Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

[FUBAR!!!]

Your exact post has been repeated and refuted many, many times in this thread.

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.

 

[FUBAR!!!]

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.

 

[Swadius 2.0]

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.

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

 

[FUBAR!!!]

it's good of you to admit it.

now read the ******** thread before you post again.

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

 

[CryoNomad]

There were still Caesars in Rome for the next 400 years.  I'm still not sure what truly made it a demarcation point.  That's a really, really arbitrary date beyond the fact that Marcus Aurelius died then.  The administration was still functionally the same.

Sorry I missed your reply. The author makes note of it under that point here:

The division of Rome into two periods
may be thought unwarranted. The first, or
republican, period dates from the time when
Rome became the mistress of Italy, and ends
with the accession of Augustus. The imperial
period extends from the accession of
Augustus to the death of Marcus Aurelius. It
is true that the empire survived nominally
for more than a century after this date, but it
did so in constant confusion, rebellions, civil
wars and barbarian invasions.

Seeing how The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon seems to agree with him as Commodus was the end of anything good about the Roman Empire it's plausable. He does mention dates aren't exact years but close in his defence.

 

[Dodes]

And a mid-sized moon.

Spoiler

"We're caught in its tractor beam, it's pulling us in!"

 

[FrisianDude]

it's good of you to admit it.

now read the ******** thread before you post again.

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

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Ignore all opinions so you can post your own! Ignore all evidence, all fact, all nuance in favour of your gut-feeling!

 

[Goker]

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.

Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ****ing follow some goddamn rules.

 

[Sir Saladin]

Following the rules are kind of what soldiers should do, I guess.

 

[Dodes]

Following the rules are kind of what soldiers should do, I guess.

How are soldiers supposed to glitch out of the level and find Easter Eggs then?

 

[Sir Saladin]

Only the exceptional ones like Schwarzenegger and Stallone could do dose kinds of tings.

 

[Dodes]

Fair enough. That's actually a very good idea because then soldiers would have an incentive to destroy battle tanks with a combat knife and a fragmentation grenade while shirtless. Think how much the military would save in its budget!

 

[Úlfheðinn]

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.

Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ****ing follow some goddamn rules.

There is a reason psychological evaluations are good 

 

[FUBAR!!!]

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.

Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ******** follow some goddamn rules.

No, I'm not in the military because I want to achieve something with my life, not because I can't follow orders.

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.

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

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

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.

Perhaps men like you shouldn't be in the military if they can't ******** follow some goddamn rules.

There is a reason psychological evaluations are good 

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.

 

[FrisianDude]

No, I'm not in the military because I want to achieve something with my life, not because I can't follow orders.

Fat chance if you won't even read the thread before drivelling on it.

 

[FUBAR!!!]

No, I'm not in the military because I want to achieve something with my life, not because I can't follow orders.

Fat chance if you won't even read the thread before drivelling on it.

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.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

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.

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.

 

[FUBAR!!!]

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.

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.

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.

 

[FrisianDude]

And it's REPLIES ffs. >>>>>:U

 

[FUBAR!!!]

Problem is that your attempts at discussion are not logical.

And also old. Debunked. And boring.

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.