RE: recruting women for combat

RE: recruting women for combat (Full Version)

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

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/23/2016 5:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer FR I think it's fine that American males be allowed to join the military. Though the rest of the world considers them to be kind of weak, flaccid and pampered, many of them are able to make the grade, given the right training. Is this a fair view, or is it political correctness gone mad? If they are so weak and pampered how come they kick ass everywhere they go? Very good point indeed, Bama. A moment's reflection about every combat situation they've got into, from Viet Nam onward, and I see that you are correct.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/23/2016 6:32:37 PM)
ORIGINAL: ImperialPath The marines also had bad experiences with attempting to comply with PC orders to train women marines for combat. http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/marine-corps-ends-female-infantry-officer-program-guess-how-many-graduated/ That is not what the marine corps says. It says they opened up the application process. They said that so far none of the 30 + women qualified. All the rest is your opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/23/2016 6:34:25 PM)
ORIGINAL: ImperialPath Funny, American soldiers don't want to just "manage". The history shows that quite often the amerikan soldier does not "manage" well.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/23/2016 6:39:03 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD If they are so weak and pampered how come they kick ass everywhere they go? How successful have they been in the sand box? How successful were they in viet nam? How successful were they in korea? Tell us of the largest land battle they had in ww2? Whose ass did the amerikan army kick in ww1? How successful was the amerikan army chasing pancho villa? How successul was the amerikan army against the native amerikans? etc.[8\|]

Aylee -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/23/2016 8:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImperialPath quote: ....having them as a part of the forces just makes it a better force more capable in a more diverse world. PC language. It says we need women combat soldiers because they have a better sense of direction (have you ever had a woman follow a road map for you? It is the most frustration experience for both of you there possibly can be) and it is good in a more diverse world. Do we care about a diverse world when the shit hits the fan? Of course we care about diversity then. Just because combat effectiveness and unit morale are shown to decrease with the addition of women and so some extra folks are wounded or dead, that does not matter. What matter is the feel goods we have because we integrated women into the combat units. Because all lives do NOT matter.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 3:29:25 AM)
ORIGINAL: Aylee Of course we care about diversity then. Just because combat effectiveness and unit morale are shown to decrease with the addition of women and so some extra folks are wounded or dead, that does not matter. What matter is the feel goods we have because we integrated women into the combat units. Because all lives do NOT matter. That is what they said when native amerikans were integrated into the service. That is what they said when blacks were intergrated into the service. But then bigots are wont to run thier mouths about lots of dumb shit.

Awareness -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 4:00:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ImperialPath New recruits are not washed out due to low or high weight or any problems that can be remedied through proper diet and training. That includes most recruits. For example, the American basic training diet is so well designed that it will cause low weight individuals to gain 25-30 lbs in six to eight weeks and high weight individuals to lose 20 lbs in the same time with both building muscle. It is an amazing thing to experience and clearly is something the American military has developed using decades of experience. We're talking 1945, which is the time period his assertion was from. However, if indeed you are correct and the weight gain you're talking about would apply even back then, that would imply the low-weight inductees of 144 pounds would bulk up to 170 in short order.

