GraybeardGhost
Well-known member
Food for thought:
Forty-six countries with no U.S. military presence? Clearly, we still have our work cut out for us. :bat:
Disclaimer:
Just kidding. Not really an imperialist. Pay me no mind.
Last edited:
Females taking combat role positions in the future
- Thread starter Lamb
- Start date
Forty-six countries with no U.S. military presence? Clearly, we still have our work cut out for us. :bat:
Disclaimer:
Just kidding. Not really an imperialist. Pay me no mind.
PGT
Well-known member
I Agree with this.
Can a woman fight,shoot and kill the same as any man, sure there is no reason why not.
There are so many angles that need to be considered regarding women on the front line. I hope they have got this decision right. Only time will tell.
coyote
Well-known member
sorry, i thought hyperbole was the accepted form of expression in this matter
I see people making arguments that corruption is bad, that war is bad, that killing innocent people is bad...
Who is going to disagree? How is this taking a stand? :idontknow:
If anyone has any realistic suggestions on how to change things, I would love to hear them.
In the meantime, having a military force is still quite necessary--and women should be allowed to take the same combat roles as men if they are qualified to do so--which is what this thread was supposed to be about.
Who is going to disagree? How is this taking a stand? :idontknow:
If anyone has any realistic suggestions on how to change things, I would love to hear them.
In the meantime, having a military force is still quite necessary--and women should be allowed to take the same combat roles as men if they are qualified to do so--which is what this thread was supposed to be about.
coyote
Well-known member
i think we should invade New Zealand
Opaline
1
I agree. And whoever said that the standards aren't lowered for women is wrong. Have a look at the basic training requirements for any branch of the US military. The standards are lower for women because women are physically weaker. Yes, I said it: women are physically weaker. We have less muscle and more fat. That's not to say there aren't some women who are stronger than some men - there are always exceptions - but overall men are much stronger. And then there's the rape issue, the distraction issue, etc. It's not pretty at all. No women in combat. Let them help out by nursing, or some technical tasks they're good at, or whatever. But no combat.
I realize basic training standards are different from combat standards, but it still shows you how they change things around to make up for the physical weakness of women.
^That's an excellent point, Opal. It's why I said 'if they are qualified', as well. I do not agree with lowering the standards for women at all. If it means fewer women, so what? Only those qualified to do the job should be allowed to do the job, like any other job.
As far issues like the possibility of rape are concerned, I feel that as long as the recruit is made fully aware of such things, she should still have the right to take the risks. Men going into combat roles are already aware they can be killed or maimed, after all.
As far issues like the possibility of rape are concerned, I feel that as long as the recruit is made fully aware of such things, she should still have the right to take the risks. Men going into combat roles are already aware they can be killed or maimed, after all.
Downsize and specialise.
OBL 9/11
response 1) invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Highly expensive in lives and resources.
response 2) Use CIA and Special forces. Value for money, minimal casualties.
Last edited:
Starry
Well-known member
How about at the very least actually fighting ONLY wars of DEFENCE. Stop going and invading other countries under false pretences. Stay in your own damn country and if someone comes trying to invade then you use required force against the invaders only. None of this stupid business of injuring civilians at the very least... Like in other wars where one side pepper bombs a city just to show they can, so the other side pepper bombs an enemy city just to retaliate... Who gets injured and killed? Civilians... Innocent people... As though it's not bad enough that the order-followers are being killed... At least they (usually, though not under conscription) choose to be in the situation. I wish just for once people would actually start caring about LIFE and having some respect for it!
And as I said, if all order-followers, whether they be military, police or anything else for that matter refused to injure and kill another person just because their government ordered it then there could be no wars. Now that's obviously not to say that if someone's going around killing others they can't be stopped - obviously they should be. Nobody with half a heart would stand by and watch innocent people being killed if they could stop it, and stop it they should. Wars are political and have little if anything to do with any actual morality.
And better yet, leave the warmongers to fight themselves... I wonder how many wars would be fought if the governmental people had to fight them themselves...
I would love to see the military downsized and specialized. Absolutely. How do you propose to overpower the lobbyists who want the opposite?
I'm convinced. Any suggestions on how to convince those who profit so much from our offensive military actions?
You think it realistic that large amounts of people in the military will agree to get court-marshaled and dishonorably discharged, risking homelessness and the inability to feed their families for the sake of principles regarding a combat situation that they probably don't even realize the implications of to begin with?
Again...realistic? You are thinking those in power will simply agree to risk their own lives?
coyote
Well-known member
assuming that women are held to the same training standards as their male counterparts in combat assignments, there are still a number of practical and logistical issues that would have to be addressed - sleeping arrangements, personal hygiene, the close physical contact, and emotional bonding, etc.
grunts in combat live shoulder-to-shoulder with their buddies. they literally do everything together, right next to each other - eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, bathe (when they're lucky), and fight for their lives. they form tight bonds which are instrumental to their effectiveness as a unit and crucial to their survival.
think about how men and women relate to each other - how would that work under such conditions? would it affect the strength and capabilities of the unit? would it affect their ability to perform their mission?
the debate is not just about the rights of the individual women involved. it also about the effectiveness of the entire organization. that's the thing about the military - it achieves it's goals through teamwork and collectivism, not individualism.
