• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marine Corp Delays Pull-Up Requirement for Female Marines


I didn't try to twist your words and I owe you absolutely nothing. Try posting the link I requested first, and then I will consider your question.
 
I didn't try to twist your words and I owe you absolutely nothing. Try posting the link I requested first, and then I will consider your question.

a. You openly claimed that I said something when I did no such thing.
So yes I do expect an apology for that.

b. And in order to consider commenting on anything regarding "combat" roles in the IDF you need to know how soldiers (and units) are being graded.
Unit then all your "analysis" is based on the word "combat" which is meaningless in the context you try to apply it.
Do you know how soldiers in the IDF are being graded as combat or non combat?
...a hint, 02 =/= 03 =/= 05 =/= 07


Fallen.
 

Well you're going to be waiting a LONG time buddy! :lol: And I still see no link, and I'm not going to respond until I see you prove the allegations you made. The IDF states that these women are in combat units. You say they aren't "really" combat active. I want evidence.
 
Until you can show PROOF of where soldiers were killed specifically because of a female soldier, then your argument is nonsensical.

He can't.
 
The links I posted clearly state that the IDF is planning on expanding their use of women in combat forces because it's worked out very well for them. That must piss you guys off to no END! Lol!
 

He's demonstrating why the military more and more focuses on making intelligence the measure and standard, not brawn.
 

No one yet has been able to give an example of women in combat as caused even one of our soldiers to get killed. Obviously you want a weak American military and probably think the USA should "off-shore" the USA military to hire soldiers from India and China.

Fortunately there are reasons why it is wiser minds that call the shots and set the standards.
 

I quoted directly from your post on IDF rules. When it states women are "not allowed." I take that to mean exactly what it says, even though they may be part of a combat unit. It may not be fair, but that's the way it is at this time, and the women apparently accept that.
 
He's demonstrating why the military more and more focuses on making intelligence the measure and standard, not brawn.

There are many combat roles that women can take in the military, and with all of the technology we have nowadays brawn is certainly not necessary for a lot of roles. However, if a woman is going to be in a situation where she has to perhaps rescue fellow soldiers and carry heavy packs for miles without slowing down her unit, then I think it is only common sense that she must pass the same physical fitness and strength tests as the men do.

The complaints about sex and pregnancies though are bogus IMO, just excuses for those who don't want to consider allowing women, even those who are able-bodied, to help defend our country. I think some of them might even just want to relegate women to "kitchen duty" so to speak. :lol:
 

I didn't see you quote any part that says women are "not allowed." Being sent to a border to protect it in a place like Israel, regardless of WHICH border, is being sent into a combat situation. Combat could erupt at any time, and these women are fully trained and ready for that.
 
Lying gets you nowhere. I have never posted no woman could meet physical standards nor ever posted that there are no "physical" jobs in the military anymore.

What I have posted is claiming that the sole measure of 100% combat needs is based on physical measurements is false.
 

Please reread my post #284.
 
Please reread my post #284.

I think you need to reread my link again because there is no passage whatsoever which says that women are not allowed.
 
Here is pretty much the complete text. Nowhere does it mention that.

 

I've wasted enough time on you for now. Go on back to your phony made up world.
 

Who is making the extreme sexist declares are men who were bottom of the totem pole members in the military. They have an extremely simplistic view of what national defense and military defense needs and tactics are. They do not grasp (or do not want to) that the real objectives in policing wars nor the vast range of goals and tasks given to the US military by civilian command - which I imagine they generally despise.

The military has learned, as has civilian leadership, that large numbers of infantry and ground troops - whether 30,000 or 200,000 or 500,000 - do not result in a final victory. Rather, it results in ultimate stalemate at best and more often weakening of the military, support of the military and damage to our relationship with other countries - plus is astronomically expensive. Costs thousands and tens of thousands of Americans killed and upwards of 10 times as many wounded. The total final costs runs into the trillions. Literally. Vietnam. Iraq. Afghanistan. Over and over the same lesson. Sending out massive numbers of ground troops for most war situations does NOT obtain the actual final objective.

Who actually first recognized this was Ronald Reagan, but the military is very stubborn about keeping up with the times. I gave an example of how the attitudes and tactics of the military has changed, and in that change traditional "infantry" in terms of mass numbers is no longer needed or wanted.

It is a combination of technological superiority, being PR tactically skilled and specific targets/people being taken out that is the future. The goal for Libya was to take out the government (right or wrong) and it was accomplished without massive numbers of ground troops. Wanted the government of Egypt to topple (right or wrong) and was successful also without mass invasion.

They are living in the past with antiquated ideas who believe the military is and should be entirely built about what they did. Their era is over and they don't like it.
 
Until you can show PROOF of where soldiers were killed specifically because of a female soldier, then your argument is nonsensical.

I will offer this duty assignment, by gender, observation as proof. Your odds of dying are increased by deployment to combat zones and that deployment is now decrased/increased by your gender, thus the proof is merely that your odds of being deployed in such a dangerous combat position are increased as a male and decreased as a female. Openings for (odds of?) assignnment to REMF (support or non-combat) positions are increased for females and thereby decreased for males.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=psc_working_papers
 
And the same goes for men. Are you actually trying to say that no woman can hack it?

How much time and money should be wasted before finding one that can? And if you do, what about the problems she will create when assigned to a combat platoon? What then?
 
Oh and now the utterly ridiculous hyperbole begins as you have NO valid argument left. What a complete ignoramus.

It's a completely valid argument. What you want places soldiers in unnecessary risks.
 
Another post with absolutely no substance whatsoever. :lol: Amusing.

LOL. Ignoring what happens in the real world of a combat unit has "no substance"? LOL.
 

Let me guess. You don't have much of a college degree, but you played sports in school. Did I guess right?

Of course, being how easy school is, certainly you should have at least 1 PhD. Do you?
 
What in the hell are you talking about? I would just say go do your business in private weirdo.

Where's that "private" place located that other platoon members may not stumble across? And just as I thought, you would not say a female should be prohibited from filing some kind of a sex charge against a dude doing just what you proposed.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…