Women in combat policy to change

[Onkel Neal]

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/09/women-in-combat-policy-could-change/?hpt=hp_c2

Is this being done primarily so military women can receive citations? :shifty:

I'm not sure I understand why in this time of complete equality that women are not allowed to serve in any capacity as a man? And why are women exempt from conscription? That's not equality.

I agree with this guy's comments

Infantry vet here, Hey as long as the rules remain the same and a woman is willing to be in the field for 2 weeks at a time without a shower, cleaning with wetnaps and a few drops from a canteen then sure. I also feel there should be a combat MOS PT test vs the Male/Female PT test. Reason on the latter is that if someone else goes down most non-combat personal would not be in the shape required to fireman carry a 180LB infantry guy with battle armor 100meters and if a female is going into that MOS that requirement should stay. As long as that is met I have no other complaints about them serving in any capacity they qualify for.

[August]

I agree with him too but the problem is that the rules won't stay the same. Any job that requires physical strength, Infantryman, tank mechanic, etc, will start out with one standard but when women start failing in greater numbers than men there will be charges of gender bias and then the military will do what they always do, which is lower the physical standards causing overall efficiency to suffer.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

I agree, fitness standards should be same. I have never been in military, they didn't accept me :( , but my brother served as NCO in Army. He told me about exercise during which company was ordered to move in squads as quick march to another position. There was one female soldier in my brother's squad who just wasn't strong enough for the job. Rest of the squad ended up carrying her equipment in addition of their own and even after that their movement took about 45 min longer than from other squads.

My brother, squad leader, wasn't very pleased.

[GoldenRivet]

The important thing to remember:

There are women who dont want to serve in the military and couldnt care less about having similar rights as men. There are women out there that dont want to be submarine commanders, who dont want to fly fighter jets. There are women out there who are perfectly happy to contribute to a household by cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, making sure a good meal is prepared and managing the home. I happen to have one such woman and she is just as vital and important a part of this household as I am.

then...

there are women who want to have these equil rights, they want to roll in the mud and blood for weeks without hot showers, they want to be fortune 500 CEOs, they will not be happy unless they are flying their A-10 down flak alley at 350 knots bearing HARMs down on some SAM site. Some women just want to be one of the guys so bad they can taste it.

and hey, that's fine to want those things... but their crusade - is currently - will continue and always has screwed things up for a lot of women out there that didnt want to burn their bras.

i say give them what they want.

from this date forward all women at the age of 18 should have to sign up for selective service.

the physical and mental standards should remain the same as they have always been.

If any one of us men got drafted and hopped over into Canada we are labeled shameful draft dodgers... why shouldn't a woman have to live with the same choices and decisions?

I think from a perspective of discrimination - I'll have to insist on equality.

[soopaman2]

I agree, fitness standards should be same. I have never been in military, they didn't accept me :( , but my brother served as NCO in Army. He told me about exercise during which company was ordered to move in squads as quick march to another position. There was one female soldier in my brother's squad who just wasn't strong enough for the job. Rest of the squad ended up carrying her equipment in addition of their own and even after that their movement took about 45 min longer than from other squads.

My brother, squad leader, wasn't very pleased.

In politically correct America, you will be labeled a sexist, and any valid point you made is automatically discounted.

That sarcastic comment aside I agree. My cousin and brother were both marines (My left leg is 2 inches shorter than my right, due to a car accident and substandard medical care given to uninsured 14 year olds from poor families, I walk with a permanent limp, they didn't let me in either)

I asked both their opinions on women serving alongside them, and they both agreed it is not a good idea.

Not out of sexist reasons, so hear us out.

In war, man is brought to the most primal of instincts, which explains the high amount of wartime rapes, throughout any war in history. Just look at how German women killed themselves to avoid the Russian army retaliations, or the rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers.

Anything with a vagina would be nothing more than an impediment, yes that sounds incredibly mysogynistic, but it is not my intention. Men get extra sensitive over a woman falling in combat over another swinging "jimmy"

It sounds bad, I am having troubles articulating myself today. Not minimizing the woman warrior. Just trying to highlight the potential distraction to the male majority.

(no matter how I say it, I am an a-hole, it is not intentional, nor do I hate women, after all someone did marry me.)

[CCIP]

In war, man is brought to the most primal of instincts, which explains the high amount of wartime rapes, throughout any war in history. Just look at how German women killed themselves to avoid the Russian army retaliations, or the rape of Nanking by Japanese soldiers.

Anything with a vagina would be nothing more than an impediment, yes that sounds incredibly mysogynistic, but it is not my intention. Men get extra sensitive over a woman falling in combat over another swinging "jimmy"

On the other hand, Soviet experience of women in combat in WWII frequently throws a wrench into this alleged historical inability of women to perform. Certainly not all women, and certainly not all of them were equally capable, but the Eastern Front provides many examples of women in WWII who fought on par and in some cases better than men. There are several exceptional cases of women as combat troops in front line units, as tank drivers, attack aircraft pilots. There are very large numbers of Soviet women who distinguished themselves as partisans and saboteurs, nurses and other frontline support troops, bomber pilots and air defense crews (i.e. these are roles they performed often, not rarely). There are also whole schools and units of women night bomber pilots and women snipers who, arguably, outperformed all-male units in the Soviet effort.

What does that say as a precedent, then?

There is, of course, the other side - the Soviet army was hardly a professional one (that is, it was a war emergency situation) and hardly dealt with political issues and rules in the same way as the modern-day US army does. But I think the difference here is one of motivation and politics, not necessarily ability. A woman who wants a US army career and social acceptance is probably not motivated by the same things as someone fighting for the survival of their country in a war emergency. It's nonsense to suggest that a woman in combat is always a liability, however. There are many historical cases where they proved themselves to be assets, rather, and the study of the Soviet WWII efforts shoots down a lot of these myths.

[GoldenRivet]

Situation:

a unit is overrun and captured by an enemy force.

the unit has 2 female combatants and 15 male combatants.

the enemy soldiers separate the 2 females and any number of enemy soldiers proceed to rape them repeatedly in brutal fashion in view of the male combatants.

The senior military officer approaches the male combatants in their cell

"This can all stop if you just give us the information we want."

what happens?

Does someone talk at the expense of thousands of other soldiers?

Do the women talk to save themselves?

Knowing the vitality of the information you posses as one of the male combatants... would you feel more compelled to talk considering the torture of your colleague was especially heinous and unusual?

Either way the women and probably even the men involved are psychologically scarred - probably well beyond the normal psychological stress of war- for the rest of their lives.

an back to the draft situation.

Both of these girls are drafted:

http://trackandtrap.com/images/girl%20bear%20hunter%20xcr.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/13905922/adorable-beautiful-blonde-body-bone-Favim.com-129440_large.jpg

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

:rotfl2:

[soopaman2]

CCIP sir. I see your point and am not minimizing the combat capibilities of a woman, war is a human instict. You are kinda comparing women defending the homeland to what I was comparing it to (imperialistic actions overseas, with no penalty to defeat, not like your losing your mother land), is women in aggressive combat situations far from home, for little sovereign gain to the agressors. (what is the US getting from Iraq and Afghanistan. China already bought the mineral fields we found in afghanistan.)

But the post below you by GoldenRivet illustrates my point, better than me.

What real man would let a woman be abused by savages, no matter how well trained they are, a mans paternal/protectionist instinct will take over, and can cost many lives in unecessary/vain bravado.

Please do not take me as being mysogynistic. But it is a fact men and women are built differently, it is this politically correct crap that forces us into eventual conundrums as GoldenRivet highlighted so well.

[GoldenRivet]

regardless of the position one holds in the discussion... Human kind should try to rid itself of war... not search for new ways to add more people to it.

It is a costly endeavor - costly in life and capitol - and in the end it really accomplishes very little for the price.

[MH]

Generally speaking i would not like my daughter to serve in combat field unit.

Have no problem with her doing just about anything else.
There are a lot of challenging things woman can do in armed forces.

[CCIP]

regardless of the position one holds in the discussion... Human kind should try to rid itself of war... not search for new ways to add more people to it.

It is a costly endeavor - costly in life and capitol - and in the end it really accomplishes very little for the price.

Now that's a message I can get behind!

As far as women's rights and opportunities, I personally find it very unfortunate that all of this has ended up in political agendas and political correctness. There are definitely issues of discrimination to address, but the way in which they have been has in some ways made the situation worse. There is a difference between the language of opportunity and affirmative action, and I fear that because of politics much of this ends up slipping into the latter. Nothing new about military ranks being a field for political play, sadly.

[RickC Sniper]

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

:rotfl2:

That is a good post by you but I ask other questions.

Which of these two is more likely to get her squad mates killed?

If the weak get killed off the quickest is it or is it not actually beneficial to the rest? :hmm2:

[soopaman2]

Is it any less noble for people to serve in aux roles?

My other cousin drove a truck for 3 years. He was just as important as the sniper in Tora Bora, or the tank commander in Tikrit.

This reeks of a gender based "pissing contest" which will end fast once the first videos surface of a pretty twenty-something female GI getting her head sawed off with a rusty knife on Liveleak.

It's ok when it is a male soldier or a journalist, lets see how you react when it is a pretty young female soldier. Let us see if that tugs at the heartstrings.

Actually I hope it happens, it might stir up the non fighting chickenhawks to stop stirring up wars on other people lives/dimes.

Or bring back the draft with no exemptions. That way, war would not be such an easy option for our fascist warmongering government. I want some congressmans sons to die in these endeavors, more than anything.

[Stealhead]

In my experience in the USAF honestly the sex of the person made little difference there where woman that where just as good at the job which in my case was mechanical as any man.There where both men and women that where good and ones that sucked for one reason or another.As to the whole psychical strength part I think many only get half the picture there are plenty of males in the military that could not meet the requirements but simply had their buddy lie for them and say they did x amount of x in order to pass.I don't think it is a political thing to have allowed women in the military in fact after they stopped the draft and went to all volunteer they knew that they would not get enough males so they wisely choose back then to allow women to do 90% of the military jobs.

And to be honest the whole capture situation is silly to the truth is if they want to they will make you talk to some extent this fact was proven during Vietnam where most of the POWs did say something but you cant really blame them when you consider the things done to them.As a matter of fact they actually changed the code of conduct after Vietnam because some men died because they refused to talk and died from the torture the US military felt this was a waste of life because there was no information they could have given that would have been of much value.Also in the modern military only a very small amount of troops are ever in real danger so if your job is to be a mechanic or a radio operator something like this you are never going to see combat anyway.

The Soviets used so many women because they needed the manpower er human power that they provided modern armed forces have women for the same reason they need the manpower that they provide the US will never go back to the draft short of a world ending event occurring and there simply are not enough people willing to join the military as is right now women included to be honest if we did not have women right now wed have a much weaker military simple truth we need them like it or not.

"Or bring back the draft with no exemptions. That way, war would not be such an easy option for our fascist warmongering government. I want some congressmans sons to die in these endeavors, more than anything." that is never going to happen and you know it.


GoldenRivet has a nice idea ridding the world of war but we human beings have a long way to go before we get to that point if we ever do.

[August]

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.

[soopaman2]

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.


I will not add to it, simply agree and applaud.
:salute::salute::salute:

A focused force.

Very good.

[GoldenRivet]

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

People once said the same about whites and blacks in America.

Perhaps we should have all female combat units.

they say that any group of women who stay together for long enough a period of time synchronize their menstrual cycles.

This could provide advantageous.

If we could mobilize an entire female fighting force during that time of the month... they could probably wrap up just about any armed conflict in a matter of days if not hours.


and furthermore aihglkjduh


Sorry gentlemen... Goldenrivet had to be eliminated

Yours,

The girflriend

[August]

People once said the same about whites and blacks in America.

I don't see it as the same thing but I wonder how many names are on the Vietnam Memorial because of racial tension? I know when I joined in 1977 there was still a lot of racial incidents.


Sorry gentlemen... Goldenrivet had to be eliminated

Yours,

The girflriend

What are you wearing? :DL

[Takeda Shingen]

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

:rotfl2:

If we are taking the two individuals above into combat as is, which you seem to have indicated by the nature of your post, then I would say that they both stand excellent chances of death. I would also, if this were the case, question why was are spending so much money on our war machine if we are sending troops without training.

That aside, if the individual can do the job required then I have no issue of what their gender, race or sexual orientation is.

[GoldenRivet]

I rephrase my original comment.

Which one is more likely to wash out of training? :D




gotta go on a camping trip

have a great weekend everyone :salute:

[MH]

In Israel it worked well with "Caracal " light infantry battalion.
It is a unisex combat battalion and so far is doing good job.



:D



http://dover.idf.il/NR/rdonlyres/9F2D1DBD-E7D8-4807-A00B-982CED23189F/0/karakal_s_cropped_big.jpg


A lot of women serve as instructors to combat units,support,artillery,navy and so on.

[CCIP]

I'm also not sure the "distraction" argument is really valid. There are a lot of professional high-pressure situation where men and women are in close quarters and there is no issue. This depends more on individuals' discipline and professionalism than gender.

