Rick Santorum: Women aren't able to handle the rigors of combat...Thoughts?

[HEATHEN]

Originally Posted by Tupac Jordan

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/tayvie.html For as long as the Vietnamese people fought against foreign enemies, women were a vital part of that struggle. The victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu is said to have involved hundreds of thousands of women, and many of the names in Viet Cong unit rosters were female. These women were living out the ancient saying of their country, "When war comes, even women have to fight."

okay but we're talking about our armed forces and what each soldier must do.
they all have to carry nearly 100 lbs of gear in infantry. The viet cong were out there with nothing but their burners. 

a lot of ya'll are really misinformed, watch the docu-series "Surviving the Cut" on Netflix and take a look at what our armed forces requires. Stop looking up suicidal viet cong and iraqi and afghani martyrs. Really impractical examples. 

 

[me no pass]

Originally Posted by MonStar1

I swear dudes look to argue about stuff they don't know anything about.  You will never see a NTer go "oh for real? I didn't know that.  I guess I was wrong"

Naww they just argue to the bitter end

paintball?

 like how do you say that with a straight face? 

im saying anton just take that L boy and stick to religious debates

 

[hop]

How many of you guys are actually in the military? 

Not saying that someone who isn't in the military could not have a perfectly valid opinion, but i'm interested in how NT servicemen feel about woman being in the military.

@MonStar1: Majority of dudes on NT either suffer from "constanly trying to prove i'm smarter than you" -itis or "I know everything about everything"-itis

 

[myjaysgetrocked]

Originally Posted by ME NO PASS

Originally Posted by MonStar1

I swear dudes look to argue about stuff they don't know anything about.  You will never see a NTer go "oh for real? I didn't know that.  I guess I was wrong"

Naww they just argue to the bitter end

paintball?

 like how do you say that with a straight face? 

im saying anton just take that L boy and stick to religious debates talking about trench coats....

fixed. 

 

[dwyanewadeog]

Originally Posted by Tupac Jordan

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/tayvie.html For as long as the Vietnamese people fought against foreign enemies, women were a vital part of that struggle. The victory over the French at Dien Bien Phu is said to have involved hundreds of thousands of women, and many of the names in Viet Cong unit rosters were female. These women were living out the ancient saying of their country, "When war comes, even women have to fight."

You bring us an example of war where a community or society is facing extermination. In the face of complete destruction of course you are going to mobilize every asset you can. 
What we are debating here is how to create the BEST military fighting force from the population we have.

Another poster above me asked the question if women could pass the same physical fitness requirements should they be allowed to serve in combat roles? To that I would say no. The letter written by the SEAL's mother brought up a lot of points I had never considered regarding the destruction of gender roles (which most of the time is a good thing) and how that affects a units cohesiveness.

 

[dwyanewadeog]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

@ "raped too much" as if there's a "raped just enough"

I usually love John Stewart but I felt this was one of his worst sets.
John Stewart completely missed the point.
What that women was trying to point out is that by including women in the military, the United States is forced to develop and fund a huge bureaucratic system to deal with the problems that always occur when men and women are put into close quarters* together. Sexual abuse and harassment are unfortunate things and should be punished, however, they are near INEVITABLE when you bring large amounts of men and women together.

*close quarters does not necessarily mean a military situation but could include cities, jails, the workplace, school etc etc.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DwyaneWadeOG

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

@ "raped too much" as if there's a "raped just enough"

I usually love John Stewart but I felt this was one of his worst sets.
John Stewart completely missed the point.
What that women was trying to point out is that by including women in the military, the United States is forced to develop and fund a huge bureaucratic system to deal with the problems that always occur when men and women are put into close quarters* together. Sexual abuse and harassment are unfortunate things and should be punished, however, they are near INEVITABLE when you bring large amounts of men and women together.

*close quarters does not necessarily mean a military situation but could include cities, jails, the workplace, school etc etc.

I agree

 

[credo]

The last several wars the U.S. has fought have had no discernible front lines to prevent anyone of any gender from not being on the front lines or "in combat." Women have been fighting and dying next to their brothers and sisters in arms for years now, but for the most part America as a whole tries to turn a blind eye to that fact. What this comes down to is that many Americans are not ready to see images of women dead on the battlefield. This is because it is ingrained in many people's minds, men and women alike, that such activities are not made for women, who should be pampered and left to housekeeping, child raising, and such things. As for that, it is my opinion (and I understand that my opinion goes no further than me) is that war is made for very few that have the mentality to deal with the mental, spiritual, and physical strain that war puts on a person regardless of gender. War is hell, and it takes a certain type of person to descend into hell and return with as few scars as possible. I know men that couldn't do it and I know women that couldn't do it, and both that could. Another argument is a little more valid, and that is that a 120 lbs women will not be able to pick up a 200 lbs wounded man that is wearing about another 100 lbs of gear. There are a couple of holes with this argument. First, even if moving in a duo there is a pretty big chance that back up is close by. Should this scenario play itself out with a woman's battle buddy wounded and she can't pick him up, she can apply first aid, call in back up, and protect him until they arrive. Secondly, in combat you probably won't pick anyone up as it presents a high profile target, and as such you will most likely drag a wounded combat to cover. So to summarize the argument against women in combat roles is compromised of fictitious assumptions created to protect people's "snowglobe" view of how the world should be, and the argument itself is already invalid as women are already in combat roles as there is not front line to discern between where combat is most likely to take place.

U.S. Army 2001-2007
2 Iraq tours

 

[dwyanewadeog]

Originally Posted by Credo

The last several wars the U.S. has fought have had no discernible front lines to prevent anyone of any gender from not being on the front lines or "in combat." Women have been fighting and dying next to their brothers and sisters in arms for years now, but for the most part America as a whole tries to turn a blind eye to that fact. What this comes down to is that many Americans are not ready to see images of women dead on the battlefield. This is because it is ingrained in many people's minds, men and women alike, that such activities are not made for women, who should be pampered and left to housekeeping, child raising, and such things. As for that, it is my opinion (and I understand that my opinion goes no further than me) is that war is made for very few that have the mentality to deal with the mental, spiritual, and physical strain that war puts on a person regardless of gender. War is hell, and it takes a certain type of person to descend into hell and return with as few scars as possible. I know men that couldn't do it and I know women that couldn't do it, and both that could. Another argument is a little more valid, and that is that a 120 lbs women will not be able to pick up a 200 lbs wounded man that is wearing about another 100 lbs of gear. There are a couple of holes with this argument. First, even if moving in a duo there is a pretty big chance that back up is close by. Should this scenario play itself out with a woman's battle buddy wounded and she can't pick him up, she can apply first aid, call in back up, and protect him until they arrive. Secondly, in combat you probably won't pick anyone up as it presents a high profile target, and as such you will most likely drag a wounded combat to cover. So to summarize the argument against women in combat roles is compromised of fictitious assumptions created to protect people's "snowglobe" view of how the world should be, and the argument itself is already invalid as women are already in combat roles as there is not front line to discern between where combat is most likely to take place.

U.S. Army 2001-2007
2 Iraq tours

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.


I will say your statement about women fighting and dying next to men is misleading. While this may be somewhat true, why are casualty rates so disproportionate between men and women? I would probably say that this is because women are rarely in combat roles.

I am curious however, with your military experience, how you see the mixing of genders as explained by the "letter from the mother of a navy SEAL" posted a few pages back. 

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DwyaneWadeOG

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

@ "raped too much" as if there's a "raped just enough"

I usually love John Stewart but I felt this was one of his worst sets.
John Stewart completely missed the point.
What that women was trying to point out is that by including women in the military, the United States is forced to develop and fund a huge bureaucratic system to deal with the problems that always occur when men and women are put into close quarters* together. Sexual abuse and harassment are unfortunate things and should be punished, however, they are near INEVITABLE when you bring large amounts of men and women together.

*close quarters does not necessarily mean a military situation but could include cities, jails, the workplace, school etc etc.

I agree

Unacceptable. Large amount of women and men in close quarters should not equal inevitable rape.  That says a whole lot more about the process of who is allowed to serve and the ppl okaying them than the ppl okaying women to serve seeing it as equal opportunity. I mean we are talking about rape, not that she was drunk and I thought she wanted it rape, not even rufi rape.

The fact that you believe that is frightening.

 

[blakep267]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DwyaneWadeOG

I usually love John Stewart but I felt this was one of his worst sets.
John Stewart completely missed the point.
What that women was trying to point out is that by including women in the military, the United States is forced to develop and fund a huge bureaucratic system to deal with the problems that always occur when men and women are put into close quarters* together. Sexual abuse and harassment are unfortunate things and should be punished, however, they are near INEVITABLE when you bring large amounts of men and women together.

*close quarters does not necessarily mean a military situation but could include cities, jails, the workplace, school etc etc.

I agree

Unacceptable. Large amount of women and men in close quarters should not equal inevitable rape.  That says a whole lot more about the process of who is allowed to serve and the ppl okaying them than the ppl okaying women to serve seeing it as equal opportunity. I mean we are talking about rape, not that she was drunk and I thought she wanted it rape, not even rufi rape.

The fact that you believe that is frightening.

it shoudlnt but it does. Leaving large sums of money unsupervised in front of people who may be poor doesnt excuse them from taking it, but it happens. So would you rather set up tons of security equipment and task forces to stop the theft, or simply not put money there.
  

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Credo

The last several wars the U.S. has fought have had no discernible front lines to prevent anyone of any gender from not being on the front lines or "in combat." Women have been fighting and dying next to their brothers and sisters in arms for years now, but for the most part America as a whole tries to turn a blind eye to that fact. What this comes down to is that many Americans are not ready to see images of women dead on the battlefield. This is because it is ingrained in many people's minds, men and women alike, that such activities are not made for women, who should be pampered and left to housekeeping, child raising, and such things. As for that, it is my opinion (and I understand that my opinion goes no further than me) is that war is made for very few that have the mentality to deal with the mental, spiritual, and physical strain that war puts on a person regardless of gender. War is hell, and it takes a certain type of person to descend into hell and return with as few scars as possible. I know men that couldn't do it and I know women that couldn't do it, and both that could. Another argument is a little more valid, and that is that a 120 lbs women will not be able to pick up a 200 lbs wounded man that is wearing about another 100 lbs of gear. There are a couple of holes with this argument. First, even if moving in a duo there is a pretty big chance that back up is close by. Should this scenario play itself out with a woman's battle buddy wounded and she can't pick him up, she can apply first aid, call in back up, and protect him until they arrive. Secondly, in combat you probably won't pick anyone up as it presents a high profile target, and as such you will most likely drag a wounded combat to cover. So to summarize the argument against women in combat roles is compromised of fictitious assumptions created to protect people's "snowglobe" view of how the world should be, and the argument itself is already invalid as women are already in combat roles as there is not front line to discern between where combat is most likely to take place.

U.S. Army 2001-2007
2 Iraq tours

There are no traditional front lines, but to imply that modern day combat is easy enough for females is laughable.  There are Marines in austere conditions in Afghan right now, climbing mountains right now, carrying over 100 lbs of gear right now.  But they aren't on any front lines?

In what capacity have women been fighting and dying next to their brothers and sisters in arms for years?  As far as I know, there still isn't a direct combat mos that women are allowed to be in.  There has certainly been female casualties (IED and ambush attacks on convoys, rocket/mortar attacks on the fobs), but I don't know of any female door kickers.  I've heard a few stories one or two female soldiers earned a medal for something they did in a combat situation, but the amount of women that see combat is negligible.

Have you ever participated in a combat exercise where a woman was supposed to grab and drag a 200 lb+ soldier even a short distance to safety?  From my experience, most are not even capable of dragging.  I know a few combat medics and every single one is strong as hell... it's not a job for anyone physically or mentally week.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DwyaneWadeOG

I usually love John Stewart but I felt this was one of his worst sets.
John Stewart completely missed the point.
What that women was trying to point out is that by including women in the military, the United States is forced to develop and fund a huge bureaucratic system to deal with the problems that always occur when men and women are put into close quarters* together. Sexual abuse and harassment are unfortunate things and should be punished, however, they are near INEVITABLE when you bring large amounts of men and women together.

*close quarters does not necessarily mean a military situation but could include cities, jails, the workplace, school etc etc.

I agree

Unacceptable. Large amount of women and men in close quarters should not equal inevitable rape. 

Welcome to planet Earth.  Men and women living together shouldn't equal rape, but it has for as long as our species has existed.

 

[antonlavey]

SneakerHeathen wrote:

---

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Neither does combat.

�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

effective?
that's laughable.

look at their casualty rates.

pawns and martyrs are more like it.



Either way you look at it, their women are fighting the good fight and clearly handling the rigors quite nicely. I think as combat continues to modernize women will continue to have bigger and bigger roles in combat.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

SneakerHeathen wrote:

---

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey



�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

effective?
that's laughable.

look at their casualty rates.

pawns and martyrs are more like it.

Either way you look at it, their women are fighting the good fight and clearly handling the rigors quite nicely. I think as combat continues to modernize women will continue to have bigger and bigger roles in combat.

^-- cute pic.

 

[antonlavey]

^^^If I were down I wouldn't expect the smallest guy out there to carry my big @$%$ . The women shouldn't have to carry someone bigger than them, but if another woman goes down or someone their size then that's fair game. Women should be given equal opportunity to defend their country if they desire. If "equal" opportunity is good enough for every profession I can't see why it can't extended to the military. A lot of people have struggled to break into fields that they have been told for years they can't be a part of, and have excelled once given a shot.
  

