• 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!

Women to become Navy SEAL's and Army Rangers

I didn't say there are. I'm asking you what you think about the ones who can.

I don't see any that can being presented, but why would I think of them any differently?
 
Conspiracy bull**** aside: do you have a problem with women being accepted to such organizations if they meet the standards?

No problem as long as they can carry their own weight and they meet the same standards as everyone else has to meet and that nobody standards are lowered so women can serve.

Liberals think the military is fun and games and are for advancing liberal social agendas.

They don't understand things like unit cohesion, honor, duty, and killing people in the name of the United States. Serving in the military is a extremely serious and deadly job, even during peace time.

Liberals seem surprised and confused when they learn that 3,500 members serving in the U.S. military died during the Clinton administration.
 
Oh please, I'm not a conservative that has to protect the military. I will present any facts about the military I desire to present and in this case I believe it is necessary to protect women from foolishness like this.

No. You're a conservative that has so little respect for the men of the armed forces that you believe they're incapable of comporting themselves like adults in the modern world. That's an insult to them. They can do better. The issue you're raising is emphatically not a reason to bar women in the military, it's a reason to look at what military culture apparently does to some people.
 
No problem as long as they can carry their own weight and they meet the same standards as everyone else has to meet and that nobody standards are lowered so women can serve.

Great. Then we're on the same page.

Liberals think the military is fun and games and are for advancing liberal social agendas.

I've never met a liberal who thinks that, and I live in San Fransico (by which I mean that most people I Know are pretty liberal). You are (I suspect) using the term as a catch-all for demonizing people who don't think like you do.

They don't understand things like unit cohesion, honor, duty, and killing people in the name of the United States. Serving in the military is a extremely serious and deadly job, even during peace time.

Many of them do. There are liberals in the armed forces. I know some of them. FYI, the arguments you're raising in the preceding quote are identical to arguments that were made against racial unit cohesion way back when. That should give you pause.

Liberals seem surprised and confused when they learn that 3,500 members serving in the U.S. military died during the Clinton administration.

Do they now? Have you conducted a study on that issue? No? Then stop making **** up. It's not an effective debating tactic.
 
Last edited:
I am hoping it is not only women that will stand against women being raped. Real men would stand against rape.

I would think some men would stand against it and even go so far to save women like they do outside of the military, but again, the best approach for women to protect themselves from rape is to band together and protect each other. Just look around at some species in nature and you will see this approach is used and to a great deal of success.

Sorry, but women relying on men to protect them from rape is a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
No. You're a conservative that has so little respect for the men of the armed forces that you believe they're incapable of comporting themselves like adults in the modern world. That's an insult to them. They can do better. The issue you're raising is emphatically not a reason to bar women in the military, it's a reason to look at what military culture apparently does to some people.

You should really consider the kind of men that join the military and what the military puts them through and then consider the chances you are giving them when women join the military. It's not exactly rocket science, dude. There is no reason for some sort of study or whatever you want to do to find out the cause. It's beyond obvious exactly why it happens at such a high rate in the military.
 
Last edited:
You should really consider the kind of men that join the military and what the military puts them though and then consider the chances you are giving them when women join the military. It's not exactly rocket science, dude. There is no reason for some sort of study or whatever you want to do to find out the cause. It's beyond obvious exactly why it happens at a such a high rate in the military.

Again: your basic premise seems to be that we should accept very little from the men in our military vis-a-vis rape. I do not accept that premise. And why on earth would we need a study? Who said anything about a study?
 
Do they now? Have you conducted a study on that issue? No? Then stop making **** up. It's not an effective debating tactic.

Every time I post the link on the DP forum or any other forum most people are surprised, especially liberals because liberals represent such a small percentage of those who serve in the military today.

Many believe that's the reason why Obama has been dumbing down the military so much so that more liberals will serve.
Obama said back in 2009 he was going to change the face of the U.S. military.

Hey, remember the first female Navy F-14 fighter pilot ? Bill Clinton and civilian liberals killed her in the name of political correctness.
 
As long as the standards aren't lowered, and we don't get in a few years a bunch of random statistics thrown out proving sexism because a lower percentage of women serve in these roles than men and therefore we much reform the system to fix this (as in what happens everywhere else in our society) then I'm fine with it.

I would imagine a rape epidemic in the military would be a sign of lack of discipline (which has been a problem in the military as of late) and less about women serving.

Women POWs being raped is a real possibility but women soldiers should accept that risk when they enlist. It's not as though men POWs are treated as royalty anyways.
 
Every time I post the link on the DP forum or any other forum most people are surprised, especially liberals because liberals represent such a small percentage of those who serve in the military today.

Many believe that's the reason why Obama has been dumbing down the military so much so that more liberals will serve.
Obama said back in 2009 he was going to change the face of the U.S. military.

Hey, remember the first female Navy F-14 fighter pilot ? Bill Clinton and civilian liberals killed her in the name of political correctness.

Do you ever get your facts right? She died on approach to the Lincoln when he engine died. She was in fact a damn good pilot who screwed up once, which in naval aviation is quite often fatal.

I would really suggest stopping talking about military matters. Your ignorance and need to make **** up is really apparent.
 
We've already had at least one woman pass the Q Course. If they can cut it without the standards being lowered, then what's the huge deal?
I completely agree.

What always irked me when I was in the military was how women got to slide. It was easier for a woman to get 100% of all areas in the PT test, with is part of your score for promotion. It is more difficult for men to ace all of the PT test... Different standards. Though unfair for men, it isn't as big a deal for me as any type of job that requires the endurance our that special forces does.
 
You mean facts aside. Not many women are going to meet standards designed for men.

Special forces standards should not be diminished just for social engineering. This is the cream of the crop of the military.
 
