Search results for query: *

  1. FUBAR!!!

    The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.

    GERRY said:
    Question:

    Does anyone know what musket the white beduin next to the french guardsman in the middle is carrying?
    Looks pretty cool IMO.

    Leon_Cogniet_-_L_Expedition_D_Egypte_Sous_Les_Ordres_De_Bonaparte.jpg
    Click to expand...

    Arabic Miquelet musket.
  2. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    MaHuD said:
    My main concern is for the women who serve in the armed forces, who run the risk of being sexually assaulted by male comrades.
    Click to expand...
    Run the risk?
    How is that different from any other place?
    Do you want to split the entire civilization in segregated sections to eliminate the risk of females being sexually assaulted by males?
    Click to expand...
    It is just more prevalent in the military then it is in another type of job, thus women are taking a substantial risk when joining the armed forces.
  3. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Jhessail said:
    Resorting to insulting my avatar to get your argument forward? Classic.
    Click to expand...
    It keeps the so-called conversation lively. Besides, your avatar is what you want to tell the forum about yourself. Yours is a 70's porn moustache wielding Günther-wannabe. Tells me quite a bit about your sense of humour and personality.

    In regards to military segregation, you mentioned European countries, but this thread is about the United States. The US and European country's like France, England etc have fundamentally different cultures and history's, thus comparing them would be very wrong.
    Click to expand...
    Lol wat. No wait, this makes sense, coming from you. You already think that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, so thinking that French, British and other Europeans are FUNDAMENTALLY different to Americans seems logical. To you.

    Which is just further proof that you are not only clueless but possibly bat-**** insane.

    The US was built on slave labor, like it or not but its true.
    Click to expand...
    That's just as much true as the claim that Egyptian civilization was built on slave labour. Yes, it happened but it's not all that happened or anywhere near the entire picture.

    but because it would limit unit cohesion, blacks cooperated better with blacks, and whites cooperated better with whites solely based on racism, i'm not afraid to admit that.
    Click to expand...
    And now there are no such coheision problems, except when soldiers bring racism with them from the civilian world and even then, the military often weanes them off of it. Or are you saying that the modern US Military is performing poorly compared to the pre-1950 segregated military?

    The USSR did segregate women into their own regiments, they where called women's rifle brigades... Interesting book, look it up.
    Click to expand...
    Newsflash, dip****. They had both mixed-gender and mono-gender units. Which you should know since you're just copypasting Wikipedia - you haven't even read the book in question! What a moron! But don't worry, I'll look it up in a library during the winter, read and then write some quotes here that will give a better, full picture of the issue, than your copy-pasting of a half-a-paragraph from the Wikipedia article under the topic "Challenges faced".

    You idiot!  :razz: No-one claimed that the Soviets had zero problems - but the fact is that a massive number of women did serve and it did not lead to a catastrophy and that they were a solid asset.

    Now please tell me more on how we should model our military on that of the USSR, i'm all ears.
    Click to expand...
    Considering your level of knowledge is based on Wikipedia and Hollywood movies, I'll kindly educate you by stating that it was the Red Army that crushed the Nazi-Germany and it was the Red Army that crushed the Japanese Army of Kwantung, overrunning Mongolia and Korea, causing the Americans to rush half-cocked to meet them as their rapid advance took them by surprise. You think Battle of the Bulge or conquest of Sicily or Falaise Pocket or Operation Market-Garden were big, major battles? They were nothing compared to Battle of Kursk or conquest of Ukraine or Korsun Pocket or Operation Bagration. The Red Army in 1945 was superior to both US and British armies by numbers, by operational skill, by doctrine and by equipment quality - and only their edge in air could have prevented the Bear from reaching the Atlantic if Stalin so had wished. So stop slandering the Red Army when you have zero ******** clue about their real capabilities. As if no other nation or military ever did stupid **** in an emergency.  :roll:

    Crawl back into the hole you came from.
    Click to expand...
    Sorry Günther, you're the one doing all the crawling here, ignorant clueless moron as you are. The hole of shame beckons, Günther! Heed its call!
    Click to expand...