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

SneakerHeathen wrote:

---

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey



�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

effective?
that's laughable.

look at their casualty rates.

pawns and martyrs are more like it.

Either way you look at it, their women are fighting the good fight and clearly handling the rigors quite nicely. I think as combat continues to modernize women will continue to have bigger and bigger roles in combat.

Anton, we're talking about infantry, going on seek and destroy missions, going months without a hot shower or a hot meal here. Everyone in a war zone gets body armor and a rifle but that does not make them combat soldiers. It is true that these women may see some action in the form of an IED or ambush but that does not put them in the same arena as the infantry because that is what's being discussed here. Like I said earlier, watch Restrepo and than get back to me. I really think your ignorant to the fact women can serve at all in the military.

 

[antonlavey]

^^^Well I think you're ignorant to the fact that women CAN fight in combat and fight valiantly.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


^^^If I were down I wouldn't expect the smallest guy out there to carry my big @$%$ . The women shouldn't have to carry someone bigger than them, but if another woman goes down or someone their size then that's fair game. Women should be given equal opportunity to defend their country if they desire. If "equal" opportunity is good enough for every profession I can't see why it can't extended to the military. A lot of people have struggled to break into fields that they have been told for years they can't be a part of, and have excelled once given a shot.

Even a small guy will likely manage to drag you out of harms way.  Why should women be there at all if they can't provide much assistance to everyone else (99% of the male soldiers will be larger)?  Women should be given equal opportunity to join the armed forces?  Ok, so we get rid of the lower female standards and as a result most women will not be fit enough to join the military and thousands of women currently in would be forced to separate.  That is actually equal opportunity. 

The moral and social argument is one of"rights" vs. what is right. The feminists claim combat service is a"right." A battlefield is not a boardroom, a courtroom or anoperating room, and the contrary notion is hyper egalitarianism rooted infeminist fantasies that women "will have made it" when they havecommanded troops in battle. Women do not have a "right" to serve.Military service for volunteers is a privilege, for draftees, it is a duty. Noone has a "right" to serve, a civilian idea equivalent to having the"right" to be a doctor or lawyer that has no place in the military,whose principal purpose is to kill the enemy and destroy his capacity to fight.

 

[onthenephs]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by kickstart

I see a lot of you don't believe in equality.

Good look on that documentary--will be checking it out.

Neither does combat.

�� Damn funny how women Muslim women have "equal" rights when it comes to fighting for their cause

Hell even children can become effective soldiers and they are physically weak

Yo.. JUST SHUT UP. You continously go against NT code of conduct with your religious slander,every single time it happens im going to report yall. Snitch no snitch  i dont care you annoy the hell outta me

 

[sundoobie]

I don't see the problem with women serving in combat. 
Who would you rather have getting your back?  

vs

 

[dwyanewadeog]

Anton cmon man.
Are you just playing devil's advocate right now?

 

[ar guy]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

^^^Well I think you're ignorant to the fact that women CAN fight in combat and fight valiantly.

So lets say we do allow women into combat units. We either have to A.) Raise the women PT standards to the men's which would immediately disqualify probably about 75% of the women in services now or B.) Lower the men's standard which will ultimately lowers the effectiveness of the entire military.

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

I don't see the problem with women serving in combat. 
Who would you rather have getting your back?  

vs

First guy couldn't even serve. He doesn't meet the required height/weight standard and probably couldn't pass a PT test so your argument is invalid. 

 

[dwyanewadeog]

Originally Posted by AR Guy

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

^^^Well I think you're ignorant to the fact that women CAN fight in combat and fight valiantly.

So lets say we do allow women into combat units. We either have to A.) Raise the women PT standards to the men's which would immediately disqualify probably about 75% of the women in services now or B.) Lower the men's standard which will ultimately lowers the effectiveness of the entire military.

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

First guy couldn't even serve. He doesn't meet the required height/weight standard and probably couldn't pass a PT test so your argument is invalid. 

I also bet that first guy is as tall as the girl posted and with 2 months of lifting would be stronger than the girl posted. testosterone baby.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by voodoo

I agree

Unacceptable. Large amount of women and men in close quarters should not equal inevitable rape. 

Welcome to planet Earth.  Men and women living together shouldn't equal rape, but it has for as long as our species has existed.

Put enough children around a teacher, one of them is bound to get molested. That's basically your logic and you're trying to make it an "it is what it is" situation.

*sigh*

Full misanthrope mode: ON. This man will try being an island.