Started By
Message

re: What Trump reverse the decision to allow women in combat roles?

Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:01 pm to
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:01 pm to
A lot more than that needs to happen first.
Posted by Crimson Wraith
Member since Jan 2014
30097 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:05 pm to
quote:

Women having PMS would scare the crap out of jihadists



muslims believe if they are killed in combat/jihad by a woman they won't go to heaven.
Posted by Vito Andolini
Member since Sep 2009
1879 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:46 pm to
quote:

Den we fukked. They raced to be the first one to integrate


By the time Obama got around to this little item on the social justice list, the military leadership had been neutered.

There were very few generals or admirals left with any backbone, just yes men for Obama's liberal agenda.

Posted by Seldom Seen
Member since Feb 2016
48737 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:48 pm to
So no #draftourdaughters?
Posted by Vito Andolini
Member since Sep 2009
1879 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:55 pm to
quote:

So no #draftourdaughters?



Honest question, was that a real thing? Did people really advocate for drafting women?

Odd, since we don't currently draft men.
Posted by DarthTiger
Member since Sep 2005
3269 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 5:56 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 12:49 pm
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
95646 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:06 pm to
quote:

Do women have the same requirements as men?


Not in line units.

And, it doesn't matter. Even if we made exceptions for the 1% of 8% or whatever, it isn't worth the expense and effort of making separate latrine facilities, separate quarters and all that other shite for a handful of gals to be in combat units.

And, women are physiologically unsuitable for combat over any length of time. Hell, not all men are. So, even if held to the same objective standards for entry, acceptance and evaluation, these same (and I admit, they're exceptional) exceptional women will break down more quickly and more predictably than will men. They have female issues. Women have "shy" bladders, meaning they develop more UTIs under austere living conditions. They also develop infections and have downtime due to monthly cycles. They are weaker per pound than a comparable man, and their bone density is lower. Their bones are weaker and more brittle than men's bones at the beginning and don't repair as fast under high physical stress conditions.

About the only thing they have going for them is a higher threshold for pain, in that respect and that simply isn't worth the effort.

Why do SJWs hate science?
Posted by Vito Andolini
Member since Sep 2009
1879 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:18 pm to
quote:

Can you elaborate more based on your experience?

For the record, I'm fine with women not serving in certain areas of the military such as combat. It's just a fact of life that men are physically superior to women. And if you don't meet the physical requirements to perform your duty, then you shouldn't be allowed in.


While the physical aspects are enough, there is also something to be said about the bonds that men form in a line unit. If you have never served, it is difficult to explain, but try to imagine living with a bunch of men where you are in the field for weeks, sometimes months on end. Warriors have understood it for centuries. Shakespeare nailed it in Henry V with the "band of brothers" speech. That is what it is, a band of brothers. In the infantry, in my case the mechanized infantry, you share everything. You piss right next to your buddies, you sleep right next to them, you stink together, you strip down next to them for a quick "bath" using baby-wipes in the back of a track, because you haven't showered in days, and this is the only chance at hygiene you are going to get for a while.

Inserting women into that environment does nothing to make it better, it simply makes that warrior culture less.

I am probably not explaining it that well, because it really is hard to explain.

Posted by Wolfhound45
Member since Nov 2009
127393 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:20 pm to
I think Trump will consider him. DJT is not an ideologue (which is why everyone is underestimating him). He is a a pragmatist who wants to win at all costs. He will choose the best person for the job.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:22 pm to
quote:

Besides, the people who think this is a world-ending decision are the same ones who thought we'd never win another war if gays were allowed to serve openly.

No one cares.



lulz.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:26 pm to
quote:

Just those pussies over at SOCOM. The Marines at least put up a fight.


fact.
Posted by DarthTiger
Member since Sep 2005
3269 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:28 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 12:47 pm
Posted by Aristo
Colorado
Member since Jan 2007
13292 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:29 pm to
I think as long as the women can drag/carry the heaviest man with full equipment over 200 yards in a combat situation, they should be able to fight alongside the men.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

I think


Stop that.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:33 pm to
quote:

I think


Proof?
Posted by Aristo
Colorado
Member since Jan 2007
13292 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:39 pm to
quote:


Proof?


Such an intelligent rebuttal.
Posted by DisplacedBuckeye
Member since Dec 2013
76732 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:45 pm to
quote:


Such an intelligent rebuttal.


To your post, it was more than adequate.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:46 pm to
quote:

Such an intelligent rebuttal.


Your initial statement displayed some the most shallow reasoning possible. You don't deserve some of the novels that have been written about this topic, one which many here know a great deal about. Pardon me for not posting a treatise rejecting your incredibly insightful statement that women who "drag 200 lb mannequins" around should be in combat arms.

This post was edited on 11/16/16 at 6:47 pm
Posted by Aristo
Colorado
Member since Jan 2007
13292 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:55 pm to
Where does it say mannequins? If a woman can pass the same exact physical fitness tests as other combat troops, why shouldn't they be able to be in combat?

Posted by vodkacop
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2008
8043 posts
Posted on 11/16/16 at 6:59 pm to
quote:

Do women have the same requirements as men? Serious question


No. Womens PT qualifications are way lower than men.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram