Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Somehow the soldiers who are shorter than 5' 8" are going to disagree with nzrugy's idiotic statement. Even men who are 5' 6" are supposed to not weigh more than ~140lbs with muscle
Well dear boy I weighed in at 110 Kg/225 lb at 6' 3", and we has no men in support company who weighed 140 LB.
But fair enough you believe 120 lb women are capable of carting a 81 mm.
Well dear boy I weighed in at 110 Kg/225 lb at 6' 3", and we has no men in support company who weighed 140 LB.
But fair enough you believe 120 lb women are capable of carting a 81 mm.
I refer you to post #33. Finding people who can carry heavy loads is easier than finding people who'll single-handedly stop an enemy attack by firing a 50-cal on top of a burning tank destroyer until the ammo runs out.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 01-23-2013 at 10:33 PM..
"Plugs" thought the war in Iraq was a great idea. He voted for it.
He was given false info. by the Bushies.
Quote:
BO thought an increase in troop strength in Afghanistan was a good idea. He sent them.
He sent them....because he wanted to get us out of the war.
Quote:
I don't think Bill Clinton was too opposed to sending folks to the Balkans. In fact, he has bemoaned not sending folks to Africa in 1994-1995.
He was CinC, and those were humanitarian crises, genocides. Not wars driven by money concerns or ideology (like those stirred up by right wing media gasbags or Repub corrupt pols). Still don't see any leftist chickenhawks. Meanwhile, the Limbaughs, Romneys, Cheneys, Wolfowitzes, Thomases, and many other rightists avoided the 'Nam like the plague.
Men would be so busy chasing skirt and competing with other men for the few women around them, it'd destroy moral. Inevitably a couple men will be the lucky ones, the rest will hold grudges, showboat for the women, etc. If women are to serve, segregate.
How does one know anything. This is the information age. I've never been in the military but I know that sex happens. Consensual and not. Put men and women together and sex happens. If you are a high ranking male in the military... ... after just a short time in the military Jessica Lynch had had sexual relations with a number of superior male officers. Maybe that's why they moved heaven and earth to rescue her after her kidnap. I doubt they would have expended all that manpower to find me. I have to go against my Liberal brethren on this one and agree with those who think that women in combat is a very bad idea. Women are charged with creating life. They can, of course, take life, in the defending of their children but the kind of killing done by modern military forces is at a remove from the kind of killing that women would have known before the advent of nation states and organized warfare. There are of course women so masculine that they would cause not the slightest stir in a barracks.... or would they not... they may want to think that men should be over it and simply think of them as "one of the boys" but is that a realistic position?? This isn't some science fiction movie where to create gratuitus shock, the audience sees men and women in coed showers or something similar. Maybe in 400 years, but not now.
I am a liberal. I don't think women in combat is a good idea and to be honest I don't know many liberals who do.
A young woman is an extremely valuable demographic asset compared to a man. In order to produce 1,000 babies in a one year span, you need 1,000 woman. You only need one man. (arguably zero men i.e. sperm banks)
There is simply no good reason for women to be fighting alongside men, barring the desperate need for more soldiers.
There is simply no good reason for women to be fighting alongside men, barring the desperate need for more soldiers.
Even then, not alongside men. Separate units. If some women want to die for their country, let them in their own units. Let's see how they do. I'm actually being serious here and not facetious.
If you're not prepared to integrate the prisons then you shouldn't bother with the military. This is pure wishful thinking not grounded in biology or spirit of the sexes.
A young woman is an extremely valuable demographic asset compared to a man. In order to produce 1,000 babies in a one year span, you need 1,000 woman. You only need one man. (arguably zero men i.e. sperm banks)
Are Americans in danger of going extinct?
This seems like stupid reasoning.
Quote:
There is simply no good reason for women to be fighting alongside men, barring the desperate need for more soldiers.
There is simply no good reason for women not to be fighting alongside men.
There were few red army women on the front lines, this is a myth.
And I gave a reason that everyone ignored:
Men would be so busy chasing skirt and competing with other men for the few women around them, it'd destroy moral. Inevitably a couple men will be the lucky ones, the rest will hold grudges, showboat for the women, etc. If women are to serve, segregate.
I think it's a good idea. Women wanted equality, now they got it. Let them serve in combat. Men have sacrificed their lives for many decades.
Maybe one day, they'll be required to register for Selective Service.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
