By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Your ethical views of woman & LGBT in US and allied military.

outlawauron on 24 January 2017
Goatseye said:
John2290 said:

Gotta stop you right there. No, this is not true. You are only born with so many muscle fibers and man or woman this is a sliding scale, it is not set in stone and the vast majority of women have less muscle fibers at birth. Men are also capable of using muscle to a greater potential and have much greater abundance of the chemical make up that produce agressive heightened states of fight or flight. But even if there were exo skeletons and chemical and hormonal stim packs for everyone in the military woman still should not be in battle imo, they simply don't have the thousands of years of war and fighting in the blood as men do and by blood I mean in the way men have evolved chemically and mentally. Along with other issues like extremists targeting the woman in some sick way. A male POW is at worst getting tortured, a female POW is getting raped and tortured along with all that these cultures find acceptable. Should women who fight be steralized and trained on how to handle endless daily rapings from multiple men as a POW....I could go on for days, to the fact that a female POV would become a serious PR issue and put more soldiers at risk in the rescue attempts....on for days...

What a load off bullsh*t. 

What do you know about military operations? This is not Napoleon times where armies still use swords/bayonnets and march for days to get to their target.

Todays' military is mobile, tech heavy (light, compact, mobile) and more about knowledge than muscle. The load of bollocks you're stating are the same  bulsh*t told by people in the 1940's to keep minorities out of the military.

Light, compact, and mobile???


Wut. Every soldier has to be able to run with over 100lbs of gear + rifle in hand for several miles. Warfare has changed, but the soldiers on the ground are still very much dependent on strength and endurance.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Around the Network
Goatseye on 24 January 2017
outlawauron said:
Goatseye said:

What a load off bullsh*t. 

What do you know about military operations? This is not Napoleon times where armies still use swords/bayonnets and march for days to get to their target.

Todays' military is mobile, tech heavy (light, compact, mobile) and more about knowledge than muscle. The load of bollocks you're stating are the same  bulsh*t told by people in the 1940's to keep minorities out of the military.

Light, compact, and mobile???


Wut. Every soldier has to be able to run with over 100lbs of gear + rifle in hand for several miles. Warfare has changed, but the soldiers on the ground are still very much dependent on strength and endurance.

Bullsh*t. Where did you get that? Source.



the_dengle on 24 January 2017

"Even if they pass all trials and training and aren't outed on the medical they are a target for bullying and a sure weak link."

Could easily imagine someone saying this in the 1940s about African Americans.



Goatseye on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Goatseye said:

Bullsh*t. Where did you get that? Source.

You can't just go and call everything bullshit. Try researching yourself and come back then, perhaps?

I know how soldiers patrolled in the streets of Iraq. That's why I'm calling you out.



Arminillo on 24 January 2017

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/

"....When soldiers headed out on extended foot patrols, their average load ranged from 87 pounds to 127 pounds...."

this is actually an interesting article. Says that it is too much weight.



Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda Muda!!!!


Around the Network
Goatseye on 24 January 2017
John2290 said:
Arminillo said:
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/weight-of-war-gear-that-protects-troops-also-injures-them/

"....When soldiers headed out on extended foot patrols, their average load ranged from 87 pounds to 127 pounds...."

this is actually an interesting article. Says that it is too much weight.

Like strapping a grown woman and walking in extremes of tempreture and/or terrain....under fire! Woman in military better ave good bones or they will be crippled by their late 30's.

Not every man carries a radio or a heavy load out in the military.

In a platoon in Iraq, there is a designated radio man. The rest is standard stuff,  an IBA (16lb), M4 with 8 extra magazines, a camelback water servoir and kevlar helmet. That's maximum of 30lbs.



Branko2166 on 24 January 2017

It's not about ethics but being practical. I'm pretty sure that countries like Russia and China are laughing their asses off when they watch cringe worthy crap like that Senator pushing her ideological agenda rather than doing her job in making sure that the most qualified person is appointed as secretary of defense.

Personally, I think that if women are allowed to serve in infantry roles then female only units should be formed. It has been proven that men get far more demoralised when they witness female deaths. Hence it becomes more difficult to maintain unit cohesion. Unfortunately it may take a military embarrassment to kick everyone back to reality. It is said that political correctness has been allowed to breach the military but I suppose it was inevitable.



 

 

Goatseye on 24 January 2017
Branko2166 said:

It's not about ethics but being practical. I'm pretty sure that countries like Russia and China are laughing their asses off when they watch cringe worthy crap like that Senator pushing her ideological agenda rather than doing her job in making sure that the most qualified person is appointed as secretary of defense.

Personally, I think that if women are allowed to serve in infantry roles then female only units should be formed. It has been proven that men get far more demoralised when they witness female deaths. Hence it becomes more difficult to maintain unit cohesion. Unfortunately it may take a military embarrassment to kick everyone back to reality. It is said that political correctness has been allowed to breach the military but I suppose it was inevitable.

It was political correctness that got African Americans and other races into combat roles. Look where that got US military.

First you have to understand an organization Modus Operandi before chiming in.

Give me a link to the publishing where they concluded that men get more demoralized when they see women die.



outlawauron on 24 January 2017
Goatseye said:
outlawauron said:

Light, compact, and mobile???


Wut. Every soldier has to be able to run with over 100lbs of gear + rifle in hand for several miles. Warfare has changed, but the soldiers on the ground are still very much dependent on strength and endurance.

Bullsh*t. Where did you get that? Source.

1. I have family members and friends who have served in the military and several who are still serving in the military.

2. It's an very, very easily researched fact.

Even if your estimate was correct (it's not and very conservative at best), carrying that weight is part of the minimum requirement to be eligible to join infrantry units.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Goatseye on 24 January 2017