For civilized peoples it does. International law, ROE, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and a plethora of treaties which limit what we can and cannot do.
Hate to break it to you, but Service Members don't go to combat for little pieces of ribbon and brass.
Civilians seem obsessed with medals for some reason. Nobody in the military would volunteer for a dangerous assignment for a freaking medal.
And we don't call the enemy by denigrating terms to "dehumanize" them. We know damn well that they're people, regardless of how we describe them. Words don't mean a damn thing when you're getting shot at.
Fools and a their foolish notions. Civilized war. :roll: I am reminded of the term Jumbo Shrimp.
Women in combat should be treated the same as men in combat in the same situations. I don't want to hear about men who will "protect women" more than they will "protect their own comrades in arms". Soldiers are soldiers. Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality. The USA is at war. Women who serve are at war. I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.
You mean prawns? lol.
So unbelievably true. I'm tired of them maxing their PT tests with 3 pushups and a 2 hour 2 mile run time. Start meeting male standards and you might start being treated like a male.I didn't read the article before I posted. It's about the eighty-six thousandth time this issue has come up. My bad.
If these female Service Members want to be Infantry, more power to them, but I don't see them complaining about the "inequality" in the PT standards. If they can pass the male standards of the PT test at a minimum of 70%, and maintain that, then by all means, let them in. If not, they can go back to being mechanics, medics, pilots, surgeons, heavy equipment operators, cooks, administrative personnel, electricians, drivers, Sappers, lawyers, Military Police, intelligence personnel, and all those other important roles which they feel aren't good enough.
Have you been to war? If you had, you might have gotten the chance to see the difference between fighting with honor, and fighting like a coward.Fools and a their foolish notions. Civilized war. :roll: I am reminded of the term Jumbo Shrimp.
lol, ok.The psychology is on my side on this one.
The English referred to the Germans as "Jerry", and "slant" "gook" and "slope" were used as disparaging terms against the North Koreans and Vietnamese. We still view the enemy as people. They're just people we don't like, so why the **** would we refer to them using polite, PC terms?When you refer to a German as a kraut or Jerry, or an Asian as a Jap or a squint or a slant or a gook, you are no longer referring to them as a person.
I had a North Korean in my sights once. He looked pretty human to me, and I would have killed him just the same if ordered.You have made them an item, a thing, a target to fill your reticule.
Humans have done this throughout our entire recorded history, even as far back as the Babylonians repurposing the Sumerian mother-god Tiamat into a heinous beast that was the font of all evil. You see, if you aren't like us, then YOU must be "the bad guys," and we can kill you with a clear conscious.
In the naval/aeronautical tradition, enemy troops on other ships are not people, they're "the enemy." But when that ship gets sunk, all of the survivors stranded in the water are "souls," as in, "the ship went down with 100 souls aboard, twenty souls got out in time"... until you pick them up out of the water, at which point they are then "prisoners".
Military and civilian mindsets and psychology are two entirely different things. You should leave both to the professionals who actually know what they're doing... for the most part anyway. Or keep going, since I find you telling us how we think to be hilariously entertaining.This phenomenon is widely rampant today in the world of politics, most especially in the terms of overgeneralizaton, i.e. "all conservatives must necessarily be bigots," or "all liberals must necessarily be stupid and gullible." This accomplishes the same feat of taking an individual person out of any future equation and replacing them with a "thing" that just happens to be stupid/bigoted/something we can fundamentally disagree with on everything, and both parties have used this to package popular ideas with unpopular ones.
That's one thing that kept me pissed off. Some chick gets her max, then gloats about it like she's the "bees knees", baddest mother****er in town. Congratulations lady, you were able to pass my minimum score.So unbelievably true. I'm tired of them maxing their PT tests with 3 pushups and a 2 hour 2 mile run time. Start meeting male standards and you might start being treated like a male.
