FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » New Army Commercial (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: New Army Commercial
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
This does not paint a good picture of you. I know some of my ideals are sick (compared to most), but this takes the cake. you definitely could have kept your fingers off the keyboard for the last part of this.

What do you think War is? I once saw a Pomeranian run out of its yard and attack Rotweiler, the results were predictable and informative and very natural. They where gruesome as well. Was that the Rotweilers fault?

quote:
More than you can ever know. We are fighting an enemy who will never give up. We are fighting an enemy that honestly believes that God is on his side. In fact, they believe they are doing the work of God (Allah). Their is no logic here. It is beyond that.

The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth, and a joke to servicemen. We have seen the result of the 'God is on my side' crowd attacking us. It clears out the believers pretty quick. The result is what we have now, a pragmatic insurgency that does not take risks, that buys surrogates to do its work and hides in the population. They also target soft objectives that give them a body count instead of risking themselves against our secure strong points.

The problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the result of devotion to a religion, Shara law is the problem that the people in those countries suffer under, it is not a source of unity for the opposition. The opposition is united by criminal activities, profits, tribal affiliation and an addiction to the belief in the good life without any work to earn it or limit to indulgence once it is achieved. That is not a strength of character that we will ever need to fear. It is moral weakness we have to deal with every day. It is also the source of defeat for them over and over.

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I can't imagine fighting in a war where you've heard stories of combatants on your side exploding for no apparent reason. At least IEDs are semi-expectable and not all that accurate. Air strikes come out of nowhere, and don't miss all that much.
I know that Tank crews in Iraq simply abandoned their tanks as 'the most dangerous place in the world to be' the devastation our air power reaped on the retreating Iraqi Army as it fled Kuwait would have prompted a war crimes trial had we lost.

quote:
If we're serious then let's stop dealing with governments that REALLY aren't our friends. Let's stop propping up dictators. Playing kingmaker and picking our choice of US friendly evils has NOT served us well historically. If we oppose extremism and terrorism everywhere then let's really oppose it EVERYWHERE.
I tend to agree, war is clean in its way compared to politics. I realize that people hear this as cliché but it is true, killing a man is more dignified for him and less debilitating to the soldier doing it then trapping a man with manipulation or hunger or fear into serving you against his will. As for ending our dependence on foreign oil it is beyond time, for God's sake we have had since Carter was President to break this addiction and have know the danger for that entire period. You left out Utah as a new source of oil! Changes the meaning of the LDS prophet too profit!
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
Shermans and their drivers were excellent for the role they were meant for and filled -- using their smaller need of logistics to cripple German ability to keep their military supplied, particularly their part and fuel hungry tanks.

Right; sheer numbers for the win! Not to mention the rather callous attitude; smaller logistical need is fine for the generals, but the crews are getting blown up! Again, though, this just feeds into the 'man-for-man' argument I'm making. If the Germans had had numbers even remotely equal to the Allies, no way they'd have lost.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by General Sax:
I know that Tank crews in Iraq simply abandoned their tanks as 'the most dangerous place in the world to be' the devastation our air power reaped on the retreating Iraqi Army as it fled Kuwait would have prompted a war crimes trial had we lost.

I think that was probably A-10s. I understand you not only see, but hear those suckers coming, and shooting at a titanium underbelly as depleted uranium is being squirted at you doesn't make evolutionary sense. Running away, though, does.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stan the man
Member
Member # 6249

 - posted      Profile for Stan the man   Email Stan the man         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What do you think War is?
Funny that a civilian is trying to tell me what war is. I must have completely forgotten the part where we launched jets and "dropped warheads on foreheads, killing commies for mommy." I was referring to the burning of civilian bodies. You seem to think that they have no technology. True, they are on the low side of it, but they do have some. Maybe I'll just dump everything I do know, and let you tell me how to do my job from now on [Roll Eyes] .

quote:
The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth, and a joke to servicemen. We have seen the result of the 'God is on my side' crowd attacking us. It clears out the believers pretty quick. The result is what we have now, a pragmatic insurgency that does not take risks, that buys surrogates to do its work and hides in the population. They also target soft objectives that give them a body count instead of risking themselves against our secure strong points.
I didn't realize that dieing was a joke. None of this is a joke to servicemen, or maybe I didn't get that memo. Of course they hit the soft spots. Especially when their are big numbers involved. That part does make sense. Buy surrogates? Far from. Maybe you missed the memo of this being a holy war? I think so. Because even if we don't call it that, they do.

I'm done with this pie-hole, my head hurts too much.

Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post 
Warthogs FTW. [Big Grin] I saw some of those today at Wright-Patt.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The 'Will' you speak of is a carefully constructed myth,
I thought that said 'Wii,' and I almost burst into tears.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
You are mistaken if you think I am a civilian, as for knowing they use surrogates, I assure you that most of those we caught putting in IED's were nothing more then poor teenage kids and unemployed men or a retarded man once doing it for drugs, money or both. A few others did it because they had a family member hostage. Only one was a 'holy warrior' and he was so stoned he did not even run after blowing the bomb fifty feet too soon he just stood there mumbling prayers and waiting to die.

We traced the money men and they were so far from the action that they could pretend to be respectable, Doctors, Police Chiefs, Shieks... I speak from direct knowledge and experience so believe what you will, the courage of the Holy Warrior looks like cowardice to me, even if it is sensible given the usual outcome.

We laughed at them all the time. No memo needed, just a sense of humor that is a bit on the dark side.

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

And a separate question I'd like answered: Why is it, that in a military, where self control and adherence to regulations is mandatory and necessary, that women or men, shouldn't be expected to abstain from sex, were it required of them?

Rather than using logic to answer this question, I will just say:

[ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL] [ROFL]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Storm -

Religion requires people to restrict their sexual actions accordingly, and the army's rules and requirements are in many times just as cumbersome, and they're expected to be followed the same way. It might not be the wrath of God that comes down on you for violating, but it's the next best thing.

Second, I'm really just curious as to why women's lack of sexual control is more a reason than men's for why they shouldn't serve. So fine, you separate them. You tell them they'll get a dishonorable discharge if they get pregnant. I don't really care what the rules end up being, I just know that it's silly to say "Oh women? no they can't be drafted, they might get pregnant." Ridiculous. Why do we let women serve in the military AT ALL then? Other than the fact that WOMEN DEMANDED IT.

Furthermore, I don't think telling them they can't have sex for awhile is unquestionable. Is it too much to ask that married men and women in the service not have sex while they are away? It's a matter of will power and duty.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
But not everyone in the service is married. And that's asking people whose religions DON'T require them to abstain from sex to cut themselves off from a large part of their lives, if they consider sex to be a part of a relationship/dating. Yeah, let's make 'em all a militant, monastic society. That's a good idea.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
So the opposing decision is that religious folk, who want to have unmarried sex, but think that birth control is against their religion (wow, now THAT makes sense), should be able to skip out on military service?

And there's a gender bias.

That's a GREAT idea.

And by the way, celebate and monastic are two different things. Don't pin something on my argument that I didn't put there.

A serious question too, to the military people here: Do you find you have ample time for dating when on a combat post?

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
I thought we were talking about the duration of their military time. I can conceivably see how people at combat posts wouldn't really have the opportunity for sex. But if another one of the issues is women becoming pregnant to avoid being deployed (as someone mentioned here at some point), avoiding sex during combat isn't going to help all that much.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
Combat post? Like a fortified area where gunfire and mortar rounds are heard? Because if that's what you're talking about I have no idea.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
If there's a draft, it's probably because we can't come up with enough boots on the ground, and NEED the help to make up for the losses. When my grandpa was drafted for WW2, he wasn't sent to an office, he was sent to training, then combat. Women aren't going to get the chance to get pregnant, unless they get their draft letter and then find the first hot blooded man they can, just to get out of the military. Heading to Canada would be easier.

I'm curious when there's going to be time for dating during all that.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
Canada recently announced that they would not harbor any Americans seeking to avoid the draft.

--j_k

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
OK, here's what I know. People have managed to have sex in Basic Training, but it's always either an affair with a TI or random people doing it in random places. The random places will go unmentioned.

In tech school, of the group that I left Basic Training and traveled to tech school with (7 females tops, 14 total), two are married and have children, and at least two are married without children. We have all been in the military a little bit over 3 years. The first pregnancy happened about 4 months after we got to our tech school and the second about 15 months into tech school. Both pregnancies resulted in a discharge (initiated by the females in question) from the military. All of the marriages mentioned above happened before training was completed.

Is that something like the answer to your question?

Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by pH:
But not everyone in the service is married. And that's asking people whose religions DON'T require them to abstain from sex to cut themselves off from a large part of their lives, if they consider sex to be a part of a relationship/dating. Yeah, let's make 'em all a militant, monastic society. That's a good idea.

-pH

You know, for actual fighting efficiency, it might really be a good idea. Anyway, how is it different from the situation in, basically, every war of the twentieth century? You got drafted, you weren't going to get laid - except maybe for a cheap whore once a month - for the duration.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the argument is supposed to be, that if women get drafted to fight near men, it's unreasonable to expect them not to give into temptation, therefore we should solve the problem by keeping women at home, and by keeping men surrounded by other sexually frustrated men.

Let's keep all the men at home, and only send women into combat. Then they can't get pregnant.

(I'm kidding of course, but what would be the non-reproductive argument against that?)

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
B34N
Member
Member # 9597

 - posted      Profile for B34N   Email B34N         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
(I'm kidding of course, but what would be the non-reproductive argument against that?)

[Dont Know]

Don't really think that there is one, at least not from me. If women are just as efective as men as fighters in war time situations than it would solve the pregnancy problem. However, any real discussion matter would always come back to the fact that women are the child bearers.

Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Let's keep all the men at home, and only send women into combat. Then they can't get pregnant.

Apart from the fact that women on average will be much less effective soldiers, (the current combat kit is the heaviest ever) It should be obvious that women would also enjoy two other disadvantages, one: the misogynist societies that we are engaged with will not yield or surrender in the face of female soldiers, forcing us to kill many more of them, two: female American soldiers, unlike men can expect rape to be part of any capture or interrogation.

This is a move that is ridiculous, can soldiers find time to have sex? Yes, anywhere you put a man and woman together some fraction of them will be having sex. More infidelity, more pregnancy, more STD's, more hard feelings, more breakups, more murders over girls, more rapes and incidence of harassment, more gaps in the line from pregnancy. In other words the presence of women, even if 98% of all men are honorable will give the command fifty times the headaches.

"Ladies, enjoy it while you can, cause when you go home you'll be ugly again..."

Quote from a porta john in Iraq.

The inside the wire units that have had women for years are set up for them, and where the ratio is high, then there is less of a new problem set. (still a problem) However even they range out on base to the Infantry and other combat units that do not accept women. So there is no avoiding the problem on the big bases, Liberty, Green Zone, and so on. Putting women in the Infantry (and therefore in the Rangers, and other elite forces that only take Infantry MOSQ) is just going to blunt the tip of the spear.

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
MOSQ essentially means "job qualified" for those that aren't career acronym translators.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
What was that movie with the female Ranger? John Travolta, Samuel Jackson... shudder. You would think they would do at least enough research to realize there is no such creature.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
The only movies I can think of are the General's Daughter and GI Jane. And some really old school one about creepy illegal training on some island somewhere.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
It was about drugs in South America.
Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
People don't care about accuracy as much anymore. It's now about what the writer wants to be true and using artistic license as an excuse. That's one of the reasons I canceled my pre-order of Empire.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
If it did not go to Sand Hill (Benning) it is not an Infantryman, (though they are setting up mini schools now all for troops going over at several points to get National Guard troops MOSQ as infantry)

the think I like about Galactica, SG 1 and Atlantis is the effort they put out to make things authentic.

