Should women fight in war? (on the frontlines) page 5

832 posts

Flag Post

Women are allowed to fight in the frontline in the British armed forces so why are Americans so different? Admittedly they are excluded from quite a few regimments on a physicality basis but thats just the way it is. Other than that they have as equal a right as anyone to fight for their country. Either its because Americans are very cinservative on the issue or their male soldiers cant keep their hands to themselves. I think its the former and thhey should get over it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by BAC0N:

Even if you go on about the military’s purpose being to kill others, remember that the bulk of soldiers are support

Thats possibly the stupidest statement I have read on the internet in awhile. Millitaries fight. Millitaries have always killed, just because our great and self rightous America has one now doesn’t change a thing. The main purpose of the millitary is to deal out death and destruction.

I am glad you read the entire post, where I addressed this exactly. Are you incapable of reading an entire paragraph? Yes, the job of the military is to fight wars. Yes, this involves killing people. No, that does not mean the majority of soldiers are involved in said killing, nor does it insinuate they enjoy it for some vague and arbitrary reason. Still following?

What you are saying means that the guy/girl loading artilley shells into a gun or the bomber pilot aren’t liable?

Should we also hold the citizens who make the shells liable, along with the people who pave the roads to transport the materials, the people who mine or manufacture the materials, the citizens that fund the entire enterprise through taxes and consumerism….?

Anyway you completely missed the point of what I wrote, go back and try again.

 
Flag Post

YES END OF ARGUMENT

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RMcD:

I think they would be a distraction to the men, not just for that reason, but because they would rather protect them. On the other hand people are less likely to shoot a woman than a man.

I don’t really care, they do everything else.

So why don’t we let children fight in wars? Nobody is ever going to shoot a child.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by aihem:
Originally posted by RMcD:

I think they would be a distraction to the men, not just for that reason, but because they would rather protect them. On the other hand people are less likely to shoot a woman than a man.

I don’t really care, they do everything else.

So why don’t we let children fight in wars? Nobody is ever going to shoot a child.

Because we’re stupid.

 
Flag Post

Holy ****. You would let a child fight your wars?

 
Flag Post

I don’t have any wars. If I did I’d have cows with bombs, chickens, dogs, children, everything to win it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by aihem:

Holy ****. You would let a child fight your wars?

You need to understand that RMCD is a moral subjectivist. He’ll do whatever the hell he feels like doing, because to him, all morals are relative to the observer.

 
Flag Post

Its RMcDo.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by aihem:

Its RMcDo.

$50 says it’s an alt. He has several (all being RMcD#, and with the same avatar), but they got perma-banned.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by FuzzyBacon:
Originally posted by aihem:

Its RMcDo.

$50 says it’s an alt. He has several (all being RMcD#, and with the same avatar), but they got perma-banned.

Take yo $50!

 
Flag Post

its not who is fighting, its that we are fighting in the first place is what makes it wrong

 
Flag Post

I rephrase the question and it should mean the same thing.
Should men fight in war? (on the frontlines)

It always puzzles me…. Before guns, those that charges 1st most possibly be the 1st to die. Why the rest of the guys in the don’t realise that thay can be next?
With guns, the scenerios changes…. just a bit.
Those in the frontline are most likely to die. Why they still in the frontline?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aneslayer:

I rephrase the question and it should mean the same thing.
Should men fight in war? (on the frontlines)

It always puzzles me…. Before guns, those that charges 1st most possibly be the 1st to die. Why the rest of the guys in the don’t realise that thay can be next?
With guns, the scenerios changes…. just a bit.
Those in the frontline are most likely to die. Why they still in the frontline?

Because battle is for glory. Back in the day wars were fought for proper reasons and the people fighting believed in their cause.

 
Flag Post

That’s 1 way to put it…. Can you really relate to the “proper reasons” to fight? For whose “glory” then?
Nowadays, how many soldiers believed the “cause” and continued fighting…..

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheSmell:

Deny men the right to join and fight. Get all the nations to form an army of women and start WW3. Once a month all nations can invade Belgium and go on a chocolate binge.

lmao agreed. Than all the nations of the world can call an armistice once a week and get together to drink wine and discuss the latest book on Opera’s show.

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

i think if they think they can handle it. but when i asked my father wheat he thought he said if a woman was in a situation where the enemy used a toddler to carry a bomb onto your territory the women wouldnt shoot the child. just hope he would drop it.

and i said no i would shoot his leg… run throw the bomb and then help him..

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

Irish woman have been considered the equals of Irish men when it comes to fighting, ever since the Cumann na mBan was formed in 1914. Without women like Countess Markiewicz, the rising might never have worked.

 
Flag Post

but when i asked my father wheat he thought he said if a woman was in a situation where the enemy used a toddler to carry a bomb onto your territory the women wouldnt shoot the child.

Most men wouldn’t want to shoot the child either, so I am not sure what the point of asking is. Besides, a toddler couldn’t carry enough weight to actually be an effective threat, and would be moving at a crawl. Literally.

 
Flag Post

“The vagina is a highly volatile organ and it becomes very oriented towards certain temperatures, ph levels, and environments.” Yet more defensive rubbish to prevent females from assuming some sort of responsibility. What about all the male soldiers who had to endure gangrene in trenches and other horrible conditions. Also, the US selective service act, which only requires men 18-26 to register, and if they fail to do this punishes them by either jail , fine or denying social security and educational benefits. Why are females exempt from simply registering? This has to be the ultimate in sexism and discrimination. Bottom line is that in our society, in one form or another, women are either being protected or provided for by men.

 
Flag Post

If they want to do it, they should be allowed.

 
Flag Post

I don’t want to risk sounding sexiest. I feel women should be equal to men in all areas but 1 or 2. 1 being a fireman, and 2 being an infantryman. The only reason for this is I don’t feel most woman are capable of dragging or carrying a 200lb. man through a house or across a field to safety as quickly as a man. If anyone has an argument against this, please state it.

 
Flag Post

If anyone has an argument against this, please state it.

Don’t hire a woman that doesn’t have the physical ability, the same way you wouldn’t hire a man without the physical ability. You should hire based on ability, not gender.