Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 17

831 posts

Flag Post

I mean! that there is a higher ratio difference for women/men significantly

Check national atlas.gov

The Alkaid are From Arabia believe women are second class,inferior, etc.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

I mean! that there is a higher ratio difference for women/men significantly

’Kay… And this is still relevant… How, again?

Check national atlas.gov

Or you could, you know link directly to where you read that.

The Alkaid are From Arabia believe women are second class,inferior, etc.

You mean Al Qaeda? (Or however you spell it.)

Other-wise, that’s kinda racist.

 
Flag Post

Should women fight on the frontlines? Why the hell not?

I don’t really see how there can be an argument against woman serving on the frontlines, they’ve been doing it for a long time (Joan of Arc) and I’m pretty certain they can perform just as well as any man (Lyudmila Pavlichenko.)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

I mean! that there is a higher ratio difference for women/men significantly

’Kay… And this is still relevant… How, again?

Check national atlas.gov

Or you could, you know link directly to where you read that.

The Alkaid are From Arabia believe women are second class,inferior, etc.

You mean Al Qaeda? (Or however you spell it.)

Other-wise, that’s kinda racist.

Repeat

World War I and II have cause many deaths especially to men-decreasing population.
So if we send women WITH men,the population for both sexes will decrease at the same time.

Come to think of it I don’t think we will ever have any more wars.Unless we have a screwed gov’t..After the world wars………..I don’t wan’t to talk about it.

You can look it up in our census.For the past 100 years the pop cap for men has been decreasing compared to women.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof:

Should women fight on the frontlines? Why the hell not?

I don’t really see how there can be an argument against woman serving on the frontlines, they’ve been doing it for a long time (Joan of Arc) and I’m pretty certain they can perform just as well as any man (Lyudmila Pavlichenko.)

agree.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Repeat

World War I and II have cause many deaths especially to men-decreasing population.
So if we send women WITH men,the population for both sexes will decrease at the same time.

And that’s… Good? Bad?

Come to think of it I don’t think we will ever have any more wars.

Bullshit, utter bullshit.

Unless we have a screwed gov’t..

I don’t think that’s how it works.

After the world wars………..I don’t wan’t to talk about it.

Yeah, you go off into your own little world.

You can look it up in our census.For the past 100 years the pop cap for men has been decreasing compared to women.

Or you could, you know, just give me the fucking link.

 
Flag Post

Its good AND bad.Depends which way you see it from.

Good-less population,Hooray!Less people to share the world with!

Bad-how could you think that those are people lives! Etc.

You think its bullshit because you are NOT used to seeing people/groups being nice to each other…

I will,there will be a MY LITTLE PONY toy with me

No,check the census

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Its good AND bad.Depends which way you see it from.

That… Still doesn’t really make any sense.

Good-less population,Hooray!Less people to share the world with!

Bad-how could you think that those are people lives! Etc.

Okay, that makes slightly more sense. I guess.

You think its bullshit because you are NOT used to seeing people/groups being nice to each other…

That’s… No, that’s… Just no.

Honestly, how dumb can you be to actually think that there will no longer be any wars from here on out?

I will,there will be a MY LITTLE PONY toy with me

Oh God, don’t tell me that’s what I think it is…

No,check the census

Why? Why can’t you just give me a link? (And which should it be, the site or the census?

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Im not gonna answer the first three Terro arguments.

Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Its good AND bad.Depends which way you see it from.

Good-less population,Hooray!Less people to share the world with!

Bad-how could you think that those are people lives! Etc.

You think its bullshit because you are NOT used to seeing people/groups being nice to each other…

I will,there will be a MY LITTLE PONY toy with me

No,check the census

Ok.its so simple!

(Why are you are trying to make me stay off my thesis statement.)

There are two ways you can see this.Which way do you see it from?

Good for you: There will be less people around to share the world with.Women will gain a higher self esteem that they can do anything men can.America looks like a fair country.

Bad-Those are peoples lives you are talking about.Also women are considered more valuable than men,because they overall live longer than men and can give birth to future Americans.You need to take that seriously.If you are sexes and hate women that is bad for you.

-Why?Why can’t you just check the census?

So in conclusion women should be aloud to fight in the front lines unless they have children to take care of.Because women are equal to men.Unless you believe women are inferior.

Originally posted by FlabbyWoofWoof: Should women fight on the frontlines? Why the hell not? I don’t really see how there can be an argument against woman serving on the frontlines, they’ve been doing it for a long time (Joan of Arc) and I’m pretty certain they can perform just as well as any man (Lyudmila Pavlichenko.)
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Im not gonna answer the first three Terro arguments.

I think you misspelled my name there.

Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

Ok.its so simple!

