RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms

RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LPslittleclip -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:33:51 PM)
i have served for more than 20 years now and i have been in direct combat with female soldiers. they were no diffrent than the males most did fine some outstanding and some not good. so i would support the females that want to in to all jobs in the army. as far as sex being all male hasent stoped it. in the current conflict having females is a great benifit as they are allowed to search the females and do the things that are not allowed to be done by males in that culture.ther is no superior gender just diffrent, males have more muscle mass and females have more flexability. i have found that you find what you look for. if you seek reasons to have females be usefull then you will find them. similary if you seek for reasons for females to be refused you will find that.

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:34:04 PM)
quote: typographical error –noun an error in printed or typewritten matter resulting from striking the improper key of a keyboard, from mechanical failure, or the like. (dictionary.com) There was mechanical failure..I missed the key Vicious viScous Wrong key? So let me get this straight. You have issue with ME because I don't type that great? Meaning good typing skills are the end all of intelligence? Got it. I'll be sure to drop those on occasion so you can giggle like a school girl. Would you like to move on now?

kalikshama -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:35:32 PM)
/Adopts Philo's Law while maintaining appreciation for the pedants cuz I'm that way/ quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy FR ...we've all heard of Godwins Law. The idea that the first person in an argument to compare the opponent to a Nazi automatically loses. I now propose for you Philo's Law. The first person to attack their opponent on a purely typographical point loses. Seriously.....RML, attacking someone over a typo rather than attacking their argument is lazy. Stop it.

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:37:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama /Adopts Philo's Law while maintaining appreciation for the pedants cuz I'm that way/ It's a thankless task being a pedant, but every so often someone learns something. Sometimes, that someone is me :)

philosophy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama /Adopts Philo's Law while maintaining appreciation for the pedants cuz I'm that way/ [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif] ....lol........although somehow i doubt Philo's law will make it to wikipedia......

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:39:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys You have issue with ME because I don't type that great? It's "that well" ... "because I don't type that well" ;) (sorry, I realise I'm the only one who finds that funny, but I had to)

dcnovice -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:40:10 PM)
I love Philo's Law too! Being an editor, I generally take typos in stride, but I did chuckle when my beloved diner offered "Beef Barely" soup yesterday.

Icarys -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:41:02 PM)
quote: (sorry, I realise I'm the only one who finds that funny, but I had to) What no takers? Dammit man. Okay I'm off to spend time with my furry kids. Night.

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:41:19 PM)
I want a pendant

philosophy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:42:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I want a pendant .....a pearl necklace do? [;)]

kalikshama -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:44:27 PM)
/imagines the wikipedia entry/ [sm=biggrin.gif]

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:44:37 PM)
what a damn waste

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:46:24 PM)
LPs Clip, Thanks for a great response amongst the flotsam. Stay as safe as you can and renewed thanks!

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:48:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Icarys quote: (sorry, I realise I'm the only one who finds that funny, but I had to) Yes? And? I'm English, we're writing English. Check the OED, old sport ;)

RapierFugue -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:49:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip if you seek reasons to have females be usefull then you will find them. similary if you seek for reasons for females to be refused you will find that. True in life as well as this debate ;)

ScaryJello -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:50:13 PM)
Provided women can pass the same physical requirements that the men have to pass I see no problem with it.

philosophy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:52:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic what a damn waste ...that so depends on your frame of mind :p

philosophy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: LPslittleclip if you seek reasons to have females be usefull then you will find them. similary if you seek for reasons for females to be refused you will find that. True in life as well as this debate ;) .....quoted for truth........

Lucylastic -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 5:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic what a damn waste ...that so depends on your frame of mind :p and your reward/punishment level [;)]

pahunkboy -> RE: Army Mulls Women in Combat Arms (1/14/2011 6:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ScaryJello Provided women can pass the same physical requirements that the men have to pass I see no problem with it. You could not really leave women in around straight male troops. They would go wild- have sex- and this could effect morale.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625