    Just because the thirteen colonies originally came from England, does not mean that the USA is not different. The US is fundamentally different from Europe, in terms of politics, economy, culture, etc. I'm not even going to bother debating that.

    Racism was very dominant in the USA, because of their direct exposure to slavery. People in the early 19th century where indoctrinated with the belief that they are superior and that blacks are stupid and should be slaves. Racism in the United States especially during the 19th and early 20th century was a embedded into the population and enforced by courts, politics and even business owners. Segregation, racial discrimination, and expressions of white supremacy all increased. So did violence against blacks, thus making blacks hate whites and vice versa.

    I'm not saying the modern US military is performing poorly. Of course racial segregation doesn't make sense anymore, because racism is not a dominant factor in peoples lives. As racism died down the military slowly brought whites and blacks together. You think putting two groups of people who hated each other together in a fighting unit would not limit cooperation? Racial segregation in the military partially helped integrate both races together, and prevented the internal fighting that likely would have happened if segregation was not enacted.

    Yes i'm aware that the USSR had mixed gender units, but they also had all female units as well.
    You failed to address the quote:

    Many females complained that the male-dominated military sought to defeminize servicewomen while denying them equal treatment. Fewer women than men achieved high-ranking positions in mixed-gender units; furthermore, male officers often undermined the authority of the few female officers. When female officers failed to maintain command over their subordinates, male officers blamed female inferiority. In some cases, the tense relations between male and female soldiers escalated to sexual harassment.For example, the 1st Separate Women’s Volunteer Rifle Brigade reported multiple instances of rape, resulting in sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies.

    I'm interested to see what you think of that, or are you going to keep avoiding it?
    Your right, I didn't read the book, I just suggested it to you because of your interest on women in the soviet military. Just because this quote was taken from Wikipedia, does not dismiss its original writers.   

    You also seem to have the idea that I think women will perform worse in a combat situation then a man would, if you had not noticed my main argument is not against women, it is against the men who serve along side of them. If it was in fact that men never have committed sexual assault against a women in the military, then I would not be hear. My main concern is for the women who serve in the armed forces, who run the risk of being sexually assaulted by male comrades.

    I was just making a joke, the Red army's accomplishments are some of the best in history and their contribution to world war two was much larger then the US and British combined. But without the US and Great Britain involved, I highly doubt they could have fought the Wehrmacht alone.
  4. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Jhessail said:
    Amontadillo said:
    It's every time a **** comes along spouting the same crap as the ten before him that the thread gets rather useless,  yes.
    Click to expand...
    Unfortunately it seems to be a natural law of the Internet. Then you get useless tossers who got their precious feelings hurt during the previous round rejoin in order to snipe from the bushes, like this:
    MickDick said:
    The definition of a dogpile.
    Click to expand...
    You're still a clueless tosser who thinks that red flags and GMKs have a secret conspiracy to keep the righteous down, aren't you?  :lol:

    FUBAR!!! said:
    I responded to her reply with the same respect she gave me, which was none.
    Click to expand...
    You don't start out with respect, dear Günther-clone, you have to earn it. You also don't get to write or define the rules for either Internet  debating or Taleworlds. There is a profanity filter, which you are most welcome to use. Trying to hide behind pleas for "civil behaviour" so that you can continue shouting your stupid bull**** is probably the second-oldest debating "tactic" in the world. It also doesn't work.

    FUBAR!!! said:
    The military did keep racial minorities in their own regiments up until WW2 when racism started to go down they slowly integrated them with the others, it worked well.
    Click to expand...
    Lies and slander, Günther! Go back to filming your Animal Farm-videos. Ethnic minorities were more than welcome to serve in many militaries! While the colonial powers kept folks from their colonies in their own units - thus you had French Moroccoan units and British Indian units, only United States kept her citizens in different regiments by their skin-colour. US Navy kept most jobs closed to blacks even though the ships themselves were not segregated. How many good sailors were doomed to waste their talents peeling potatoes because of that? And the segregation lasted until the Korean War in 1950-1953 and its effects were noticeable until the late 1970's when black officers finally became commonplace.