It might be if you put a space after your punctuation for once.

-Why?Why can’t you just check the census?

Why?Why can’t you just give me a link?

 
Flag Post

As I explained before Terro means terrorist arguments.But if you think your name is similar to Terro that is fine by me.

Meh,too tired-I don’t feel like it-Check the census.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by ZombiestookmyTV:

As I explained before Terro means terrorist arguments.

…Wait, why?

No, I mean why do you call it (whatever it is) that?

Meh,too tired-I don’t feel like it-Check the census.

And you also said to check a website, and I could very easily just find something that’s similar but has different data than what you’re looking at.

 
Flag Post

Correction…SIMILAR data to what I was looking at.Check the census.

I won’t tell what I call Terro arguments,just to bother you

 
Flag Post

Yes, women should be able to fight if they wanted to.

 
Flag Post

I looked up the statistics. There are 101 males for every 100 females in the world, so about 1:1.

Also, why would the amount of men compared to women affect whether women could serve on the frontlines or not?

 
Flag Post

I have no problem with it as long as they pass the exact same physical tests that male soldiers have to pass.

You can’t lower the bar for women just because they’re physically weaker. Fighting on the front lines can be a life or death situation. If they want to fight, they should be held to the exact same standards as male soldiers. If a male soldier gets wounded and needs to be evacuated immediately and the only soldier nearby is a woman, she better be able to do a fireman’s carry since you can’t just stand around and wait for another soldier to arrive if it’s a case of life or death.

 
Flag Post

Its all the the same after all… a bullet is not picky

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by you2will_die:

if women want to fight on the front lines, then let them. only problem i would ever have with that is if the women are super hot, i wouldn’t want her to die. but at the same time that would be a great distraction for the enemies. just send a lot of hot women to the front lines unarmed in stripper outfits. everyone knows you can’t shoot a sexy woman. while the enemy is distracted the rest of the the army could attack the enemy and kill them all or take them as prisoners.

You idiot, women aren’t allowed to wear sexy clothing in combat. It’s just plain retarded and suicidal. All soldiers, including women are to be wearing their standard issued uniform. Not sexy clothing. Let’s see how you like being shot at!

 
Flag Post

To the OP,

I don’t think physical limitations mean much when you’ve got an M16 in hand.


And strength isn’t everything if you know how to avoid being pinned.

 
Flag Post

I think you have all gone a bit off topic here – ‘women will NEVER fight on the front line’ – IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

After having a talk with someone with a high standing in the military myself, he put it in simple terms:

It is not sexist or anything like that, war is no game, on the front line it is about life and death situations. No matter what you say here this is a fact – ‘men will be naturally be protective over women’ – they will end up losing focus on the battlefield and putting lives in danger just to protect women, not on purpose but because of their instinct.

Sorry if this has been said before, quite a few posts in this forum, I thought I’d just jump straight in here.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XxKillGhostXx:

You idiot, women aren’t allowed to wear sexy clothing in combat. It’s just plain retarded and suicidal. All soldiers, including women are to be wearing their standard issued uniform. Not sexy clothing. Let’s see how you like being shot at!

Hold on, I think you forgot what this word means.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

I think you have all gone a bit off topic here – ‘women will NEVER fight on the front line’ – IT IS THAT SIMPLE.

After having a talk with someone with a high standing in the military myself, he put it in simple terms:

It is not sexist or anything like that, war is no game, on the front line it is about life and death situations. No matter what you say here this is a fact – ‘men will be naturally be protective over women’ – they will end up losing focus on the battlefield and putting lives in danger just to protect women, not on purpose but because of their instinct.

Sorry if this has been said before, quite a few posts in this forum, I thought I’d just jump straight in here.

I’d need to see some actual proof before I humored this position, as what little research has been done does not indicate women effect the efficiency of a unit unless the commanding officer is a bigot.

 
Flag Post

I’ll bring it a little closer to home BSG. The colorado shooting, 3 men died protecting women.

Here is some more examples to prove that women have an impact on male performance:
http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/blog/effect_women_have_men
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200905/interacting-women-makes-men-stupid

They have real scientific journals behind those articles if you wish to read them

 
Flag Post

If a women has the ability to make or enemies pay the price all men must pay, I’m all for it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by livingrival:

I’ll bring it a little closer to home BSG. The colorado shooting, 3 men died protecting
women.

Alright, you may have not noticed this, but a movie theater isn’t the same as a war-zone. At all.

Here is some more examples to prove that women have an impact on male performance:
http://www.science20.com/rogue_neuron/blog/effect_women_have_men
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200905/interacting-women-makes-men-stupid

They have real scientific journals behind those articles if you wish to read them

You’re forgetting one major thing in all of this: This is the military, not a bar.