“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#106 Dec 7, 2012
Deer Whisperer wrote:
Not thinking outside the traditional combat box is not getting it:
How likely is hand-to-hand, toe-to-toe combat in our modern armed forces?
Reiterating from previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
****In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered.******
From The Art of War:

It is not the strongest but the smartest.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#107 Dec 7, 2012
Fish_sticks wrote:
<quoted text>You my friend, are the perfect example of a man's man. I could never imitate you. Go get 'em tiger!
<lol>
Lol...it's just that I've never seen a huge dropoff in anything when differentiating men versus women. Like I said - there are exceptions - NFL, MLB, NBA - but those are spectator sports and situations. Combat situations are entirely different nowadays than they were in Vietnam. Heck, we've even changing the way we fly planes, making the gamers war heros (flying remote control drones).

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

#108 Dec 7, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Its nothing personal or macho about it. Its a matter of natural fact. SOME women may be able for short duration keep up the pace,but you cannot deny your own physiology. But hey,if you girls want to put on the big boy pants-go for it. Just remember,nothing is worse than getting what you wish for......
I am not saying I wish for it, I am saying it is coming.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#109 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Not everything about combat can be put in a test tube so one must used sime common sense once in a while. There are still situations where a foot soldier must make a run for it and the average man can cover the same distance in sigificantly less time than the average woman, not to mention that a typical man can run further without needing to stop to catch his breath. Waiting for a woman to catch up could have fatal consequences. All I can say is that if women want to serve on the front lines, they should be required to meet the exact same standards as men including the ability to cover a certain distance in full field gear in a certain length of time.
You're assuming again, you're assuming again...

Waiting for a woman to catch up? My guess is that those same women would be waiting for you to catch up - most women in the service I know can run 4-miles in a better time than 23 minutes. You assume so much but yet the femnazi shows through everytime - so at least you're consistent in that regard.
Level 6

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#110 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
From The Art of War:
It is not the strongest but the smartest.
<whsiper>There is also a entire section dedicated to women and their use but not as force or strength but almost as scouts, spies, to subterfuge enemies lines,... info, recon...
Level 6

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#111 Dec 7, 2012
<skids out>laundry!

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#112 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're like chasing a herd of cats.
Here's a link that supports my arguement that women are closing the intelligence gap with men (even exceeding men):
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/07/16...
"The physical and psychological weakness argument receives opposition from an article published in the Army Times July 29, 1996, that stated that in practice, some women do possess the necessary physical attributes to becoming elite combat soldiers. It is further argued that the extent to which the fighting attributes required for effective combat performance is underestimated. Even in men, these attributes are not inherent but rather enhanced through TRAINING. Thus, some of the purported physical weakness in women can be overcome through TRAINING, challenging the long-term impact of gender stereotypes both in the military and other civilian professions inherited from the past. On the other hand, the cases of guerilla combat and the recruitment of women in the Soviet armies show that in extreme scenarios, women are and have success. Furthermore, by dismissing the Culture and Tradition argument where women were only deployed in supportive functions, one needs to have the big picture in mind. In the general Ďbusinessí world, employment opportunities for women are increasing as well as considerations for equality rights (Moskos, Williams., & Segal, 1999).
Superior intellect does not always translate to being a more effective foot soldier as many if not most critical combat decisions must be made instinctively rather than pondered over. Taking too much time to ponder a decision could get one killed on a battlefield anyway. According to your link, The difference is rather infinitesimal in IQs between the sexes and that in some countries, the men still score higher. There could also be some variables not being accounted for as well. All this said, the point is moot anyway as IQ has only a very limited role in determining whether one can be a good soldier or not.

BTW, the last women who was in charge of the every day operations of a company I worked for almost ran the company into the ground, bu the company was sold before that could happen and the new owners gave her a pink slip and not the type she could wear.

There may be a few women as the Army Times article stated. And let me stress that it would be just a few. As I stated in another post, men could be put at risk on the field of combat waiting for the women to catch up.

“I call it as I see it.”

Level 8

Since: Jul 09

Retirement City

#113 Dec 7, 2012
I have stated my feelings on this issue and now it seems we are are rehashing the same basic themes which means that I feel my work is done here. Rather than having Milwaukee 69 and I dominate the thread, I will let others have a chance to have their say. This is not the first thread where we have had stark differences of opinion.

“Never summon "Anything" ....”