Awareness -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 4:21:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: 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. Really? That's interesting. In the UK the physical entry requirements for soldiers were lowered a few years ago because too few people were able to meet them. Young people aren't anywhere near as fit and as strong as they used to be, it's said. That sounds more like an indictment of UK manhood than anything else - or to be fair, UK nutrition. A little examination of history shows that the Americans have been outpacing the UK population height-wise (and probably nutrition-wise) since the 1700's. There's a well-known correspondence between nutrition and height. In the 1700's the average height of an Englishman was 5 foot 5 inches. Those raised in the American colonies averaged 3 inches taller. In the early 19th century the disparity in height average between well-fed upper-class students and nutritionally-deprived lower-class students reached almost 9 inches. I've worked with a fair amount of UK guys. Even in a relatively sport-mad and sport-accessible place such as New Zealand, they're not exactly chomping at the bit to work out, play sport or get out in the great outdoors. Not in comparison to the Kiwis, anyway. That tends to change over time, but the tales they tell indicate that New Zealand offers a lot more options and has a much lower barrier to entry for doing all those things. In contrast, while the Americans eat a lot of crap, they also tend to have a wide variety of options when it comes to outdoor activities and there's a considerable fitness culture here which is less prevalent in the UK. Plus, let's face it, the only people who usually want into the military (forgetting the coddled officer class) are those without options. Which means you're probably drawing from a pool of chavs. Not generally the most healthy group in the country.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 6:30:28 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness That sounds more like an indictment of UK manhood than anything else - or to be fair, UK nutrition. A little examination of history shows that the Americans have been outpacing the UK population height-wise (and probably nutrition-wise) since the 1700's. Cite please There's a well-known correspondence between nutrition and height. In the 1700's the average height of an Englishman was 5 foot 5 inches. Those raised in the American colonies averaged 3 inches taller. In the early 19th century the disparity in height average between well-fed upper-class students and nutritionally-deprived lower-class students reached almost 9 inches. This says that britts are typically a bit taller than amerikans. http://www.averageheight.co/average-male-height-by-country Then there is this from ohio state university http://www.livestrong.com/article/542877-the-average-height-of-humans-over-time/ Plus, let's face it, the only people who usually want into the military (forgetting the coddled officer class) are those without options. This appears to say that poverty and not patriotism populates the amerikan military.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 7:13:18 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx 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. [/quote] 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. This is what your cite says. According to the CDC data, 35.1 percent of American adults over the age of 20 are obese. Sixty-nine percent of American adults, who are over 20 years of age, are either overweight or obese. More than 20 percent of American children, who are between 12 and 19 years of age are categorized as obese, and American children from six years of age to 11 years old are also considered obese. 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. Why would the amreikan military allow unhealthy people to be inducted? 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. I said durring ww2 not 1941. Try to respond to what I post and not the voices in your head. By the time 1945 rolled around, there were approximately 125,000 African Americans serving overseas. I said durring ww2 not just overseas. Try to resond to what I post and not the voices in your head. 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. Why was that????When 2.5 million registered why were only 1.2 million accepted? 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. Any idea why that was? So, basically... you're wrong. Again. This is becoming a habit of yours. So far you have yet to show where I have been wrong. 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. So patriotism is off the table ehh??[8\|] 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.[/quote] 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. 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? You are the only one in this discussion with his cock in his mouth instead of facts. 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. When I went to school 63 pounds is less than 120 pounds which is what you claimed your cite said which it did not.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 7:16:10 AM)
ORIGINAL: ImperialPath Bingo! And lets talk that time of month, shall we? An armed woman with pms is someone you would intentionally pick a fight with?[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 8:50:02 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness There's a well-known correspondence between nutrition and height. A rather small one when compared to genetics. Research Center on Aging at Tufts University answers. This question can be rephrased as: "How much variation (difference between individuals) in height is attributable to genetic effects and how much to nutritional effects?" The short answer to this question is that about 60 to 80 percent of the difference in height between individuals is determined by genetic factors, whereas 20 to 40 percent can be attributed to environmental effects, mainly nutrition. This answer is based on estimates of the "heritability" of human height: the proportion of the total variation in height due to genetic factors. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-much-of-human-height/

respectmen -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 2:10:48 PM)
An interesting read Poll: Women Support the Idea of Women in the Military, But Not if They’re Drafted http://mrctv.org/blog/poll-women-support-idea-women-military-not-if-they-re-drafted

Lucylastic -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 2:42:24 PM)
Well being registered in the military one day and being pregnant a year or so down the line then called to duty, doesnt happen to men. I suppose pregnant women on the front line might be a bit off putting for everyone around.

AtUrCervix -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 8:00:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix There is NO WAY we should allow women in the front lines. Period. No. You're talking about a problem that only happens once a month, AtUrCervix. What does that matter? I'm talking about heightened emotions, heavy levels of stress and a natural proclivity by men to protect women. the social imperative to ensure that women survive and the unnecessary strain it would put on even 1 important mission because of the stupid things that men would do around women. As one very famous General once said "war is hell". Women are a distraction to the mission. On both sides.

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 8:22:12 PM)
ORIGINAL: AtUrCervix As one very famous General once said "war is hell". Women are a distraction to the mission. Sherman said that as he burned his way across georgia. When he got to savanah he was met by the mayor of savanah with a buggy load of the hottest bitches in savanah and a barrel of planters punch. Atlanta lay in smoldering ruin while savanah was not touched. Looks like history shows that women and not men soldiers saved savanah.

Dvr22999874 -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 8:32:22 PM)
That's an idea Thompson.................recruit a couple of divisions of working-girls smile. They would blunt any all-male attack. Not so much use if it is a regiment of queens I guess but I'm sure you get the idea. A regiment that pays for itself !!! 1st regiment of roundheels ?

thompsonx -> RE: recruting women for combat (3/24/2016 8:42:02 PM)
ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874 That's an idea Thompson.................recruit a couple of divisions of working-girls smile. They would blunt any all-male attack. Not so much use if it is a regiment of queens I guess but I'm sure you get the idea. A regiment that pays for itself !!! 1st regiment of roundheels ? Or perhaps follow the lead of lysistrata.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 5 [6]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.298828E-02