    Military segregation was also invented by American racists in the early 19th century, as it didn't exist during the 18th century.

    FUBAR!!! said:
    4. Just because you don't believe in traditional gender roles, doesn't mean they don't exist. I think the presence of a female in a hyper masculine military subculture would probably trigger some sort of protective reaction from the men.
    Click to expand...
    Hmm, so true. Except it's not. You're an unimaginative idiot who is apparently clueless about life and culture and gender roles outside of Hickville, Alabama and who gets their information from Rush Limbaugh.

    If you had bothered to read the thread, dear ****wit-Günther, you would have seen posts from actual members (current or former) of different militaries (mostly European) with actual experience from deployments and living in mixed-gender units. None of the problems you envision happen. You would have come across my post where I explained that the white-knight myth comes from a single American pamphlet written in 1950 by some American major, who claims to have interviewed three IDF officers for it - except he doesn't name them and IDF itself has never published such material. You would have learned that 800,000 Soviet woman served in the Red Army during WW2, roughly half of them in combat arms - snipers, pilots, tank drivers & gunners, using mortars and artillery and so on, and Red Army has never decried their presence and neither has Frunze Academy published any books showing that they were a liability instead of an asset.

    So you have your head shoved pretty deep in your ass and instead of sheepishly admitting your mistake, you - in a proper hyper-masculine way - refuse to pull it out but shove it deeper. Good entertainment for the rest of us, that's for sure but maybe you shouldn't be allowed anywhere near either a gun or a female as you obviously are unable to restrain your hyper-masculinity, Günther.
    Click to expand...

    Resorting to insulting my avatar to get your argument forward? Classic.

    In regards to military segregation, you mentioned European countries, but this thread is about the United States. The US and European country's like France, England etc have fundamentally different cultures and history's, thus comparing them would be very wrong.

    The US was built on slave labor, like it or not but its true. That fact and the indoctrination of white superiority made the US a racist country. So it made perfect sense to segregate blacks from whites in the military not because they cant perform well but because it would limit unit cohesion, blacks cooperated better with blacks, and whites cooperated better with whites solely based on racism, i'm not afraid to admit that.

    Now you insult the state of Alabama, based on the assumption that I live their? It just gets better and better.

    The USSR did segregate women into their own regiments, they where called women's rifle brigades.

    Many females complained that the male-dominated military sought to defeminize servicewomen while denying them equal treatment. Fewer women than men achieved high-ranking positions in mixed-gender units; furthermore, male officers often undermined the authority of the few female officers. When female officers failed to maintain command over their subordinates, male officers blamed female inferiority. In some cases, the tense relations between male and female soldiers escalated to sexual harassment.For example, the 1st Separate Women’s Volunteer Rifle Brigade reported multiple instances of rape, resulting in sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies.

    That was taken straight out of the book 'Our brigade will not be sent to the front': Soviet women under arms in the Great Fatherland War, 1941-45 written by Euridice Cardona and Roger Markwick. Interesting book, look it up.

    Now please tell me more on how we should model our military on that of the USSR, i'm all ears. I have an idea! Lets bring back the Shtrafbat, it would be a great way to deal with inmates by sending them into suicide charges against enemy machine guns.

    Crawl back into the hole you came from.

    MickDick said:
    Jhessail said:
    MickDick said:
    The definition of a dogpile.
    Click to expand...
    You're still a clueless tosser who thinks that red flags and GMKs have a secret conspiracy to keep the righteous down, aren't you?  :lol:
    Click to expand...
      Lolwut...?

    What?  Just coming out and randomly attacking me for something completely unrelated to what I was talking about..  What?
    Click to expand...
    Its called an ad hominem, she criticizes me for using "the second-oldest debating tactic in the world" yet all she does is dismiss my arguments based on some assumption that i'm from Alabama and I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

    FUBAR!!! said:
    It reminds me of when uneducated people resort to violence once they realize they are wrong. Verbal abuse seems to be the internets equivalent of that.
    Decent people treat each other with respect for a reason, its what differentiates us from undesirables, when I see trash I treat it like trash.
    Click to expand...
     
  5. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    kabogh said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    There is no room for profanity in a debate, it polluted what could have been a decent reply, into one I shouldn't have even bothered with.
    Click to expand...
    If there's no room for profanity, then there's no room for insults and disrespect such as but not limited to:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    That leads me to wonder, who's **** did you suck to get an admins position around here? just curious.
    Click to expand...

    Also, you can just ignore her replies, it's not like you're required to reply to them.
    Click to expand...
    I responded to her reply with the same respect she gave me, which was none.
    I don't ignore people.

    Headmaster said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    There is no room for profanity in a debate, it polluted what could have been a decent reply, into one I shouldn't have even bothered with.
    Click to expand...

    :lol:

    Also, nice to meet you, debate lawmaker.
    Click to expand...

    Not a law, just a suggestion. If you where to have a debate with someone in person would you blatantly tell them to **** off because their opinion conflicts with yours?
    It reminds me of when uneducated people resort to violence once they realize they are wrong. Verbal abuse seems to be the internets equivalent of that.
    Decent people treat each other with respect for a reason, its what differentiates us from undesirables, when I see trash I treat it like trash.

    Amontadillo said:
    He's quite the ****, yes.
    Click to expand...
    Welcome back, I missed you.
  6. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    There is no room for profanity in a debate, it polluted what could have been a decent reply, into one I shouldn't have even bothered with.
  7. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Swadius 2.0 said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    Swadius 2.0 said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/military-rape-enemy-within-the-ranks/?_r=0#/1/

    26,000 sexual assault cases in the US military where reported in 2012.
    Plus at least a couple thousand more that went unreported.

    Yeah, I'm living under a rock.
    Click to expand...

    "Lets not let African Americans into the armed forces because the majority of those that are already in it will discriminate against them?"
    Click to expand...

    You missed my first point, I never said anything about not letting women into the military, just separate them from men.
    Click to expand...

    I think we can easily tune that argument. Should we keep visible minorities separate from the rest of the military when racism was still an acceptable part of society? In any case, if men are as sex hungry as you think they are, shouldn't it be a real worry to you about men who recently finish their time and return to the civilian world? Or you know, keep them far away from the civilian population from wherever they're stationed?

    I also find it astonishing how quickly people abandon the principle of the military accepting the best when societal prejudices come up. Segregating people by their societal standings outside of the military is not inducive to that principle. You are precluding people who can work together really well together from coming together.
    Click to expand...

    The military did keep racial minorities in their own regiments up until WW2 when racism started to go down they slowly integrated them with the others, it worked well.
    Why would the soldiers having sexual relationships be a problem when they are home? By all means let them, the problem is when they are in the military.
    That would be the best scenario, assuming their is no prejudice in the military not just among the superiors but also among the average recruit. If everyone in the military could work together to their best ability that would be great, but prejudices do limit things like cooperation between soldiers.


    Jhessail said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    Oh no, I think I hit a nerve.

    No I don't have a source, or at least one you would consider viable.
    Mostly talking with friends during card games one of them who is is training right now told me a few guys in his barracks have bad criminal records, he heard this from a conversation between military recruiters who chose to let them in anyways.
    Click to expand...
    Oh no, another clown who thinks 70's porn moustaches are ironically funny.

    It's really difficult to find sources. I assume you're talking about the US Armed Forces. See, if you HAD read the thread, you would have noticed that such sources have been posted before:
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/13/how-neo-nazis-and-gangs-infiltrated-the-u-s-military-matt-kennard-s-irregular-army.html
    It's well worth reading.

    If you're just going to ***** about Federal programs and bureaus being corrupted, inefficient and so on, do it in some other thread. If you're going to ***** about female presence being the cause for lowering standards, then read the article above and realize that it isn't true. If you're going to keep sprouting stupid BS about cultural reasons or how men are biologically hard-wired to white-knight women and there's nothing that can be to change that - just shut the **** up because you are wrong and deluded. If you have something relevant to add to the thread, please go ahead.
    Click to expand...

    I guess its cool nowadays to swear in every sentence you write especially for a moderator, someone who should be representing the integrity of Taleworlds forum. That leads me to wonder, who's **** did you suck to get an admins position around here? just curious.

    1. I give praise when its due, most government organizations don't deserve it, but hey I guess talking about the Pentagon, in a thread with PENTAGON in the title is wrong.
    2. I never mentioned female presence lowering standards, I mentioned the military lowering their standards to accept convicted criminals.
    3. The article you posted backs up my earlier statement, thanks for posting it.
    4. Just because you don't believe in traditional gender roles, doesn't mean they don't exist. I think the presence of a female in a hyper masculine military subculture would probably trigger some sort of protective reaction from the men.

    If you would like to continue debating me, please refrain from using anymore profanity for your own benefit, it makes you sound like a child.
  8. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Fehnor said:
    The whole world has changed in views regarding rape in 25 years. Also note, The statistics in the article are from military sources.

    Also, the senate is a U.S. federal organization that you do not trust.

    The article does have a lot of good information, and goals I agree with.

    "Many members of the committee said they would like to see all sex offenders in the military discharged from service and would like to replace the current system of adjudicating sexual assault by taking it outside a victim’s chain of command. The senators focused in particular on a recent decision by an Air Force general to reverse a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case with little explanation."

    '"...if you think you are achieving discipline and order with your current convening authority framework I am sorry to say you are wrong."'

    The underlying purpose of that hearing was to gather information to add additional structure for reporting and care for victims, and punishment and dismissal of offenders. That is the direction the military has to take, and it has to be a serious punishment enforced the same way the zero tolerance on drug and alcohol in the '80's. I think this is right around the corner, and will probably have some retroactive effects.
    Click to expand...
    I know the pentagon is a government organization, but their are a few acceptations within the pentagon, such as the department of veterans affairs which most likely gathered this evidence and considering how much they do for military veterans I would not have a problem trusting them.
    There should be zero tolerance, but first of all as mentioned by a victim in the article “I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command,” soldiers have to not be afraid to report sexual harassment and since the military is a breeding ground for submissiveness to superiors I think that would be the hardest problem to fix.

    Jhessail said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    I cant say much about the quality of training, but I have heard that the standards have been lowered in recent years.
    Click to expand...
    Post a source or shut the **** up.
    Click to expand...
    Oh no, I think I hit a nerve.

    No I don't have a source, or at least one you would consider viable.
    Mostly talking with friends during card games one of them who is is training right now told me a few guys in his barracks have bad criminal records, he heard this from a conversation between military recruiters who chose to let them in anyways. 
  9. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Seff said:
    Seff said:
    The talk about sexual advances and 'human nature' and so forth is justified in a sense, except it should not be a problem for the professional soldier to handle. If I as a professional soldier can control my natural instinct to kill the person I've captured that has just tried to kill me, or control my instinct to slap the children throwing rocks at me as I drive by, then I can goddamn jolly well control my natural instinct to make sexual advances towards a colleague. Any army that trains soldiers to act on their instincts, as opposed to control and direct them, is training braindead muppets.

    The pregnant women rates smacks of improper training and insufficient understanding of being a combat unit and not a dating unit. It's a regrettable tendency and it's the fault of both genders, but it doesn't change the over-all validity of capable and responsible women in combat.
    Click to expand...

