Pentagon to allow Women into frontline combat by 2016

Users who are viewing this thread

FUBAR!!! said:
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.

Oh, so you want to find a part of the thread that is relevant to your argument, but you don't want to read every post to do it. If only there were some way to look only at the posts that contain relevant keywords so you wouldn't have to sift through all of the posts manually...
 
FUBAR!!! said:
Wonder who is being illogical here.

When you participate in a debate, you should you know everything that has been said. Otherwise you'll be greatly disadvantaged 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.
 
kabogh said:
FUBAR!!! said:
Wonder who is being illogical here.

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

I can. It took me less than a minute.
Something other then what I have already posted on the subject?

Just a handful from the first page of results:
Seff said:
I've met enough girls in the serious end of the army that I don't doubt they can fulfill the requirements for the job. Soldiers can easily be trusted with women, they handle all kinds of other temptations and limitations all the time. At least the soldiers I've worked with.

No, periods doesn't mean they can't go out on long operations.
No, the strength requirements for a front-line soldier aren't even close to the limit of what women can work themselves into being capable of. It takes more work than it does for men, but still very doable.

As for sexual harassment, I haven't seen harassment figures for any army that actually has women on the front line, only from the US forces where all the women are flying helicopters or sitting around in bases.
Swadius 2.0 said:
Angelus Lapsus Revan said:
I can see a problem where Men will probably disobey an order to save a female soldier that he likes.
Therefore probably getting people killed.

Seems about as likely as two close friends in the army disobeying orders to save each other. There are rules that govern certain forms of fraternization in armed forces. For example, some countries don't allow sexual relations to be conducted in the same unit.

Seff said:
As for sexual harassment, I haven't seen harassment figures for any army that actually has women on the front line, only from the US forces where all the women are flying helicopters or sitting around in bases.

To be fair though, sexual predators don't really care about the sex of the people they assault, it is purely about dominance. In the documentary the Invisible War, half of the profiled people who were sexually assaulted in the US military were men. I and the social and lawyers in the film suspect that there are many more, but with the masculinity being a cornerstone of being a soldier in the armed forces, very few come forward.
Nahkuri said:
Wait, the handshaker guy wasn't kidding with any of his ****? I demand an explanation.

EDIT: Oh, and I've met women plenty of times who would make better frontline soldiers than a lot of the guys that were conscripted with me. As for sexual harassment? The thing Seff said about US lady-POGs getting harassed is probably because they don't get the same respect a frontline soldier would get. I'm having a hard time imagining anyone going for the ass of U.S Marine Birgitte Manjaw if she was an experienced and skilled combat veteran who can handle her **** out there, even if she was, like, totally hot.
Kevlar said:
http://m.ajc.com/news/news/women-divided-over-new-role-in-combat/nT7RW/

Article basically mentions most points stated here like physical ability and sexual harassment.
Seff said:
Read part two as well, just for good measure. That article seems to have a lot of holes.

A lot of the issues she brings up are caused by double standards, something that nobody (in their right mind) would ever advocate. They do indeed lower the all-round combat efficiency, and should be abolished. She says "It’s not all about qualification, but...", but it IS. If we bar women from combat because of their sex instead of their (lack of) capabilities, we're also lowering all-round combat efficiency.

If we stop testing people based on double standards, we get rid of all the women that are prone to fail when they're on their period (news to me, but I'm no expert of the menstrual cycle), the women who can't carry a heavier man.

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.

Urinary tract infections isn't something I know anything specific about, but I'm sure Jhess can shed some light on it.
 
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.

Consider my statement here and the statistics you posted, FUBAR, and see if you can conclude anything about my impression of US soldiers. :razz:
 
**** 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.
 
I wish it was an unfounded opinion, but I've seen some seriously dumb **** done by them. Brits at times too.

Of course I assume we do dumb **** of a different kind, but I'm biased. :3
 
Rape is not something a lonely young soldier full of hormones is inclined to do anyway. Rape is an act of violence and the motivation for doing it doesn't come out of a desperate desire to have sex.

I just thought I'd throw that in here, for the hell of it. The problem with soldiers having consensual sex and making babies is a seperate issue and is not insurmountable unless your male and female soldiers are dogs and cats, in that case you would have to resort to spaying and castration.
 
Rape is something many (much more than we would like to think) men would do if they could get away with it. The militaries have their own culture of secrecy and bros covering for you, so it's easier to avoid punishment.
 
MadVader said:
Rape is something many (much more than we would like to think) men would do if they could get away with it. The militaries have their own culture of secrecy and bros covering for you, so it's easier to avoid punishment.

I choose to believe people have higher morals than that.
 
Back
Top Bottom