The same type of excuse is also often offered for things like bullying - put a lot of young guys together, and tempers can go out of control. Yet that's really not an excuse and there's all sorts of evidence pointing to the fact that individual discipline and personal qualities matter more than demographics or supposed biological factors.

[nikimcbee]

My big problem with women in combat, aside from the strength limitations, is that a mixed gender combat force is a distracted combat force.

Our troops have enough to worry about in combat without adding sexual tension to the mix, and lets be honest, anytime you have a group of young men and women in close quarters there will be sexual tension and it will be a huge distraction.

Now, I saw the movie "Starship Troops" and it worked out in that. We should be okay.

[Stealhead]

Now, I saw the movie "Starship Troops" and it worked out in that. We should be okay.

:har:

Another thing many people not in the military may not be aware of is that male or female some troops will meet and other troops will exceed and others will greatly exceed the set standards.Of the airmen I supervised it was actually a female one who most greatly exceeded the standards in fact she beat the set male standards as well I would say that this woman was "not trying to be one of the guys" she just happened to be in good shape and my troops never cheated because I was the one counting their numbers of push ups and sit ups and run times so there where no games.

"Caracal" is nothing new Haganah units had women in them though they did keep them out of direct combat units for some time after.

I tend to agree with CCIP on the whole distraction issue combat units are a little different than other units but in any unit I was in there was never much of a serious problem with males getting distracted sure guys might say to the others that chick is hot but that was as far as it went in my experience. Besides not every woman in the military is super attractive either there are quite a few dog faces out there.

[August]

I'm also not sure the "distraction" argument is really valid. There are a lot of professional high-pressure situation where men and women are in close quarters and there is no issue. This depends more on individuals' discipline and professionalism than gender.

The same type of excuse is also often offered for things like bullying - put a lot of young guys together, and tempers can go out of control. Yet that's really not an excuse and there's all sorts of evidence pointing to the fact that individual discipline and personal qualities matter more than demographics or supposed biological factors.

On the other hand experiments in social engineering always seem to be acceptable when it's someone else whose life is being put at risk. Even if it's just another straw on the camels back it has to add to the considerable load that's already there.

I say let's finish up our present wars first and do the experimenting once our troops are back to peacetime training mode.

[Onkel Neal]

Situation:

a unit is overrun and captured by an enemy force.

the unit has 2 female combatants and 15 male combatants.

the enemy soldiers separate the 2 females and any number of enemy soldiers proceed to rape them repeatedly in brutal fashion in view of the male combatants.

The senior military officer approaches the male combatants in their cell

"This can all stop if you just give us the information we want."

what happens?

Does someone talk at the expense of thousands of other soldiers?

Do the women talk to save themselves?



True. But just imagine, the enemy captures you, and me, and Sailor Steve. They take me aside and tell me that a hundred enemy soldiers are gonna rape me if I don't talk... I'll probably sprain my jaw spilling the beans so fast.



What are you wearing? :DL

:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[August]

I'll probably sprain my jaw spilling the beans so fast.


Navy guys... :nope: :)

[Stealhead]

True. But just imagine, the enemy captures you, and me, and Sailor Steve. They take me aside and tell me that a hundred enemy soldiers are gonna rape me if I don't talk... I'll probably sprain my jaw spilling the beans so fast.




:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:


Well like I said if they want you to talk they are going to find a way and the type of enemy we face they tend to not take prisoners there is what that one Army solider who they keeping for political reasons.If your unit gets over run in Afghanistan you are going to die either by bullets in combat or in your head if they find you wounded or get very lucky and get saved by massive air and artillery support at the last second.They do not really need that much intel from captured troops they get a massive amount from numerous local supporters pretty easy just give the little kid a few bucks and tell him to report troop movements.Also US and NATO units have only been over run a handful of times and that was when they using the old outpost system which they largely got rid of after some outposts got overrun.

[Ducimus]

In my experience in the USAF honestly the sex of the person made little difference there where woman that where just as good at the job which in my case was mechanical as any man..

I can go along with that. When i was in the USAF, serving in a RED HORSE squadron (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iU59A9_TcU), i saw women do everything that a man can do, just as well, and in some cases better.

From my experience, i don't judge a persons abilities by their gender, and as a civillian, i never buy into "just a girl", because ive seen what women can do. In fact, it disgusts me when I see a female try and pull the "I'm just a girl card" to get out of work. That's a bunch of BS because i know its not true. Just because they don't have something swinging between their legs doesn't mean they can't do the job. Any female who pulls that card is a lazy POS that is trying to get out of work.

On the lighter side of things, i don't think avenging valkerie would aptly describe a pissed off female on the rag armed with whatever primary duty weapon. :rotfl2: Hell hath no fury, no? :O:

[Falkirion]

Out of curiosity what's the girl packing in that shot back up there? Can't recall the name of the weapon off the top of my head.

[Skybird]

In principle there is nothing to say against women in combat forces. The devil hides in the details.

But the criterions by which candidates are qualifying for this or for that kind of job, both physically and mentally/intelklkectually, need to be set by the realities set by war, not by gender quota policies.

There need to be implemented a general rule of equality also - no privileges or eased duties for any gender.

Special measures causing increased logicstical efforts implemented due to both women and men serving in especially close or difficult quarter, like small diesel submarines for example, are not to be allowed. That in an already small and crowded environment plltical correctenss now demands efforts distracted to inlcude separate quarters or routines becasue there may be a woman on board, is total nonsense for me.

I have ni problem with imagining wsomen in combat roles, and in all ranks up to generals - if they qualify by the same standards as male candidates. These standards are NOT to be reduced for women or even for both sexes just to make it easier for women.

The erotic tension that August refers to as a distraction, is hard to judge for an outside rlike me. I know that in WWII, the Russians had not had such problems, and that the Germans feared female Russian snipers more than males. From israel there were reprts I read someyears ago that a mixed composition of forces even eased tensionbs in units and led to more discipline. I assume it helps in times of war, and more becomes a problem in times of peace.

Women in fighter jet cockpits, as snipers, generals, combat troops? Yes, if they qualify by the same standards as males, and they can be integrated without too much of a hassle. Women aboard small submarines, in commando teams, as combat divers? I donb'ÄT think that is a good idea.

Also, in wartimes, there is a chance that warriors are being taken as prisoners. A women joining armed forces should give that some serious thoughts, I think I must not explain the implications especially if the enemy is no "civilised" faction following international rules of warfare, but a barbaric faction from a tribal patriarchalic culture with high ressentiments against women anyway.

Obverall, the combat efficiency of any branch of the armed forces shall in no way be negatively effected or complicated by letting women in. Soldiering is not just like any other job. The business is to wage war, or to prepare for doing so. Any candidate thinking about a military career should have not the smallest illusions about that.

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

[Madox58]

Tavor TA-21
I think.

[Takeda Shingen]

The military is not there to boost your later civil business chances or your political career, it is not there to provide you with some years of adventure or letting you see some shares of ther world, and it also has not the function to give you a job and an income where else you would be unemployed - all these things are only (unimportant) side-effects. The military is there to fight battles and wage wars, and to prepare for this by training in peacetime. This, and nothing else.

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."

[Madox58]

No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist.
Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it.
But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses.
So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool.
As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get!

We were given a brain for a reason!!

[Stealhead]

No one I have ever talked to said they were mis-led to enlist.
Some said they did not understand the commitment and regreted it.
But that's thier fault as far as I care to listen to excuses.
So the crap you see on TV makes it 'look' Cool.
As a thinking person? Who ever buys into all the crap deserves what they get!

We were given a brain for a reason!!

QFT.If you enlisted and asked no questions and did no research to bad for you to be frank all I can say is last the 2 or 4 year enlistment and you are done and still in the end it did you no
harm at the very least you learned a little about how the world works and how to work though a difficult situation.I do disagree that the military is not useful after your time in many jobs either directly relate to a civilian job and you get the edge that an employer somewhat expects someone form the military with a good discharge to be a good potential employee.I my experience after the military more or less once they say I was in for 12 years that more or less sealed the deal and I got hired.

Of course an Army,Navy,Air Force,Marine Corps add are the way they are they want to encourage a person to want to enlist in that branch they are not gong to show that you take out the trash and clean toilets,sand and paint everything.No civilian employer is going to tell all the lousy parts of a given job either.

[Takeda Shingen]

Nevertheless, it is a salient point that the military feels it has become a personal proving ground for every person that enters it's ranks; a major argument that many on this forum have given in it's defense, particularly in cases of gender integration and homosexuals in the military. Advertising as such, therefore, is akin to me opening my statement about not plotting to steal the Crown Jewels by stating "Today, while I was plotting to steal the Crown Jewels..."

It is at it's very best a case of mixed signals, and at it's very worst completely disingenuous.

[CCIP]

Another caveat: I don't agree that this sort of thing would constitute social engineering, and in fact I would argue that the opposite is true - the military as it is can be considered an engineered environment. The average American 18 year old will have been in mixed-gender situations most of his/her life. This is not Saudi Arabia - guys and girls will have gone to school together, studied together, played sports together, been in clubs together, etc. etc.

In fact, sociological research shows that especially the current generation are overwhelmingly heterosocial. This was not true even a couple of decades ago, and this is not true in conservative societies even today, but the average American teenager today will have about an equal number of male and female friends. There is a whole bunch of different explanations for this, but it does seem that on average, gender is far less of an issue for the current generation, even on a purely practical level.

So in my view, setting up an artificially homosocial environment is the real social engineering. I also suspect that whatever arguments come up about it now, wait a decade or two, and if things keep at this rate you will see this become a complete non-issue as the current generation grows up and become more politically relevant.

[Lord Justice]

I'm also not sure the "distraction" argument is really valid. There are a lot of professional high-pressure situation where men and women are in close quarters and there is no issue. This depends more on individuals' discipline and professionalism than gender.

Then let me assure that it is valid, and I find your uncertainty handsomely off. ::shifty: During my service, one day myself and few of the lads from our company had orders to drive to a remote training camp to assist in weapon handling, and preparation of ranges for live firing exercises. Upon our arrival and much to our amusement were young female recruits from a logistics corps. ( I cannot recall why they were not properly instructed by there own). Throughout the day weapon handling, lunch, the lads and I noticed they were very flirty full of laughter etc coming from the Parachute Regiment we didn't tolerate nonsense. The more serious we got they seemed to get more joking, it sometimes stopped us in our tracks, we did come down a level to perhaps joke with them for a moment to keep them on par. That evening whilst stood down from duty (I blush to tell you) : I had intercourse with one the young ladies. The next day on the ranges we got more serious with them as they were to use live rounds. The young lady was in my section of 3, I kept getting glances and smiles from all. When it was her turn my thoughts were drifting to lust as I was drawn to her ass in the combat uniform and thought of my seed within her as she adopted the prone firing positions previously taught to them :03: Now I have served within an elite, trained alongside SF, 68% of the SAS are made up from soldiers from the Parachute Regiment, thus I believe it proper to say I was well trained, disciplined, but "distraction" happens. If females meet the standards then so be it, though I would urge an all female infantry regiment, do not mix. Ever seen woman going through Nuclear Biological Chemical Warfare drills? What happens if most females regiment get wiped out, loss of communication and they in ad hoc groups? etc I know not and will judge not, if they pass our subsim werewolf hunt unmolested then let them march.

[Stealhead]

I would say that Lord Justice experiences are not necessarily uncommon only the situation was not the best.He just decided to get laid that was his choice and honestly if he was a person of rank then he made a poor choice if you go for a "one night stand" then you take a lot of risks.Further more according to your story that you did not force the situation of course if you have sexual interactions with woman you are most certainly going to be a bit distracted by her ass if you see it again later:shucks: Of course this situation or the one that lead to such feelings was consensual and you still did maintain yourself to some degree. I would say that whoever planned this whole thing was not thinking as it sounds like the unit being trained was very young and inexperienced they should have been trained by a bunch of old reservists or what ever they are called in England not by Para hell regular male rear echelon troops might get a bit excited being trained by Paras :haha:



A guy in one of my old units found out that he had slept with an officer cadet that was on a summer time "shadowing" tour where cadets go to a base and work with officers on the job.He had assumed that she was an enlisted person as he met her of base and he did not ask and she did not say he figured out the next Monday seeing her with a group of officer cadets clearly what she was.Of course this guy was for sure loose as where any women he picked up military or non would not have shocked if he was known by name at the clinic.

[Skybird]

Then it may be a good idea for the US armed forces to stop advertising military service as such. They've been telling it to America's youth for the better part of 60 years. "Be all that you can be. Get an edge on life in the Army."
Indeed. Most people over here find this habit and the relative aggressiveness by which it is pushed at schools (and schools even demanded to give the military postal adresses of their students, I think) nothing else but despicable. I saw them repeatedly in TV docus that they even approached 12 year old kids on public events like fairgrounds, attracting them and starting their interest with entertaining game desks where they could shoot at something or crawl around in tanks or such. And of course it is meant to get interst for the military becoming anchored in their minds as early as possible.

If this is needed to cover the personnell needs of the armed forces, then I think mandatory conscription for both sexes and of a sufficiently long time would be the far more honest and less underhanded way to go.

Being a soldier or memeber of the armed forces is njust not just like any other job, even if end up in a calm office at a desk. You are still enagged in issues of war. And that is what makes all military jobs not just jobs. Either you feel called for living a warrior'S life, or you don't. In cas eof the first - do it then, but do not have any romantic illusions. In case of the latter insist on your right to not be tried to be lured into service. And stop brainwashing kids.

[August]

And stop brainwashing kids.

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

[MH]

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

[Skybird]

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

It would not mean a loss for human race if war games would not find so much acceptance amongst gaming people, yes. But even more it would help if the business of the military would not be simplified and glossed so much in general media, the proverbial obsession for weapons in some countries would no longer be tolerated and 12 year old would not be allowed to fire assault rifles at a gunnery range under their parent's supervison.

If we would never have heared of Sub Command, Battlefield and Call of Duty, we would not miss it. So indeed their non-existence from all beginning on wouldn't be a loss for anyone indeed. ;) Craving to play these titles is an artifical creation. And in some cases it even is military interest behind it - it is wellknown that the game America's Army was planned and created as a promotion tool for service in the armed forces. That'S why they gave it away for free.

I for myself, I lose interest in military content in sims the more the older I get (I become 45 next week). I don't play military sims much anymore, not even SBP or Falcon. The DCS sims I got last year rest on my shelf, almost untouched. I still like to play, but not as much as in the past, and the military sim genre simply cannot attract me as much as before anymore.

I consider 21 to be a more appropriate age barrier than 18 in many instances, however. :DL And regarding car driving I think young men should be allowed to drive alone some years later than girls indeed. Accident and traffic risk statistics of police and insurrance companies speak a very clear language here. The reason for the difference is evolutional biology, there is no cure against it (except genetic therapy, maybe). :D

[Stealhead]

Women can be very serious at what they do in army.
They may lack the attitude of "this is my rifle this is my gun" but do excellent professional jobs.

The army's job is to screen candidates for any given profession
Arguing that women simply cant do job because army can't do the job is pointless.
Go complain about your army recruiting system.
I should also point out that basic and advanced training should filter the candidates even further.

Another question is weather we want to see women in combat and so on.

I am not quite sure what the "this is my rifle" attitude women have been in Militarily Police units since the mid 70's in these units in several branches they are the armed defense of things like nuclear missile silos if you in one of those units you have the the "this is my rifle attitude" if by that you mean I will use my weapon to engage a threat.

Try as they may basic training does not screen out everyone it only screens out the ones with the most trouble one can easily scrape by in basic and not get noticed.In advanced training (tech training) again people can slip through in advanced training they are teaching you the basics of your job primarily.Only people that have notable poor behavior or obvious mental issues are going to get noticed or the ones that simply fail to pass the academic aspect and most times these will get sent to another "easier" career field.

Furthermore women have already been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of various non Infantry ground units some have been killed or seriously wounded a female member of USAF security forces willed killed in action in Iraq and women have been flying in combat aircraft as well in every branch.

[Takeda Shingen]

So then you advocate banning all subsims, tanksims and any other violent computer games for anyone under 21? That is what you're talking about.

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

[MH]

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.


That's one side of the story...
On another hand if you want to have good professional army and not just bunch of blood thirsty morons in it, you need some way to attract as many people as possible.

[Takeda Shingen]

That's one side of the story...
On another hand if you want to have good professional army and not just bunch of blood thirsty morons in it, you need some way to attract as many people as possible.

Again, that is fine. However, if you want to advertise your military as a vehicle for social mobility, you should not complain when it is used as such. You simply cannot have it both ways.

[August]

If SubSims, TankSims and violent game dev teams are going to schools and advocating joining the military by the promise of getting a leg up on college education and future employment then yes, I would say that this is what he is talking about. Since I am not aware of any such occurance, I would be inclinded to disagree.

I see, you're ok with glamorizing war and military life as long as it's not the military itself that's doing the glamorizing.

The way I see it the military is a vehicle for future employment and helping pay for college unless you advocate eliminating those benefits.

Like it or not advertizing goes hand in hand with having an all-volunteer military. If you want to eliminate military marketing then you're going to have to find another way to meet manpower requirements, and the only realistic alternative that I see is the draft.

[Takeda Shingen]

I see, you're ok with glamorizing war and military life as long as it's not the military itself that's doing the glamorizing.

The way I see it the military is a vehicle for future employment and helping pay for college unless you advocate eliminating those benefits.

Like it or not advertizing goes hand in hand with having an all-volunteer military. If you want to eliminate military marketing then you're going to have to find another way to meet manpower requirements, and the only realistic alternative that I see is the draft.

You're missing the point. Once again, if you do not like people using the military as a platform for social mobility, then perhaps the military should stop advertising itself as a platform for social mobility.

In regards to your specific point, you placed words in Skybird's mouth using a false premise. I simply indicated to you that it was a false premise. The message of the video game is that blowing stuff up is fun. The message of the recruiter is that you can make something out of yourself and have a great future through military service. These two messages are clearly not the same thing.

[August]

You're missing the point. Once again, if you do not like people using the military as a platform for social mobility, then perhaps the military should stop advertising itself as a platform for social mobility.

In regards to your specific point, you placed words in Skybird's mouth using a false premise. I simply indicated to you that it was a false premise. The message of the video game is that blowing stuff up is fun. The message of the recruiter is that you can make something out of yourself and have a great future through military service. These two messages are clearly not the same thing.

The message of a recruiter is that not only can you make something out of yourself and have a great future (both being arguably true) but also that blowing up stuff is fun. That certainly is the main message of games like America's Army. What is more important? The message or the messenger?

[Takeda Shingen]

The message of a recruiter is that not only can you make something out of yourself and have a great future (both being arguably true) but also that blowing up stuff is fun. That certainly is the main message of games like America's Army. What is more important? The message or the messenger?

Neither. From this thread we can clearly see that it is the potential 'customer', if you will, that is important. The military markets itself with clips of cool looking infantrymen shooting cool guns and crawling or running through picturesque terrain with exciting music playing in the background. And all of this with the promise of a better future. Of course, after decades of seeing this sort of thing, the women want it too. It would appear that military advertising is more effective than even the Pentagon would have liked.

[August]

Neither. From this thread we can clearly see that it is the potential 'customer', if you will, that is important. The military markets itself with clips of cool looking infantrymen shooting cool guns and crawling or running through picturesque terrain with exciting music playing in the background. And all of this with the promise of a better future. Of course, after decades of seeing this sort of thing, the women want it too. It would appear that military advertising is more effective than even the Pentagon would have liked.

The military markets itself with a lot of things, from cool looking Infantrymen to soldiers of both sexes sitting at computer consoles, or engaged in medical tasks, or any number of other military support jobs that are just as vital to the missions success as the combat arms.

To claim one single type of Army commercial is what is making women want to be on the front line then I'd say that is a rather large oversimplification and insulting to the intelligence of the fine young men and women who volunteer to serve our country.

[Skybird]

What is more important? The message or the messenger?
When the messenger is not only the deliverer but the author of the message, he is responsible for it then.

[AngusJS]

The important thing to remember:

There are women who dont want to serve in the military and couldnt care less about having similar rights as men. There are women out there that dont want to be submarine commanders, who dont want to fly fighter jets. There are women out there who are perfectly happy to contribute to a household by cleaning the house, taking care of the kids, making sure a good meal is prepared and managing the home. I happen to have one such woman and she is just as vital and important a part of this household as I am.These are the women who know their place, then?

[soopaman2]

These are the women who know their place, then?


I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.

[MH]

I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.

You are dramatising here:D
Look at the bright side...may be much more fun to look over somebody else's uhm...behaind.

[Takeda Shingen]

The military markets itself with a lot of things, from cool looking Infantrymen to soldiers of both sexes sitting at computer consoles, or engaged in medical tasks, or any number of other military support jobs that are just as vital to the missions success as the combat arms.

To claim one single type of Army commercial is what is making women want to be on the front line then I'd say that is a rather large oversimplification and insulting to the intelligence of the fine young men and women who volunteer to serve our country.

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.

[August]

When the messenger is not only the deliverer but the author of the message, he is responsible for it then.

So I have to wonder, are the authors of Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty to be held responsible for their message too, or is that standard only to be applied to the Pentagon?

In any case of the two groups, the military's message is far more accurate. People have made something of themselves through the military. Very few veterans would say that military service didn't benefit them in some way.

[August]

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.


Yeah right, because after all people give the same amount of thought to joining the Army as they do to drinking a Coke.

[MH]

By that rationale, I shouldn't want to drink a Coke because it is a woman is drinking one on a commercial.

So what would be the rational/pragmatic approach of your liking?

[Takeda Shingen]

Yeah right, because after all people give the same amount of thought to joining the Army as they do to drinking a Coke.

In the end it's all the same thing. The Army, like Coca-Cola, is advertising a product. Their product involves running and shooting. It's simply a matter of women wanting to do the running and shooting now. Intelligence is not a factor.

[Takeda Shingen]

So what would be the rational/pragmatic approach of your liking?

Of my liking? My liking is irrelevent. I am simply suggesting that this 'crisis' over women wanting frontline combat roles is one of their own making via the image they present through marketing. I also thought that I was rather clear about that.

[soopaman2]

You are dramatising here:D
Look at the bright side...may be much more fun to look over somebody else's uhm...behaind.

I suppose a nice supple, well toned feminine backside is better then an IED attack.

Too bad some of the women over there in the middle east are just as savage as the manfolk. Lets blow ourselves up, while our men cower and hide somewhere.

I still advocate for bullets and MOABs, even if it offends my leftist sensibilities :O:

After all, how many troops you need with drones, we can bomb them from whatever remote craphole we want, from Jersey City to Raceda. Sea to shining sea, our remote controlled planes can do what it takes other countries thousands of troops and support to do.

Yes, I am an a-hole, and offer no aplogies. I bet more people like this comment than hate it, although only the haters will comment.:D

[August]

In the end it's all the same thing. The Army, like Coca-Cola, is advertising a product. Their product involves running and shooting. It's simply a matter of women wanting to do the running and shooting now. Intelligence is not a factor.

Maybe that's why we disagree. I see service to ones country, especially military service where a person literally puts their life on the line, as a much higher thing than just a stupid "product" like a soft drink. I would never trivialize what millions have given their lives engaged in to secure benefits that we all currently enjoy.

[Takeda Shingen]

Maybe that's why we disagree. I see service to ones country, especially military service where a person literally puts their life on the line, as a much higher thing than just a stupid "product" like a soft drink. I would never trivialize what millions have given their lives engaged in to secure benefits that we all currently enjoy.

When you sell the army experience to the public as a product, it becomes just as any other. 'An Army of One' is no different than 'Always Coca-Cola' or 'A Dynamic Future--The Ohio State University'. Advertising is advertising. If anyone is trivializing military service here, it is the military itself.

[soopaman2]

When you sell the army experience to the public as a product, it becomes just as any other. 'An Army of One' is no different than 'Always Coca-Cola' or 'A Dynamic Future--The Ohio State University'. Advertising is advertising. If anyone is trivializing military service here, it is the military itself.


Somewhat unrelated but kinda related. You can download a free FPS made by the US Army, as a recruiting tool.


http://www.americasarmy.com/downloads/

Not a bad game at all, just do not expect to like it if Call of Duty, instant gratification, is your benchmark for games of this type.

Not a bad game, but propaganda nonetheless.

[AngusJS]

I do not think he was being mysogynistic as you are painting it out to be.

I like homecooked meals from my wife, and she has no problem making them. I do not beat her or drag her by her hair to force her to make them, she does it because she likes me enough to demean herself enough to cook her old man a meal.

Am I oppressive?

I am also from a military family, and see where male/female integration can self destruct.

I am sure someone will call me a woman hater, but it is more a common sense, and human nature thing with me.

Boys and girls in war do not mix. I can just see too many 18-20 year old soldiers trying harder to get laid in the foxhole, than fighting the enemy.

I knew how I was at 18-20... Use your brains, seriously.If a woman really wants to be a housewife, more power to her.

GoldenRivet was implying that women who dare to be something besides a housewife are hurting all women. If that isn't misogyny, I don't know what is.

[AngusJS]

http://trackandtrap.com/images/girl%20bear%20hunter%20xcr.jpg

http://data.whicdn.com/images/13905922/adorable-beautiful-blonde-body-bone-Favim.com-129440_large.jpg

which is more likely to be killed in the first 5 minutes of a deployment?

:rotfl2:So men who were seemingly unfit for service were never drafted? If that's not the case, then you're just pointing out the negatives of conscription, and not female soldiers.

[soopaman2]

If a woman really wants to be a housewife, more power to her.

GoldenRivet was implying that women who dare to be something besides a housewife are hurting all women. If that isn't misogyny, I don't know what is.

I honestly did not see it like that. I saw it as trying to deal with a piece of tail, you would like to bed, potentially dying in front of you, and more sentimentality is reserved for girls.

If you want to truly integrate the military, then no preferential treatment, they should die like men die, to IEDs, no protection, no sending guys to the car at the checkpoint first, let them bear that burden too. Let them sit in Tikrit while hell is breaking loose, not in the back with the water trucks.

Prove to me you belong there.

Sure it is harsh, and not saying they belong in the kitchen, But they have no place on a battlefield.

I am what I am. Hate me.

[AngusJS]

I honestly did not see it like that. I saw it as trying to deal with a piece of tail, you would like to bed, potentially dying in front of you, and more sentimentality is reserved for girls.This is [part of] what GoldenRivet said: "...they want to be fortune 500 CEOs..."

That has nothing to do with combat. It has everything to do with women choosing to do things that GR thinks they shouldn't do, even though they've already proven that they are just as capable as men.

[August]

When you sell the army experience to the public as a product, it becomes just as any other. 'An Army of One' is no different than 'Always Coca-Cola' or 'A Dynamic Future--The Ohio State University'. Advertising is advertising. If anyone is trivializing military service here, it is the military itself.

Again you show your total ignorance of the enlistment process.

You think that you can only look at a single most outside layer of the enlistment process and call it a government equivalent of a soft drink ad but you ignore the hours of discussion, counseling, meditation, testing and advice from all kinds of sources not only the recruiter but clergy, relatives and friends that goes into making a decision to sign up.

I mean if you seriously think that all it takes to get people to join the service for almost a decade is a 30 second TV commercial or a stupid low quality video game then you must not have much of an opinion of the men and women who serve our country. Maybe i'm biased but I give them a lot more credit than that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Again you show your total ignorance of the enlistment process.

You think that you can only look at a single most outside layer of the enlistment process and call it a government equivalent of a soft drink ad but you ignore the hours of discussion, counseling, meditation, testing and advice from all kinds of sources not only the recruiter but clergy, relatives and friends that goes into making a decision to sign up.

I mean if you seriously think that all it takes to get people to join the service for almost a decade is a 30 second TV commercial or a stupid low quality video game then you must not have much of an opinion of the men and women who serve our country. Maybe i'm biased but I give them a lot more credit than that.

Then why advertise at all? Or, why not advertise in a comprehensive fashion. Show the dead. Show the legless, the armless. Show the vets with PTSD that cannot hold a job or even hold their families together. They don't do that, though, do they? No, they show the man heroically running across the field. The campaign is little more than the fit, good-looking person drinking a Coke, while the reality is that people that drink that much Coke really never look that good as they are consuming about 300 empty calories of sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Like the Coke commercial, the Army commercial shows only the gloss. It, like all advertising, is inherently disingenuous, which leaves the truth up to the consumer--what you describe.

I prefer to see the commercials for what they are. You can call me ignorant and wrap yourself in the flag all that you'd like, but you cannot change the facts.

EDIT--And for the record, I never said nor implied that soldiers were stupid. Those were words that you gleefully placed in my mouth. All I said is that the commercials were disingenuous, which they are. To be honest, your argument is about 90% strawman.

[soopaman2]

This is [part of] what GoldenRivet said: "...they want to be fortune 500 CEOs..."

That has nothing to do with combat. It has everything to do with women choosing to do things that GR thinks they shouldn't do, even though they've already proven that they are just as capable as men.


My bias is not born of me not thinking "girls" cannot get it done. They can. My bias is towards overall morale of a male dominated force, and not having to put up with the political correctness that comes with it.

Like at our job, we clown on people, we make fun of minorities, women , each other, guidos, micks etc, when people want my attention, I am sometimes called "Yo Ginzo" thanks to my really Italian sounding last name.... in the military some of the stuff we say, would be grounds for dismissal. Jokes amongst friends, grounds for dismissal.

Then again I am a construction worker, we are typically crude.

So what kind of kid gloves will our fighting men have to treat these women with in order to keep their jobs, the military is starting to reek of corporatism.

[Stealhead]

"I honestly did not see it like that. I saw it as trying to deal with a piece of tail, you would like to bed, potentially dying in front of you, and more sentimentality is reserved for girls."

If you want to truly integrate the military, then no preferential treatment, they should die like men die, to IEDs, no protection, no sending guys to the car at the checkpoint first, let them bear that burden too. Let them sit in Tikrit while hell is breaking loose, not in the back with the water trucks.

Prove to me you belong there.

Sure it is harsh, and not saying they belong in the kitchen, But they have no place on a battlefield.

I am what I am. Hate me."


You need to do little more research women have died in direct combat they were not hiding or making a male do the dangerous part several have been killed or wounded by IEDs more in less in a place that has IED in use by going outside the gate you are in direct combat if you willing went and did not object then you are taking the risk as anyone else.

http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/lives.html

look at the bottom of the page you will see many women that where killed by enemy action.

I do not choose to hate anyone but I do dislike your ignorance.

There is also no evidence to show that the male morale level is negatively effected by females being present the only obvious difference is that
the PT standards are lower for females which is reasonable when it is taken into consideration that the female body is less muscular than a males but for any specific job which I think many civilians fail to understand male or female you must meet that requirement as well many jobs require the lifting of a certain amount of weight regardless of sex if you cant lift it you do not get assigned that job.There are mountainous levels political bull crap that have nothing to do with sex one must put up with in the modern military that make this or that of the opposite sex trivial or "below the zone" early promotion to Senior Airman we all called it "below the desk" no matter the sex you went under someones desk so to speak to earn that.For example I was got a stern talking to for making a joke about Iraq back in 2000(when we where still doing the no fly zones and bombing any air defenses actively locking onto our jets) because some tight wad Captain overheard me.

[soopaman2]

What some see as ignorance others see as common sense.

I think you do hate me, even if you wish not to admit it, its ok though. You can find me distasteful, or mysogynistic.

if I wanted to be loved and revered on this board, I would avoid hotpoint arguments, and political discussions.

Good or bad, I am what I am.

Sorry .

[Stealhead]

Your post implied that women did not take the same risks as men I showed that this was completely incorrect.If you make a statement that is known to be incorrect that is ignorance.Unless you are implying that they have lied about every female that has died in the past 10 years.

One woman on that page Airman 1st Class Elizabeth N. Jacobson I have close friends that where/are Security Forces that I know from my time in the USAF who where in the same location as her and no falsification occurred.

I think you are seeking conflict to be frankly honest.As I said I do not waste my time hating people especially ones that I only know via a screen name and an avatar and an online signature all of which tell me very little about the actual person.And you clearly do not know much about the military the books say no harassment.Most every place I was ever at so long as you knew everyone's boundaries and you are being respectful of rank and not getting cared away you can BS with names all day long hell I was known for my willingness to try most anything and my style of story telling that I got the nickname Onetime it stuck with me for many years I even caught my commanding officer slip and slip up and start to call me by that name at a squadron meeting.If you are hearing all bad things from someone that was in the military then something is amiss either they have a very negative attitude or they got into a lot of trouble in the military are not man enough admit it hell I know a guy that got several Article 15s that he evaded by requesting courts marshal in the Army back in the early 80's but he still loved the Army and loved challenging to status quo.

[MH]

Then why advertise at all? Or, why not advertise in a comprehensive fashion. .

Well...
1)Voluntary army.
2)Defeatist attitude does not make sense.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well...
1)Voluntary army.
2)Defeatist attitude does not make sense.

Again, that's super. The military should not then complain when certain segments of the population, in this case women, want to take part in the image that they project. The Army puts forth the 'Army of One'. The woman says 'hey, I don't even have the opportunity to be that army of one'. It is a problem of the Army's own making, as they market themselves as a vehicle for social mobility. Can't pick and choose.

And so we come to the reason that I said that in the first place. Advertisers advertise because advertising is effective. Otherwise, no one would advertise; it's expensive. Defeatism and volunteerism have nothing to do with the argument.

[MH]

Again, that's super. The military should not then complain when certain segments of the population, in this case women, want to take part in the image that they project. The Army puts forth the 'Army of One'. The woman says 'hey, I don't even have the opportunity to be that army of one'. It is a problem of the Army's own making, as they market themselves as a vehicle for social mobility. Can't pick and choose.
.

So i suppose you would prefer army o be like some sort of foreign legion or just a contractor job...

[Takeda Shingen]

So i suppose you would prefer army o be like some sort of foreign legion or just a contractor job...

Never said it, never implied it.

[MH]

Women want it because women nowadays want to do anything that is taboo reserved men.
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the way its advertised but has more to do with politics and perception of equality in general.

On another hand some women want to do the same things that men do for the same reason that men do it.
Be it a fighter pilot or infantry soldier.
Say...government sponsored extreme sport or defend your country.

Coming to think about it unemotionally, this should not be a problem as long as the requirements built over years are met.
Meaning ...there might be a relatively small ratio of women in some units but well...that's reality.


If women really want this crap...let them have it.
(i'm not fan of the idea though-emotionally saying)

[Takeda Shingen]

Women want it because women nowadays want to do anything that is taboo reserved men.
I'm not sure if it has anything to do with the way its advertised but has more to do with politics and perception of equality in general.

On another hand some women want to do the same things that men do for the same reason that men do it.
Be it a fighter pilot or infantry soldier.
Say...government sponsored extreme sport or defend your country.

Coming to thing about it unemotionally, this should not be a problem as long as the requirements built over years are met.
Meaning ...there might be a relatively small ratio of women in some units but well...that's reality.


If women really want this crap...let them have it.
(i'm not fan of the idea though-emotionally saying)

There are absolutely a number of women's rights organizations that have a political axe to grind with the Army. I just think that the advertising gives their gripes an air of legitimacy and does the Army no favors.

[August]

EDIT--And for the record, I never said nor implied that soldiers were stupid. Those were words that you gleefully placed in my mouth. All I said is that the commercials were disingenuous, which they are. To be honest, your argument is about 90% strawman.


I didn't put those words in your mouth. Your whole line of argument fairly drips with contempt for our folks in uniform. Having worn one yourself how you can feel that way is beyond me.

[Takeda Shingen]

I didn't put those words in your mouth. Your whole line of argument fairly drips with contempt for our folks in uniform. Having worn one yourself how you can feel that way is beyond me.


I think you've got me confused with someone else; I've never served. However, I thought that it was pretty clear that I was talking about advertising. I also didn't say whether I thought that it was good or bad. All I said is that it contributed to the issue at the core of the thread. The rest are attitudes that you have chosen to superimpose on me. That's okay too, but it is a strawman argument. You have elected to tell me what I think of those in uniform, while I have made no indication whatsoever. It is, frankly, a poor style of discourse.

[MH]

Speaking of advertising....join IDF...a tough cookie.:D

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0806/IDF_soldier_and_KittyImage2.jpg

[Skybird]

I didn't put those words in your mouth. Your whole line of argument fairly drips with contempt for our folks in uniform. Having worn one yourself how you can feel that way is beyond me.
August, you indeed snap very easily when somebody says something like that this or that military practice is questionable - and I say that from own experience over the past years. That is an attitude not only you display occasionally, but many former members of armed forces in this forum, but also in the real world, and not just in America. Somehow you guys find it hard to bear that people may not agree with your own views of the military, and then the preferred tactic easily becomes to put ideas in people's mouth that in fact they never have expressed, or wanted to express. It seems to be some kind of wagon fort mentality, quite isolationistic, and a bit paranoid, maybe caused by the fact that the military still is tis: something like a closed club and a parallel soceity and parallel world inside the ordinary citizen's world. And when something critical is being expressed by somebody, then you guys cry wolf and try to clean it off the table by saying that is just expresses "general contempt for people in uniform". Like any criticsm of the US very often is not even looked at, but is taken as leftist anti-Americanism that must not be checked for validity of any arguments for that reason, and any such criticism always is just , motivated by greed and envy for the shiny American model.

With some people, that may be a valid descritpion of their motivation. But not for all. Regarding some others, such schematic and predictable, automatted reactions are just simplification, done in an effort to not needing to deal with the argument and to evade the dark spot it may cast on the shiny ideal.

But enough psychology for now. Takeda is a reasonable guy, and regarding both his arguments on the matter and his explanation how you intentionally seem to distort what he says, I would recommend you to take him a bit more literal and word-for-word on what he says - not replace his factual words with your own fictional imagination of what he "really" has meant - in your imagination. There are many people in this forum, and the audience indeed is quite diverse, and some think it is clever rethorics to say one thing but indeed mean another thing, but Takeda definitely is one of those about whom I would say that they manage to do a very good job in having their argument and opinion in congruency with the way they express them in words, so that their words indeed mean what they wanted to express. In other words: he is not trying to trick you by his wording. ;) So take his words the way they are. There may be other guys where I would caution you to do so, but Takeda is Takeda.

[MH]

There are absolutely a number of women's rights organizations that have a political axe to grind with the Army. I just think that the advertising gives their gripes an air of legitimacy and does the Army no favors.

Everything is so complicated and political over there.
Women....ask don't tell...tell don't ask...and so on.

(we have our share of bullocks over other issues)

[Skybird]

Everything is so complicated and political over there.
Women....ask don't tell...tell don't ask...and so on.

The only complicated thing are women.

Imagine this scene:

"Hubby, do you love me?"
"Yes, I love you."
"No, I mean do you really love me?"
"Sure I do, I already understood you the first time."
"No, nobody never understands me. What I am asking you is whether your really really love me?"