Level 7

Since: Feb 11

..... you can't banish, lol

#114 Dec 7, 2012
Well .... there one thing this woman can do and that's go to work.
So enjoy the day people.

“Never summon "Anything" ....”

Level 7

Since: Feb 11

..... you can't banish, lol

#115 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
I have stated my feelings on this issue and now it seems we are are rehashing the same basic themes which means that I feel my work is done here. Rather than having Milwaukee 69 and I dominate the thread, I will let others have a chance to have their say. This is not the first thread where we have had stark differences of opinion.
That's how it rolls around here, lol.
Have a good one.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#116 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
With an emphasis on standards. Remember, there are currently no standards for this situation.
Currently, recruits donít have to be able to do so many sit ups, push-ups, and run at a certain minimal pace for a certain duration?
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>Secondly, most - if not all - of us are used to dealing with the opposite sex on a daily basis in civilian life only.
We also get to go home to our SOís every night. I think comparing civilian life to being on the battle field and away from home for long stretches of time is apples to oranges.
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>Professional relationships aside, combat situations would be entirely different. I think Bex mentioned it earlier - with the case of woman cops versus male cops - the Tazer knows no size or sex limits - down you go whether it is deployed by a man or a woman. The same can be said for firearms. There are very few if any hand-to-hand situations in combat anymore. It's not the Middle Ages where we mount our soldiers on chargers and trod them into battle. Physically I am well aware of the differences - mentally I'm not so sure men have the edge anymore - which is where modern warefare is headed.
I would never say women are inferior to men mentally and I agree they have certainly have advantages, but generally men are faster and stronger than women. No amount of PCness is going to change that.

Cops donít have to lug huge bag packs around and keep up with their platoon. Iím pretty darn sure very few women could match my pace, when loaded down with 70 pounds of gear or whatever they carry. So, what, Iíd have to slow down my pace to allow them to keep up? If speed were unimportant in combat, the Germanís would not have been so successful in WWII initially.

Another alternative is to lighten their load, however, there are adverse consequences to this, carrying less ammo, less supplies, or whatever.

Letís say you get injured on the battle field, who do you think would be better off dragging or carrying you out of harms way Ö a man or a woman?. When you are in combat, itís not like you can just call an ambulance, like a cop can if someone goes down. You also often times canít just call for backup and have reinforcements there in 5 to 10 minutes. Iíd also say a copís primary duty isnít to engage enemies in combat, like a front line soldier. Itís just not the same comparison.

Lastly, we also don't know where the next war will be fought. Sure some place like Iraq, where you can use vehicles to get around a lot, it might be easier for women to serve, but let's say you are in the jungle and have to go on this long patrols marching in the jungle for days and days and carry all that you need in with you. That's a lot more difficult from an endurance perspective.

I don't think it's fair to require men to face more danger, just so women feel they are being treated equally. To me a life is worth more than someone's feelings.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#117 Dec 7, 2012
flbadcatowner wrote:
<quoted text>Superior intellect does not always translate to being a more effective foot soldier as many if not most critical combat decisions must be made instinctively rather than pondered over. Taking too much time to ponder a decision could get one killed on a battlefield anyway. According to your link, The difference is rather infinitesimal in IQs between the sexes and that in some countries, the men still score higher. There could also be some variables not being accounted for as well. All this said, the point is moot anyway as IQ has only a very limited role in determining whether one can be a good soldier or not.
BTW, the last women who was in charge of the every day operations of a company I worked for almost ran the company into the ground, bu the company was sold before that could happen and the new owners gave her a pink slip and not the type she could wear.
There may be a few women as the Army Times article stated. And let me stress that it would be just a few. As I stated in another post, men could be put at risk on the field of combat waiting for the women to catch up.
First of all - the modern "foot" soldier is a misnomer. They ride.

Secondly, by "attempting" to prove your point by examining your own career shortcomings is lame - really lame. Men drive companies into the ground all the time - sh*tty corporate executives are not gender specific. Lastly, don't do a Rmoney flip-flop and start agreeing with my sites - find your own.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#118 Dec 7, 2012
Deer Whisperer wrote:
Not thinking outside the traditional combat box is not getting it:
How likely is hand-to-hand, toe-to-toe combat in our modern armed forces?
Reiterating from previous post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_combat
****In modern warfare where intelligence is perhaps more important than enemy casualties, every factor reducing combatants' willingness to fight is considered.******
Like I said, when you are fighting in a desert and can see your enemy from 5 miles away, maybe hand to hand is less likely. However, not all combat takes place in that environment. You don't know where the next war will be.