Military and civilian mindsets and psychology are two entirely different things. You should leave both to the professionals who actually know what they're doing... for the most part anyway. Or keep going, since I find you telling us how we think to be hilariously entertaining.
No, I don't care for sports at all.Do you watch sports? Do you have a "home team" and engage in rival behavior? Have you ever said something like "GO BLUE! Beat the Suck-eyes! Ohio fans are the worst!"?
I consider you as somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, concerning this particular subject.Or, how about this. I am a veteran of the Air Force - do you consider me "less" of a serviceman than you?
No, I don't care for sports at all.
I consider you as somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about, concerning this particular subject.
Do I know people who talk ****? Yeah. So what?Do you know someone who does this? Have you ever heard any of your friends or relatives same something like, "Giants fans are doucebags," or, "Raiders fans are felons"?
Just for ****s and giggles, what was your MOS?Your opinion is noted.
So long as they pass all of the requirements that men would have as far pysical condition ect. then I agree with you. If women get a watered down tailered bull**** version, then quite frankly all they are gona end up doing is getting themselves killed. Theres a reason there are standards in PT and the like. Weeding out people that cant hack it being one.
Do I know people who talk ****? Yeah. So what?
Just for ****s and giggles, what was your MOS?
Frankly, I think PT requirements should be by MOS rather than gender. Seriously, why should a paralegal have to be held to the same physical standard as an infantryman, regardless of gender?
Considering that they also work closely with those people, and do people things with those people, no. I don't believe they really think all of the people who support their opposing teams are douchebags. They just say it because making people mad is funny.Then you know people who engage in group identity. Do you believe them when they say that all Giants fans are douchebags? Or, do you at least believe that they believe it?
1A8X1
And yourself?
Because that paralegal isn't just a paralegal. That may be their primary function, but in the worst case scenario of a base being overrun, that paralegal is fighter. And you have to be in shape to deploy. Imagine being in 130 degree heat, and then having to don MOPP gear. If you're out of shape, you're toast pretty quickly. You've now become a liability as opposed to an asset.
Frankly, I think PT requirements should be by MOS rather than gender. Seriously, why should a paralegal have to be held to the same physical standard as an infantryman, regardless of gender?
Oh yes it does, especially if you are the U.S..... I don't think war should have any boundaries, if you go to war, you go to war.... that said, war needs to have a clear goal and job to be done, and this goal/job must be important enough for some civilians to die... if it's not, than don't go to war.War has boundaries? Ever?
Considering that they also work closely with those people, and do people things with those people, no. I don't believe they really think all of the people who support their opposing teams are douchebags. They just say it because making people mad is funny.
Fine, but the PT test doesn't test that. And by that reasoning there is also no excuse for lowering the standards as you get older, which they do. If we are going to go on the reasoning that anyone could get overridden at any moment then perhaps everyone should have to meet the standards of an 18 year old male. As someone who has administered more PT tests to Colonels than Privates, I can say we would have to boot a lot of senior personnel.
There is a tradeoff in that the tougher you make the physical standards the less likely you are going to be able to fill your ranks with otherwise qualified personnel who may be even more proficient in their given skill set.
Oh yes it does, especially if you are the U.S..... I don't think war should have any boundaries, if you go to war, you go to war.... that said, war needs to have a clear goal and job to be done, and this goal/job must be important enough for some civilians to die... if it's not, than don't go to war.
For civilized peoples it does. International law, ROE, the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention, and a plethora of treaties which limit what we can and cannot do.
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com
The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.
modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
Until we no longer have tits and ***** we'll still be considered differently situated.
I'd be surprised otherwise.
The concept makes me nervous because women are given substandard fitness standards - I think it's bull**** - it lets the weak in where there should be no weakness.
(I know I know - all the response arguments heading my way. I've heard it all. I don't care. I only support equalized standards for everyone - if a guy can't under perform and be in, then women shouldn't be able to under perform and get in, either)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?