Women in combat policy to change

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by MH

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]

Originally Posted by MH

You are dramatising here
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

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

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

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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

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 .