    Consider my statement here and the statistics you posted, FUBAR, and see if you can conclude anything about my impression of US soldiers. :razz:
    Click to expand...
    I cant say much about the quality of training, but I have heard that the standards have been lowered in recent years.

    Fehnor said:
    **** you, Seff. :razz:

    FUBAR's statement is a mention of a number not supported by any reference but a blog, and misreads the statistic as the number of reported cases, not the expounded number based on the number of reported cases. While the issue is disgustingly prevalent, misinterpreting statistics is no place to start an argument.

    When you consider that the only basis of statistics for rape in the military comes from a source in the military that includes the numbers of victims of rape of both genders, inappropriate advances, including verbal sexual assault and threatening/attempt of rape, and the average number of those cases per year is between 1-2000, it's much less of a dire issue, but still prevalent and indicative of problems that need fixed.
    Click to expand...

    I would not trust the US military or any US federal organization, especially when it comes to statistics that may damage their reputation.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/us/politics/veterans-testify-on-rapes-and-scant-hope-of-justice.html

    Another source with similar statistics, also from the New York times (a quite reputable source).

    “I chose not to do a report of any kind because I had no faith in my chain of command,” Ms. Havrilla said. When she sought help from an Army chaplain, she said, he told her “the rape was God’s will” and urged her to go to church.

    Interesting quote from the article, which is about a senate panel investigating military rape.
  10. FUBAR!!!

    The Original L'Aigle Thread, for the sake of history. Be ye warned.

    rofl50 said:
    Please, please, please use this song!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UrnAh5mxpk

    (Not exactly the right time period, but still celebrates Britain's history) Heard it in Totsk and loved it ever since.
    Click to expand...
    I like the reenactment pictures in the video, the song is also great. Would love to hear it in L'aigle.
  11. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Magorian Aximand said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    I used the search button and found nothing in regards to my main argument (military rape)
    Click to expand...

    I can. It took me less than a minute.
    Click to expand...
    Something other then what I have already posted on the subject?
  12. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    kabogh said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    Wonder who is being illogical here.
    Click to expand...

    When you participate in a debate, you should you know everything that has been said. Otherwise you'll be at a disadvantage compared to the other debaters, multiplying your risks of repeating the same mistake of someone on your side of the debate.

    You are being illogical.
    Click to expand...
    If i'm at a disadvantage I wonder why only a few people have bothered to respond to my arguments without including some sort of ad hominem attack, then completely disregarding my claim.
    I used the search button and found nothing in regards to my main argument (military rape) which I backed with a source, and facts.   
  13. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Amontadillo said:
    Problem is that your attempts at discussion are not logical.

    And also old. Debunked. And boring.
    Click to expand...

    I stated my opinion, provided a source, with evidence, and facts.
    I was then insulted because of my views and told to look through a 40 page thread until I find something that debunks my entire argument.
    (I did look through about 10 pages now and have yet to find anyone mention the problem of rape in the armed forces.)

    Wonder who is being illogical here.

  14. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Úlfheðinn said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    Well if only that psychological evaluation actually worked. It clearly didn't considering how there where 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012.
    Click to expand...

    1) That was a jab at you, because I think anyone who can't control their sexual urges for a period of time is probably not a person that should be tasked with carrying a gun?

    If you can't keep your **** in check, who is to say you can control your aggression and not just decide to shoot some civilians after spending months bored/stressed/afraid?

    2) Psychology alone rarely provides sufficient explanations or can even analyze all factors that account for rape. If anything it's more often than not a sociological problem.

    As with crime to focus solely on the individual is an incredibly simplistic, naive and erroneous way of looking at rape.
    Click to expand...

    I should start getting used to sarcastic "jabs", that's all I seem to be getting while trying to have a logical discussion.
    As for the "keep your **** in check remark" I totally agree with that and I'm sure in some utopian fantasy their could be the perfect military soldier who is not at all affected by his hormones, but in reality that's not the case as shown in the 26,000 reports of sexual abuse in 2012.

    “Over 26,000 rapes and sexual assaults took place in the military last year, and most of the woman that actually reported it were basically kicked out of the military,”- NY times

    I disagree about rape being a mostly sociological problem though, rapists after being mentally examined are more then often found to have some sort of psychological illness.

  15. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    FrisianDude said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    No, I'm not in the military because I want to achieve something with my life, not because I can't follow orders.
    Click to expand...
    Fat chance if you won't even read the thread before drivelling on it.
    Click to expand...
    I read 3 or 4 pages before I posted.
    I'm not going to read a 40 page thread with roughly 600 reply's just to post in it, I guess some people have too much time on their hands.
  16. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Goker said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    If women are going to be put into front line combat they should probably be separated from the men. Females should be put in female regiments to be kept away from males to prevent intimate relationships from happening. Knowing myself, if I was in the position of being without sexual contact for 8 months, in some middle eastern **** hole, with a few young ladies in my regiment, I would probably at least try to make some moves on them.
    Click to expand...
    Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ******** follow some goddamn rules.
    Click to expand...
    No, I'm not in the military because I want to achieve something with my life, not because I can't follow orders.

    Swadius 2.0 said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/military-rape-enemy-within-the-ranks/?_r=0#/1/

    26,000 sexual assault cases in the US military where reported in 2012.
    Plus at least a couple thousand more that went unreported.

    Yeah, I'm living under a rock.
    Click to expand...

    "Lets not let African Americans into the armed forces because the majority of those that are already in it will discriminate against them?"
    Click to expand...

    You missed my first point, I never said anything about not letting women into the military, just separate them from men.

    Úlfheðinn said:
    Goker said:
    FUBAR!!! said:
    If women are going to be put into front line combat they should probably be separated from the men. Females should be put in female regiments to be kept away from males to prevent intimate relationships from happening. Knowing myself, if I was in the position of being without sexual contact for 8 months, in some middle eastern **** hole, with a few young ladies in my regiment, I would probably at least try to make some moves on them.
    Click to expand...
    Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ******** follow some goddamn rules.
    Click to expand...

    There is a reason psychological evaluations are good  :lol:
    Click to expand...
    Well if only that psychological evaluation actually worked. It clearly didn't considering how there where 26,000 sexual assaults in the military in 2012.
  17. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Amontadillo said:
    it's good of you to admit it.

    now read the ******** thread before you post again.
    Click to expand...

    So ill just read through the 600 or so replys to this thread before I post my opinion, sounds like fun.
  18. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/military-rape-enemy-within-the-ranks/?_r=0#/1/

    26,000 sexual assault cases in the US military where reported in 2012.
    Plus at least a couple thousand more that went unreported.

    Yeah, I'm living under a rock.
  19. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    Austupaio said:
    Your exact post has been repeated and refuted many, many times in this thread.
    Click to expand...

    If that's the case then men are becoming weak and cowardly. Any man who does not protect a woman in combat should not be in the military.

    I highly doubt that men will not be engaged in sexual affairs with female comrades, unless they are being watched 24/7. If you're telling me 18-20 year old male recruits with jacked up hormones and an assault rifle wouldn't want to have some fun with the girls then I must be living under a rock.
  20. FUBAR!!!

    Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

    If women are going to be put into front line combat they should probably be separated from the men. Females should be put in female regiments to be kept away from males to prevent intimate relationships from happening. Knowing myself, if I was in the position of being without sexual contact for 8 months, in some middle eastern **** hole, with a few young ladies in my regiment, I would probably at least try to make some moves on them.

    There can also be a problem when it comes to male instinct to protect women, I take it very seriously when a man is being violent towards women. I know it sounds very old fashioned and traditional but that is how I was raised and I am sure that other men feel the same way, especially military men who often have traditional values like myself.
Back
Top Bottom