Google Capt. Kathleen Wilder.

Aha. It was in the early 80's, that's why I had never heard of it. At that time I was busy floating around.

I completely agree.

What always irked me when I was in the military was how women got to slide. It was easier for a woman to get 100% of all areas in the PT test, with is part of your score for promotion. It is more difficult for men to ace all of the PT test... Different standards. Though unfair for men, it isn't as big a deal for me as any type of job that requires the endurance our that special forces does.

This has always bothered me a lot. All a woman has to do to max her PT test is like 7 pushups and run 2 miles in like 45 minutes. If they want to be equal, the standards should be equal. That simple.
 
Last edited:
Aha. It was in the early 80's, that's why I had never heard of it. At that time I was busy floating around.



This has always bothered me a lot. All a woman has to do to max her PT test is like 7 pushups and run 2 miles in like 45 minutes. If they want to be equal, the standards should be equal. That simple.
LOL...

You are exaggerating, but I get your point. for my age when I left, I had to do 77 pushups in 2 minutes, 82 situps in 2 minutes, and run 2 miles in 13:18. Women of my age only had to do 50 pushups. Still had to do the 82 situps, but only 15:48 for the run. This was to score a 100 in each. If I recall, you has to score a minimum of 200 total, and at least 60 in each. A score of 60 for men is 39, 45 , and 17:00. It is 17, 45, and 20:30 for women of the 27 - 31 age group.

For normal types of duty, I'm OK with a slight difference, but 27 less pushups and 2:30 longer for the run...

WTF!
 
Last edited:
LOL...

You are exaggerating, but I get your point. for my age when I left, I had to do 77 pushups in 2 minutes, 82 situps in 2 minutes, and run 2 miles in 13:18. Women of my age only had to do 50 pushups. Still had to do the 82 situps, but only 15:48 for the run.

For normal types of duty, I'm OK with a slight difference, but 27 less pushups and 2:30 longer for the run...

WTF!

To be fair, it was only a minor exaggeration. ;)

16 minutes though to max is still ridiculous. I could almost bear-crawl that fast.
 
If for the run for example, for normal military service, we base the difference by the world 3,000 meter record, women would be allotted 10% more time (10.3116%) for the same score. Mens record is 7:20.77, the womens is 8:06.71. If men are required to have 13:18, then women should be able to do it in 14:40, rather than the 15:48.
 
Jesus Christ, dude. It's not a matter of dispute, but a matter of fact. Men in the military when in war time or in peacetime have a higher tendency to rape women. I didn't say the facts were pretty and I surely didn't say I wanted to report on them, but they are the facts and they have been the facts since the beginning. People have to stop thinking modern times is the first time we allowed women in the military ranks and they really have to stop thinking they can solve this problem. Rape will always occur at a higher rate in the military than in society just like it has done in every instance throughout history when women were invited. There is no reason to shoot the massager, but to perhaps accept the fact that what you see around the world today is not new nor was it unexpected.


This is not a "shoot the messenger" issue. The issue is that you are using this reality as a reason not to allow women in .

Perhaps we should see it as a reason to not support those troops and litagate and incarcerate the uncivilized assholes.
 
Wow. You really are showing that you think men have no self-control and are basically animalistic. Really sad dude.

On the contrary, he is correct. He may not be correct for the right reasons, but he is correct.
 
No problem as long as they can carry their own weight and they meet the same standards as everyone else has to meet and that nobody standards are lowered so women can serve.

Liberals think the military is fun and games and are for advancing liberal social agendas.

I don't know if it's that so much as more of them simply don't understand the military, and instinctively resent the bastion of cultural conservatism that it represents.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say there are. I'm asking you what you think about the ones who can.

The ones who can remain women. Combat in the air may be a matter of what a great pilot you individually are, and combat on a boat may be a matter of how proficient you are at doing your one very specialized task, but combat on the ground is a team sport. You can be the mostest awesomest badassest warrior on the planet, and if you detract from the efficiency of the team to function as a team, then you are a net liability, not an asset.

I've had women out on patrol before, and had women assigned to our infantry FOB before. It is.... not good.
 
You just have to know the beast you are dealing with and ask yourself if these ladies are safe. The answer is not good. I highly doubt men that go to war have really changed over the centuries to make this possible now without rape being out of control.

Have you been to war, or served in the Infantry? I ask because anyone can pull an opinion out of their butt, I just wondered how stinky your opinion is... :confused:
 
You just have to know the beast you are dealing with and ask yourself if these ladies are safe. The answer is not good. I highly doubt men that go to war have really changed over the centuries to make this possible now without rape being out of control.

Umm, how about Israel?
 
We've already had at least one woman pass the Q Course. If they can cut it without the standards being lowered, then what's the huge deal?

Who, where, and when? They apparently can't even pass the Marine infantry course. SEAL training is A LOT more strenuous.
 
I would think some men would stand against it and even go so far to save women like they do outside of the military, but again, the best approach for women to protect themselves from rape is to band together and protect each other. Just look around at some species in nature and you will see this approach is used and to a great deal of success.

Sorry, but women relying on men to protect them from rape is a bad idea.

Some of the same type of arguments were made for not allowing integrated units as well.
 
Like I said, you are assuming that men are just animals.

No, but 18-23 year old pumped up young males are and remain 18-23 year old pumped up young males.

I think that the women could protect themselves, seeing as how they'd have just as much training as the guys.

Then I would suggest you come out to some of our martial arts training, where I have yet to see any female best any male given "just as much training". If you have a blackbelt female facing off against a Noob guy, then yeah, she might get him in a wristlock because he doesn't know what he is doing. But the hollywood fantasy that people get from the ScyFy channel where tough heroins are tossing around 200lb bad guys is a joke.
 
Back
Top Bottom