685 Posts
This is what we like to call a bell curve. The shaded area is the people capable of being in the infantry. The blue line are men, the red women.
Notice that the people who meet the fitness criteria here, which are the same for both men and women, are predominantly men. Notice also that some of the freaks who fall on the outside of the bell curve for women are inside the shaded area. They should be able to serve in the infantry.
Also the men for whom the opposite is true shouldn't.
|
That small portion of women who fall under the category you mentioned can succeed in combat arms. Artillery Soldiers(field), FO's (forward observers), Air defence soldiers, Medics, RO (radio operators) and Combat Engineers.
Not Infantry...
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:27 EniraM(CA) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit. Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men. Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that?
And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
|
United States42685 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:27 EniraM(CA) wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit. Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men. Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.
There are plenty of women in the United States. Some of them are physically fit. Some of them are cold blooded. A minority of them are both. I fail to see how you're not understanding this. It's a bell curve. The majority may not fall within the requirements of the army but a minority will. Those minorioty are capable.
I understood your point completely, I just didn't feel like image searching for a cold blooded woman. Which is why I said she could keep up with you. Please read more carefully.
|
United States24680 Posts
lol sick graphs Kwark
edit: although the issue is unfortunately a little bit more complicated than that.
|
United States42685 Posts
On November 12 2009 13:31 EniraM(CA) wrote:
That small portion of women who fall under the category you mentioned can succeed in combat arms. Artillery Soldiers(field), FO's (forward observers), Air defence soldiers, Medics, RO (radio operators) and Combat Engineers.
Not Infantry...
The small portion of women who are physically and mentally as fit as the men who are allowed in the infantry should be allowed in the infantry.
|
United States42685 Posts
By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
|
On average men are about 30 % stronger than women. However, if a women can go through all of the SAME combat competency tests as men, and pass- there is no reason she should not be on the front line. Women are not emotionally weaker lol That is a bunch of bull shit. If the women has the drive to fight in the infantry and wants to be there, i can guarantee that she like all of the other men will not have a single problem.
At the same time- should women be allowed to go into front line battle without having to pass through the normal competency course? NO! don't lower standards people, that will only create inferior soldiers.
|
On November 12 2009 13:31 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2009 13:27 EniraM(CA) wrote:On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
And I do not discriminate.
But there is no way in hell I would want one fighting by my side in the shit. Also I'm pretty sure + Show Spoiler + could keep up with you on the battlefield. Obviously she's not the majority but we're not arguing for the average woman to be in the infantry (the same as we're not arguing for the average man (overweight and unfit)) to be in the infantry. The point is simply that some women are as capable as some men. Wrong. You still fail to see the big picture. And by posting me 1 picture of some body builder (lol) you prove how little you understand. She may have muscles and upper body strength. But all other points are still valid. She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry. ??? You need to have a gun, be able to point it at someone, and shoot. You seriously don't think that anyone can do that? And I bet there are at least some women who would have the drive to go to the front lines.
You have no idea what the infantry does. Stop posting here, you are embarrassing yourself.
|
[QUOTE]On November 12 2009 13:27 EniraM(CA) wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 12 2009 13:21 KwarK wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 12 2009 13:15 EniraM(CA) wrote:
She doesn't have the cold blooded-ness to be in the infantry.[/QUOTE]
You know her? What's her soft side like?
|
On November 12 2009 13:39 KwarK wrote:
By the way, if women aren't capable it really is a non issue. For example the British Royal Marines have an equal opportunity recruitment policy. Women are allowed to join. That said, no woman has ever passed their entrance tests (though a few have come close). If you look back to my graphs, the shaded area for the Royal Marines is the far side of the men line which excluses 90% of men and even the most freakishly fit of women.
You can allow women in without compromising the unit as long as you don't lower standards for entry. If they meet the standards they're good enough, if they don't, they're not. Ruling them out is hypocritical, if you really believe they can't handle it then let them prove it to you.
Dude I agree with this. 100%. This is what you all don't understand.
Its not about standards, and how well they can do in boot camp.
Its a much more broad issue.
|
Ok, I had enough trying to get my point across.
But it's just impossible to understand unless you know the Infantry.
For those of you who want to remain ignorant of how amazing the infantry is. Go on living normally.
For those of you who want to know.... read this book.
Now, picture a woman in the same situation as Staff Sargent Bellavia.
Does it seem believable in your mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.bodybuildingweekly.com/thumbnail.php?file=KristyHawkins1a_801545083.jpg&size=article_medium)
![[image loading]](http://img29.imageshack.us/i/bellcurve.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/House%20to%20House%20Cover.jpg)
