Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

US military to lift ban on women in combat


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#31 Jai604

Jai604

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,039 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:28 AM

Uniform standards for training and selection, boom, I have absolutely no problem with this.

Short of the biological differences in levels of aggression due to hormones and such, if a woman is strong enough, fast enough, and able to make the field decisions that a man can, I don't see any reason why a woman can't serve her country with honour as much as a man can.

Again, uniform standards, no exceptions.
  • 1

RIP LB RR PD


#32 sam13371337

sam13371337

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:53 AM

Besides kill enemy soldiers? You make it sound like it's never happened before.

http://en.wikipedia....ila_Pavlichenko

I don't think anyone's saying reduce the tough physical requirement each military job would require. No reason someone that is qualified and willing to do the job should be banned based on gender.


There are exceptional examples all over.

im not going to make a sexism issue out of this, although there are some people who have nothing better to do then to try and pick out anything that outrages their false plastic sensibilities and try to MOB you with name calling. This sort of Childish intimidation tactics do not really work on me.

But this has been debated, and professional officers in most militaries around the world have always put the idea down for numerous practical reaons. And its always been politicans pushing it for political reasons.

that alone should be telling.

Edited by sam13371337, 24 January 2013 - 11:03 AM.

  • 0
Fire MG

#33 sam13371337

sam13371337

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:02 AM

The 1950's are calling you home.


are the 1950s calling her home???

a retired female soldier saying women shouldnt serve

Speaking on the day US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta promised to integrate women "to the maximum extent possible" in the military, retired Major Judith Webb said she was against the move.
Major Webb told Channel 4 News: "It has nothing to do with the emotional side, bravery or courage - it's about the physical demands.
"I used to feel there was more to it than that but there isn't, it just comes down to the physical", she added.
It is a view shared by US marine Captain Katie Petronio whose article "Get over it! We are not all created equal" was published in the Marine Corps Gazette last year.
The physical toll is harder on women, Captain Petronio argues, adding that after five years in the marines she is "not physically the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry".
A combat-experienced officer, Captain Petronio's stints in Iraq and Afghanistan have left her with restless leg syndrome and muscle atrophy, and rendered her infertile.
"At the end of the 7-month deployment...I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment," she said.



http://www.channel4....-female-veteran


people have difference of opinion. mature adults agree to disagree.

personally speakin, if i disagree with someone i dont see the need to resort to name calling/ belittling.

Edited by sam13371337, 24 January 2013 - 11:03 AM.

  • 2
Fire MG

#34 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:03 AM

Some of you folks need to meet my ex-wife .. Irish temper, a crack shot AND the ability to hold a grudge for decades .. I would rather fight a man than a woman .. men are easily distracted .. :rolleyes:
  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#35 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:11 AM

This same issue arose with the RCMP when it was mandated that female constables would not be restricted to desk jobs anymore and would be working out in the field. The good ol' boys club were outraged, the male culture belief being that women did not have any place being out on the front lines...they were a liability.......yet here they are, in 2013, working on those front lines out on the street.

I see the same comments being made about women in combat as I see (saw) still being made about women in the RCMP then. About size, ability to do the job, inability to meet physical requirements etc. It IS a sexism issue when it has been shown and proven, time and time again, that women are capable of doing the job and yet, it's the men who have traditionally held this role having &^%$ conniptions about it. Are they really THAT threatened? You really think women will be allowed on the field of combat if they haven't been qualified to do so? It would be funny if it weren't so darned sad. Are your egos really so fragile?

("Your" applying to some, not all, men/boys)

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 11:24 AM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#36 sam13371337

sam13371337

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

This same issue arose with the RCMP when it was mandated that female constables would not be restricted to desk jobs anymore and would be working out in the field. The good ol' boys club were outraged, the male culture belief being that women did not have any place being out on the front lines...yet here they are, in 2013, working on those front lines out on the street.

I see the same comments being made about women in combat as I see (saw) still being made about women in the RCMP then. About size, ability to do the job, inability to meet physical requirements etc. It IS a sexism issue when it has been shown and proven, time and time again, that women are capable of doing the job and yet, it's the men who have traditionally held this role having &^%$ conniptions about it. Are they really THAT threatened? You really think women will be allowed on the field of combat if they haven't been qualified to do so? It would be funny if it weren't so darned sad. Are your egos really so fragile?

("Your" applying to some, not all, men/boys)


who said anything about anyone being threatened??

the only person that comes across looking threatened is you to be honest.

you seem to think the slightest highliting of facts about the differences in women and men equals some sort of grotesque macho sexism......

that is not the case. Nobdody (at least not me) is trying to do that.

With that being said, your point of comparing RCMP police officers to combat soldiers shows that you may not be fully informed about the issues.

The mental/physical stresses a police officer goes through is FAR different then what a Combat soldier faces .they do not even compare.

A combat soldier faces daily marches/patrols in extreme weathers, wearing around a 100pounds of gear, and possibly being away from base for many days while actively seeking out very dangerous enemy combatants.. you cant seriously tell me thats in the everyday job description of the RCMP?

(and no, seeing combat is far different then being a combat soldier. Seeing combat is being attached to a company that comes under attack. You may or not shoot back(look at jessica lynch). Combat troops actively search for and eliminate enemy combatants.)

Edited by sam13371337, 24 January 2013 - 12:23 PM.

  • 0
Fire MG

#37 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:38 AM

Great! Now I would like to see all the PRO-WAR women back up their talk with ACTION!

If they won't, then shut the hell up and go bake a cake or something! Same goes for all the chickenhawk men.


Whatever your thoughts or sentiments are about women getting killed or raped in war, or whether they are physically or mentally up to the challenge, doesn't the above principle stand out loud and clear? Wouldn't you rather have them give it their all, instead of any unwilling conscript? After all, it is THEIR war.
  • 1

#38 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 11:44 AM

who said anything about anyone being threatened??

the only personally that comes across looking threatened is you to be honest.

you seem to think the slightest highliting of facts about the differences in women and men equals some sort of grotesque macho sexism......

that is not the case. Nobdody (at least not me) is trying to do that.

With that being said, your point of comparing RCMP police officers to combat soldiers shows that you may not be fully informed about the issues.

The mental/physical stresses a police officer goes through is FAR different then what a Combat soldier faces .they do not even compare.

A combat soldier faces daily marches/patrols in extreme weathers, wearing around a 100pounds of gear, and possibly being away from base for many days while actively seeking out very dangerous enemy combatants.. you cant seriously tell me thats in the everyday job description of the RCMP?

(and no, seeing combat is far different then being a combat soldier. Seeing combat is being attached to a company that comes under attack. You may or not shoot back(look at jessica lynch). Combat troops actively search for and eliminate enemy combatants.)


This one ^^^ does get a face palm. :picard:

The good ol' boys club attitude and sexism prevalent in both the military, the RCMP and a certain segment of the male population are right on target (which is what was being compared), but thanks anyway.

If a fully qualified woman takes on a combat role knowing what the downside can be, then she is perfectly within her rights to choose that role and who is anyone to tell her she is incapable or can't when the mandate is on her side.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 11:51 AM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#39 sam13371337

sam13371337

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,831 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:07 PM

This one ^^^ does get a face palm. :picard:

The good ol' boys club attitude and sexism prevalent in both the military, the RCMP and a certain segment of the male population are right on target (which is what was being compared), but thanks anyway.

If a fully qualified woman takes on a combat role knowing what the downside can be, then she is perfectly within her rights to choose that role and who is anyone to tell her she is incapable or can't when the mandate is on her side.


As it stands BASIC TRAINING standards are heavily gender based. the womens standard is far easier. (im not trying to be sexist by saying this so please relax. im just pointing out a fact. )

Based on that, How can it be realistic that the far tougher combat standards would remain the same, yet enough women make it in that it would justifity all the logistical/practical hurdles of incorporating them?

somethings got to give.

there is no argueing your point on a human rights basis. it is very reasonable to say a qualified woman should serve if she wants to.

but that is your opinion and your entiteled to it. My opinion is, that the military is a no-nonesense place where people die. its a matter of maximizing your potential to minimize your losses.. bringing in women who got in through lower standards, and kicking out a more qualified person (as thats what enevitably will happen, (there are a finite number of jobs)). does not serve that purpose and its not just your own life, if you cant pull your weight as a real soldier you will get others killed.

personally speaking, i still believe common sense, and military needs should always be put above everything else.
  • 0
Fire MG

#40 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:14 PM

As it stands BASIC TRAINING standards are heavily gender based. the womens standard is far easier. (im not trying to be sexist by saying this so please relax. im just pointing out a fact. )

Based on that, How can it be realistic that the far tougher combat standards would remain the same, yet enough women make it in that it would justifity all the logistical/practical hurdles of incorporating them?

somethings got to give.

there is no argueing your point on a human rights basis. it is very reasonable to say a qualified woman should serve if she wants to.

but that is your opinion and your entiteled to it. My opinion is, that the military is a no-nonesense place where people die. its a matter of maximizing your potential to minimize your losses.. bringing in women who got in through lower standards, and kicking out a more qualified person (as thats what enevitably will happen, (there are a finite number of jobs)). does not serve that purpose and its not just your own life, if you cant pull your weight as a real soldier you will get others killed.

personally speaking, i still believe common sense, and military needs should always be put above everything else.


Fair enough. Opinions do differ and what would a debate/discussion be if we all agreed all the time? :)

Agree to disagree on certain points?

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 12:18 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#41 Tearloch7

Tearloch7

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,957 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:17 PM

Fair enough. Opinions do differ and what would a debate/discussion be if we all agreed all the time? :)

Agree to disagree on certain points?


**Softly hums the theme song to Annie** .. I love it when rational folks come to rational conclusions .. it is a rare beast indeed .. :)
  • 2

"To Thine Own Self Be True"

 

"Always tell the Truth. That way, you don’t have to remember what you said"  ~ Mark Twain ~
 


#42 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:48 PM

Is it possible that the woman could become distractions for the male soldiers? If they go out into combat, maybe their prioroty would secretly be the safety of their woman, rather then the mission and other fellow soldeirs. Just a thought. Flame away.

Edited by hsedin33, 24 January 2013 - 12:49 PM.

  • 1

#43 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:02 PM

The Israeli experience has been that infantry units with women in them are less effective and take more casualties, however there are a lot of combat trades besides infantry.

There are women serving in special operations units in many countries, these would have more of a urban reconnaissance/clandestine role than direct combat, but the training HAS to be a lot harder than with any kind of line infantry.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#44 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

The Israeli experience has been that infantry units with women in them are less effective and take more casualties, however there are a lot of combat trades besides infantry.

There are women serving in special operations units in many countries, these would have more of a urban reconnaissance/clandestine role than direct combat, but the training HAS to be a lot harder than with any kind of line infantry.


Source?
  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#45 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:07 PM

Is it possible that the woman could become distractions for the male soldiers? If they go out into combat, maybe their prioroty would secretly be the safety of their woman, rather then the mission and other fellow soldeirs. Just a thought. Flame away.


Like the navy does for their "bitch"?
  • 0

#46 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,196 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:16 PM

I have always thought women had far more common sense than to want pick up a gun and go and kill someone in the name of their country .


Most people don't join the military so they can kill someone.
  • 0

#47 Bitter Melon

Bitter Melon

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,036 posts
  • Joined: 04-August 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:16 PM

I really don't understand how you people are still arguing about women's ability to perform the jobs. This is isn't a draft anymore, any women who are in the military want to be there. If they're going into combat roles, they should have to meet the same requirements as men. Simple as that. Its not really an issue.
  • 0

#48 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,234 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:01 PM

**Softly hums the theme song to Annie** .. I love it when rational folks come to rational conclusions .. it is a rare beast indeed .. :)


There is nothing rational about humans senseslessly killing each other.

Edited by The Ratiocinator, 24 January 2013 - 03:36 PM.

  • 1

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#49 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

Source?


I was told in conversation by an IDF guy.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#50 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:14 PM

I was told in conversation by an IDF guy.


Aaah, well then....... it must be so....

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 02:15 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#51 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:32 PM

Aaah, well then....... it must be so....


What, was I supposed to record the conversion and put it on Youtube?
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#52 VoiceOfReason_

VoiceOfReason_

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 439 posts
  • Joined: 26-October 09

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

I don't see a problem with this. Surprised it took so long.
  • 0

#53 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 24 January 2013 - 02:54 PM

The idea is ABSURD but at this point I expect nothing less from our devolving society. Your average caveman had more common sense and awareness of sex differences when it came to work assignment. For my part, I would sooner die (likely from embarrassment alone) than have a woman I know engage in mortal combat on my behalf.

Since a nation was once defined as an extended family it follows that no modern Western democracy really is one. Men nowadays having such a high regard for their women and all…

Here are some numbers on why this is a bad idea. I haven’t the time or desire to sift through net censors for more PC sources, but there is no need since the info therein hints of truth for anyone with eyes. One set of standards will never be enforced as anyone living in the real world knows.

Always thought in a world of push-button nuke confrontation this stuff was relatively harmless, as antics of gender benders, professional equality fighters and all-round do-gooders go. But one day the shinola might just get real with the appearance of a competent adversary. Spreading degeneracy/democracy to infidels and enforcing imperial edicts on behalf of the New York-London-Tel Aviv new world order crowd is a never ending job. Big mission creep there.

People ought to recognize and accept their limitations: I don’t give counseling advice about feelings. Sedins can’t (and ought not) take penalty shots. And women…

Edited by Trelane42, 24 January 2013 - 02:54 PM.

  • 0

#54 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:02 PM

What, was I supposed to record the conversion and put it on Youtube?

The comment from BB has to do with anecdotal non-verifiable claims without any support.

Besides you are wrong. I was told the opposite by a senior Mossad operative.
NOTE the use of irony
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#55 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:05 PM

The idea is ABSURD but at this point I expect nothing less from our devolving society. Your average caveman had more common sense and awareness of sex differences when it came to work assignment. For my part, I would sooner die (likely from embarrassment alone) than have a woman I know engage in mortal combat on my behalf.

Since a nation was once defined as an extended family it follows that no modern Western democracy really is one. Men nowadays having such a high regard for their women and all…

Here are some numbers on why this is a bad idea. I haven’t the time or desire to sift through net censors for more PC sources, but there is no need since the info therein hints of truth for anyone with eyes. One set of standards will never be enforced as anyone living in the real world knows.

Always thought in a world of push-button nuke confrontation this stuff was relatively harmless, as antics of gender benders, professional equality fighters and all-round do-gooders go. But one day the shinola might just get real with the appearance of a competent adversary. Spreading degeneracy/democracy to infidels and enforcing imperial edicts on behalf of the New York-London-Tel Aviv new world order crowd is a never ending job. Big mission creep there.

People ought to recognize and accept their limitations: I don’t give counseling advice about feelings. Sedins can’t (and ought not) take penalty shots. And women…

Clint Eastwood agrees with you... when not talking to empty chairs.

  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#56 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:06 PM

The idea is ABSURD but at this point I expect nothing less from our devolving society. Your average caveman had more common sense and awareness of sex differences when it came to work assignment. For my part, I would sooner die (likely from embarrassment alone) than have a woman I know engage in mortal combat on my behalf.

Since a nation was once defined as an extended family it follows that no modern Western democracy really is one. Men nowadays having such a high regard for their women and all…

Here are some numbers on why this is a bad idea. I haven’t the time or desire to sift through net censors for more PC sources, but there is no need since the info therein hints of truth for anyone with eyes. One set of standards will never be enforced as anyone living in the real world knows.

Always thought in a world of push-button nuke confrontation this stuff was relatively harmless, as antics of gender benders, professional equality fighters and all-round do-gooders go. But one day the shinola might just get real with the appearance of a competent adversary. Spreading degeneracy/democracy to infidels and enforcing imperial edicts on behalf of the New York-London-Tel Aviv new world order crowd is a never ending job. Big mission creep there.

People ought to recognize and accept their limitations: I don’t give counseling advice about feelings. Sedins can’t (and ought not) take penalty shots. And women…



^^^ Ahhh, yes, the ol' "woman know thy place", "know thy limitations" philosophy. As set forth by whom???? Uhhh, the 1940s/50s called, they knew they were missing someone.

The sort of thinking expressed in the post above was quickly thrown out the window by women back in the late '40's when women proved they could keep traditionally male jobs, work heavy construction, keep the factories running that supported the war effort etc all the while watching their children and supporting them while the men folk were away doing 'impohtant stuff'.

The only limitations put on women are those imposed by men for the most part. Except for that ol' fathering children part but hell, women do all the most difficult part of child procreation, bearing and raising anyway. Seriously, the 40s/50's called........they're missing you.

"Absurd"? The people who are in the position to make an informed, knowledgeable decision about this issue have made it,. You know, those who actually KNOW the situation and it's ramifications. And I'm pretty sure there was a man or two involved in that decision making.


For my part, I would sooner die (likely from embarrassment alone) than have a woman I know engage in mortal combat on my behalf.


^^^ Is your ego really this fragile?



I'll say it again:

If a fully qualified woman takes on a combat role knowing what the downside can be, then she is perfectly within her rights to choose that role and who is anyone to tell her she is incapable or can't when the mandate is on her side.


Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 03:25 PM.

  • 2

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#57 Oregon Canucky

Oregon Canucky

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined: 23-September 11

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:16 PM

Im not sure why this is such a big deal...

Here are what im reading as obvious CONs to women in combat;

They might get raped
They have lower physical standards to "get-in"
They cant drag a wounded soldier to safety
They Might not pull the trigger

Now i can counter all of them with a RATIONAL answer (or 2)

They might get raped:
Its true. however its their decision to make and not yours. Men get raped, Women get raped by their own countrymen and in their own country (sadly) all of the time. The issue of rape should be considered separate from their "Ability to serve"

They have Lower standards to get in:
Currently YES they do... you know why? because they arend ALLOWED to hold the physically demanding jobs, thus they dont NEED the same standards. What comes first here the chicken or the egg? What would be stupid is requiring a woman to have the same physical strength as an infantry man while she shovels paper (or whatever else shes "ALLOWED" to do for her country)

They Cant Drag Someone to safety:
First of all i call bull crap on this... I have seen women suceed at amazing feats under stress, strain, danger, fear.
Women pull their male friends our of mosh pits, their husbands out of fires. They lift cars off their children and function as life guards to guys who flail and try to pull them under. Women succeed in the same physical standards men have for police forces and those test DO include dragging a 300 pound dummy. I feel that they would have amazing success yanking a guy through the dirt.
Secondly, Even if you want to let in "frailer" women, why not make a platoon of infantry women? Seems like such a simple solution... let them drag each other, protect each other, and sexually harass each other... They dont need men to do it, and i bet they can take out some "Bad-guys" while they're at it!

They might not pull the trigger:
They will. They are there because they choose to serve. They have the same morals and critical thinking/understanding as a man. They understand what their signing up for (at least as much as the next "guy")

Did i miss any points? im pretty sure i could come up with a pro argument... i really see no reason to exclude any one from anything... ever.

Edited by Oregon Canucky, 24 January 2013 - 03:20 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

Portland Oregon: The first U.S. city to play for the Stanley Cup!

#58 Electro Rock

Electro Rock

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,646 posts
  • Joined: 17-March 04

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:24 PM

The comment from BB has to do with anecdotal non-verifiable claims without any support.

Besides you are wrong. I was told the opposite by a senior Mossad operative.
NOTE the use of irony


I missed the part where we were presenting trial evidence.
  • 0
"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

Norman Thomas

#59 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:27 PM

I missed the part where we were presenting trial evidence.


You've been here long enough to know the expectation when making a 'factual' claim without citing or providing sources. The burden of proof is yours. Please don't insult the intelligence of those reading the thread.

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 24 January 2013 - 03:29 PM.

  • 1

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#60 MoneypuckOverlord

MoneypuckOverlord

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,519 posts
  • Joined: 24-September 09

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:33 PM

Is it possible that the woman could become distractions for the male soldiers? If they go out into combat, maybe their prioroty would secretly be the safety of their woman, rather then the mission and other fellow soldeirs. Just a thought. Flame away.


Yup. totally. they were talking about this on the news. Naturally, the men will care a little more for the female soldiers. men are also naturally more aggressive, tough, then women. I don't like the idea of this, on top of that women is more sensitive to pain then men. This is no joke. A commander was saying, women often also get hurt alot just during basic training.

But like someone else said, if they meet every qualification to go fight In the front line, then go for it. But I pray for that female soldier, that she does not have her period during that battle.
  • 0

Players Nikolaj Ehlers have been compared too by the fan base of the Vancouver Canucks.

 

1 Pavel Bure

2 Markus Naslund

3 Nathan Mackkinon

4 Jonathan Drouin.

5 Jonathan Tavares

 

http://bleacherrepor...d-top-prospects

combine results.  Ehlers 5'11 162 lbs of solid rock.  





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.