i'm not arguing that these are reasons to deny women the right to serve in combat roles. just more things that need to be addressed and taken into account when it comes to training and organization. it will require more than a few pen strokes to make work - it would need for the sexes to reshape their views of each other and what "equal" really means. for many, risking the lives of combat troops while working out the bugs is not worth the experiment.
i guess that's the real question - is it worth it?
grunts in combat live shoulder-to-shoulder with their buddies. they literally do everything together, right next to each other - eat, sleep, urinate, defecate, bathe (when they're lucky), and fight for their lives. they form tight bonds which are instrumental to their effectiveness as a unit and crucial to their survival.
think about how men and women relate to each other - how would that work under such conditions? would it affect the strength and capabilities of the unit? would it affect their ability to perform their mission?
the debate is not just about the rights of the individual women involved. it also about the effectiveness of the entire organization. that's the thing about the military - it achieves it's goals through teamwork and collectivism, not individualism.
i'm not arguing that these are reasons to deny women the right to serve in combat roles. just more things that need to be addressed and taken into account when it comes to training and organization. it will require more than a few pen strokes to make work - it would need for the sexes to reshape their views of each other and what "equal" really means. for many, risking the lives of combat troops while working out the bugs is not worth the experiment.
i guess that's the real question - is it worth it?
Opaline
1
Well put. It seems those who scream the loudest for gender equality fail to realize the basic fact of how very different men and women are, and how they relate to one another given these differences. And I'm not talking about receiving respect as a human being. Everyone deserves that. But women are not simply men with breasts, and men certainly aren't women with penises.
Call me sexist, call me whatever you want. I still believe war is for the men. I'm very old-fashioned in that sense.
Therein lies not the problem but the cause. The British empire still exists. Renamed, re branded, still trans-global, multinational and run by the exact same elite.
Last edited:
Starry
Well-known member
People power... Only through protest on a large scale could anything be achieved... Which means convincing the public and those in the military first.
Ah, court marshaling - kind of shows how evil and anti-conscience the military is, really... Brand anyone who refuses to follow orders a "coward", or worse an actual enemy, and treat them as a criminal... If large numbers of people all acted at one time there's no way the criminal system of court marshaling could be used... They simply wouldn't have the number of people necessary. And I respect those who believe they are doing the right thing even if they are doing wrong.. However, if they learn the truth of their actions and still continue then they lose my respect. I think if people can be brainwashed into thinking it is honourable to go and kill and be killed for your country in an illegal war, then it would be very easy to get them to rebel once they're aware of exactly what it is they're doing. A little suffering is nothing compared with murder and death. Remove the brainwashing that enemies are inhuman demons, remove the mental state which is forced upon military personnel, (I've known people who have been in the army who find it very difficult to live life outside of being ordered around - they're often made to give up their own conscience and will... My cousin, after leaving the army had to go back to it, he just could't cope without being told what to do, my ex brother-in-law has become almost an alcoholic since he can't cope with life outside, the army doesn't inflict a healthy mental state in its ranks - this would need to be dealt with) reveal the propaganda which circulates in films and games where the military is "oh, so great" and the "enemy" is evil and barely human, educate people on the true effects of war instead of glorifying it... Spread messages of peace and of waking up to your own conscience... And people will eventually be educated.
And as for whether it's realistic to expect such a U-turn.. Well, go back 150 years - Practicing homosexuality was a crime which could carry the death penalty... (Still does in some places, but we'll stick to talking about the West for now) Everyone was outraged by it... Do you think it was realistic of anyone then to even dream of homosexual marriage even being thought about, let alone coming into being? Yet, where are we now? If something which was so despised as homosexuality can become accepted by the majority, due to people campaigning, due to the media publicising it... then I think something as despised and evil as war can be rejected by the majority.
More and more people are waking up and using their own conscience. In that video I posted for example - Wembley stadium, full of people all cheering loudly when Mr Icke said "People in uniform, put down your weapons" (or words to that effect). If even half of them went around spreading the same message many other people would eventually wake up and see the folly of it all and they'd do the same, eventually enough people will wake up and use their conscience. It's possible. No, it'll never have governmental support, but revolutions don't either and they have occurred. We need a revolution of the mind and I believe it's possible if only people stop being stuck in their box.
That's my point, they never would. Which begs the question which everyone in the military should consider... "If they wouldn't, why should I? Especially why should I when I don't even agree with their politics?"
Starry, I respect your sentiments. I really do.
I wish you luck with the revolution.
I wish you luck with the revolution.
KiaKaha
Banned
BWAHAHAHA - oh man... hilarious. We dont even let your nuclear subs come in our waters. You know my grandfather is an american US soldier from ww2 - hooked up with my grandmum, gave her a good going over - that makes me 1/4 american.
Oh please. There was no hyperbole on my part. I merely stated a valid argument.
Obviously there is strong emotional element tied to this thread - those who will try to justify foreign policy and military action no matter what the reason, initial aggression or defense (aside from misguided patriotism) and those who think the reasons for war need to be scrutinized and hold those accountable for killing innocent people.
It's always interesting how you hear about the number of soldiers who died in the name of their country - but you NEVER hear about the innocent civilians, the people who are just trying to live their own lives in peace getting killed by military action. I also wonder how comfortable nations would be waging war in their own backyard... in their own country. Would people still have the same attitude. Of course they wouldn't. As long as power stays with "the good guys" any reason for war will always be justified.
Baaaa.
Last edited:
Starry
Well-known member
Hear! Hear!