Compare to this scene in a Patriot fire control station:

"Seargeant, permission to fire. Fire!"
"You mean I should fire?"
"Yeah, fire."
"So I fire."
"Yes. Now. Fire...!
"You really want me to fire?"
"&3#§$&"?$§...!!!"
"Yes, but do you really really want me to fire?"

:D

[August]

I think you've got me confused with someone else; I've never served. However, I thought that it was pretty clear that I was talking about advertising. I also didn't say whether I thought that it was good or bad. All I said is that it contributed to the issue at the core of the thread. The rest are attitudes that you have chosen to superimpose on me. That's okay too, but it is a strawman argument. You have elected to tell me what I think of those in uniform, while I have made no indication whatsoever. It is, frankly, a poor style of discourse.

The feelings are mutual Pal.

[Lord Justice]

August, you indeed snap very easily when somebody says something like that this or that military practice is questionable Sir you find fault with Dave, which indeed I find to be far removed from elegance, and in some respect I fear you are fonder of plunder than attack. Are you more the engine than the planner? Is it ones place to insist that Dave suffer Toms opinions to provide you better? You show good matter and manner, your post is no discredit, though you do retain to much of your own pristine. (Tom and Dave) both have worthy points. I am prompted to type a hundred things, though my better keeps me in check. I ask you be content and enjoy. It will please to ensure everything I am ambitious of in you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sir you find fault with Dave, which indeed I find to be far removed from elegance, and in some respect I fear you are fonder of plunder than attack. Are you more the engine than the planner? Is it ones place to insist that Dave suffer Toms opinions to provide you better? You show good matter and manner, your post is no discredit, though you do retain to much of your own pristine. (Tom and Dave) both have worthy points. I am prompted to type a hundred things, though my better keeps me in check. I ask you be content and enjoy. It will please to ensure everything I am ambitious of in you.

Sky replied in my defense, and I am appreciative of it. There's nothing worse on an internet forum than someone putting words in your mouth. Sky has been on the recieving end of this sort of thing in the past, and I cannot fault him for responding to it when he sees it. I don't think he meant anything as an insult. If anything, he was trying to smooth things out.

[MH]

The only complicated thing are women.

Imagine this scene:

"Hubby, do you love me?"
"Yes, I love you."
"No, I mean do you really love me?"
"Sure I do, I already understood you the first time."
"No, nobody never understands me. What I am asking you is whether your really really love me?"

Compare to this scene in a Patriot fire control station:

"Seargeant, permission to fire. Fire!"
"You mean I should fire?"
"Yeah, fire."
"So I fire."
"Yes. Now. Fire...!
"You really want me to fire?"
"&3#§$&"?$§...!!!"
"Yes, but do you really really want me to fire?"

:D

:haha:


Seriously...
Women are very disciplined ...when things have to be done ...it will be done no matter what.

[Stealhead]

:haha:


Seriously...
Women are very disciplined ...when things have to be done ...it will be done no matter what.



More like some women are very disciplined just as some men are and any person in certain type military would likely be very disciplined.The practice in the US military is for those who are married to be placed in differing units to avoid any possible conflict of interest.The military structure is set up so that one obeys lawful correct orders given to them if an NCO or officer gives you an order you obey it there is no why must I do that sir? Look at Silent Hunter you tell the crew to do something and they follow the order.

Some argue that merely having women present some how will distract males this is a bogus argument many men are married or have families away far away from them one could argue that they might refuse to do something for the same reasons but the overwhelming majority do not.

@Takeda Shingen you say that the military should show objective advertisements why should they when no one else does? You will never see a Coke add with a obese man suffering from diabetes from drinking too many Cokes even though that happens.Nor will see a Ford add that shows something on the car breaking and needing repair or a person dying in a car accident all things that could happen.

As you say advertisers advertise because advertising is effective the goal of military advertising is to get someone to go to a recruiting office simply because they do so does not mean that they will actually enlist many many people wind up changing their minds and not joining.

[RickC Sniper]

I didn't put those words in your mouth. Your whole line of argument fairly drips with contempt for our folks in uniform.


There is nothing said or implied in this thread that justifies that statement.

If Takeda has displayed contempt for anything, it is how the advertising trivializes the army experience, and what is actually asked of our men and women who do enlist.

[Takeda Shingen]

@Takeda Shingen you say that the military should show objective advertisements why should they when no one else does? You will never see a Coke add with a obese man suffering from diabetes from drinking too many Cokes even though that happens.Nor will see a Ford add that shows something on the car breaking and needing repair or a person dying in a car accident all things that could happen.

As you say advertisers advertise because advertising is effective the goal of military advertising is to get someone to go to a recruiting office simply because they do so does not mean that they will actually enlist many many people wind up changing their minds and not joining.

I didn't say that they should. And you are right, of course they don't tell the whole story. Who wants to drink Coke if they are showing the after effects of diabetes and obesity? No one. They want you to buy the product. I just think that a lot of the military's problem in this particular case is that they have sold the Army, for example, as a place where a 'soldier of one' can go and fight on the front line and then make something of himself. Women now want to be that person. And who doesn't? I still want to be that incredibly attractive man drinking the Coke.

[Stealhead]

Well actually the Army slogan is "Army Strong" is was for a while "Army of one" both of which obviously are used to imply strength though not necessarily male strength they stopped using the "Army of One" slogan after only a few years I am assuming because it seems to overly imply strength of one person and not a group.Actually I think you have it wrong to be honest "Army Strong" is actually a fairly good slogan because it does not really specify any given sex and suggests the notion of being a part of and adding to the strength of the Army and I bet since they pay companies to make advertising they also put alot of research into it.I have never seen an Army add that only showed male only jobs like Infantry they always show several different jobs in most adds so when they say show a helicopter flying even an AH-64 any woman if she passed the training could fly that aircraft. The only branch that has truly shown a male only add is the Navy which has shown adds on TV and in print for the Navy SEALs which is male only.Marine Corps adds tend to focus heavily on esprit de corps.I dont really know for others I was in the Air Force but the topic comes up very often"Why did you join the Air Force(or x branch)?" and I never heard once any person say "The advertising was freaking amazing man that one add and that was it!" ,The real reason is they actually wanted to be in the military and they had a very good idea the risks or they did not want to go to college right away or they wanted to try something challenging in some way.And hard as it may seem to be to believe to some there are actually people for which the military is the only escape from gang life or other bad situation.




Also you should be aware that is the US Army the generic term used to address all members is solider it has no sex specific meaning in their definition.
In other words a cook is a soldier a truck driver is a solider a clerk is a soldier an infantryman is a solider.Not every male that joins the military is going to be in a combat job either.The process has already started really way back in 1975 which is when women where allowed to do a huge amount of jobs that they could before(this was for a long time a trickle I knew a E-9 (top enlisted woman she another woman where the only females in EOD in the USAF for 3 or 4 years back in 1975) the next step was female pilots in combat units now you have females in I suppose the word would be indirect combat roles on the ground in another few years they will be allowed into combat units in fact this is already occurring women are already in combat engineer and EOD(Explosive Ordnance Disposal which in current times is very front line) so it is only a matter of time soon the military adds will be at least a little more objective or at least honest to women.

[CaptainMattJ.]

The Air force is a much more detached military fighting group in today's wars.

A fighter pilot doesnt have to stare down the sights of a rifle and watch the victim's head get shot off. Not to say that fighter pilots shouldnt and dont have the feeling of remorse, or the sense that they just took someones life, but its one thing to see it in the air, then to see it happen before your eyes. Same goes for the Navy. At this point in history, when the major military powers are at peace with each other, and full scale naval/air/ground combat is not a reality, Personnel in the Navy and Air force are extremely critical, but less of a liability for woman when the underlying areas of concern arise.

The USAAF and the Navy is a much more suitable area for woman to play their role in. Pushing through all the political correctness, the army and marines are destructive, dangerous, and very taxing fields. Theres too much potential for abuse. Assuming we allow them to serve frontline, we cannot cave in, and make sure that physical requirements do not change simply because of the fact that some cant meet them.

Woman obviuosly have the ability. But you cant ignore the problems that may arise when woman are put in the thick. Make sure they are fit, like every military personnel, and make sure that abuse does not take place.

[Takeda Shingen]

Well actually the Army slogan is "Army Strong" is was for a while "Army of one" both of which obviously are used to imply strength though not necessarily male strength they stopped using the "Army of One" slogan after only a few years I am assuming because it seems to overly imply strength of one person and not a group.Actually I think you have it wrong to be honest "Army Strong" is actually a fairly good slogan because it does not really specify any given sex and suggests the notion of being a part of and adding to the strength of the Army and I bet since they pay companies to make advertising they also put alot of research into it.I have never seen an Army add that only showed male only jobs like Infantry they always show several different jobs in most adds so when they say show a helicopter flying even an AH-64 any woman if she passed the training could fly that aircraft. The only branch that has truly shown a male only add is the Navy which has shown adds on TV and in print for the Navy SEALs which is male only.Marine Corps adds tend to focus heavily on esprit de corps.I dont really know for others I was in the Air Force but the topic comes up very often"Why did you join the Air Force(or x branch)?" and I never heard once any person say "The advertising was freaking amazing man that one add and that was it!" ,The real reason is they actually wanted to be in the military and they had a very good idea the risks or they did not want to go to college right away or they wanted to try something challenging in some way.And hard as it may seem to be to believe to some there are actually people for which the military is the only escape from gang life or other bad situation.

You may be right in the sense that the Army, in particular, is in a constant effort to improve their advertising slogan. In the 1980's, before 'Army of One' it was 'Be all that you can be; get an edge on life in the Army', which was sung in a very catchy tune that I can still sing to this day. As a kid growing up then, the commercials had quite an influence on me. I wasn't the only one.

[August]

Assuming we allow them to serve frontline, we cannot cave in, and make sure that physical requirements do not change simply because of the fact that some cant meet them.

Unfortunately as soon as combat arms school graduation percentages by gender do not match their enrollment numbers the claims of gender bias will surely arise. Then the military will cave to civilian political pressure like they always do and lower the standards.

As a kid growing up then, the commercials had quite an influence on me. I wasn't the only one.

But apparently it was not influential enough to make you actually sign up though so your big problem with official TV depictions of guys running around the woods with guns is really disingenuous. I read that as contempt for the folks who have served their country but in light of your own lack of military service I will concede that maybe it's just ignorance.

[Takeda Shingen]

But apparently it was not influential enough to make you actually sign up though so your big problem with official TV depictions of guys running around the woods with guns is really disingenuous. I read that as contempt for the folks who have served their country but in light of your own lack of military service I will concede that maybe it's just ignorance.

You can read it any way you like. It doesn't make it true, nor do your continued ad hominem attacks concern me at this point. As I have successfully refuted your points time and time again, I think that it best to simply state that your contempt is noted; best to move forward, yes?

[Lord Justice]

Sky replied in my defense, and I am appreciative of it. There's nothing worse on an internet forum than someone putting words in your mouth. Sky has been on the recieving end of this sort of thing in the past, and I cannot fault him for responding to it If I expressed myself ill, or led you to believe my words trifling I should be most concerned. I am glad to know your attention is directed, of the success I have no doubt. :cool: However, I confess myself not pleased as the interest of opinions varies will, I doubt not, dispose members within this debate to defend their posts to the last. For the man you know (sky) I have always entertained much esteem, but it is his post to August that I observed circumstances had indeed multiplied upon him as he had typed. Your character, capacity, and friendship can not but make you an object of his respect and attention, let it favour and at all events oblige you. :03: Though It threw the debate.

[MH]

I didn't say that they should. And you are right, of course they don't tell the whole story. Who wants to drink Coke if they are showing the after effects of diabetes and obesity? No one. They want you to buy the product. I just think that a lot of the military's problem in this particular case is that they have sold the Army, for example, as a place where a 'soldier of one' can go and fight on the front line and then make something of himself. Women now want to be that person. And who doesn't? I still want to be that incredibly attractive man drinking the Coke.

Army does not make you by default a man with the coce.
It may give you the some tools.
Weather you use them or not is up to you.
Studying at university... or whatever... not necessarily make one more successful than other.

[Takeda Shingen]

Army does not make you by default a man with the coce.
It may give you the some tools.
Weather you use them or not is up to you.
Studying at university... or whatever... not necessarily make one more successful than other.

I know what you are saying; that what you learn is more valuable than what credentials you recieve. I agree with you there. However, what you said about universities is a bad example. College and university graduates can expect to make, on average, twice as much during their lifetime as those who only hold a high school diploma by nature of the fact that the employer is specifically looking for a degree.

[MH]

I know what you are saying; that what you learn is more valuable than what credentials you recieve. I agree with you there. However, what you said about universities is a bad example. College and university graduates can expect to make, on average, twice as much during their lifetime as those who only hold a high school diploma by nature of the fact that the employer is specifically looking for a degree.

In some cases yes in other not but on average is probably true.
Same thing is with army.
You may have some opportunities depending on who you are and you may get to know yourself the hard way.
As far as field service, the gains may be on personal level or/and credentials for civil life.
Depends where and what you been doing or how far you climbed the ladder.
Normally this may give you good start but it is not substitute for civil education.

