go ahead call me a cheauvanist, caveman throughback to the unenlightend times; BUT NO! Women have NO PLACE on the FRONT LINES IN COMBAT!! THEY ARE A LIABILITY TO THE EXTREAM!

Tell me WHEN was the LAST time you saw irl a FS(Fem Soldier) toss a wounded man over HER shoulder and carry him to an aid station? answer, outside of basic, NEVER, the bmi's dont match. What do you think will happen to the FIRST women Soldiers captured by an enemy? remember the sgt. capured in DS1? That's riiight they have LOTS of FUN with THEM!! willing or not(mostly not). Name ONE successful Army in HISTORY that had WOMEN on the Front lines? hell even the army of the Republic when THEY found out in the "War of Northern agression" were shamed and sent back home!

no need to reply to this, it's one reason I got out of the Mil before retireing, they put splitails in my squadron and on my ships and several times they could'nt lift load the bombs. one time almost broke my arm off!

Sorry gals, you're NOT men, and us guys AINT women! simple fact, and ALL you're FEMINAZI ing wo'nt change it!

Don't like it? TOUGH! and do'nt complain to me about it. they are plain and simple a MASSIVE bad influence on Combat Readiness and Moral!

Guy's do'nt become NON COMBAT CAPABLE BY A NATURAL BODILY FUNCTION, WOMEN DO! and when they're gone, it just leaves a space empty that D.C. can't fill

Know a ton of yall gals are gona be pissed at me for that; BUT THAT"S THE FACTS JACK!:wall:

 

Calling you a "Cheauvanist" would be like a compliment.
So what do you see your self as?

I can't tell you if that hasn't ever happen. Why? One reason, I haven't ever been in war. I mean I haven't ever served in any type of military.

But I'm sure a female soldier has done that some where in the world. Just saying. :mrgreen:

What's more of a "LIABILITY" a women weak soldiers?

 

Yes, providing they meet the same standards as everyone else on the front line.

 

Met an Israeli couple on their honeymoon. Turns out, in Israel everyone serves 2 years, women serve in combat if they volunteer for it.

Makes sense to me, course that leaves open the question of men who want the option to volunteer for combat.

Nope, Shooter takes the attitude that everyone should serve 2 years, or they can't vote. And, everyone is eligible for combat if they qualify. All the noise about women being too weak? Nah. I seen women can toss ME over their shoulder, and I'm a fat boy. And I'd have serious trouble tossing them over my shoulder, cause, again, you know, I'm a fat boy.

Quite simply, you should qualify for any posting; if you got bad eyes I don't want you flying around in a B-1, or a Eurofighter. If you can't handle the demands of combat, go cook something, or drive a truck, or whatever.

But, just because they squat to pee doesn't make em unqualified to fight. In fact, I find it kind of sexy................

 

There used to be a very obvious, sensible and legitimate reason for barring women from serving in battles.

Wars used to involve very heavy casualty rates; to wit, the UK lost 900,000 young men during the First World War, when it's entire population of young men wasn't above five million. Now, a country can recover from losing that many men, because one man can father more than one child at a time; the population can rebound fairly quickly. If a country loses a hefty proportion of its women, the consequences were catastrophic, since any given woman can only produce, fairly optimistically, one child every nine months. Hence, no sane country/city state/petty dukedom, would allow its women to serve in the army. Men were expendable, but women were not.


In wars today, casualty rates tend not to be so astronomically high; no modern series of battles would ever require the vast number of troops that fought in the two world wars; they are much more about battles of technology than ever they used to be. So, the question to be answered is; does this line of argument still apply nowadays? If there is no practical reason for keeping women out of fights, then there is certainly no moral reason for it. (Either a war is morally acceptable or it is not; which gender is fighting it won't alter that argument.)

 

remove sex from the equation for a moment
if candidate 1 is capable and candidate 2 is capable should both be viewed equaly?
is miss alex reagan worth more or less than mister alex reagan?
and if miss reagan is a minority does that change anything?
this is the real question we are looking at
have i ever watched a female medic save a male soldiers life?
yes
are they capable of doing it? hell yes
should sex be used to assign soldiers to duty posts? no
my wife was israilie military by choice and can do things that the american equivilant cannot because she was trained equaly
male - female should not be the factor

but maybe congress would think longer before they sent thier daughters to war before their sons

 

I can appreciate and respect women warriors. Russians had some, Israelis got some, Bosnians had some. But the original post was about the draft. Not about female soldiers serving in the front line, but should women also be eligible for draft.

I sit back and I think. My own personal answer is... Hell... fucking... NO. I will not allow my government to draft my woman. There are some things men should do, and some things women should do. Options should be available for those who wish to choose the different way, but no. I am not willing to risk my woman nor my daughters in combat: unless they choose to put themselves there.