Last week on CSI NY the top three CSI's in the city where standing around a body that might have died from a bio threat without Haz Mat suits, without masks, without even roping it off. "CDC is in route." It was such a huge gaff that I had to leave the room or spoil the show for my wife.

On the other hand it is disturbing to see Hollywood invent crimes and bombs and methods to circumvent security and show our latest and greatest systems in every new film. I think that using creativity to show the sickos what to do is irresponsible. It is a fine line.

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They need more troops because the ones we have keep getting killed and there's no end in sight.
Thank you for revealing your ignorance so clearly for everyone to see, MightyCow.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
Lyrhawn--

There's no answer I can give you that will satisfy you. Let me just say that in many instances in the military, already, soldiers aren't supposed to be screwing their buddy, but they are. Kind of like sex ed that relies on abstinence only as practical, the real world doesn't show that it works for many people.

Read what airman4 wrote. I can back that up with stories of my own--people having sex in dumpsters, stairwells in basic, a time when they're not supposed to have sex and they are segregated away from each other in different barracks.

Even when soldiers aren't having sex, the social dynamics between men and women are such that mixing sexes on a team does, imho, lower that team's efficiency and introduces more chaos into the system. Seen it, however this could be subjective as other people swear up and down it's not a problem.

A military unit isn't supposed to function as many people seperately but a bunch of people as a unit, a team, a band of brothers. When one part of the team isn't focusing on the objective, the whole team suffers. When one part of the team is weaker than another part, the whole team suffers. The whole objective of a military unit is that all members are strong and capable of functioning well together. Throwing women into the mix complicates and weakens the team socially and physically.

I am going to go out on a limb that you, the general you, can't point to other social models in existence in America to really support the idea that men and women, strangers, can function as a team 24 hours a day, 7 days a week as a tight unit as they are required to in the military. Nothing in society prepares men and women for it. Morever, nothing in society prepares men and women to think of each other as non-sexual creatures. This isn't even getting into the biological drives of healthy young people.

Yes, you have instances where men and women work together as a team, but at the end of the day, they go home. They can quit. Other people can be brought in to replace them. They have access to other people outside the team for sexual release. And they don't have to work together as closely as many military units. Plus, and this is absolutely huge, you're talking about freaking 18, 19, and 20 year olds in their sexual prime.

Can it be done? Sure. The modern military points to this. I'm not saying it can't be done at all.

My point is that the military doesn't function as well when you mix the sexes.

One of the obvious rebuttals is that you can have WACs, WAVES, and whatever the other branches had. That is, all female units.

I'm not as opposed to this as just mixing people together, and I think it might mitigate many problems that mixing the sexes brings up. However, the fact that the units are seperate does make it so that you have a group of soldiers that can't be integrated in with other soldiers. Ideally, this should not be the case.

Also, as the basic training examples show, this will still probably not stop soldiers from seeking each other out.


There are other aspects I haven't mentioned as to why mixing male and female soldiers together wouldn't work, but I think the above hits most of the basic highlights, though I didn't mention a couple for reasons of my own.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.

If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers, or with the local nightlife, if there is any.

As I said before, I don't think women should serve on the front lines, but the numbers I think back me up on women in support roles, and in aviation. If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.

What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?

Two other things:

1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.

2. I'm almost positive that if a draft were allowed for men again, it'd be allowed for women as well, from a legal standpoint. If Dag is reading this and can contradict or support me, I'd appreciate his words eitherw way. But Originally women weren't drafted because women weren't allowed in combat positions. It isn't that way anymore.

Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.

I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.

To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
Having your little pee pee laughed at is not being repeatedly violated by grunting laughing stinking...

I won't say it.

I think that a coed bathroom is cool on Ally McBeal, but look at Newsweek, with amputee women on the cover, look at Iraqi snipers seeking to grease women in particular to create more of a shock.

Because we care more about women and children they can hurt us more by killing them, we give them more rope to hang us with. When we go in, men can be more independent, we need fewer facilities, we can get by for longer until the showers and a PX full of sanitary napkins. I once went a month without a shower with two uniforms and bottle of gold-bond... but who hasn't.

In no world will there be as many women who passed through the infantry training successful as men so the result will always be a small number of women to men. That makes the situation even more disruptive.

In a pinch blacks and whites can use the same showers and toilets without a problem, they can share tents and rooms. They can swap uniforms and gear around. In other worlds there is a fault in the analogy between a non difference (skin hue) and a very real difference (gender).

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
First of all, "having your little pee pee laughed at" is a vast understantement. Try having your pee pee attached to jumper cables and zapped for awhile. Maybe you're okay with that though, given some of your more offensive positions here recently, I wouldn't be surprised if torturing men wasn't a big deal to you.

Snipers primarily pick off soldiers when they are on patrol. I'm not suggesting women as front like troops, so your point is moot.

And I'm sure women will LOVE your inference that men are rough and tumble but women couldn't survive in a rough situation without SANITARY NAPKINS. How offensive.

Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not. Please speak to my actual arguments, and do not use strawmen.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
General Sax
Member
Member # 9694

 - posted      Profile for General Sax   Email General Sax         Edit/Delete Post 
You are not aware there were snipers specifically targeting women inside the wire doing support activities? You do not know that we tasked some of our best snipers to hunt them so the women freaking out on post and refusing to do guard duty on the fence could go back to work? Hmmmm

We already have women 'not as front line troops' so you are advocating the status quo? Daring...

I can get by without underwear or with one pair for a month, I am not sure what women you hang with but I have never met one that could say the same, I guess we could put tampons in the MRE's... (I got peanut butter!... I got Jalapeño Cheese!... I got Skittles... Oh I got wings!)

I think the incidents you are talking about where prosecuted as crimes, they were aberrations. Raping women prisoners is not the exception, it is the rule for our enemies. Just one more way we are different.

Posts: 475 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
Tampons don't have wings...

Edit: I can see how sanitation could be an issue simply because of the whole urinary tract/kidney infection thing, which is a lot more likely in women than men and can be a serious issue. Maybe men have an equivalent sanitary problem with "down there," but I don't know.

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
airmanfour
Member
Member # 6111

 - posted      Profile for airmanfour           Edit/Delete Post 
Well, they're not supposed to, but....
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by General Sax:
You are not aware there were snipers specifically targeting women inside the wire doing support activities? You do not know that we tasked some of our best snipers to hunt them so the women freaking out on post and refusing to do guard duty on the fence could go back to work? Hmmmm

We already have women 'not as front line troops' so you are advocating the status quo? Daring...

I can get by without underwear or with one pair for a month, I am not sure what women you hang with but I have never met one that could say the same, I guess we could put tampons in the MRE's... (I got peanut butter!... I got Jalapeño Cheese!... I got Skittles... Oh I got wings!)

I think the incidents you are talking about where prosecuted as crimes, they were aberrations. Raping women prisoners is not the exception, it is the rule for our enemies. Just one more way we are different.

Until you can prove you know how to read, and that you are able to debate against MY ACTUAL ARGUMENTS honestly, I'm done talking to you, in this thread anyway.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
Women on the Depo Provo shot can go for three months without their period. Women on some of the new pills can go for as long as they're taking them. Menstrating does not have to be an issue. I would imagine the shot would be preferably in this situation, as you wouldn't have to carry around and remember to take pills, but still, a six month's supply would take up about the same space as a CD case.

Please note that I'm not saying that women should be drafted. I don't think they should be, for the age old reason that a man's essential contribution to reproduction takes 15 minutes and a woman's 9 months plus. If we are in a situation where we need a draft, exposing the generation of women of childbearing age to the mortality rate that will be likely to necessate a draft is unwise. I'm merely pointing out that some of General Sax's reasons are particularly asinine.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
ElJay, that brings up the previous issue of some women being opposed to birth control. Plus the possibly severe side effects of depo (or any hormonal birth control, for that matter).

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
And like I said, pH, I'm not supporting women being drafted. [Smile] I would assume that women volunteering to serve in conditions that might mean they wouldn't have access to normal shower facilities for long stretches of time would be prepared to deal with it, one way or the other.

Also, most women who are morally opposed to birth control are opposed to it for religious reasons, which usually tie in with being opposed to pre-marital sex. Those people usually are not opposed to taking hormonal birth control for other reasons, as long as they're not having sex. (As even a married woman probably wouldn't be on deployment.) So I would imagine that such a woman could discuss it with her religious advisor, and would probably decide that surpressing her period to allow her to better serve in her post would not be against her ethics.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pH
Member
Member # 1350

 - posted      Profile for pH           Edit/Delete Post 
I know you're not saying women should be drafted. [Smile] I'm just saying birth control isn't necessarily a good idea. And even if it's not a religious thing, it could be a medical thing. However, I also don't think Sax knows as much about the female anatomy as he thinks he does, so I don't think any of his objections would relaly take these things into account. [Razz]

-pH

Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Women on the Depo Provo shot can go for three months without their period. Women on some of the new pills can go for as long as they're taking them. Menstrating does not have to be an issue. I would imagine the shot would be preferably in this situation, as you wouldn't have to carry around and remember to take pills, but still, a six month's supply would take up about the same space as a CD case.

Please note that I'm not saying that women should be drafted. I don't think they should be, for the age old reason that a man's essential contribution to reproduction takes 15 minutes and a woman's 9 months plus. If we are in a situation where we need a draft, exposing the generation of women of childbearing age to the mortality rate that will be likely to necessate a draft is unwise. I'm merely pointing out that some of General Sax's reasons are particularly asinine.

For the sake of curiousity.

The male to female ratio in America is pretty much 1:1.

If we were to draft say 2 million boys, and send them over to Iraq, in front line combat positions and say 500,000 died, that puts women a half million over the equality mark. That's a half million sources of '15 male contribution' that no longer exist, and in American culture, where monogamy is treasured, on the whole, that means a half million women who don't get husbands.

If we drafted 1.9 million men, and a hundred thousand women, I really don't think the future of a 300 million person strong nation is really hanging in the balance, especially when the majority of that hundred thousand would most likely be in hospitals, logistical support, or administrative. The number of women drafted would be drastically less than men, for the same reason that women weren't drafted at all during Vietnam, Korea, or the World Wars: Because the majority of the spots that needed to be filled were front line combat positions, which women still aren't eligible for.

People who argue that women as breeding stock are infinitely valuable to a nation are right, in a cold hard analysis. But that argument held a LOT more sway 200 years ago, when national populations numbered in the hundreds of thousands, or under ten million. It's a harder argument to make stick in a nation of a 150 million women.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post 
pH, the number of women who have medical issues with taking birth control for a few years are way, way smaller than the number who don't. So again, I'm not saying it should be required. I'm just saying that there are options there for making deployment a whole lot easier and more pleasant short of putting tampons in MREs.

Lyrhawn, I didn't realize you were advocating drafting significantly less women then men, you didn't mention that part anywhere. Your "equality" speeches made me think you were talking about making it, you know, equal.

If you're talking about dropping gender requirements for drafting to support positions, are you also going to drop age and other physical requirements? If we're talking about hospital and office workers instead of grunts, why wouldn't we draft able-bodied people of both genders into their 40s or 50s? Might get more experienced people that way who'd be more valuable.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry Eljay, I probably didn't articulate my argument the way I should have.

I'm not talking about quotas, or setting a limit on the number of women that can be drafted, I'm saying that the number of women drafted will be AUTOMATICALLY less, based on the reduced number of positions. Congress considered drafting women in the second world war, but it never really became necessary, besides, they were performing vital roles at home. Congress didn't really consider drafting women for Vietnam, because the main shortage was for troops in the jungles fighting up close, which women were, are, and probably ought to be barred from doing. There are thousands of positions that could be filled in today's armed forces, but there are many, many more than men only are currently allowed to fill, meaning that no matter what, there will always be less women than men serving.

15% of the current active duty army (as of 2004) (non-reserve troops) are women. If the size of our armed forces were doubled, again that's our active duty troops, which is what, roughly 1.5 million men and women? If that doubled, and the percentage of women remained the same, or even bumped up to 25%, that's 375,000 women. Of the appx 150 million women in America (though sure, some of them are over what we'd consider child bearing age, but then by Eljay's own question, some roles could be filled by older people, but that presents other problems), that represents 0.25% of America's women. Even assuming ALL of them die, which is a ridiculous assumption, that still isn't going to effect our nation's reproductive rates in any real, damaging, long lasting way.

Eljay, on your other points, it'd be something to look into, but I think it'd fall into a last resort. Women in their late teens or early twenties are going to be able to do a lot more, even in support positions, than a 50 year old women would. Besides, you have to weigh the role these people play in society vs. the role of young people. Taking an 18-25 year old isn't going to noticeably hurt much of anything, they aren't VITAL to the economy like many of the older workers in the nation are. You have to be able to keep up the homefront while producing new soldiers, which I think is the main reason you usually see them taking the young before the old anyway. The old are raising families, they are working, they are keeping America at the status quo. Younger Americans have yet to impact the nation, it's easier to pluck them out. You'd almost have to automatically exempt those raising families or working in vital roles. I think they'd be considered, but for any war we have to fight these days, I don't think we'd ever get to the point where we'd really need to, short of world domination.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
Everything you people are saying against the army and this commercial is such utter nonsense. What is the army supposed to say in their commercials, "Come join the army, the second strongest military force in the world?" No, this is the U.S. army advertising for people to join its ranks. Someone said something about the armies recruitment policies and targeting the young. What are they supposed to do? Target the middle aged? Young people are the most physically tough and able to recover from injury of course they are going to target the young. How this offends people is beyond me and to compare it to cigarette advertising is ludicrous. To say that it is insulting that the Army declares itself the toughest and strongest is a ridiculous statement.

Someone said, " I object to the commercial, and the way the US Government seems to believe that might makes right"

No the commercial does not say this. It is saying that the Army is the strongest and can overcome the problems it faces and you can help. There is so much animosity towards the military in this thread it is disgusting. A person should have pride for his or her country and that is not something to be ashamed of as many seem to think.

Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rappin' Ronnie Reagan
Member
Member # 5626

 - posted      Profile for Rappin' Ronnie Reagan   Email Rappin' Ronnie Reagan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Promethius:
A person should have pride for his or her country

Why?
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Promethius
Member
Member # 2468

 - posted      Profile for Promethius           Edit/Delete Post 
Because of the ideals it stands for. Because of what it has done in the past to help others. Because of the freedoms it promotes. Does this really need an explanation?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.

Women have been serving in support roles in the military for much longer than the early 90s.

If you're saying that at 'aviation posts' statistical losses due to pregnancy are low, that's a possibility. I'm not sure that it would translate to the rest of the military. When I was rotating into Germany, and they gave everyone 'the talk', the rate that I remember is 30% of women will get pregnant in the first...year, and seemed to be borne out subsequently. That doesn't seem insignificant to me.

It would be nice to get some stats. I'm not sure why you don't share them, rather than just reference them. Last time I looked for it, when we had this conversation a few years a go, I couldn't turn up anything.

In any case, it doesn't refute the rest of my post.

quote:


If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers,

Man, what! [ROFL] Kind of reaching, aren't we? Maybe a few, but as a general rule, I doubt it.

quote:

or with the local nightlife, if there is any.

In a lot of instances, you don't have access to 'local nightlife', ie Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Even when there is access in friendlier countries, there is a language and cultural barrier to overcome that makes things difficult. There's also the fact that in a lot of countries where GIs are based, GIs are viewed with...ambivalence. There's also the fact that the people you work with are right there, looking good, and ready to go. Why look off-base? Also a problem with American women dating non-Americans. Not sure why, but very, very, very few women did that that I saw. Like, maybe one.

quote:


As I said before, I don't think women should serve on the front lines, but the numbers I think back me up on women in support roles, and in aviation.

I gather you've done some research on pregnancy. Lay it out there.

In any case, as I said before, doesn't negate the rest of what I said.

quote:

If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.

*pat pat* Yes, that's right, Lyrhawn. [Smile]

quote:

What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?

Er...I...don't know. Point being?

quote:

Two other things:

1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.

If you're just going to ignore what I write and make false analogies, hey, be my guest. I've layed out, specifically, the problems with women in the military.

quote:

Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.

Even if you don't know what the military is like, do you not know what young people are like, being a young person yourself? Your posts have this flavor of unreality to them that is just...weird to me.

quote:

I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.

A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.

quote:

To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.

Your logic is bizarre. While it is certainly true that men might be sexually abused in some fashion for fun, the fact that in a pow situation, the captors are going to almost certainly be men, and probably attracted to women and not men, makes the odds of rape of women much higher. You are reaching.


Oh,

quote:

Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not.

As Sax mentioned, and Iraq proves, the only way women won't see combat is if they are kept stateside.


.....................................

One of the things that really has underlined that men and women are different creatures and don't mesh well is this forum. All the things I'm saying I made to some degree several years a go when I first had this conversation. Nothing has changed except that, as I've gotten to really know women on this forum, it's become more and more clear that men and women really don't understand each other and have fundamental differing viewpoints on reality.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:


If a soldier REALLY wants to have sex, he's going to have it if women are there are not. Whether with his fellow male soldiers,

quote:
Man, what! [ROFL] Kind of reaching, aren't we? Maybe a few, but as a general rule, I doubt it.

Hey the Romans and the Greeks did it, why not? [Wink] I doubt it too. That wasn't the gist of my point, you'll see.

quote:

or with the local nightlife, if there is any.

quote:
In a lot of instances, you don't have access to 'local nightlife', ie Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

Even when there is access in friendlier countries, there is a language and cultural barrier to overcome that makes things difficult. There's also the fact that in a lot of countries where GIs are based, GIs are viewed with...ambivalence. There's also the fact that the people you work with are right there, looking good, and ready to go. Why look off-base? Also a problem with American women dating non-Americans. Not sure why, but very, very, very few women did that that I saw. Like, maybe one.

Alrighty then. So, men don't have sex with each other. Men don't have sex with the locals. If there are no American women, the men will abstain. If there ARE American women, the men will take advantage of them as a sexual resource. Making rules to ban sex between personnel apparently doesn't work, because sex drives overrule punishment. That much I can agree with. Do what we did during WW2. Commanders said don't have sex with the locals. But if you DO have sex with the locals, don't be a fool, wrap your tool.

But no, even that isn't my argument. Just for the numbers.

quote:
There were 350,000 American women who served during World War Two and 16 were killed in action², they gained in total over 1500 medals, citations and commendations.

quote:
During the Korean War of 1950-1953 many women served in the Mobile Army Surgical Hospitals, with women serving in Korea numbering 120’000 during the conflict.
quote:
The 1991 Gulf War proved to be the pivotal time for the role of women in the American Armed forces to come to the attention of the world media. A senior woman pilot at the time, Colonel Kelly Hamilton, commented that ‘The conflict was an awakening for the people in the US. They suddenly realised there were a lot of women in the military.’ Over 40’000 women served in almost every role the armed forces have to offer, however while many came under fire, they were not permitted to participate in deliberate ground engagements. Despite this, there are many reports of women engaging enemy forces during the conflict
My point? It's been done before, and it worked. Unless your contention is that sexual escapades are more rampant today than they were then (meh, possibly, but I'd call the decrease in stringent morality negligible for the sake of the argument), I'd like to see numbers to back it up [Smile] .


quote:

If they aren't going to be able to cut it, then don't put them there, otherwise cutting out a potential resource doesn't make sense to me. The only way there will be a rash of pregnancies is if women were to purposely impregnate themselves for the purpose of escaping duty.

*pat pat* Yes, that's right, Lyrhawn. [Smile]

Not entirely sure what you're being sarcastic about there, could be a number of things. So I'll take the most obvious route and assume you're mocking my assumption. That's just mean [Frown]

quote:

What was the procedure for men who wanted to escape military service in Vietnam by claiming to be gay?

Er...I...don't know. Point being?

Hm, not quite sure what my point was. Might have been idle curousity. Might have been wondering what the punishment was for men who lied to get out of the military. In otherwords, what disincentives are there to control behavior of drafted military personnel?

quote:

Two other things:

1. Blacks weren't integrated into the military for the longest time, and we all know why. They said it would disrupt unit cohesion. And it did. But they got over it. I don't think the military should be an instrument of social change, but then, allowing women to serve, and even allowing gays to serve, isn't social engineering, it's allowing something that should've been allowed a long time ago to finally happen.

If you're just going to ignore what I write and make false analogies, hey, be my guest. I've layed out, specifically, the problems with women in the military.

Source

quote:
Romantic relationships and pregnancies also concern many experts. The argument is that romance may undermine espirit de corps and that pregnancies will hurt readiness. Although pregnancy is a major concern of many, statistics show it has little bearing on military readiness. In fact, women on the average spend a mere one fewer hour per month at work than their male counterparts. When one excludes pregnancy leave, women have a lower rate of lost time at work than their male counterparts (Minerva Spring 1994).
Random sampling from a military women's forum:

quote:
Wow! I remember why I joined the AF now. I didn't join the Army because my husband was AD Army and I thought they treated their people as though they needed a babysitter all the time. I didn't join the navy. I never received any adverse treatment while I was pregnant. I worked 12 hour rotating shifts until I was 36 weeks pregnant with my first child. I would have stayed with my crew for 12 hour shifts with my second child if not for my squadron commander ordering me to leave crew when I had worked eight hours. I intentionally scheduled my appointments for when I was on crew rest and I never asked for special treatment. I had a commitment to my crew and to my country. I went remote and left my kids when they were 4 and 2 and went through a divorce at the same time. I didn't like it and I didn't want to go, but Leavenworth wouldn't have looked good on a resume.

Now, for all you navy guys who "never wanted women on ships anyway," keep your pants zipped or use a condom. Do your part to control the baby population or keep your mouth shut and suck it up when you have to "do more with less."

Another Source
quote:
Although only women face the issue of pregnancy, male soldiers have higher rates of substance abuse and disciplinary problems and thus men as a class are actually less reliable than women in terms of their combat readiness. Again, I admit that my data is limited but I think it is useful to recognize that we can't just leap to the conclusion that combat readiness is more of a problem for women than for men.

Granted that last article was referring only to the Navy. My point, is that it's been done successfully for the last 50 years, and I've found several, and referenced few here, examples of women and men working side by side together, and that pregnancy is not necessarily an overarching problem that should preclude women from serving. I never thought to ask, but do you think ALL the women currently in the service should be removed?

quote:

Edit to add: Storm, just wanted to clarify that I recognize you probably have more knowledge on the military in general than I do, at the very least, you certainly do when it comes to knowing what being in the military is ACTUALLY like.

Even if you don't know what the military is like, do you not know what young people are like, being a young person yourself? Your posts have this flavor of unreality to them that is just...weird to me.

This must be what Pelegius feels like, except it's more my reasoning than my posting style being attacked. Yeah I know what I'm like. I know what the desires of a 18-22 year old guy are. But that doesn't mean I'm stupid, or that I can't control myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that young guys somehow literally cannot control themselves. Sure there are insane pressures on them, but they are still responsible for their own actions. I accept that young guys will make mistakes, but I don't accept that there's an inherent lack of responsibility, especially in a MILITARY organization, automatically attached to them.

quote:

I don't claim to know more. If it turns out that mixing up the sexes just doesn't work, then I'll look at the numbers and if they bear that out, I'll change my position, that's how I work. The main thrust of my arguments thus far have been, that just because a woman is biologically able to become pregnant, that isn't enough to exclude them from mandatory service. But many of the numbers I've looked at show that women perform their duties fairly well, and when with you exempt pregnancy leave, actually have better attendence (for lack of a better word) records than the men do.

A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.

Let's seem them then. The other numbers. I'm not being combative, I know you can't tell from just reading it so I'm telling you. I honestly want to see the opposing numbers so I can judge for myself.

quote:

To whoever else said it, I realize that captured women are subject to sexual abuse. But if you've ever seen a story about Abu Ghraib, I'd say it's pretty easy to prove that men aren't exactly exempt from that.

Your logic is bizarre. While it is certainly true that men might be sexually abused in some fashion for fun, the fact that in a pow situation, the captors are going to almost certainly be men, and probably attracted to women and not men, makes the odds of rape of women much higher. You are reaching.

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I wasn't referring to men being sexually abuse via forced oral sex or penetration, those being the only two methods of sex I can think that'd be forced on a man. I was thinking more along the lines of torture involving genitalia. Or hell, why be specific, torture IN GENERAL. I'm fairly sure it isn't your argument that it's okay if men are tortured of if jumper cables are latched onto their testicles and the switch is thrown we're okay with that, but if women are raped, that's just unacceptable. I know we live in a society that treasures the safety and well being of females above males, but arguing that women may be violated, and saying that's not okay, but it's certainly okay for the guy that takes her place to be violated....that seems bizarre to me. I don't want the women in that position, I don't want the MAN in that position either. You can reduce the liklihood that she'll be there, but you can't eliminate it. But let's not forget that the underpinning discussion here is about the military, and war. You have to expect that a ruthless enemy is going to do something like that in a combat situation.

Oh,

quote:

Again, you're speaking as if I were advocating women as basic infantry, I'm not.

As Sax mentioned, and Iraq proves, the only way women won't see combat is if they are kept stateside.

As I've said before, women dying in combat isn't sufficient as a reason to keep them out of the military. At least, not by my argument. I said before that women shouldn't perform roles that they can't perform as well as men, that's what I was referencing when I said they shouldn't perform basic infantry roles, not that they might die.


quote:

Women have served in most aviation posts since the early 90's. Statistical rates of operational losses due to pregnancy are very low. In other words, more than 10% of the military is made up of women in non-frontline, but still many combat and support roles, and to this point, pregnancy has not be a significant factor in reducing military readiness.

Women have been serving in support roles in the military for much longer than the early 90s.

If you're saying that at 'aviation posts' statistical losses due to pregnancy are low, that's a possibility. I'm not sure that it would translate to the rest of the military. When I was rotating into Germany, and they gave everyone 'the talk', the rate that I remember is 30% of women will get pregnant in the first...year, and seemed to be borne out subsequently. That doesn't seem insignificant to me.

It would be nice to get some stats. I'm not sure why you don't share them, rather than just reference them. Last time I looked for it, when we had this conversation a few years a go, I couldn't turn up anything.

In any case, it doesn't refute the rest of my post.


If you don't take the quotes I referenced at face value, many of them cite sources in the larger articles. And again, I really would benefit from seeing numbers from the other side, something concrete than anecdotal evidence, as apparently these numbers WIDELY vary depending on which branch of the service you're in, and where you're deployed to.

There's probably a lack of coherence to some of this, as it took me forever to get the quote boxes to somewhere near what I wanted (and yet still so far...), and I haven't been to bed yet from yesterday, so feel free to pick it apart and I'll get back to you later on whatever I might have miscommunicated.

Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:

My point? It's been done before, and it worked. Unless your contention is that sexual escapades are more rampant today than they were then (meh, possibly, but I'd call the decrease in stringent morality negligible for the sake of the argument), I'd like to see numbers to back it up [Smile]

Your post doesn't speak to any lack of sexual escapades. It doesn't say that women in the military, comparatively to all male units, don't cause more problems. It just says that a lot of women have served in the military, which I don't dispute.

I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of women in WW II worked stateside, and FWIW, women were not actually 'in' the military until 1948.

quote:

Not entirely sure what you're being sarcastic about there, could be a number of things. So I'll take the most obvious route and assume you're mocking my assumption. That's just mean

I think your previous post assumes a level of control and discipline amongst young people that is idealistic for people in the military. Sorry for being snarky in previous post, but a lot of your stuff seemed to me to be 'kitchen sink' kind of stuff that you were just throwing out there just to make an argument.

Various links that support what I'm saying:

http://tinyurl.com/y3bt9r

Mostly against, with pointers to sources that are completely against. Gives a rate of pregnancy of almost 10%, but this is low range, as other articles below point out.

http://tinyurl.com/yckok3

http://tinyurl.com/yk574b

Supports pregnancy problem in the military.

http://tinyurl.com/y3j8ju

http://tinyurl.com/uerkl

Many others are out there that are against.

Yes, I concede that there are many out there that are 'for'. I'm not claiming that my belief is clear cut.


quote:

My point, is that it's been done successfully for the last 50 years

It's been done. I and others believe it's not being done as well as well as it would be with an all male military.

Also, I'm not basing what I'm saying off of numbers. I'm basing what I'm saying off of experience. Thus,

quote:

A lot of the stuff I'm telling you isn't going to be in numbers. Sorry. Again, pregnancy is just one of hte issues.

Let's seem them then.

I don't have numbers for my experience. However, I do emphatically grant you that there is stuff out there that contradicts what my experiences are. I accept this, but given that other people come to the same conclusions I did, it doesn't make me think I'm crazy.

In any case, I've provided some links.


quote:

This must be what Pelegius feels like, except it's more my reasoning than my posting style being attacked. Yeah I know what I'm like. I know what the desires of a 18-22 year old guy are. But that doesn't mean I'm stupid, or that I can't control myself. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that young guys somehow literally cannot control themselves. Sure there are insane pressures on them, but they are still responsible for their own actions. I accept that young guys will make mistakes, but I don't accept that there's an inherent lack of responsibility, especially in a MILITARY organization, automatically attached to them.

It's fascinating that everyone focuses on guys.

Read what I wrote, Lyrhawn. What you are talking about in the military in a lot of instances is men and women cohabitating together for long periods of time. If you think most single young men and women can live together for extended periods of time and not notice each other as sexual creatures and, further, not have sex, then why? What leads you to believe this? To me it seems to fly in the face of human nature, never mind my experience.

quote:

Sorry, I should've been more clear. I wasn't referring to men being sexually abuse via forced oral sex or penetration, those being the only two methods of sex I can think that'd be forced on a man. I was thinking more along the lines of torture involving genitalia. Or hell, why be specific, torture IN GENERAL. I'm fairly sure it isn't your argument that it's okay if men are tortured of if jumper cables are latched onto their testicles and the switch is thrown we're okay with that, but if women are raped, that's just unacceptable. I know we live in a society that treasures the safety and well being of females above males, but arguing that women may be violated, and saying that's not okay, but it's certainly okay for the guy that takes her place to be violated....that seems bizarre to me. I don't want the women in that position, I don't want the MAN in that position either. You can reduce the liklihood that she'll be there, but you can't eliminate it. But let's not forget that the underpinning discussion here is about the military, and war. You have to expect that a ruthless enemy is going to do something like that in a combat situation.

You make a good point, however I still contend that the sexual desire of women by their captors is going to make their captivity worse than it would be comparatively for men.

Also,the point that you bring up is not trivial from a public policy perspective. If even a vaguely significant number of women were ever captured and raped, you can expect public support for women to be put anywhere near harm's way to drop to zero.

quote:

As I've said before, women dying in combat isn't sufficient as a reason to keep them out of the military. At least, not by my argument. I said before that women shouldn't perform roles that they can't perform as well as men, that's what I was referencing when I said they shouldn't perform basic infantry roles, not that they might die.

Actually, my point for mentioning that isn't that they could die, but that they would need to perform a role of infantry which, clearly, they aren't as physically (and I would argue mentally, but we won't go there as that will just muddy the waters) suited for as men. Sorry for being unclear.

To answer your question, in general I think women shouldn't be in the military, but I'm open to stateside, all-female units as an alternative to mixed service.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post 
Hey I'm open to compromise.

On your first link, it talks about the number of women in the Navy that are held back from deployment due to pregnancy. One of my links above references that page, and says that men, due to administrative separation and drug abuse problems, actually have higher numbers of being held back from deployment than women.

The numbers in your second link suggests a large majority of pregnancies could be eliminated by the use of contraceptives. What about a crackdown? Since we're talking about the age group, female teen pregnancies are at their lowest rate in twenty or thirty years, because of easy access to, and cultural acceptance of, contraceptives for women, and increased pressure on women to make sure their men use contraceptives (and on men to actually BE men and provide them). If the goal is to reduce pregnancy, more than to reduce acts of sex, then let's target it. That seems to be the position of your third work cited.

Your fourth source I've already said a half dozen times that I agree with. Women shouldn't do jobs or be put in positions where they might need to have the physical attributes of men.

The fifth reads as more of an editorial, which is fine.

quote:
It's fascinating that everyone focuses on guys.

Read what I wrote, Lyrhawn. What you are talking about in the military in a lot of instances is men and women cohabitating together for long periods of time. If you think most single young men and women can live together for extended periods of time and not notice each other as sexual creatures and, further, not have sex, then why? What leads you to believe this? To me it seems to fly in the face of human nature, never mind my experience.

Alright. I give. Young folk are going to have sex regardless of what we tell them. Your numbers bear out that the grand majority (varies depending on age range and time in the service) of pregnancies are unintended. Push contraceptives. Half of those unintended pregnancies end in abortion. Push contraceptives.

Furthermore, I know a few dozen guys and girls who live with members of the opposite sex on a daily basis, they're called college students. The majority of my friends don't sleep around. And the ones that do, use contraceptives. Of the maybe fifty or sixty friends that I have away at school right now, only one has become pregnant, or gotten someone else pregnant, and that was because they failed to use contraceptives. My argument of personal responsibility, and an expectation of responsibility in men AND women I still think is valid.

quote:
You make a good point, however I still contend that the sexual desire of women by their captors is going to make their captivity worse than it would be comparatively for men.

Also,the point that you bring up is not trivial from a public policy perspective. If even a vaguely significant number of women were ever captured and raped, you can expect public support for women to be put anywhere near harm's way to drop to zero.

Probably. But like I said, I'm up for compromise. I don't think women need to be strictly stateside, but I think there's a big middle ground in there where we could maybe come to an agreement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2