It may also put things into some proportions for some facebook kids.:O:

..and somebody has to do it...then again it would be much better if no one would have to do it.:doh:

USA has no immediate threats to its existence but needs army.
The obvious choice is to sell it as a career.
At least nobody is forcing you to join and drink the Coke.

When looking at army in cynical way it is over glorified bull^% with lots of extreme side effects but also necessary evil.
Certainly not all is bad about it though.



...............

[Stealhead]

The Air force is a much more detached military fighting group in today's wars.

A fighter pilot doesnt have to stare down the sights of a rifle and watch the victim's head get shot off. Not to say that fighter pilots shouldnt and dont have the feeling of remorse, or the sense that they just took someones life, but its one thing to see it in the air, then to see it happen before your eyes. Same goes for the Navy. At this point in history, when the major military powers are at peace with each other, and full scale naval/air/ground combat is not a reality, Personnel in the Navy and Air force are extremely critical, but less of a liability for woman when the underlying areas of concern arise.

The USAAF and the Navy is a much more suitable area for woman to play their role in. Pushing through all the political correctness, the army and marines are destructive, dangerous, and very taxing fields. Theres too much potential for abuse. Assuming we allow them to serve frontline, we cannot cave in, and make sure that physical requirements do not change simply because of the fact that some cant meet them.

Woman obviuosly have the ability. But you cant ignore the problems that may arise when woman are put in the thick. Make sure they are fit, like every military personnel, and make sure that abuse does not take place.

Much of what you said does not really make that much sense.The USAF and US Navy are by a massive margin more destructive than Army and Marines because they both are part of the nuclear arm.I would also disagree on the combat pilots as well it all depends on where they are and the risks I have massive respect for anyone who flew against North Vietnam if you think that was not dangerous and stressful to any Air Force Navy or Marine pilot or air crew.Not to mention the great risks that Navy and Air Force air rescue units risked.Or the men that flew in B-17s and B-24s that was war just as much as it was to any infantry man getting body parts and heads blown off by flak and enemy aircraft cannon shells what an easy and envious job oh and they also have to wait 5,6,7 hours to even get any real medical aid at least the infantry man got aid fairly rapidly in most cases.And most infantry men do not actually see a person head get blown off that is very Hollywood they do see the results after the battle true.

You seem to be confused by what dangerous is combat is dangerous but so is working with heavy and complex machinery or working on a flight line(x 10 on a carrier) and EOD when fighting a foe that makes heavy use of IEDs is very dangerous.In my very much rear line job in the Air Force I was nearly killed or seriously injured by either being crushed,getting burned alive by a stuck aircraft counter measures flare and I was never near any enemy.I find your opinion that the Air Force and the Navy are not "taxing" as if all of the jobs are easy trust me they are not.If you had to do my old Air Force job for one day first you'd sleep for a day or two afterwords then you'd wake up and say, "Man that was taxing!" this would be true for many non combat jobs in the military Air Force and Navy included.I hate to say this but I bet that any of the female airman that I knew in my job in the Air Force would put you in your place real fast I'd love to you try and pull a 6 ton aircraft jack and hook it the back of a truck like anyone in my old job has to do or pull and hook up any other equipment to a truck and you have to this all day for 9 hours(12 in a war zone) by yourself lets not even mention all the knuckle busting wrench turning you have to do it is such hard work you dont need to go bench press or do curls at the gym you just did it all day.Sorry but your post really screams out your level naivety to me I can think of many jobs in military that you probably think are easy that in fact require very hard work.Sure an Army or Marine Infantryman has a hard job but so are many of the jobs that support them.

As I said women are already in EOD a very dangerous and difficult field and field in which basically you have no half wits or partly capable members.

Honestly I do not really care what the color of a persons skin or their creed or their sex if they want to do something in the military and they can pass the training I say let them do it.Before I was in the military I felt very different about women to be honest what I saw from most in the military greatly changed my mind it is the persons mindset their desire to work hard not what color they are or what sex they are.I can recall once when I was training this young woman the in and outs of flight line duty she was very small and I thought to myself "This one is going to flake for sure" we get a call for 4 of the 6 ton aircraft jacks which only have these giant casters for wheels and weigh a good bit you can hook up to 3 of them to the back of a truck (the 6 tons is the load that it can take but many of you know just how much a shop car jack weighs so you can guess what a jack that holds up of C-5 might weigh) She asked how you transported the jacks and I said "watch me" I walked up and pulled one up the truck and I figured that this woman might as well try to move one herself so I told her to try the next one fairly certain that shed need my help but she pulled it Talk about underestimating someone I have seen some fairly fit men struggle with moving the jacks the first time.

OK now I am going to take a break and enjoy my vacation I am a long way from Florida.

[August]

Oh c'mon Stealhead. A flight deck or flight line might not be the safest place in the world but how many IED's do they encounter on a daily basis? How many snipers? How many times do Navy and Air Force personnel have to sleep in a ditch, or deal with a suicide bomber?

The US Army alone has lost almost four thousand people KIA during OIF. The Navy less than 200 and the Air Force less than that. Nobody should minimize those branches contribution or value to the success of the mission but let's be serious, the ground forces are a lot more dangerous jobs by far.

[Tribesman]

A flight deck or flight line might not be the safest place in the world but how many IED's do they encounter on a daily basis? How many snipers? How many times do Navy and Air Force personnel have to sleep in a ditch, or deal with a suicide bomber?
The US Army alone has lost almost four thousand people KIA during OIF. The Navy less than 200 and the Air Force less than that.

Is that a new advertising campaign....fly or sail:salute:

[Blood_splat]

Join the Navy or Air force if you don't want to die by people who have sex with livestock. New Slogan.:O:

[August]

Neither of which have ever won a war by themselves. Ultimately you need a Soldier or Marine to seize and hold ground.

[Tribesman]

Neither of which have ever won a war by themselves.
Ultimately you need a Soldier or Marine to seize and hold ground.
Try telling that to Iceland.

[Sailor Steve]

The US Army alone has lost almost four thousand people KIA during OIF. The Navy less than 200 and the Air Force less than that. Nobody should minimize those branches contribution or value to the success of the mission but let's be serious, the ground forces are a lot more dangerous jobs by far.
No war since WW2 has been a real naval war. Though the riverines would disagree, Vietnam wasn't a naval war.

As for the Air Force, in what other service do the enlisted men send their officers off to do the fighting?

[Stealhead]

Oh c'mon Stealhead. A flight deck or flight line might not be the safest place in the world but how many IED's do they encounter on a daily basis? How many snipers? How many times do Navy and Air Force personnel have to sleep in a ditch, or deal with a suicide bomber?

The US Army alone has lost almost four thousand people KIA during OIF. The Navy less than 200 and the Air Force less than that. Nobody should minimize those branches contribution or value to the success of the mission but let's be serious, the ground forces are a lot more dangerous jobs by far.

OK now you are just being very nit picky August I never said that the danger was equal by any means I was merely pointing out the CaptainMatt feelings are not completely correct.

He spoke as if the only "taxing" jobs are the direct combat ones that simply is not true and is insulting to the many jobs in the military that require alot manual labor.No matter what any direct combatant wants to say he needs the support of all the people in various jobs that allow him to do what he dose in the first place if those people where not there to support the losses would be even higher.Maybe my post did not come across that way but I was meaning to express that there many noncombat jobs that are taxing on a person.

You are it seems assuming that I am the type that gets caught up in the whole service rivalry crap well I regret to inform you that I have never been into that nonsense joking around aside I never was a believer in it.Every branch has a role to play and that is that I have a huge amount of respect for infantrymen and other front line jobs my father was infantry with the Army and served as a LRRP in Vietnam so I know from the horses mouth what it is like you do not need to tell me i find him to be more honest frankly I mentioned to him my experience with the stuck flare he was far more impressed by it than I was.:salute:

I am not exactly sure what Bloodsplat is talking about though I assume that he is referring to intelligence which is another stereotype aimed at the Army and Marines there are not so bright folks in the Air Force and Navy and very intelligent folks in the Army and Marines it just happens to be the branch that they joined in most cases something about it matched their interests.

[August]

OK now you are just being very nit picky August I never said that the danger was equal by any means I was merely pointing out the CaptainMatt feelings are not completely correct.

He spoke as if the only "taxing" jobs are the direct combat ones that simply is not true and is insulting to the many jobs in the military that require alot manual labor.

Well Guy, if I was being nit picky then so are you. He didn't say Navy/AF jobs weren't taxing, only that Army/Marines were "very" taxing. Is he wrong?

[Ducimus]

The Air force is a much more detached military fighting group in today's wars.

A fighter pilot doesnt have to stare down the sights of a rifle and watch the victim's head get shot off.


As for the Air Force, in what other service do the enlisted men send their officers off to do the fighting?

Not everyone in the Air Force fly's, or works on a plane. For that matter, not everyone in the Air Force works from within an Air Base, nor relies on other branch's for their own security. For the most part, the broad generalizations are true, but there are a number of exceptions. The AF has a bit of an identity crises, and dabbles in areas that are more traditionally thought of as things you'd encounter in the Army.

[Takeda Shingen]

Not everyone in the Air Force fly's, or works on a plane. For that matter, not everyone in the Air Force works from within an Air Base, nor relies on other branch's for their own security. For the most part, the broad generalizations are true, but there are a number of exceptions. The AF has a bit of an identity crises, and dabbles in areas that are more traditionally thought of as things you'd encounter in the Army.

That much I know is true. It is similar to people in the navy who do not go to sea. Takes a lot to run a military branch.

[Stealhead]

I heard once some officer say that only about 4% of the Air Force actually flies in aircraft and only about 15% work directly with aircraft in some way the rest do something else.

And yes August his is wrong because the majority people in Army and the Marines are not direct combatants and I can think of many non combat jobs that are very taxing my old job and what Ducimus did in the AF are not on easy street by any means they might not the infantry but they are very demanding jobs.You are clearly missing the pont that CaptianMatt has little understanding of how the military is structured if he thinks that all of the jobs in the Army and Marines are "very taxing" that is putting a supply clerk in the same boat as an infantryman but you obviously have an agenda so this is as far I am going to discuss the topic with you.

[August]

but you obviously have an agenda so this is as far I am going to discuss the topic with you.

Taking your ball and running home Navy?

:DL

Well right back atcha pal. :salute:

[Stealhead]

Better to agree to disagree than get carried away right?

I'd rather be in the Navy than be a dogface.:03:

Your worse than my old man I thought he was Army all the way he ragged me for a month when he found out I had joined the Air Force.

[August]

Better to agree to disagree than get carried away right?

I'd rather be in the Navy than be a dogface.:03:
http://home.comcast.net/%7Erdsterling/pwpimages/ArmedServicesComparison.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574 849672ccad14abeef220

[MH]

About time to turn this into pic thread:

Army...serious business...
combat women

http://img.mako.co.il/2011/07/27/cariot_c.jpg

[Stealhead]

The picture that August posted is somewhat accurate I did have a few parties like that one time in tech school though it was Air Force,Marines and women sorry Navy and Army.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Sorry, it was hard to articulate exactly what i meant.

It is clear that right now, in the past 20 years, and in the future, assuming that the major powers dont come into conflict, navy and USAAF will be playing solely support roles for troops on the ground (after any kind of air force is taken out ,as with the Iraqi airforce). As with most support roles, this is somewhat less dangerous overall than frontline combat troops on the ground.

As you said, most of the USAAF is comprised of everyone else, maintenance, flight control, operations. All needed to keep the flyboys in the air when we need them. That means that most of the USAAF is not anywhere near the frontline, and therefore mainly out of danger from their enemies. the navy is nowhere near the frontlines. Most navy personnel are, obviously, on our vast fleet of carriers, frigates, subs, and missile cruisers. In this war, they have extremely low chances of getting hit by the enemy.


the USAAF and Navy also have superb supply lines. Every week, ships arrive to resupply most carriers with food and rid them of waste products.

The USAAF operates out of bases, and supplies are usually brought in these bases, so they are supplied well also.

So in reality, the Air force and Navy have it much better off in these wars in afghanistan and Iraq, as These countries arent modernized and hardly a threat.

They do have gratuitous amounts of IEDs and Ak-47s however. Army and marine GIs are pretty much the only ones taking casualties at this point. Many troops can and have gone on for weeks on rations, without batteries for night vision, no lube for their weapons, getting shot and by RPGs and AK-47s.


As far as this war is concerned, yea, the USAAF and Navy are in much better conditions than Marines and the army. Thats the way its been for nearly 100 years.

This isnt WW2, or vietnam. Our airforces arent engaging in mass dogfights and taking heavy losses. Our ships arent taking fire whatsoever from torpedo planes. But troops are getting shot up. Troops are facing the constant threat of an ambush or an IED.


No military field is easy, and none are any less vital to the overall war machine. But in every way, the marines and Army are currently the MOST dangerous field. And certainly more taxing in some areas. Sailors work all day to keep their ship combat fit, working hard and long, launching planes off, but they can go to bed at night and feel alot safer than the guy sleeping in a ditch. They didnt have to see first hand what their contribution ended up doing to some guy somewhere. How many sailors or pilots you see coming home with PTSD?


