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.
I mean seriously.. Let's be honest. Do you honestly think that most women cant pass the physical testing (same as the men) carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc... What is the benefit of having females serve in combat roles when A) most wont be able to handle it anyways and B) it will inevitably cause a disturbance within the unit?
Wars have been fought for thousands of years without females.. Let me ask you. Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?
"Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?"
"Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?"
Maybe. It depends on the women involved.
No, it doesn't. I spent two years in the infantry, 1968-1970, and I have yet to meet any woman who could have dealt with the physical aspects of that.
Most women are not nearly as physically strong as most men. That's a fact. It wouldn't surprise me if some left wing nut came in here and tried to argue the point, some of them really are that delusional, but what can I say.
But hey that small minority of women who can "carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc" are free to sign up.
To answer your question, the benefit is that it makes the moonbats feel warm and fuzzy inside.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,368,826 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyronHarpoons
?
I mean seriously.. Let's be honest. Do you honestly think that most women cant pass the physical testing (same as the men) carry around 70 plus pounds, stay out on missions for several days, handle a massive assault rifle etc... What is the benefit of having females serve in combat roles when A) most wont be able to handle it anyways and B) it will inevitably cause a disturbance within the unit?
Wars have been fought for thousands of years without females.. Let me ask you. Do you honestly think that women who received the same training as men could have stormed the beaches of Normandy sucessfully against a wall of German/French/Czech/Italian men, tanks and artillery?
What makes you think every combat role requires the ability to carry around 70+ pounds?
There are female pilots who can fly rings around most males, no carrying required.
What many fail to take into consideration is that the nature of warfare is not what it was during the Viet Nam conflict or any time previous.
Women have been serving on the front lines since the beginning of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. This change merely makes that reality official for purposes of promotion, etc.
In any event, seems to me this was already hashed out here:
I do not think women are suited for combat but I think there are many roles they can fill that they are just as good or better than men at.
Activist women see this as another hurtle for them to jump, another challenge for their activism/conflict addiction. But they should give this one up. You don't have to serve in combat to make a great, positive impact on the military.
I personally believe the military will be much better with women equally involved, but just not in combat.
It seems to me that the former Soviet Union proved that women can hold their own in battle.
Vietnam women fought against our soldiers.
Yes women can fight. The old adage don't get captured by the women comes to mind.
As someone pointed out a woman flying an Apache gunship can squeeze the trigger just as easily as a man flying the same machine.
I think a good example of why women are simply not suited for many jobs, combat, firefighter, police officer--is the women's olympic hockey team. They practice against 13 and 14 year old boys because that is their physical level at their peak. They are no match for 15 and 16 year old boys, and those boys are not good enough to be olympians ever. That is how far above physically men are over women naturally.
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.