I am more than willing to allow myself to be drafted if it secures their liberty. Men fight so their women don't have to. If anyone is in favor of allowing our government to draft our women to go fight in war... I can dig up some good war fotage we can analyze and discuss the reality of our views.

 

Like they think twice about the sons they send to college instead of war.

 

Thank YOU. And I actually agree with that one poster who said he was a sexist, and a chauvinist and he is actually right. His whole post was dead on, because you have look at the population, and the reality of it

 

The reality of the population is an irrelevant factor. If women are not strong enough to pass the front-line-combat test, they won't be on the front line; if they are strong enough to pass, then claiming they aren't is just being stupid.

The only thing that matters in that respect, is that there is only one test and everyone is held to the same standard regardless of gender.

 

Women bleed more than men. Nough said

 

​

 

fathers send sons to college knowing that they will screw anything in sight
fathers send daughters to college knowing that guys just want to fuck them
fathers send sons to war because it is a sense of honor and duty
fathers will not send daughters to war because they usualy believe that they are incapable
any woman can do everything that a man can do and sometimes do it better because they do not let their anger control them, they are calculating minds
but then again it hasnt beed since WW2 that the US has actualy had reason for any of the wars we fought

should the draft be reinstatded no we should pull away from all foriegn conflicts
we are not the protectors of the world
tell the rest to fend for themselves

 

There is no reason that women cannot fight on the front line. Women make good soldiers. I read a book called "One Up", which was an autobiography of a woman who trained in the infantry and also worked in the "security services", alongside the SAS. Andy McNab described her as a better shot than him. She had more balls than many of the men she worked with, and there are many like her.

 

If she is strong enough and she wants to, then why not, let her do it.

 

I think it is up to them, if they want to why stop them. Free choice although as a guy my opinion shouldn't matter to much anyway let girls decide for themselves they are more than capable

 

Were the physical requirements maintained, I could see no reason to refrain from allowing women on the front line -- providing they passed those requirements. In theory it is quite simple. In reality -- never so much. The reality of biological differences would mean that most women would not pass the tests as they currently stand. And the reality of politics means that were there a push to allow women on the front line, their earning of such positions would become irrelevant.

With all biological realities, one side of the aisle in American politics will be quick to "conquer" them. Just as with affirmative action, tests would be weakened, requirements reduced, and gender discrimination engaged in, simply to place more politically correct numbers on the front lines. Just as we here the puerile refrain of "all races are the same," so we would hear the equally absurd claim that "men and women are equally endowed for fighting." I hope such a door is never opened.

 

It's all fun and games till the women get hurt, killed, pregnant or raped. Then feminists will complain how women aren't getting protected in the front lines.

 

Heres the reality of it. Listen to me if ya want, I don't care. Women are very different from men. They have a time of the month in which they become irate for no reason. Imagine becoming irate while packing a firearm calibrated for 7.62 mm and can piss out 150 rounds in less than a minute all while trying to stay super stealthy behind enemy lines. Yeah... thats as sensible as running ten miles on a treadmill and then eating ten big Macs. Also, some operations during war/combat involve being placed in the brush for days or weeks, possibly months at a time and lets face it gals, your hygiene just isn't up to it. Women are so much more prone to infection through their genitals than men that its ridiculous. Then you have the motherly side of it. If you have children or plan to, then who's going to take care of those kiddos should you come home in a box? Yeah, US men are capable of being single fathers, but its a proven fact that women are more tender and caring with children. So there it is, my pinion. Want more? Bring it on. Ive got an answer.

 

Well, UNLIKE you; I have served for over a decade ending the coldwar and the FIRST Gulf War.

This was BEFORE the Push to"equalize" the millitary with forceing women into different positions. NOW, following Millitary S.O.P, when a woman gets pregnant; she is NO LONGER FIT for full duty; NOT ONLY THAT but the "BILLET" has to be HELD OPEN till AFTER she delivers and the child is weaned. This means a spot being opened, unmaned, for up to eight months at least. THINK ABOUT THIS. let's say you have 100k trops in a thearter, a tenth women, that's 10k. Have you heard of battles being LOST for lack of troops? sound familliar? I know it's not a guarentee, but from experience in our fleet, we lost fifty to a hundred women from the crew due to pregnency RIGHT BEFORE WE DEPLOYED! sometimes higher. I lost three to pregnency in a shop of TEN SAILORS! for sixmonth we had to do double shifts (that's 18hrs a day seven days a week) to make up for the manpower LOSS.

Maybe I'm confuseing things; but that's WHAT I CALL A LIABILITY!!!

:wall: btw that happend on the USS Harry S Truman's Maiden Deployment.]

fortunately MY LAST!