If you are in the jungle the chances for hand to hand combat increases.

People always are fighting the last war, and the fact is that men will be in danger, just so women feel equal. If they want to serve, men should be able to opt out serving with them, IMO. Go form all women's divisions and I guarantee in certain settings you will see a huge disparity in the death rates.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#119 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all - the modern "foot" soldier is a misnomer. They ride.
Again, you are fighting the last war. In the last war they did ride, but you don't know where the next war would be.

Vehicle technology has not changed so much since Vietnam such that we would now fight a war such as that primarily from vehicles. You tell me, can our tanks or APCs now suddenly do something that the tanks and APCs couldn't do back then, when it comes to traveling through a jungle environment? I don't think so.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#120 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are fighting the last war. In the last war they did ride, but you don't know where the next war would be.
Vehicle technology has not changed so much since Vietnam such that we would now fight a war such as that primarily from vehicles. You tell me, can our tanks or APCs now suddenly do something that the tanks and APCs couldn't do back then, when it comes to traveling through a jungle environment? I don't think so.
Again - technology rules the battlefront.

Drones will keep us from hand-to-hand. I liken this to modern air war. It used to be that you could see your opponent - now, if you see your opponent, your dead. Same goes for the modern battlefield.

Maybe we're all missing the point here - there is no "real" combat anymore - just police patrols and drones. Jungle warefare - regardless of man or woman - is generally set aside for the elite.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#121 Dec 7, 2012
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again - technology rules the battlefront.
Drones will keep us from hand-to-hand. I liken this to modern air war. It used to be that you could see your opponent - now, if you see your opponent, your dead. Same goes for the modern battlefield.
You canít use drones in the jungle. They canít see through the canopy, even with thermal imaging. Regardless of the environment, drones also don't work well when it is overcast.
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe we're all missing the point here - there is no "real" combat anymore - just police patrols and drones. Jungle warefare - regardless of man or woman - is generally set aside for the elite.
You could never fight a war on the scale of say Vietnam with only elite soldiers.

There arenít even enough elite males who enjoy pushing themselves that hard to fight a war like that with only the elites. There are very few men who will willingly train that hard and push their bodies to the limit and there are many men who wonít. Not only do you have to be very physically fit and have great endurance, but you need a brain and now how to use it to be elite. You need to be a 1%er. By definition, there is only 1% who are 1%ers.

So what I have said stands true. I think it's foolish to invest resources training all these women for combat, when they can only be used effectively in certain situations. More people will die as a result. If women want to die so they feel equal, that's their choice, but men shouldn't have to go along for the ride. Men should be able to opt out from serving with women in combat rolls. I wouldn't want to.
Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#122 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>

So what I have said stands true. I think it's foolish to invest resources training all these women for combat, when they can only be used effectively in certain situations.
You're missing the point. There should be no resources spent to train women. You have the same training. Open it to both genders. If a woman passes then she's in. If not, she's out. No special accommodations. No special training.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#124 Dec 7, 2012
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. There should be no resources spent to train women. You have the same training. Open it to both genders. If a woman passes then she's in. If not, she's out. No special accommodations. No special training.
I agree, but that's not what they are doing and will be doing:

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/mike-huckabee-new...

Given this, I don't think men should be forced to serve with them.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

#125 Dec 7, 2012
EraserX wrote:
<quoted text>
You're missing the point. There should be no resources spent to train women. You have the same training. Open it to both genders. If a woman passes then she's in. If not, she's out. No special accommodations. No special training.
Agreed - but opponents would still find a way of complaining about it even if only one made it through. aka: G.I. Jane
Level 6

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#126 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, but that's not what they are doing and will be doing:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/mike-huckabee-new...
Given this, I don't think men should be forced to serve with them.
The question at hand was whether women belonged on the front line. We are not discussing current policy or practices. Done right, there is no reason a woman should not be allowed on the front.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 7 min Parden Pard 3,405
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 8 min Nobody 2 Special 21,349
The Weirdest White House Security BreachesThe S... 12 min dragoon70056 12
Ebola in America 13 min Get A Grip 18
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 15 min Bill 13,356
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 15 min -Lea- 6,402
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 min Chilli J 117,417
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 21 min Tom2Tone 147,661
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 24 min Poster 24
Jeff Goldbluma s bizarre new lightbulb ad 2 hr xxxooxxx 4

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE