Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: recruting women for combat


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: recruting women for combat Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/14/2016 1:47:28 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Tkman117

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

In ww2 we were told that the japs were all nearly blind and needed glasses. We were told that only the first wave of russian soldiers had rifles and those behind them were unarmed until they could find a dead mans weapon. History shows that these were lies. I would suspect that much of what we have been told about isis is just as factual.



During ww2 there were rumours about concentration camps but it wasn't until Germany was invaded that they found out exactly how bad it was.

The allies knew all about the death camps from day one while claiming that it was only rumor.


Not every rumour is false, it pays not to put too much faith in rumours, but to simply dismiss them without even considering them is pretty narrow minded. I personally don't care if it's a correct or incorrect rumour, but if it's true them great, it's one way to strike fear into ISIS,

What if we packed up all our marbles and chalk and went home? That might cause more than a little consternation...as in "what the fuck are they up to?????



(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 61
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/14/2016 8:06:21 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

I've actually heard something pretty similar, that if a woman kills a jihadist warrior then they will not be allowed into heaven or something. I'm not sure how true it is but I like the fact that you have these terrorists who's biggest fear is being killed by a woman lol


In ww2 we were told that the japs were all nearly blind and needed glasses. We were told that only the first wave of russian soldiers had rifles and those behind them were unarmed until they could find a dead mans weapon. History shows that these were lies. I would suspect that much of what we have been told about isis is just as factual.



During ww2 there were rumours about concentration camps but it wasn't until Germany was invaded that they found out exactly how bad it was. Not every rumour is false, it pays not to put too much faith in rumours, but to simply dismiss them without even considering them is pretty narrow minded. I personally don't care if it's a correct or incorrect rumour, but if it's true them great, it's one way to strike fear into ISIS, if not then...what? It's not racist to misunderstand another religion, it's only discriminatory when you use said rumours to define your interpretation of who Muslim people are in the first place, which after having several Muslim friends growing up I know is idiotic to do. I can't speak for people like Bounty or Bama however, since they'll likely use this as a blanket definition about Muslim men in general no doubt, but people who actually think aren't like that.

You haven't been paying attention.
I have often said that Islamists are not representative of Islam in general.
But you have to admit that in general women are 2nd class citizens in countries under Islamic law. Thus dying at the hands of women would be adding insult to injury. I have not heard and thus will not comment on the idea that they don't believe they can enter paradise if killed by a woman.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Tkman117)
Profile   Post #: 62
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/14/2016 9:39:24 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If they're not, then they're compromising the fighting ability of the force. The average infantry grunt has to carry a pack with a minimum weight of 50 pounds and an average weight of between 95 and 135. In Afghanistan, it's frequently 150.

Where did you get this data? What does a soldier need to carry that weighs 150 pounds?
Dude, information on infantry pack weights is readily available. It is not my responsibility to educate you, it's yours to cite resources which disprove my assertion. If you can't do that, then shut the fuck up because all you're doing is indulging your desire to generate noise.

quote:


If anyone seriously thinks the average woman is going to carry her own body weight on her back, they're delusional.

Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his owh body weight on his back is delusional.
The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.


quote:


Bottom line, if women can't meet the physical and mental requirements for combat, they just shouldn't be there.

Problem sweetie, is that you have no clue what those requirements are.
How is that remotely relevant to the topic? You can't argue for shit, lad. Fuck off.


_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 63
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/15/2016 3:05:20 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Awareness


ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If they're not, then they're compromising the fighting ability of the force. The average infantry grunt has to carry a pack with a minimum weight of 50 pounds and an average weight of between 95 and 135. In Afghanistan, it's frequently 150.

Where did you get this data? What does a soldier need to carry that weighs 150 pounds?


Dude, information on infantry pack weights is readily available.

Then why have you not posted it?

It is not my responsibility to educate you, it's yours to cite resources which disprove my assertion.

Actually it is your job to validate your assertions.


If you can't do that, then shut the fuck up because all you're doing is indulging your desire to generate noise.

Roflmfao...you say something stupid and you think it is my job to validate it?????


If anyone seriously thinks the average woman is going to carry her own body weight on her back, they're delusional.

Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his owh body weight on his back is delusional.


The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.

No they are your bullshit figures that you have failed to document.



Bottom line, if women can't meet the physical and mental requirements for combat, they just shouldn't be there.

Problem sweetie, is that you have no clue what those requirements are.


How is that remotely relevant to the topic? You can't argue for shit, lad. Fuck off.

Sweetie I have only pointed out that your post are long on opinion and terribly short on facts.



(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 64
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/15/2016 5:23:59 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Awareness


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his own body weight on his back is delusional.


The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.



The armys statistics say what I said...you are full of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.

Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man.

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 65
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/15/2016 12:53:24 PM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Awareness


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his own body weight on his back is delusional.


The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.



The armys statistics say what I said...you are full of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.

Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man.

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

Those statistics are from 1945, you mental midget. A year before Congress enacted measures to counter the childhood malnutrition which caused so many poor specimens of American manhood to turn up for the draft. Note that this was also before President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed services.

Consequently today's army has more African American servicemen and overall taller, more muscular and heavier soldiers than the lily-whites of 1945. And the weight of infantryman packs is also beyond dispute.

So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.









_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 66
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/15/2016 1:18:51 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Awareness


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his own body weight on his back is delusional.


The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.



The armys statistics say what I said...you are full of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.

Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man.

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

Those statistics are from 1945, you mental midget.

Please show any evidence you may have that would indicate that humans in amerika have changed in the past 70 years you phoquing moron.

A year before Congress enacted measures to counter the childhood malnutrition which caused so many poor specimens of American manhood to turn up for the draft.


Even a phoquing moron would/should know that the poor speicmens you mention were not allowed in the military and the sizes in the article cited are for those who were in the military and not the rejects dumb ass.


Note that this was also before President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed services.

More than 2.5 million blacks sereved in the military durring ww2 you racist moron.

Consequently today's army has more African American servicemen and overall taller, more muscular and heavier soldiers than the lily-whites of 1945. And the weight of infantryman packs is also beyond dispute.

You are the only one who believe that because if you had been in the army would know better than to say such stupid shit.

So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.

Basically you are full of shit and need to learn to read. What your cite says in the very first line is:
Nowhere in Afghanistan did Lt. Col. Charles Dean see the folkloric 120-pound rucksack reputed to be carried by a dismounted infantryman in combat.

A little farther down it says:

A fighting load is everything worn or carried except a rucksack and should be held to less than 48 pounds,

Do you just open your mouth to change feet?








(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 67
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 11:16:17 AM   
Awareness


Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Those statistics are from 1945, you mental midget.


Please show any evidence you may have that would indicate that humans in amerika have changed in the past 70 years you phoquing moron.
Demographic changes due to nutrition are well documented. Places like, oh, I dunno, the CDC: http://www.newsmax.com/US/average-weight-man-woman-obese/2015/06/15/id/650546/

The average American male TODAY weighs around 195 pounds. If we presume the military recruits are a little trimmer, you can figure 180 as a reasonable average.



quote:


Even a phoquing moron would/should know that the poor speicmens you mention were not allowed in the military and the sizes in the article cited are for those who were in the military and not the rejects dumb ass.
No, these were inductees who could wash out for a whole bunch of reasons. Generally speaking poor nutrition contributed to reduced height and weight as well as poorer health. Consequently, getting in didn't mean you were healthy and capable, it meant you passed the initial physical, you fuckwit.


quote:


Note that this was also before President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed services.
More than 2.5 million blacks sereved in the military durring ww2 you racist moron.
No. They didn't - you apparently have trouble reading as well as thinking. Less than 4,000 African Americans were serving in the military in 1941. By the time 1945 rolled around, there were approximately 125,000 African Americans serving overseas. Overall there were 1.2 million African Americans serving in various roles including the African American Women's auxiliaries. However the units were strictly segregated and the total number of African Americans serving never reached the 10.6% mark which represented their proportion of the population. Nowdays, African Americans constitute 13.2% of the military, but during the period from July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1945, African Americans only made up 0.8% of inductees in the US Army.

So, basically... you're wrong. Again. This is becoming a habit of yours.


quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Consequently today's army has more African American servicemen and overall taller, more muscular and heavier soldiers than the lily-whites of 1945. And the weight of infantryman packs is also beyond dispute.

You are the only one who believe that because if you had been in the army would know better than to say such stupid shit.
Anybody who can read believes that because the facts are pretty fucking plain. Plus the military tends to try and recruit from an underclass. And generally underclasses are either ethnic minorities, poor or both.

quote:



So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.

Basically you are full of shit and need to learn to read. What your cite says in the very first line is:
Nowhere in Afghanistan did Lt. Col. Charles Dean see the folkloric 120-pound rucksack reputed to be carried by a dismounted infantryman in combat.
That talks about one individual's experience, you fucking moron. In the same article it talks about Emergency Approach March Loads of 120 to 142 pounds.

quote:


A little farther down it says:

A fighting load is everything worn or carried except a rucksack and should be held to less than 48 pounds,

Do you just open your mouth to change feet?
Do you just open yours to switch cocks?

IN THE SAME ARTICLE I SENT YOU it quotes the following: "After reviewing the data, the average rifleman's fighting load was 63 pounds, which meant he was carrying on average 36 percent of his body weight before strapping on a rucksack. "

If 36 percent of his body weight is 63 pounds, then the bodyweight they're talking about is (can you do math?) 175 pounds.

Tadaaaa! Christ, you're bad at this.



_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 68
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 11:26:27 AM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		We are looking for Bulls.
Powerhouse warriors.
Who protect the USA, understand our laws, and aren't afraid to back them up and fight.

_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 69
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 12:13:18 PM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Awareness


ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Anyone who thinks the average man is going to carry his own body weight on his back is delusional.


The average male body weight is not 150, it's generally 180 and infantryman are often stocky and muscular. Go and argue with the Army dude, it's their statistics.



The armys statistics say what I said...you are full of shit. You do not know what you are talking about.

Data compiled for millions of inductees shows the following to be the actual measurements of the "average" newcomer to the Army as he appears at the clothing counter of a reception center: 5' 8" tall; 144 pounds in weight; 33 ¼" chest measurement; 31" waist measurement. From the tariff tables showing the frequency of size issues it is found that the sizes most frequently issued are a 7 to 7½ hat, number 9 gloves, a 15 shirt with a 33" sleeve, a 36 regular jacket, a pair of trousers with a 32" waist and a 32" leg length, size 11 socks, and size 9-D shoes. These figures may be taken to indicate the size of the "average American young man.

http://www.qmmuseum.lee.army.mil/WWII/tailor.htm

Those statistics are from 1945, you mental midget. A year before Congress enacted measures to counter the childhood malnutrition which caused so many poor specimens of American manhood to turn up for the draft. Note that this was also before President Truman signed Executive Order 9981 which desegregated the armed services.

Consequently today's army has more African American servicemen and overall taller, more muscular and heavier soldiers than the lily-whites of 1945. And the weight of infantryman packs is also beyond dispute.

So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.









never mind

< Message edited by BamaD -- 3/23/2016 12:16:17 PM >

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 70
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 12:32:25 PM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		We don't register period.
Our men are coming home bitches. Take care of your own problems.
We can't help you.
Fight your own wars, fuck your own men.
We can not help your stupidity.
If your men are that stupid that's your problem.
If our men don't come home we replace them with superiors.


_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 71
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 12:57:26 PM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		My mission in life is to help people.
Your mission in life is to be a coward.

As long as you live, never talk about our fallen soldiers.

Talk about your own great or piece of shit country, and don't talk about us ever.
We will never help again.
Take care of your own.

_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
Profile   Post #: 72
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 1:03:42 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		As far as the original topic goes, I have no problem with it, after all equality is equality.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
Profile   Post #: 73
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 1:15:40 PM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		I have a problem with men cowards.

Women have no place in combat, pussies.

That's why we are recruiting for Bulls, real men, Warriors.


_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 74
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 1:30:00 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		You drinking again?

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
Profile   Post #: 75
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 1:43:45 PM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		Yes I am. Good call.
But women are not designed for combat, will never be called to combat, we want our men to come home. Your men take care of you.

_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to ThatDizzyChick)
Profile   Post #: 76
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 1:45:50 PM   
ThatDizzyChick


Posts: 5490
Status: offline 		Thought so.
get some help, you need it babe.
quote:

But women are not designed for combat,

Tell, that to the women Soviet combat vets of WWII or the women Kurds fighting in Syria.

_____________________________

Not your average bimbo.

(in reply to Cinnamongirl67)
Profile   Post #: 77
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 2:01:17 PM   
ImperialPath


Posts: 215
Joined: 3/11/2016
Status: offline
quote:

The average infantry grunt has to carry a pack with a minimum weight of 50 pounds and an average weight of between 95 and 135. In Afghanistan, it's frequently 150.


The max weight is 50-60 lbs. Should you be tasked to carry heavy weaponry or electronics then your backpack weight is shared. Clearly you were not a warrior.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 78
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 2:02:12 PM   
crazyml


Posts: 5568
Joined: 7/3/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

So, yes - you're arguing with the Army about their pack sizes. In inaccessible terrain - such as in Afghanistan - soldiers might be required to carry the Emergency Approach March Load which is indeed between 120 and 150 pounds as documented at http://www.natick.army.mil/about/pao/2004/04-03.htm

Basically, you're wrong. Suck it up.



How odd. You've cited a report that seems to strongly contradict your assertion that "The average infantry grunt has to carry a pack with a minimum weight of 50 pounds and an average weight of between 95 and 135. In Afghanistan, it's frequently 150. "

So, basically, you were wrong. According to the information you provided to substantiate your claim.

Check this out - http://thedonovan.com/archives/modernwarriorload/ModernWarriorsCombatLoadReport.pdf

This provides more data, and reports higher loads than the snippet you cite, but loads of 150 are rare.








_____________________________

Remember.... There's always somewhere on the planet where it's jackass o'clock.

(in reply to Awareness)
Profile   Post #: 79
RE: recruting women for combat - 3/23/2016 2:07:17 PM   
Cinnamongirl67


Posts: 854
Status: offline 		We want our men home. If they don't come home we kill you.

We are out of your country. Take care of your own morons.

< Message edited by Cinnamongirl67 -- 3/23/2016 2:08:04 PM >

_____________________________

Balanced Chakra
http://youtu.be/Gl9AGlbe3YU

(in reply to crazyml)
Profile   Post #: 80
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: recruting women for combat Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109