But anyway, as long as that tangent is out of the way, i was saying that woman who want to serve in the thick should absolutely be able to. But not if that means compromising standards. If they cant serve their country in that way, oh well, go join something less overall physically demanding. Youll still be doing a great service to the war effort, no doubt about it. But you cant just let them serve just like that. You need to ease them in, and make sure that abuse, as so often seen, does not occur.

[Stealhead]

What is the USAAF?:hmmm: are you stuck in 1946 or something? It has been the USAF since September 18, 1947 United States Air Force,USAAF was the United States Army Air Force that was from 1941-1946.The change actually began in July of 1947.

I say this because you have typed USAAF in two different posts called it the USAAF several times in your last post.

The reason that the Navy and Air Force does suffer a few hundred KIAs are the ones that killed by IED attacks (truck drivers between bases) and attacks on the base by rocket or mortar fire or Navy Shore Patrol or Air Force Security Forces getting killed by attacks on the gates or base perimeter this is also where the majority of Army and Marine non combat units also happen to be staying in the generally much safer rear it should come as no surprise that they as a result have lower lose rates by the same also applies to rear line Army and Marine jobs.If you said Army and Marine Infantry,tankers,forward observers,combat engineers,medics, corpsmen(a Navy job by the way) I would agree with you but you lump all of the Marines all of the Army as taking far more risk this is not correct.

I and other airmen might not have seen first hand what we did to the enemy by I have seen first hand what the enemy did to our troops most Air Force members are lucky not to have but if you work on the flight line you will see the wounded and dead being loaded and off loaded from mostly cargo planes.You also do not need to tell me what Afghanistan is like I have been to Bagram AB I have a brother that is Army infantry officer I have another step brother that is a Marine Recon I know quite well from my brothers what goes on much more very clearly than you do.

The US Navy and USAF also have very important roles that do not involve the support of ground forces the Navy controls the seas and the Air Force and Navy with smaller aircraft have a very powerful strike capacity not related directly to ground support.You still consider the Army and Marines as lumped into only being combat troops there are just as many rear in the rear as AF or Navy members of the Army and Marines for every infantryman like August there are easily 100 non combat duty Army members in support of him.
You need to understand that in every branch the direct combatants are the smallest percentage of that branch and the supporting troops are in much less danger than the front combat troops often times they are in the exact same base the airmen are on.

I was never supporting having women serve "just like that" either as I said before the integration process been going on since 1974-75 that is close to 40 years now some people like it some people dont but it is only a matter of time before they allow women to do most every job.

[Ducimus]

http://home.comcast.net/%7Erdsterling/pwpimages/ArmedServicesComparison.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574 849672ccad14abeef220

The labels can be turned around and applied to any branch. Not everyone in the Army or Marines is a front line trigger puller, and lives in a mud hole. I had a female friend from high school that i was sweet on. The guy she married joined the Marines and became a firefighter. You know what the highlight of his military service was? Sitting in a firehouse on Okinawa. yeah thats right, Mr from the halls of montozuma saw less crap then i did in the air force.

In my job, often enough, the only people i saw that were not in my unit, was Army. I had friends in the army, we'd party and go out drinking when off duty. I've eaten at Army chow halls, ive worked in areas where i was told to slow down when driving dump trucks because i was dusting the Army pukes too much with all the dirt i was kicking up. Hell, ive worked my ass off in a central American jungle long enough to have my legs took like rasberrys from chigger bites, a bad case of immersion foot, and a newfound appreciation for light switchs and flushing toilets. At one point I had to sleep on the ground with just a piece of plywood between me and the mud filled with ringworms because we didn't have enough cots.

All branch's have many of the exact same jobs when you think of it. From Pencil pushing clerks, to medical, to Motor pool mechanics, to military police, to Engineers.

[Stealhead]

QFT my friend very QFT and everyone that served knows it.Same with having friends from other branches I had quite a few good friends that where part of "Old Iron Sides" the armored brigade when I was in Germany I was also good friends with several US Army supply troops that prepped Army gear for deployment by aircraft they lived in the exact some dorms as we did a million miles away from a fox hole.

In fact most jobs are so similar that they go to the same base and school for training most motor pool and heavy equipment operators go to Fort Lost in the I mean Fort Leonard Wood so on so forth

[August]

"Old Ironsides" is the nickname for the First Armored Division. I was a soldier in that division for three years. Where did you say you met those guys?

[Stealhead]

They where stationed at few bases in Germany mostly tankers and motor pool troops that I knew from Wiesbaden, Mannheim and Heidelberg in the old day70's 80s I think they where in Ansbach of course there are several small army posts all over Germany seems they got moved to Fort Bliss in 2011.I also knew a aircraft maintenance (Army MOS?) they cane to our shop to use or load machine to test out helicopter jacks that is a 60 mile drive both ways guess the Army forgot to give them a load tester they did not wear the Iron Sides patch though I don't recall what their unit was.

You where in Germany?

Also looking there where also 3rd Armored Division troops in Germany when I was but they where located a bit farther away near Frankfurt no reason to drive to a small city when you have huge one to hang out in.

http://www.army.mil/article/56568/1st_Armored_Division_cases_its_colors_before_movin g_to_Fort_Bliss/

[Takeda Shingen]

The labels can be turned around and applied to any branch. Not everyone in the Army or Marines is a front line trigger puller, and lives in a mud hole. I had a female friend from high school that i was sweet on. The guy she married joined the Marines and became a firefighter. You know what the highlight of his military service was? Sitting in a firehouse on Okinawa. yeah thats right, Mr from the halls of montozuma saw less crap then i did in the air force.

In my job, often enough, the only people i saw that were not in my unit, was Army. I had friends in the army, we'd party and go out drinking when off duty. I've eaten at Army chow halls, ive worked in areas where i was told to slow down when driving dump trucks because i was dusting the Army pukes too much with all the dirt i was kicking up. Hell, ive worked my ass off in a central American jungle long enough to have my legs took like rasberrys from chigger bites, a bad case of immersion foot, and a newfound appreciation for light switchs and flushing toilets. At one point I had to sleep on the ground with just a piece of plywood between me and the mud filled with ringworms because we didn't have enough cots.

All branch's have many of the exact same jobs when you think of it. From Pencil pushing clerks, to medical, to Motor pool mechanics, to military police, to Engineers.

Absolutely. It is a very human thing to consider that to which you belong superior to that to which the other belongs. One of our uglier sides.

[Stealhead]

I see it as a double edged sword pride in ones group is actually a good thing to some extent it can make you want to strive to do your best for your group.A nation should have pride in itself to some extent if it does not sooner or later it will crumble.It can be both a positive and negative quality. Military wise it is also good(with in reason) not only between branches but between separate units you want your company or your squadron to be the best that makes the others want to be the best and as a result they will perform better.

Back in the 50's 60's American made cars had excellent fit and finish for the most part this was because the workers had pride in their company in their work they wanted to make the most well crafted car cars today they just dont have the look that someone that really had pride in their work put it together that is why cars generally look the same nowadays I suppose.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure, there is nothing wrong with esprit de corps. The problem comes when that esprit begins to blind oneself. We see that a lot in GT.

[Stealhead]

Well you have pride and then you have hubris.I would say that hubris would require a little blindness.

I thought you meant GT as in Grand Touring racing at first blindness there would be really bad.:haha:

[CaptainMattJ.]

What is the USAAF?:hmmm: are you stuck in 1946 or something? It has been the USAF since September 18, 1947 United States Air Force,USAAF was the United States Army Air Force that was from 1941-1946.The change actually began in July of 1947.

I say this because you have typed USAAF in two different posts called it the USAAF several times in your last post.

The reason that the Navy and Air Force does suffer a few hundred KIAs are the ones that killed by IED attacks (truck drivers between bases) and attacks on the base by rocket or mortar fire or Navy Shore Patrol or Air Force Security Forces getting killed by attacks on the gates or base perimeter this is also where the majority of Army and Marine non combat units also happen to be staying in the generally much safer rear it should come as no surprise that they as a result have lower lose rates by the same also applies to rear line Army and Marine jobs.If you said Army and Marine Infantry,tankers,forward observers,combat engineers,medics, corpsmen(a Navy job by the way) I would agree with you but you lump all of the Marines all of the Army as taking far more risk this is not correct.

I and other airmen might not have seen first hand what we did to the enemy by I have seen first hand what the enemy did to our troops most Air Force members are lucky not to have but if you work on the flight line you will see the wounded and dead being loaded and off loaded from mostly cargo planes.You also do not need to tell me what Afghanistan is like I have been to Bagram AB I have a brother that is Army infantry officer I have another step brother that is a Marine Recon I know quite well from my brothers what goes on much more very clearly than you do.

The US Navy and USAF also have very important roles that do not involve the support of ground forces the Navy controls the seas and the Air Force and Navy with smaller aircraft have a very powerful strike capacity not related directly to ground support.You still consider the Army and Marines as lumped into only being combat troops there are just as many rear in the rear as AF or Navy members of the Army and Marines for every infantryman like August there are easily 100 non combat duty Army members in support of him.
You need to understand that in every branch the direct combatants are the smallest percentage of that branch and the supporting troops are in much less danger than the front combat troops often times they are in the exact same base the airmen are on.

I was never supporting having women serve "just like that" either as I said before the integration process been going on since 1974-75 that is close to 40 years now some people like it some people dont but it is only a matter of time before they allow women to do most every job.
Oh, the last part of my comment wasnt directed at your statements, sorry for the confusion.

And yes, i agree, that the USAF (sorry ,my mind has been deadlocked on WW2 these past few days, my bad) does unfortunately get to see firsthand what our troops are going through. And yes, i certainly know that behind every soldier fit for duty theres a hundred working to supply, rearm, and provide him medical care.

But this is a thread that focuses on what woman are going to be able to do, many more jobs that get ever closer to the frontlines, and eventually get stationed on the frontlines themselves. So while a large portion of people in the army arent frontline troops, i am not addressing them specifically here. I was trying to infer that i was talking about troops on the frontline, combat troops, rather than their support, such as supplies, medics, and other roles.

i also am not trying to tell you specifically what its like all that much, more trying to prove a point, as im not presuming to lecture people on exactly what goes on or exactly what it feels like, because i dont know.
people have told me their firsthand stories however. My Uncle served in vietnam, my other uncle joined the air force in 1977, still flies drones out in arizona, and my grandfather was a flight engineer aboard a C-47, who was about 1 form away from getting transferred to the 8th airforce, which couldve been horrific.

[August]

Sure, there is nothing wrong with esprit de corps. The problem comes when that esprit begins to blind oneself. We see that a lot in GT.


Now that is just hilarious. :har:

[Tribesman]

Now that is just hilarious.
It happens to be spot on, the recent episode over troops pissing on corpses showed the blindness very well.

[Takeda Shingen]

Now that is just hilarious. :har:

Now, you can do better than that, sport. Maybe some more logical fallacy? C'mon, I need a laugh today. You're like arguing with a child.

[Stealhead]

"i also am not trying to tell you specifically what its like all that much, more trying to prove a point, as im not presuming to lecture people on exactly what goes on or exactly what it feels like, because i dont know.
people have told me their firsthand stories however. My Uncle served in vietnam, my other uncle joined the air force in 1977, still flies drones out in arizona, and my grandfather was a flight engineer aboard a C-47, who was about 1 form away from getting transferred to the 8th airforce, which couldve been horrific."

Well it did seem as though you where some degree or at least your understanding of what it is like most any person in the military when deployed away from the US to a war zone is going have some stress even if they are not in combat no one enjoys not seeing their family and friends for extended lengths of time that alone can be somewhat stressful more so to some than others of course.

Warfare and military service are such complex things you can easily have two different people that had the same job but in different locations you will get two different experiences even on something as small as a submarine the story that the XO could tell you and story that the torpedo man can tell you would be different because of their role.A Corpman and a Marine involved in the same unit during Vietnam would also give you different views it may vary even between two infantrymen what happened what stood out to them and from a physiological stand point they all might deal with their experiences very differently. From this standpoint I'd say that the same would true for women some will deal with the stresses better than others.

[August]

Now, you can do better than that, sport. Maybe some more logical fallacy? C'mon, I need a laugh today. You're like arguing with a child.


Arguing, with you? Hardly. I neither value your opinions or your arguments on a subject you know nothing about, and don't call me "sport".

[Takeda Shingen]

Warfare and military service are such complex things you can easily have two different people that had the same job but in different locations you will get two different experiences even on something as small as a submarine the story that the XO could tell you and story that the torpedo man can tell you would be different because of their role.A Corpman and a Marine involved in the same unit during Vietnam would also give you different views it may vary even between two infantrymen what happened what stood out to them and from a physiological stand point they all might deal with their experiences very differently. From this standpoint I'd say that the same would true for women.

Which really brings us back the the whole point of the thread. Outside of some clearly established physical differences are there jobs, even involving closed quarters like on submarines, where women would not be able to do an adequate job? If not, why are physical differences and the notion that they will not be able to sexually control themselves and issue? If our fighting men and women are mature and controlled enough to make decisions pertaining to life and death situations and placing oneself in harms way, surely they can have the self control to not act like guppies when grouped together.

[Takeda Shingen]

Arguing, with you? Hardly. I neither value your opinions or your arguments on a subject you know nothing about, and don't call me "sport".

If I replied with 'right back at ya, pal' would that be cliche (or tu quoque)? Probably, sport. Probably.

[Morts]

and don't call me "sport".
and what was your reply when someone was offended by something you said?

oh yeah

Too bad.

[August]

and what was your reply when someone was offended by something you said?

Moderators that get into name calling don't deserve the privilege of being moderators.

[Takeda Shingen]

Moderators that get into name calling don't deserve the privilege of being moderators.

You throw the first punch and then complain when hit back. Honestly, August, you never miss an opportunity to be the smaller man. Sad for one of your age and supposed life experience.

[Tribesman]

and what was your reply when someone was offended by something you said?

But you can't say that as you wasn't in the military with him so you don't know nuffing.
Is Sport proving the point about the problems of blindness. :woot:

[August]

You throw the first punch and then complain when hit back. Honestly, August, you never miss an opportunity to be the smaller man. Sad for one of your age and supposed life experience.

Oh there now i've gone and lost your respect. Woe is me. How ever will I be able to voice an opinion on military affairs again knowing that you with your vast experience in this area do not approve? :dead:

[Takeda Shingen]

Hey, I tried to engage him in a civil manner. I attempted to engage him in discourse, even overlooking his personal attacks. However, after several pages of this, I eventually began tire and hit him back. His response becomes 'ow, that hurts.' Yes, yes it does hurt. It hurts when it is done to me, and how it hurts now that I return the favor. I have a right to defense, contrary to August's view. That I am a moderator does not also require me to be a punching bag. In this case, he need look no further than his own behavior for where things have gone south. It's a textbook example of how not to interact on the internet forum, and an example that I hope others will take into consideration before posting. There is always something to take away from even unpleasant situations.

Enough of this; he will get no more response from me here. Let's either talk shop or let it sink.

[nikimcbee]

Oh there now i've gone and lost your respect. Woe is me. How ever will I be able to voice an opinion on military affairs again knowing that you with your vast experience in this area do not approve? :dead:

Fluffy is pretty fragile. So tread softly August.:D
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLPWkgB5H795KO_oTAVb7PzP0ni1bSl siJqK9yAZA7zxTB59Sqng

When I first saw this topic, the first thing I thought of was the Jessica Lynch story. I say the next war we get into, lets let the guys sit that one out. Go chicks! They can't do any worse than the WNBA.

[Stealhead]

Actually the whole Jessica Lynch myth is to blame on the media she had the integrity to tell the truth about what actually happened which was that she was seriously injured in the initial attack and was helpless and that two other soldiers actually saved the entire unit by managing to kill an Iraqi mortar crew before it could be set up they still all got captured of course but sometimes being captured is unavoidable.It was the media that was talking Medal of Honor not the military not the Army.

[nikimcbee]

Actually the whole Jessica Lynch myth is to blame on the media she had the integrity to tell the truth about what actually happened which was that she was seriously injured in the initial attack and was helpless and that two other soldiers actually saved the entire unit by managing to kill an Iraqi mortar crew before it could be set up they still all got captured of course but sometimes being captured is unavoidable.It was the media that was talking Medal of Honor not the military not the Army.

See, I think, that is where the whole problem lies, with the media pushing their agenda. Nothing against Lynch, but the media is trying to create a hero, so they can say "see, we're right.":zzz:

I say, let them enter SEAL training, if they can pass that, then you're in.:salute:

[Stealhead]

"See, I think, that is where the whole problem lies, with the media pushing their agenda. Nothing against Lynch, but the media is trying to create a hero, so they can say "see, we're right."

It still would not have worked even assuming that Lynch chose to be a complete liar the other members of her unit male and female would not have backed any of her false claims the awarding of the medal is a very long process it usually takes around two years after the action occurred in many cases they want to be very sure about what happened.
It just goes to show you that Lynch is an honest person she could easily have chosen to bask in the media glory wrongly applied her but she did not.

Now could the military put this idea out there to stir up things knowing in reality the truth? Possible why do you think they publicize so much about JADMs and Drones? Because it makes war sound very sanitized even though there is still alot of kinetic energy non guided weapons also being used you will never here them mention depleted uranium or thermobaric bombs alot of people think all you need nowadays are drones what they do not know is that out there in the field very often there is an american or NATO trooper under that drone somewhere listening to the hum of the engine.I think the pentagon liked that the media went hero crazy over Lynch and let the talking heads talk.In the modern military we get briefed all the time by public affairs officers they give little cards that tell us what not to say.

[nikimcbee]

Since we're Talking about Lynch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

[Hottentot]

Imagine there's no disagreement
It isn't hard to do
No one arguing or saying nay
And no trolls too
Imagine all the people thinking like I say

You, you may say
I'm wrong, but I know I'm not
And one day you'll join my ignore list
And the forum will be like my blog

[Takeda Shingen]

Fluffy is pretty fragile. So tread softly August.:D
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLPWkgB5H795KO_oTAVb7PzP0ni1bSl siJqK9yAZA7zxTB59Sqng

When I first saw this topic, the first thing I thought of was the Jessica Lynch story. I say the next war we get into, lets let the guys sit that one out. Go chicks! They can't do any worse than the WNBA.

I was wondering how long it would take you to get in here. You never miss an opportunity for an assault, that much is certain. Sour grapes much, Big Nikki?

Another thing that you share with August a penchant for logical fallacy. No one is making the argument that women make for superior soldiers. No one is claiming that our ranks be comprised of females alone. The argument comes down to whether or not they can be effective in those roles. This is further amplified by your statement that women would need to pass SEAL training in order to join the infantry. Almost none of the current infantry would pass SEAL training.

[MH]

If some women can be train as well as men there is no reason for them not to be effective.
If you lookin at it from political perspective and all the feminist talk then it may be problem..Then again army should not fall into this trap.
There are women who are fit for army service just as men.There are also though looking guys that fall like flys in training.
Its all mental issue in many ways.

[August]

Fluffy is pretty fragile. So tread softly August.:D

Fluffy ought to show a little restraint when blowvarding opinions about a subject he has no first hand knowledge about.

Almost none of the current infantry would pass SEAL training.

See what I mean? Now he's an expert on the physical fitness levels of our current Infantry as if he had any idea what he's talking about.

[Tribesman]

See what I mean? Now he's an expert on the physical fitness levels of our current Infantry as if he had any idea what he's talking about.
Can "Sport" be any more blind?
So thats another absolutely nonsensical arguement from the drive by troll.
"See what he means" strawman, "see what he means" blindness.

It is so easy to show poor sporty is talking total crap.
you don't have to have been in the military, you don't have to be an expert.
The army have a training program some pass some fail, some of those that pass may eventually opt for trying the special forces. the rangers run a high rate of failures of those who already passed .
Simple so far isn't it.
Now the navy also has a training program, some of those that may pass may opt to try special forces, the seals have an even higher attririon rate than the rangers do.
Simple isn't it.
Its so simple it can work elsewhere.
Take the SAS and SBS, most infantry wouldn't get a foot in the door let alone complete the training course no matter if they chose the land or sea branch. it is something those elites are happy about.
Its so simple it really is a no brainer, most infantry simply would not pass the the exersize, it is proven because of the few who are chosen as having a possiblity of passing most still do not pass.


Anyone who thinks you had to be in the club or be an expert to understand that is really showing themselves up, in fact as "sport" is touting his career as his expertise has he just shown that the blindness from that career path mentioned earlier may be a real hinderance to understanding simple things he claims others cannot understand.

Funny really, its just the same as the pissing on corpses topic where some blind people were saying others couldn't say it was wrong, but were themselves only trying to make a plea for mitigating circumstances because it was so obviously wrong.

[Ducimus]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=132&pictureid=802

[Tribesman]

Thats OK ducimus you were one of the very very blind being mentioned:yeah:
But hey you were not a woman in the military so you don't know nuffin bout nuffin and can't comment on this topic:rotfl2:

[nikimcbee]

I was wondering how long it would take you to get in here. You never miss an opportunity for an assault, that much is certain. Sour grapes much, Big Nikki?

Another thing that you share with August a penchant for logical fallacy. No one is making the argument that women make for superior soldiers. No one is claiming that our ranks be comprised of females alone. The argument comes down to whether or not they can be effective in those roles. This is further amplified by your statement that women would need to pass SEAL training in order to join the infantry. Almost none of the current infantry would pass SEAL training.

I defer to your degree in music. You win.

[Ducimus]

Thats OK ducimus you were one of the very very blind being mentioned:yeah:
But hey you were not a woman in the military so you don't know nuffin bout nuffin and can't comment on this topic:rotfl2:

And your just an opinionated (insert colorful noun here) behind a keyboard half a world away who likes to troll the forum and talk out of his ass. Do you really think I give a rats ass about what you think? I'll be honest, I get pleasure telling you off because you think so highly of your own self righteous opinions that reside in the bubble of your own do nothing existence.

[RickC Sniper]

Fluffy is pretty fragile. So tread softly August.:D
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLPWkgB5H795KO_oTAVb7PzP0ni1bSl siJqK9yAZA7zxTB59Sqng

When I first saw this topic, the first thing I thought of was the Jessica Lynch story. I say the next war we get into, lets let the guys sit that one out. Go chicks! They can't do any worse than the WNBA.


Personally, based on what August has posted here, I am amazed he did not comment on this statement that has war, suggested combat, and the WNBA in the same breath.

I do see an attempt at humor here but personally I found it a tad distasteful.

[antikristuseke]

Is it just me or?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7Wb1Dg7YBhU/TocRr91CC9I/AAAAAAAAHqw/9aMf2w_AOFY/s1600/kettle-black.jpg

[RickC Sniper]

@August and Takeda

I have watched this thread from the start and it certainly has spiraled down from it's roots.

I humbly ask both of you to back away and ignore future posts here, so it can die an easy death of natural causes.

Neither of you are going to give an inch, and each of you has made your positions perfectly clear a hundred times over. There really is nothing more that needs to be said.

A plea from an old man.
Back away please.

[nikimcbee]

Personally, based on what August has posted here, I am amazed he did not comment on this statement that has war, suggested combat, and the WNBA in the same breath.

I do see an attempt at humor here but personally I found it a tad distasteful.

Sure, point noted. I wasn't linking combat and the WNBA. Humor fail on my part.

[nikimcbee]

@ Rick
I think you're right. Maybe this thread needs have a rest.

[Ducimus]

Is it just me or?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7Wb1Dg7YBhU/TocRr91CC9I/AAAAAAAAHqw/9aMf2w_AOFY/s1600/kettle-black.jpg

If your reffering to me and excrement head.. err i mean Tribesman, it is NOT a case of the teapot calling the kettle black.

Ive walked the walk, been there, done that, bought the T shirt, wore it out.
He hasn't. He just talks out of his ass with no basis other then an unexperienced opinion to go off of.

If your reffering to Tak and August, meh.

Going to somewhat back on topic:
As ive said before, I was in the USAF's combat engineering arm. I've seen women do everything men can do, sometimes even better. one thing I neglected to say is that, that career field used to be open to just men. During my enlistment, women being allowed into that unit type was somewhat recent (by a few years i think). One of my supervisors, was the 5th women to ever be allowed into that unit type. I have nothing but respect for that. It takes a huge pair of brass balls to enter what is predominately thought of as a mans job, and not only survive, but do exceedingly well in.

[antikristuseke]

The general tone of the thread seems to be pot calling kettle black, before that it was constructing lots of strawmen by more than one participant. This thread has been going downhill for quite a while now tbh.

[Takeda Shingen]

Point taken. I have placed both August and nikimcbee on my ignore list; the only other individual that I have ever placed was the infamous TheThirdMan. Neither of these two are likely to be posting porn or piracy links, nor flaming individuals over their choice of games and mods, so I remain compliant with my duties. I shall give the members of this forum what they desire. Although I am here and will continue my duties, you will see little of me outside of official capacity, as I am clearly unqualified for discussion outside of the boundaries of forum regulation and the arts. Let the gloating commence.

[antikristuseke]

I wish you didn't do that, but your call. I enjoy your input and for the most part agree with you, but this thread did get out of hand and who cast the first stone has become completely irrelevant at this point.

[Platapus]

It would be nice if GT could get back to being a little bit nicer place. There have always been bickering and stuff, but recently it appears that some people are eager to bring down a thread.

This has happened before and hopefully the pendulum will swing back

[Tribesman]

If your reffering to me and excrement head
:har::har::har::har::har::har:

it is NOT a case of the teapot calling the kettle black.

blind as a bat :rotfl2:


Ive walked the walk, been there, done that, bought the T shirt, wore it out.

Which means absolutely bugger all but you cannot get it through to what passes for your mind.
You are operating on a false premise which increasingly makes you blind.
It was fully explained before why your being "special" doesn't hold any water at all.:yep:

As ive said before, I was in the USAF's combat engineering arm.
but as you are not a woman in the air force so you can't say anything about it....:O:

And still you cannot see how completly dumb your line of "thought" is when it is put straight back at you:doh: