According to this story (http://washtimes.com/national/20020530-90235014.htm), women are being moved out of direct combat ground brigades. Is this is a prudent decision or not? The concern of why women should not do these jobs is not addressed in the article other than citing a lack of "public support"The Army is removing female soldiers from ground reconnaissance units that are part of the service's future fast-deploying combat brigades. Reversing a Clinton administration policy, the Pentagon no longer will let women be assigned to Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons. These unique units, the first of which will become operational next year, are trained to perform some of the ground sweeps now being conducted in the mountains of Afghanistan, as well as other missions. Until training methods are changed, I support the exclusion of women from small unit ground engagements as a matter of strategic planning.

Training methods currently accept different performance levels by sex. Combat does not make that distinction. That doesn't mean you ignore the fact that women can't do push-up as well as men. It means you train everyone to deal with what you do after you can't do push-ups any more. Big men fulfill some needs in combat and small men others. If training were done with the expectation that whatever skills and abilities you have determined what you would be required to do, the sexual dimorphism would be just another factor.

That is not the case. Now it is a political factor. Commanders are expected to know what units have women in them, and that affects every combat decision. That is a weakness, in combat. Not the women, but the political influence of our society because the women are there. The army can't change society. But it can change its combat strategy on the basis of that reality. Failure to do so is like any other strategic failure.

Unimportant until you die in the field.

Peace.

I don't like women in infantry/combat roles. Why? Because in the navy I trained with some women, and they could not do the job when it comes to combat. I'm all for equal rights under the law, but the fact is women are generally inferior to men when it comes to physical strength and fighting ability. I don't want to be killed in combat simply becuse politically correct lobby group dumb-arses have placed at my side a weak soldier.

The problem is a matter of integrity. We must allow women the opportunity to kill and die if we are to be equal.

First off, warfare is stupid. If anyone is stupid enough to want to serve in the military, let them. I have moral problems with compulsory service and conscription.

However, I'm perfectly willing to let the volunteers go off somewhere and kill each other.

The problem isn't practicality; on a practical level, if what Goofy's post asserts is true (and while I can accept it, I don't know that it's true) then we must still accept women for these roles.

The problem is integrity. We are allegedly equal, and we cannot begin--even at the military level--to set aside that presumption of equality for reasons alleged to be practical is unacceptable in this sense. It's kind of like defending liberty by suspending freedom; it just doesn't work that way. In order to defend equality and respect the principles we claim to represent, we must accept women in combat.

Now then, perhaps there is something that can be revised about unit assembly and deployment. It is not practical to treat the issue according to affirmative action or quota-related principles. Either method creates a practical problem that needs not be. But any woman who does, in fact, prove herself to the task earns the position, and I think a blanket statement such as the inability of women to perform under given circumstances is enough of a generalization that we might as well discard it immediately.

Otherwise, we shall be equal by being unequal, we shall be free by restricting ourselves, and we shall only get what we want by forfeiting it, and no, that isn't a Zen principle no matter how familiar it might sound toward other ends. Consider "Operation Enduring Freedom", and the wounds that freedom has taken alongside it. Would "Operation Enduring Equality" suffer the same wounds?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I don't think we must allow such equality. Philosophy is for the survivors, to put it simply. A state's duty to maintain the safety and security of its people is a higher obligation that its duty to make the people happy. Keep them alive; then keep them happy. Equality is what people talk about while real soldiers are out there protecting their right to discuss such things.

You might as well say you have equal rights to flight with birds and such. Fine. Go jump off a cliff. Reality does not agree with equality.

I thought you didn't like making such generalizations, Adam. What, there are no women good enough for your need to grant them equality? Equality is what people talk about while real soldiers are out there protecting their right to discuss such things.Equality is what people aspire to so that we don't have to send soldiers anywhere.You might as well say you have equal rights to flight with birds and such. Fine. Go jump off a cliff. Reality does not agree with equality.Now this is just stupid.

So, what I'm seeing from you then, is that no woman is suited for combat? After all, you've rejected the notion that those who meet the task should be allowed to participate.

Curious.

Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you go secure a woman's sense of security by raping her? It is the procedural equivalent of securing equality by enforcing inequality.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I said "I'm all for equal rights under the law, but the fact is women are generally inferior to men when it comes to physical strength and fighting ability."

Tiassa said "What, there are no women good enough for your need to grant them equality?"

In the military I met one woman I would consider a valuable soldier in close combat.


Equality is what people aspire to so that we don't have to send soldiers anywhere.

Indeed. But such aspirations will mean nothing if you are dead before it happens.


You might as well say you have equal rights to flight with birds and such. Fine. Go jump off a cliff. Reality does not agree with equality.

I will explain it for you. You want equality. You believe it is your right. That's fine. Tell it to the next person who shoots you in the head. Wanting equality is all fine and dandy, but the fact is the universe is not, and has never been, fair. The desire for equality does not guarantee equality. Equality under the law does not guarantee equality. For this reason you need soldiers. Likewise, to stop people jumping off cliffs because they think they should have the right to fly, perhaps we need guard-rails near cliffs, as we actually do have.

and they could not do the job when it comes to combat

What do you mean by this? Maybe some of them were wusses, but don't you think that women who have gone through military training at least deserve a chance? If they screw up then turn em into a cook or something, but you can't just point a finger at them and say "sorry, based on the actions of the few women that I have witnessed you cannot fight in the military because based on what I've seen women cannot fight as well as men. You are a danger to the crew and a danger to the mission. Dismissed."

What, there are no women good enough for your need to grant them equality?

Equality is not granted - if it exists, it is taken.

Equality? Puh-leeze, it does not apply here. The fact is, men and women are not, generally, physically equal. I have nothing against women in combat, but all soldiers must be held to the same standards of physical fitness.

The lives of our soldiers are more important than social engineering. When weak people are placed in life-or-death situations that require them to be strong, those lives are put in jeopardy.

Tiassa:
The problem is integrity. We are allegedly equal, and we cannot begin--even at the military level--to set aside that presumption of equality for reasons alleged to be practical is unacceptable in this sense. It's kind of like defending liberty by suspending freedom; it just doesn't work that way. In order to defend equality and respect the principles we claim to represent, we must accept women in combat.

"All men are created equal" refers to our having equal rights under the law. "Soldiering" is not a right - it is a privelege and perhaps a duty.

I am not the equal of a surgeon when it comes to medicine. I would most likely kill any patient stupid enough to let me serve in that capacity. I am not the equal of a wizard when it comes to hacking. I am not the equal of a Ph.D when it comes to particle physics.

I have the same rights as these people, but not the same priveleges. If I wish to practice medicine, I must demonstrate my ability to do so.

If I wish to fight, I must demonstrate my ability to do so.

(Oh and Adam, I'm still a hairy-legged man hater, you chauvinist pig! :p)

Originally posted by Pollux V


What do you mean by this? Maybe some of them were wusses, but don't you think that women who have gone through military training at least deserve a chance?
Like I said, I saw one woman who I would trust in combat. She was very fit and muscular and successfully passed through out Clearance Diver (same as USA's SEALs) training. She rocked.

But how were the rest of the women, who weren't really that great? Did they make it past training, and is that why you're 'concerned?'

I'm still a hairy-legged man hater

"Puh-leeze" I just had dinner, awhoo...

The women had much easier tests to pass. They did not come up to the same standard. They were not required to be as strong or fast as men. They were allowed into the very same job while not meeting the same job requirements. Except for that major babe who joined the CDs; she passed the same tests as the guys.

Well that's not right, as far as I'm concerned they're not very equal to everyone else if they don't go through the same training.

Air Force ROTC Detachment 585

Male Physical Fitness Test Scoresheet:

http://www.duke.edu/afrotc/visitorinfo/PFT-males.html

Female Physical Fitness Test Scoresheet:

http://www.duke.edu/afrotc/visitorinfo/PFT-females.html

Hell, they don't even have to meet the
same entrance requirements!

Take care :rolleyes:

I'd just like to poitn something out. You know I mentioned that girl from the navy? That is what I find sexy, a woman who is strong, smart, competent, and able to look after herself.

If the question is about women's qualification for close-combat then women and small men should be kept out of it , based on stringent physical prowsess.

If we are talking about women serving in military - that should be fine. Pilots, Drone pilots, Intelligence, and almost every other service areas - women should do as good as men if not better. My understanding is that women recover faster on high G-forces and their reaction times are generally better.

Except a large number of 300 pounders walking the isles of x-mart, rest of the females should be kept out of ground combat. :D

Originally posted by tiassa
The problem is a matter of integrity. We must allow women the opportunity to kill and die if we are to be equal.

First off, warfare is stupid. If anyone is stupid enough to want to serve in the military, let them. I have moral problems with compulsory service and conscription.

However, I'm perfectly willing to let the volunteers go off somewhere and kill each other.

The problem isn't practicality; on a practical level, if what Goofy's post asserts is true (and while I can accept it, I don't know that it's true) then we must still accept women for these roles.

The problem is integrity. We are allegedly equal, and we cannot begin--even at the military level--to set aside that presumption of equality for reasons alleged to be practical is unacceptable in this sense. It's kind of like defending liberty by suspending freedom; it just doesn't work that way. In order to defend equality and respect the principles we claim to represent, we must accept women in combat.

Now then, perhaps there is something that can be revised about unit assembly and deployment. It is not practical to treat the issue according to affirmative action or quota-related principles. Either method creates a practical problem that needs not be. But any woman who does, in fact, prove herself to the task earns the position, and I think a blanket statement such as the inability of women to perform under given circumstances is enough of a generalization that we might as well discard it immediately.

Otherwise, we shall be equal by being unequal, we shall be free by restricting ourselves, and we shall only get what we want by forfeiting it, and no, that isn't a Zen principle no matter how familiar it might sound toward other ends. Consider "Operation Enduring Freedom", and the wounds that freedom has taken alongside it. Would "Operation Enduring Equality" suffer the same wounds?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I agree with the philosphical basis of what you're saying Tiassa, but you seem to have missed the point entirely to my way of thinking. Adam has noted his reactions to having women train alongside him and theoretically being a serviceman woud have some idea of what they may be capable of in combat. You can't deliberately restrict the fighting qualities of your military units simply to make a philosophical point. Suppose you lose valuable territory in a conflict situation and, as a result, the war. Where would your philosophy be then? History.

You can't escape the biological fact that women are in general, not physically as capable as men, and therefore (again generalising) would not be as effective as a military unit. Where would you stop? Would you allow paraplegics to join military units because, philosophically, all humans should be treated equally?

OK, lets move on. Let's say you're right, and that some women would be equal to the rigours of combat. This raises another problem, and one which the Israelis have already encountered in real combat situations. Men, by instinct, have a tendency to try to protect women. The Israelis had instances where entire UNITS of male soldiers forgot their immediate objectives when seeing women in tight spots on the battlefield. This caused problems where they moved contrary to orders to help out, and strategic objectives were not met.

This doesnt mean women should be totally excluded from all combat situations. In my opinion, they would probably make fine fighter pilots for example. This only relies on small units and the psychological difference might not be so apparent. The Russians found this out in WW2, and their female fighter pilots were actually quite successful.
However having female ground troops could lead to an entirely different situation, as noted above in the Israeli example.
This is only my opinion on this matter, but I do believe they could be effective in SOME combat roles, but not a blanket "all" such as you describe.

But my main point, to reiterate... you CANNOT decrease the effectiveness of your military units just to prove a philosophical point. Try it, and you just might find your particular nation won't be in a position to make philosophical points ever again.

AdamIn the military I met one woman I would consider a valuable soldier in close combat.Yep, but because she's a woman, she's not qualified to serve in the role she earned. Perhaps you missed that part.Indeed. But such aspirations will mean nothing if you are dead before it happens.Well, Adam, you see, it's like this. I don't give a fuck who dies out there. Wars are stupid. The people who fight wars ... hey, if you want to go fight in a war, be my freaking guest. But I am not going to sit by and accept the notion that a woman is inferior to take part in an unnecessary stupidity. What, women are generally not good enough to choose to be fucking idiots? There's something you're forgetting about war, and we'll get to that in a moment.I will explain it for you. You want equality. You believe it is your right. That's fine. Tell it to the next person who shoots you in the head. Wanting equality is all fine and dandy, but the fact is the universe is not, and has never been, fair. The desire for equality does not guarantee equality. Equality under the law does not guarantee equality. For this reason you need soldiers. Likewise, to stop people jumping off cliffs because they think they should have the right to fly, perhaps we need guard-rails near cliffs, as we actually do have.Is that your sarcasm or are you getting too much sun? If that's the basis of your analogy, I'll leave you to it, because it fits well with what you're missing about war. We'll get to that in a second.

XevEquality is not granted - if it exists, it is taken.I'm unsure of what the purpose of that is.Equality? Puh-leeze, it does not apply here. The fact is, men and women are not, generally, physically equal. I have nothing against women in combat, but all soldiers must be held to the same standards of physical fitness.

The lives of our soldiers are more important than social engineering. When weak people are placed in life-or-death situations that require them to be strong, those lives are put in jeopardy.That's a bullshit thing to worry about, Xev. And I'll get to it. You're missing the same part about war that Adam is."All men are created equal" refers to our having equal rights under the law. "Soldiering" is not a right - it is a privelege and perhaps a duty.Soldiering is an employment under the government.

Furthermore, as a privilege and a duty ... I've spent most of my life trying to respect professional killers, and it really hasn't worked well. We're getting to that point.I am not the equal of a surgeon when it comes to medicine. I would most likely kill any patient stupid enough to let me serve in that capacity. I am not the equal of a wizard when it comes to hacking. I am not the equal of a Ph.D when it comes to particle physics.This is beside the point, Xev.

We're also talking about the women who are as good as the next soldier. What you're looking at then is that you've got the equal training and the equal skill and you still aren't acceptable because you're a woman.I have the same rights as these people, but not the same priveleges. If I wish to practice medicine, I must demonstrate my ability to do so.Yes, and I don't recall any article saying that the unqualified women only would be removed, such as any unqualified soldier of either gender should. It seems the issue is all women? So once again I remind you that, in accord with your example, once you've proven your ability to do so, you still aren't allowed to. Is there something about that you missed?If I wish to fight, I must demonstrate my ability to do so.And once you have demonstrated your ability, you're still told to sit down because you're a woman. Easy enough?

Now then ... there is a problem here with people's regard for war.

• Warfare is not necessary.
• It is because people find warfare acceptable that they are willing to rely on it.
• If you want to go kill and die in a war, fine with me.
• Is it a greater honor to be the moron fighting in the war, or the idiot who started it?

I understand that when you go to war, you want the best beside you. But human beings are diverse creatures, and some are better than others. I find it funny that because men set separate standards for women, we have cause to ridicule the women. If you want them to meet the same standards, why has no Commander in Chief made them the same standards? It's a mild version of an old prejudice in the South; when it was a crime to teach an African slave to read, s/he was considered inferior in part for his/her lack of education. I find it hilarious that one should hold the standard set by the authority against the subject of authority. Rather opportunistic, it seems.

But in the end, your wars are not a right. They're not even a privilege or a duty. They are fucking lunacy. Stupidity to the ends of the Universe. One of the reasons I have conditions under which I will accept warfare is because it will clear the world of some people who like to kill. I'm quite happy to have the best army in the world on my side, but they're not toys and shouldn't be sent out on stupid missions when a little bit of political foresight might suffice. That is, I'm quite happy to have the best army in the world on my side because my leaders are stupid. Volunteers can kill themselves however they want. It bothers me none.

I just can't believe it is an honor and a privilege to murder people in order to enforce policies that cause suffering.

If warfare is truly necessary--as if, should there be a God who says warfare is necessary--then I'll stand back and let all the boys go off to die while I stay home and comfort their women.

But it's not. It's a sad result of ineptitude, a guignol to be played out by people who, perhaps, have made the right choice to dress down and opt out of the human race.

I see comments like, Equality is what people talk about while real soldiers are out there protecting their right to discuss such things, and I wonder if people really do believe there is no alternative to warfare. Maybe it's just a supremacy thing for people, but I just don't understand what the hell is so wrong with people that they will permit suffering and batter the hell out of people who don't want to suffer so badly. Equality is what people talk about while real soldiers are out there doing their part for the racket. Woo-freakin'-hoo. Or, A state's duty to maintain the safety and security of its people is a higher obligation that its duty to make the people happy. I mean, I still can't believe that a state can lead its people to war with belligerent policies in the name of their safety. It's pretty damn stupid. I mean, seriously, it's nice to know that some people don't ever read a word I write except for fuel for sarcasm. Adam! Hey, buddy, had you forgotten the state's obligation to protect it's people by not going to war? What? You want it, so you take it, and then you flip the switch and activate your duty to protect the people? Why not just throw you child into a pit of dogs and then shoot the dogs because you had an "obligation" to save your child?

Let's work backward: So you shot a man. Ouch. But it's not murder. He was coming after you. He was going to hurt you. Sounds clear-cut. Oh, why was he coming after you? Because you stole from him, raped his wife, and punched him in the jaw on the way out? Hell, man, give yourself less reason to need to defend yourself.

Warfare is the consummate failure of the human endeavor. It is the purest expression of human stupidity. If you don't like your mate on the line, deal with it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I agree with the philosphical basis of what you're saying Tiassa, but you seem to have missed the point entirely to my way of thinking. Adam has noted his reactions to having women train alongside him and theoretically being a serviceman woud have some idea of what they may be capable of in combat. You can't deliberately restrict the fighting qualities of your military units simply to make a philosophical point. Suppose you lose valuable territory in a conflict situation and, as a result, the war. Where would your philosophy be then? History.First off, I hear you knocking, but ...

As it stands right now, we seem to be having some difficulty with the idea of unqualified women versus women in general. So ....

• J.D. Salinger is a "good author". Abby Frucht is a good "female author". Alice Walker is a good "black female author". You know, if the author's good, does it matter if she's black?

• Are we removing "unqualified soldiers" in general? Are we removing "unqualified female soldiers"? Or are we removing "female soldiers"?

Squid, where I disagree with you most on this point, as relates to what you've pointed out about Adam, is that the larger issue we're discussing is the removal of qualified soldiers in accordance with a generalization. I don't care whether or not who likes what in where. If a soldier's qualified to be an idiot, then a soldier is qualified to be an idiot, regardless of gender.You can't escape the biological fact that women are in general, not physically as capable as men, and therefore (again generalising) would not be as effective as a military unit. What is the standard of "physically capable"? Okay, we're dealing with a "military standard". This is acceptable. I found at least two comments in this topic disparaging women for these standards. Hey ... who the hell writes the standards? Like I noted to Adam, it's kind of like ridiculing someone for being illiterate when you've made it illegal for them to learn to read. A real condition in American history .... What nobody seems to be paying attention to is the fact that women do exist who meet standard. These women, as well, will be denied the role they've earned because of their gender, and because people seem to be unwilling to treat a woman fairly. What the hell is the problem?

What is the result, in the field, of removing a qualified and effective soldier? Oh, well. Doesn't matter. It was just a woman, and that automatically means she's not qualified and will never be, right?

And that is what I find so repugnant about the attitudes flying around. I mean, I've got Xev over there telling me that if she wants to be equal, she has to prove herself equal, and all the while apparently without realizing that in the situation we're debating, the answer is flat-out "No." Having proven herself equal, she will not be given what she has earned. She does not deserve it because she cannot prove herself equal because she is a woman. This is the end result of the circumstances we are debating.Let's say you're right, and that some women would be equal to the rigours of combat. This raises another problem, and one which the Israelis have already encountered in real combat situations. Men, by instinct, have a tendency to try to protect women. The Israelis had instances where entire UNITS of male soldiers forgot their immediate objectives when seeing women in tight spots on the battlefield. Well, quite frankly, I think that speaks more toward the dubious qualifications of the male soldiers. If they can't keep focused, and can't do their job, they shouldn't be out there endangering their fellows.

Close, Squid. That almost left me speechless.This doesnt mean women should be totally excluded from all combat situations. In my opinion, they would probably make fine fighter pilots for example. This only relies on small units and the psychological difference might not be so apparent. The Russians found this out in WW2, and their female fighter pilots were actually quite successful.
However having female ground troops could lead to an entirely different situation, as noted above in the Israeli example.
This is only my opinion on this matter, but I do believe they could be effective in SOME combat roles, but not a blanket "all" such as you describe.First off, the blanket "all" seems to be the removal of women. All I'm asking for is that the qualified ones be allowed to serve as they've earned. But people apparently have a problem with this. The qualified women, apparently, should be removed from certain duties because, despite their qualifications, they are women.But my main point, to reiterate... you CANNOT decrease the effectiveness of your military units just to prove a philosophical point. Try it, and you just might find your particular nation won't be in a position to make philosophical points ever again.Sure you can. It's not wise. But neither is warfare itself. What, if not decreasing the effectiveness of your military unit, do you call removing a qualified soldier from the line because of gender? What, the person who saved your ass yesterday isn't good enough to save your ass today?

I really don't get it. I mean, one could pull the "unqualified troops" and make a statistical case for the large portion that is female. But to pull all women from the line--including those that are meeting their goals and standards--simply because they're women ... that's beyond stupid. That's ridiculous.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"I see comments like, Equality is what people talk about while real soldiers are out there protecting their right to discuss such things, and I wonder if people really do believe there is no alternative to warfare."

We are not saying we like going to war Tiassa... we are saying that we recognise that on occasion we have no choice but to fight one. There are other nations out there, and other people, who seem to resort to violence with very little in the way of provocation. While those people and nations exist, we are going to have to defend ourselves against them. To roll over like a puppy in the face of aggression is to give up every ideal which has made OUR nations less likely to get involved in wars to begin with.

I am of the opinion that there are nations in this world who are still going through an earlier stage of development than ours.

People like to say that all humans think the same. They do not. It's not that they are not CAPABLE of thinking as we do, but more that they never have learned how... yet. Given time, you'd be absolutely right. Say in a few hundred years (or hopefully far less). As of right now, however, these "adolescent" nations are a threat to all of us... and laying down our arms or degrading the effectiveness of our military is asking for trouble, to the extent where if they are not taught that they can't just declare war on everyone they dislike or want land from, human development in general could be set back hundreds of years.

The developed nations need to remain strong... for now.

I've heard a number of discussions in which women vehemently argue that they should be allowed to fight on the front-line of battles.

I say; Send these women in the first-waves of a battle! If they have their hearts set on killing people for their country, go right ahead, let them run at the bullets. A good many men ordered to run across an open field at Flanders, or across Omaha Beach when the ramp dropped, would have gladly handed their helmet and rifle instead to a bloodthirsty woman. Any woman who so-desires can have my place on the battle-line.

War is something that sane humans try to avoid, rather than lust for. What am I missing here?

Michael

Yep, but because she's a woman, she's not qualified to serve in the role she earned. Perhaps you missed that part.

I guess you missed what I said, and also missed the links Chagur provided. Generally women in the military do not earn their jobs as we men do. They get the jobs by meeting lesser requirements. There are few exceptions to this. One such exception is the Clearance Divers. This woman passed physical training which I could not pass in my current condition. She rocks. That's why she got the job, and that's why I would trust her in combat. Every woman before her who had tried that taining had failed. She was absolutely extraordinary.


Well, Adam, you see, it's like this. I don't give a fuck who dies out there. Wars are stupid. The people who fight wars ... hey, if you want to go fight in a war, be my freaking guest. But I am not going to sit by and accept the notion that a woman is inferior to take part in an unnecessary stupidity. What, women are generally not good enough to choose to be fucking idiots? There's something you're forgetting about war, and we'll get to that in a moment.

My grandfather was field ambulance in WW2. I'm glad to hear that you think so little of the freedom you have to spew such rubbish, freedom bought by people like my grandfather. Given your mixed heritage, I'd think that if not for such people, you might be executed by the NAZIs if people had not been "stupid" enough to fight them.

You seem to be under the impression that soldiers create wars. This is simply not the case. Civilians rceate wars. Politicians create wars. Soldiers stand between you and your mixed heritage and the NAZI party.


I don't give a fuck who dies out there.

I just thought it should be mentioned again that you don't give a fuck about the lives of people willing to stand between you and danger. That's nice.


Soldiering is an employment under the government.

No. Soldiering is serving the people. Governments come and go, and the military remains.


We're also talking about the women who are as good as the next soldier. What you're looking at then is that you've got the equal training and the equal skill and you still aren't acceptable because you're a woman.

This is where your lack of experience shows. In unarmed combat training, women with equal skill and experience could not fight against the men in basic training. They are simply weaker, in general. Less able to deliver pain/damage, and less resistant to it. So yes, the genders absolutely are unequal when it comes to this military stuff. But it is not society or rules which made this the situation. Blame only biology.


So once again I remind you that, in accord with your example, once you've proven your ability to do so, you still aren't allowed to. Is there something about that you missed?

Again, you seem to be missing things. It is the "proven your ability to do so" bit which matters. Again using the CD example, only one woman had ever proved her ability in that job by the time I left the navy. The standard is the same for everyone. There is no discrimination against women whatsoever.


And once you have demonstrated your ability, you're still told to sit down because you're a woman. Easy enough?

This is simply not the case. Not here at least.


1) Warfare is not necessary.
2) It is because people find warfare acceptable that they are willing to rely on it.
3) Is it a greater honor to be the moron fighting in the war, or the idiot who started it?

1) Warfare guaranteed your survival. Why? See 2...

2) Some people are bad. Some people will always want to force their ways on the world at the cost of the lives or freedom of others. While you debate philosophy, these bad people would simply run over you with a tank. Warfare is necessary precisely because these people have tanks and you have philosophy.

3) Again, I think you should rethink your ideas about soldiers. My grandfather fought to protect the rest of the world from the kind of people mentioned in point 2, and you think that is dishonourable?


I find it funny that because men set separate standards for women, we have cause to ridicule the women.

Who is ridiculing women?


Adam! Hey, buddy, had you forgotten the state's obligation to protect it's people by not going to war?

Again, see WW2.


Warfare is the consummate failure of the human endeavor. It is the purest expression of human stupidity.

I absolutely agree. But until we can "purify" peoples' minds and purge the concept of forcing our beliefs/desires on others, we need soldiers.

If she can endure long marches, use speed when necessary, carry all her own supplies like everyone else does, and fire a weapon accurately, are there additional considerations? For things to be truly equal, we would require no special treatment for women, no special barracks, and no special accommodations of any sort. Treat them the same, hold them to the same standards, and it should all work out. The exception, IMHO, is some of the physical exercises. Women have different muscle structures than men, but long as she can carry her pack and equipment, who cares if she can do 50 pushups or 100? The core field survival requirements should be the same, but general fitness exercises should consider differing physiologies.

How about the reactions of men to women being present?

If the cost of "retraining" men to be undistracted by the presence of women exceeds the cost of simply not using women on the battlefield, could we could justifiably exclude them. A military is a business, and victory is always the goal.

Peace.

"... but long as she can carry her pack and equipment, who cares if she can do 50 pushups or 100?"

Spoken like someone who has never experienced combat!

Who cares? The guy who is wounded in a fire-fight and has to rely
on his buddy to get him the hell out of there! That's who cares!

And I'm not talking about using four to carry a stretcher instead
of two ... I'm talking about carrying your buddy out because the
rest of the squad is fighting to stay alive ... and to give you the
chance to carry him out.

It's so damn easy when you're sitting back in Washington and trying
to decide how many PC votes you can garner with a photo-op of the
female warrior 'Who Can Do The Job' and yourself.

Take care :mad:

Tiassa:
Soldiering is an employment under the government.

Furthermore, as a privilege and a duty ... I've spent most of my life trying to respect professional killers, and it really hasn't worked well. We're getting to that point.

Tiassa, your opinon of war is not the issue here. The issue is how well war can be waged.

We're also talking about the women who are as good as the next soldier. What you're looking at then is that you've got the equal training and the equal skill and you still aren't acceptable because you're a woman.

I'm sorry, I think we're talking at cross purposes. I think that, on purely rational (if war was ever really rational) grounds, a woman who can fight as well as a man should be allowed to.

Equal training and equal skill? Let them fight. I can see no reason not to.

Chivalry? Bah fucking humbug, there is no such thing outside the novels of Cervantes and the Mort de Arthur.

But the way training is set up now, our female and male soldiers are not physically equal. Our female soldiers are held to a lower standard, allowing weaker soldiers into our ranks.

This is bad, obviously, and no reason of politics or equality should supersede the safety of our troops.

And once you have demonstrated your ability, you're still told to sit down because you're a woman. Easy enough?

Ah, there is the crux - what to do? I suggest that

A: A standard for an effective soldier should be found and set.
B: Our new recruits all must meet this standard.
C: We gradually weed out those soldiers who do not meet this standard.

Russian female pilots:

http://www.nzfpm.co.nz/theatres/tow_tbfm.htm

Israeli female IDF soldiers:

http://www.idf.il/english/organization/chen/chen.stm

Just to add a little 'reality' to the discussion.

Take care.

Tiassa, your opinon of war is not the issue here. The issue is how well war can be waged.Actually, Xev, if people can make stupid statements about the nobility of war, the privilege of serving, and the duty of being an idiot, then I think my opinion of warfare does belong here. Sorry, I'm not the one who injected opinions of warfare into this thread. Its well and fine to put up ideas like the "privilege" and "honor" of "duty", but it doesn't change the fact that what we're talking about is people who choose to go out and kill each other for stupid reasons. Frankly, I don't think the idiots have a right to complain. If you don't like your mate on the line, deal with it. I'm speaking of volunteers here. If they don't like it, they shouldn't be there.Chivalry? Bah fucking humbug, there is no such thing outside the novels of Cervantes and the Mort de Arthur.

But the way training is set up now, our female and male soldiers are not physically equal. Our female soldiers are held to a lower standard, allowing weaker soldiers into our ranks.This is well and fine. But remember what they did with sports and education? No, we don't need girls' sports because they're not good at it ... by writing a different standard, they help maintain inequality.This is bad, obviously, and no reason of politics or equality should supersede the safety of our troops.Why not? The politics of being in the war in the first place were too hard to deal with?

I oppose conscription, so it's not like I'm particularly thinking of the people who shouldn't be in the war in the first place. They shouldn't be there. The volunteers? If they want to complain about the person next to them, they shouldn't be there.A: A standard for an effective soldier should be found and set.
B: Our new recruits all must meet this standard.
C: We gradually weed out those soldiers who do not meet this standard.And this is a far cry from the standard being discussed in this topic, isn't it? All I'm asking for is equality, but the mad rush of people to condemn women for existing has taken me by surprise. Hello, do you realize that this is not what they're talking about at this point? The crux? That a woman by this standard is presumed incapable of being qualified?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Chagur
Who cares? The guy who is wounded in a fire-fight and has to rely
on his buddy to get him the hell out of there! That's who cares!You're right. I could have thought that one through a bit better.

Peace.

Chagur:Spoken like someone who has never experienced combat!Spoken like someone with nothing better to say.Who cares? The guy who is wounded in a fire-fight and has to rely
on his buddy to get him the hell out of there! That's who cares!Maybe he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I mean, if the issue is really qualification, you wouldn't be using language like, It's so damn easy when you're sitting back in Washington and trying
to decide how many PC votes you can garner with a photo-op of the
female warrior 'Who Can Do The Job' and yourself. because, in case you noticed, part of what the new rules are doing is taking that qualified soldier who is capable of carrying you out and pulling her from combat merely because she's a woman. It's well and fine to condemn women as inferior in order to distract ourselves from the idiocy of war, but when all you've got is "photo op", I'm wondering if you're actually considering the issues.

I mean, the number of people here who seem to think a woman should not be allowed to fight even if she's qualified for the role is astounding. And what's funny is that people don't want to address that point very much. They'd rather bag on women because it feels good or something.

National security is a terrible reason to suspend the equality of citizens. Of course, warfare is pretty much the refuge of idiots, so I expect idiotic ideas to surround it. I mean, really ... if national security is so important that we have to revert to the days of "frail women", why are we in the war in the first place? Oh, someone bombed us or otherwise offended us? Well, I would imagine we are squeaky-clean, virginal, pure. Otherwise it would seem that the decision makers are relying on the military to enforce bad and stupid policies. My opinion is that if you want to be a thug, enforcer, or button man for the US government, you're part of the problem.

It's like the old saying, "Beggars can't be choosers."

If they can't be so decent enough to hire qualified soldiers without consideration of gender, then perhaps the policies written and executed should not rely on the comfort of having such a powerful military.

If, for instance, the consideration is the unnecessary toll of sending unqualified soldiers into battle alongside qualified soldiers, then we are obliged to consider the unnecessary toll of sending any soldiers into any situation. It seems to me hypocritical at least, if not downright stupid, to worry about minimization of casualties when the war doesn't have to be going on.

If it was about a soldier surviving the war, desertion would be acceptable.

Soldiers are expendable. It has nothing to do with who cares. The guy who is wounded in a fire-fight and has to rely on his buddy to get him the hell out of there is expendable. So is the buddy getting him out. And so are the guys laying down cover fire. So is the fire support. So is all of it.

It's a war. Wars destroy things and kill people.

What really bugs me about this topic is that the debate really does seem to focus on what's wrong with women, and not the fact that our government is applying that standard even to those with whom there's nothing wrong.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"Spoken like someone with nothing better to say."

I've enjoyed your oft times ridiculous rants too many times
to have expected any the less from you.

Why don't you give <a href=http://www.tracy-liz.net/country/militarywoman/milwoman.htm><font color=red>this site</font></a> a perurse.

Take care ;)

Edit for clarity (too ticked at the time)

Everyone forgive me for slightly hijacking the thread, but I have some burning questions for Tiassa.

You have stated that warfare is stupid and I agree with you. Despite this, I fail to see your justification as to why women [with different requirements/training] should be allowed in ground combat. I wonder if you are biased or if your ideals hold through. Consider this:

A few years ago our province was suffering from many many forest fires. Firefighting paid well [so I'd heard] and many people were signing up to become firefighters. One of the tests was to be able to benchpress 200 pounds, or something to that effect. It was the same requirement for guys and gals, anyone who could do it was in, anyone who couldn't was out. Now, one particular female who couldn't pass the required test bitched that the test was unfair to women because they are built differently than men. So, after an extensive amount of whining, she somehow got a court order to make the firefighters accept her.

Does this seem right? This was a test of ability; you either could do it or you couldn't. It seems logical to think that if ANYONE has trouble passing the requirements they will make for a poor firefighter. Why should the standards be any different based on sex? What if a 200 pound tree (hehe) traps this woman and she is unable to get herself up? This could hurt her, others around her and waste time and resources. So why the hell would we let her fight fires? We made an exeption to be politically correct, which is bullshit.

It doesn't matter that fire-fighting and people-fighting are much different jobs; the fact of the matter is that ANYONE who can't meet the requirements shouldn't be allowed to participate in a job where error/inability has serious consequences [ie burned houses or death]. I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to be in ground combat, I'm saying men AND women should pass the same physical/otherwise requirement before being admitted because the job requires that skill or ability!

Thanks.

BTW, tiassa, I've beena lurker for a while and I want to tell you two things:
1) You are extremely long-winded ;)
2) I just LOVE reading your posts (esp the ones in the "best weed you've ever toked" thread) :D

But remember what they did with sports and education? No, we don't need girls' sports because they're not good at it ... by writing a different standard, they help maintain inequality.

First, women's and men's sports are nearly always separated when physical prowess is a factor. Rugby, boxing, weightlifting, running, high jump, pole vault... War can not be separated like that. We want to most capable in there regardless of gender. Most often, that means men.

Second, war is not a sport! Nor is it a pep rally for Governor Equality. It is people killing each other because, often, their civilian commanders made a war happen. Yes, they could just all put down their guns out in the battlefield, but what if the other side doesn't?


All I'm asking for is equality, but the mad rush of people to condemn women for existing has taken me by surprise. Hello, do you realize that this is not what they're talking about at this point? The crux? That a woman by this standard is presumed incapable of being qualified?

I, too, require equality. Women must be held to the same standard as men in the armed forces. A single uniform standard is what equality is all about. However, since life is on the line, that standard can not be lowered for any reason. Not for blind and deaf applicants, not for paraplaegics, not for weaker people.


I mean, the number of people here who seem to think a woman should not be allowed to fight even if she's qualified for the role is astounding.

I think you are imagining things. As far as I can see, most posters in this thread think women should be allowed to join combat provided they meet a uniform standard which sould apply to all soldiers.


Of course, warfare is pretty much the refuge of idiots, so I expect idiotic ideas to surround it.

One of Xev's favourite links: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html This website is devoted to 1) logical and rational debate, and 2) pointing out how some people use absolutely illogical and irrational behaviours when their debating skills prove inadequate. I suggest you give it a read.


Soldiers are expendable. It has nothing to do with who cares. The guy who is wounded in a fire-fight and has to rely on his buddy to get him the hell out of there is expendable. So is the buddy getting him out. And so are the guys laying down cover fire. So is the fire support. So is all of it.

You absolutely 100% misunderstand everything about war and soldiers. You are like a virgin telling people about fucking, to paraphrase William Frisbee Jr (http://web.qx.net/warcat/MilSF/) (a useful website for authors). Soldiers are not expendable. I'll just point out a couple of things for you. WW2: soldiers and war protected your country from NAZIs and Japan and Mussolini. War Of Independence: soldiers and war created your country. You might find this (http://bad-sports.com/~archive/revolution/military.html) interesting.


It seems to me hypocritical at least, if not downright stupid, to worry about minimization of casualties when the war doesn't have to be going on.

Probably. However, tell that to the aggressors.


What really bugs me about this topic is that the debate really does seem to focus on what's wrong with women, and not the fact that our government is applying that standard even to those with whom there's nothing wrong.

To me, this debate seems to be forming into two camps. The first is Tiassa, who rants that camp 2 wants unfair discrimination against women. And camp 2, which wants a uniform, equal standard for all soldiers, regardless of race, gender, religion, et cetera.

A few more links people may find interesting:

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/w/war.htm
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/j/justwar.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/thigpen/html/art_of_war.html
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/HansonV.htm
http://w1.922.telia.com/~u92203668/philo/wp.html


Not necessarily my own opinion, but if you can't be bothered reading through all those links, try this from Helmuth von Moltke (the elder) (http://w1.922.telia.com/~u92203668/philo/hvm/hvmotnow.html):


ON THE NATURE OF WAR

December 11, 1880
You have kindly sent me the handbook published by the Institute for International Law and would like my acknowledgment of the same.

First, I find the humanitarian striving to lessen the sufferings that come with war completely worthy. Eternal peace is a dream --and not even a beautiful one. War is part of God's world-order. Within it unfold the noblest virtues of men, courage and renunciation, loyalty to duty and readiness for sacrifice--at the hazzard of one's life. Without war the world would sink into a swamp of materialism. Further, I wholly agree with the principle stated in the preface that the gradual progress in morality must also be reflected in the waging of war. But I go farther and believe that [waging war] in and of itself--not a codification of the law of war--may attain this goal.

Every law requires an authority to oversee and administer its execution, and just this force is lacking for the observation of international agreements. What third state would take up arms because one or both of two warring powers had violated the law of war [loi de guerre]? An earthly judge is lacking. In this matter success is to be expected only from the religious and moral education, the sense of honor and respect for law, of individual leaders who make the law and act according to it, so far as this is generally possible to do in the abnormal conditions of war. Indisputably, humanity in the waging of war has in fact followed the general mitigation of morals. Only compare the savagery of the Thirty Years' War with the battles of the modern era.

In our day, an important step toward the attainment of the desired goal has been the introduction of universal military service, which has enlisted the educated classes in the army. Certainly, the raw and violence-prone elements have remained, but they no longer, as formerly, constitute the general complement.

Two further and effective means lie in the hands of the governments to avoid the worst excesses: military discipline, established and managed in peacetime; and the carefully administered provisioning of troops in the field. Without this precaution, discipline can be maintained in only limited fashion. The soldier who suffers sorrow and deprivations, exertion and danger, can do so only in proportion to the resources of the nation (en proportion avec les ressources du pays); he must take all that is necessary for his existence. We cannot expect him to be superhuman.

The greatest good deed in war is the speedy ending of the war, and every means to that end, so long as it is not reprehensible, must remain open. In no way can I declare myself in agreement with the Declaration of St. Petersburg that the sole justifiable measure in war is "the weakening of the enemy's military power." No, all the sources of support for the hostile government must be considered, its finances, railroads, foodstuffs, even its prestige.

With this sort of energy, and yet with greater moderation than ever before, the recent war in France was waged. The campaign was decided after two months, and only after a revolutionary government continued the struggle for four more months, to the ruination of its own country, did the battle take on an embittered character.

I gladly acknowledge that, better than in previous attempts, the manual recognizes the necessities of war in clear and concise sentences. However, even though governments recognize the rules [in the manual], that does not ensure their execution. It is a long-time usage of war that a parliamentarian should not be shot. Nevertheless, we have seen it violated several times in the last campaign.

No paragraph (no. 2 and 43) learned by rote will convince soldiers who are in fear of their lives every moment of the day and night that an unorganized civilian who picks up a weapon of his own free will is to be viewed as anything but a regulation enemy.

Individual demands of the manual may not be feasible, e.g., establishment of the identity of the fallen after a great battle. Consideration should be given to the insertion of modifying phrases such as, "circumstance permitting," "if possible," or "if necessary." Without such elasticity, the bitter seriousness of reality will burst the bonds laid upon [soldiers].

In war, where everything tends to be comprehended individually, only those paragraphs directed essentially at the leaders will, I believe, be effective. Among these are the what the manual wants to establish with regard to the wounded, the sick, doctors, and medical supplies. Universal recognition of even these principles, as well as those concerning treatment of prisoners, would already represent substantial progress toward the goal which the Institute for International Law strives toward with such praiseworthy steadfastness.

Most respectfully,

Count Moltke


And finally:


"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill.

I guess you missed what I said, and also missed the links Chagur provided. Generally women in the military do not earn their jobs as we men do. They get the jobs by meeting lesser requirements. There are few exceptions to this. One such exception is the Clearance Divers. This woman passed physical training which I could not pass in my current condition. She rocks. That's why she got the job, and that's why I would trust her in combat. Every woman before her who had tried that taining had failed. She was absolutely extraordinaryNonetheless, what you're advocating is the denial of her position in combat because of her gender. You would not, in fact, trust her in combat according to this topic. She, too, would be pulled from the line.

I didn't miss what you said. No, I didn't spend time with the links. But here's the problem: you're applying a gender-based bigotry against the qualified women by advocating such a policy. When you tell me about the one woman you knew who was worth your respect, all you do is prove the point because she would not be allowed to serve in the role she earned.

What, Adam, is so hard about that?I'm glad to hear that you think so little of the freedom you have to spew such rubbish, freedom bought by people like my grandfather. Take the sentimentalism and shove it, Adam. Much could have been done to prevent WWII, but the British, for instance, were too busy helping Hitler raise a navy.

The military is an organ of the government; the military serves the government (or people's) needs accordingly (in theory). A field ambulance is abetting the disaster nonetheless. It is support for the bad policy decisions that create wars.Given your mixed heritage, I'd think that if not for such people, you might be executed by the NAZIs if people had not been "stupid" enough to fight them.Again with the worthless sentimentality. Come on, Adam, you can do better.

The issue of whether or not I would be executed by NAZIs might be moot if people and nations, say Britannia, had not helped facilitate the NAZI ascendancy.You seem to be under the impression that soldiers create wars. This is simply not the case. Civilians rceate wars. Politicians create wars. Soldiers stand between you and your mixed heritage and the NAZI partyYou seem to be inaccurate in your perception.

Who the hell did the US just blow up? It wasn't the people who destroyed WTC. It was the support organization. Guess what? An army going forth to war is the support organization assisting irresponsible policy created by people and their politicians. This is why I oppose conscription. You cannot force someone to do your dirty work, as such. However, in a volunteer army? Fuck 'em. If they want to die, let them die. Choosing to go forth in advocacy of a bad policy indicates your endorsement of it.I just thought it should be mentioned again that you don't give a fuck about the lives of people willing to stand between you and danger. That's nice.Sloganeering, the last resort of the empty? Come on, Adam, you can do better than that.

We hope.

Frankly, no. I owe no tears or grief to those who choose to go out and get themselves killed in support of detrimental and nefarious politics. It is their choice to directly advocate the policy, and if the policy is wrong, they are advocating a wrong policy. At least, in that case, the people doing the dying are the people who feel it worth dying for.

Frankly, I think it should be mentioned again that you don't think a government has any obligation to avoid wars. We've discussed that before, right? Foresight, Adam. I know it's tough for all of us, and even moreso for the politicians, but that only indicates that we should not be hasty in our rush to murderous chaos.No. Soldiering is serving the people. Governments come and go, and the military remains.Our politicians are not the government in this country, Adam. When we replace them, government does not go away.

Volunteer soldiers go to their government, enlist in the army, and receive money for their service. They are trained to be experts in various things like killing--I consider them professionals. It's not that professionals don't serve, but since you've drawn the distinction between the two, maybe they don't.This is where your lack of experience shows. In unarmed combat training, women with equal skill and experience could not fight against the men in basic training. They are simply weaker, in general. 2 simple points, Adam:

• Show me a war fought unarmed.
•*Quite frankly, I've seen a number of trained women who can defeat equally-trained men in unarmed combat. It isn't just about the brute force stuff--it's also about what you do with it. Equal skill and experience? Fine. But what people do with that skill an experience is the measure of it. What, then, is the secret weapon of these inferior women? They think better and faster.Less able to deliver pain/damage, and less resistant to it.Ha! Less resistant to pain? This is where your lack of experience shows, Adam. Give birth. Carry a child for nine months.Blame only biologyNo, I'll continue to blame the idiots who wish to apply biology as a generalization.

You're telling me about statistics. I'm speaking of the application. You're telling me that women generally aren't good enough and that means that you should reject the women who are.

As soon as you understand that concept, let me know.Again, you seem to be missing things. It is the "proven your ability to do so" bit which matters. Again using the CD example, only one woman had ever proved her ability in that job by the time I left the navy. The standard is the same for everyone. There is no discrimination against women whatsoever.This is flat-out ridiculous, Adam. Shamefully full of shit on your part.

• Only one woman in the whole of the Aussie armed forces ever met the standards? Only one woman in the CD program? Or only one woman of your knowledge and acquaintance? How, incidentally, does that assessment apply to all women?

•*Now then, agreeing that the standard is the same, what issue do you have with a woman who has "proven her ability to do so"? If she meets the standard, she still doesn't meet the standard?This is simply not the case. Not here at least.Yes, it is.

Are you out of misogynist generalizations? Have you lost track of the times that you've said that an equal woman still isn't equal? No wonder your retort to the point is so brief and without substance.

Here, in the simple form:

• Goofy points out an article describing the removal of "women" from the front lines.
•*Adam advocates this.
• Tiassa points out that any woman who meets the standard should be allowed to serve.
• Adam tells Tiassa to go jump off a cliff.
• Tiassa reiterates the question: Is (it) that no woman is suited for combat?
• Adam notes that women are generally inferior to men when it comes to physical strength and fighting ability.
• Xev notes that, If I wish to fight, I must demonstrate my ability to do so.
• Tiassa responds to Xev, And once you have demonstrated your ability, you're still told to sit down because you're a woman.
• Adam insists that this is not the case.

I put it in bullet form in hope that you can follow it; I know you prefer things that way.

So, Adam, let's look at the situation in front of us. I would refer you to my response to Squid Vicious:• J.D. Salinger is a "good author". Abby Frucht is a good "female author". Alice Walker is a good "black female author". You know, if the author's good, does it matter if she's black?

• Are we removing "unqualified soldiers" in general? Are we removing "unqualified female soldiers"? Or are we removing "female soldiers"?Now, again in bullet form so as not to confuse you:

•*Xev wants to go to war, and enlists in the Army.
• Xev does, in fact, pass her standards with flying colors. She has, for our purposes, met even the men's standard.
• Xev will not, by the policy at issue, be allowed to serve in the position she has earned (e.g. front line) because she is a woman, and for no better reason.

The first of the points originally addressed to Squid deals with the nitpicking of words.

The second of those points puts the distinction into terms suitable for the present situation.

• Are we removing unqualified soldiers in general with this specific policy? (Yes/No)
- (Yes) End discussion here. This is acceptable.
- (No) Proceed to next question.

• Are we removing only unqualified female soldiers?
- (Yes) Apparently unqualified male soldiers are acceptable in combat?
- (No) Proceed to next question.

•*Are we removing all female soldiers from the front line, including those who are qualified?
- (Yes) Why? What good does this accomplish?
- (No) Who, then, are we removing?

Truly, Adam, I'm wondering what the hell the problem is. I mean, even the qualified female soldier you refer to would be removed by this policy because of gender. You can say that this is simply not the case, but frankly I don't know what you're referring to by that point.1) Warfare guaranteed your survival. Why? See 2...

2) Some people are bad. Some people will always want to force their ways on the world at the cost of the lives or freedom of others. While you debate philosophy, these bad people would simply run over you with a tank. Warfare is necessary precisely because these people have tanks and you have philosophy.

3) Again, I think you should rethink your ideas about soldiers. My grandfather fought to protect the rest of the world from the kind of people mentioned in point 2, and you think that is dishonourable?(1) And the stupid people who create and fight wars endangered it. This accords slightly with your point #2.

(2) Why are people bad? What makes them so? If you cannot answer such a question, it indicates that you are going forth (e.g. to war) without knowing what the situation is. A most irresponsible act, indeed. Generally speaking, though, if people regarded what philosophy advises a little more honestly, people might not feel compelled to run over me with a tank. Warfare is only necessary because the warring parties have decided it is.

(3) By and large I do have greater respect for soldiers. However, if those who advocate such slaughters are going to go so far as to speak of the privilege, honor, and duty of being a murderer in order to enforce bad policy, I'm going to speak of warfare in terms of it's actual stupidity. Really, the bullshit sentimentality that makes people revere warfare is part of the reason people go bad. As long as we look up to the soldier, warfare will remain a noble profession and an acceptable result. Because if warfare was ignoble and unacceptable, why would we look up to the soldier, other than the fact that he has a rifle? Your grandfather aided and abetted a situation that may not have been necessary. And if he did it for the Crown, I might remind that Britannia helped foster the war. Was your grandfather a conscript? Then he is a victim of a terrible offense by governments. Was he a volunteer? Well and fine; he can go fight a war for all I care. Nonetheless, neither side kept the war to the warring parties, and ended up hurting civilians. Of course, their labors helped support the war effort, so I guess they're guilty too. Of course, accepting that would lend justification to greater evils than slaying the beast one helped create.Who is ridiculing women?Well, insofar as I can tell, ridiculing is the kindest term I can find to apply to the words of those who advocate the removal of qualified soldiers from the line based on gender. Oppressing, hurting, wronging, offending ... these are stronger terms. Acting like idiots is a very strong term, and after that it gets a little profane.Again, see WW2.You seem to have a problem with this, so I'll try it in bullet form.

•*Nation A hurts Nation B.
• Nation B gets upset, and strikes Nation A.
•*Nation A has no choice but to go to war.

Perhaps Nation A should not have hurt Nation B in the first place.

In the direct application, we might look at American economy and foreign policy. Were we talking about American subsistence, that would be one thing, but the economy that is threatened is our economy of luxury. And thus we go back to the shirt-maker, who is paid not enough to live on so that his children must work in order to survive and cannot go to school, which hurts their chances of ever raising the economic standard which leaves children in factories. I can pay $80 for a shirt made by a child who is paid less than a penny for his labor on it. That other $79.99+ is apparently management-driven overhead and profit-margin. Nation A hurts Nation B by advocating policies which keep Nation B in poverty. When enough people are harmed by this, Nation B elects to not restrain its anger and strikes in what it believes to be the defense of its people. Nation A, unable to conceive of why Nation B is pissed off, calls Nation B terrorist and laments that Nation A has no choice but to go to war.

Nation A's government could have developed policies that respected the value of human beings in Nation B, but chose not to. With the support of the politicians, the people who elect them, and the soldiers who volunteer to kill on their behalf.

I find repugnant that a nation of the United States' stature should expect to rely on the suffering of others in order to foster domestic luxury. But their suffering doesn't matter, does it? And it certainly has nothing to do with why they might try to hurt the US. Nobody else in the world is ever defending themselves, are they, Adam?

This is what I mean when I say you have forgotten the state's obligation to protect it's people by not going to war.

Respect is too expensive? Basic human dignity is too expensive? Is it more expensive than a war?I absolutely agree. But until we can "purify" peoples' minds and purge the concept of forcing our beliefs/desires on others, we need soldiers.And when will that happen?

It seems to me that you're advocating a perpetual cycle of violence.

• On the one hand, we need soldiers.
• This is because people still believe in forcing others with arms.
• Yet the government, in its obligation to protect the interests of its people, writes dubious policy with the comfort that it can use the soldiers.
• Thus we force others with arms, and create more reasons for people to want to force others with arms.

It works. It ensures that the politicians can do what they want and there will always be a need for professional soldiers.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Chagur:

Using three separate browsers, I have found the page you linked to illegible. On the one hand, I would prefer legible pages. To the other, though, I'm wondering if that wasn't a well-calculated slight against women. But between Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, and Opera, I cannot make the page display legibly.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

hey are you guys talking about the fact that there are marine units sitting on there hands unable to go into conficts because they have females in them?

that don't happen here

there are some jobs clased MO (male only)
these are things like infentry, gun number and the like

apart from those jobs women have exactly the same rights to serve and die

First, women's and men's sports are nearly always separated when physical prowess is a factor. Rugby, boxing, weightlifting, running, high jump, pole vault...On the one hand, you've missed the point again. To the other, this is my fault. You're Australian. I'm referring to an American issue.

In public schools it used to be that sports activities were provided for boys only, until someone complained loudly enough. For years afterward, though, women's sports programs were badly underfunded and lacking diversity. People pointed out that girls just weren't good at sports. Of course, these people also discouraged girls from sports and made sure that there wasn't enough to foster any deep competition. Strangely, the race issue of "separate but equal" (cf. Plessy v. Ferguson) was the undoing of this situation.

The end result was that the people who did not want girls to be trained in athletics were also the ones decrying girls for not being well-trained in athletics. I'm sure that you've heard that "girls can't throw". This arises from a time when girls were generally forbidden to throw. Now, the physiology of the breasts aside, a female of my acquaintance can throw a baseball, overhand, better than many of my friends, and targets better than I do.

Those naysayers, of course, are largely dismayed by the US Womens' World Cup performance a few years ago, and also by the mere existence of a female professional basketball league.

In the parallel, I find it quite disturbing that people have chosen to write a separate standard for women and then choose to hold that standard against them. As I've advocated throughout this topic, if a woman performs equally to a man, she should be allowed to serve.

For some reason, though, people seem to have a problem with this.Second, war is not a sport! Nor is it a pep rally for Governor Equality. It is people killing each other because, often, their civilian commanders made a war happen. Yes, they could just all put down their guns out in the battlefield, but what if the other side doesn't?Actually, the Gulf War looked a lot like a sporting event.

I agree with you that war isn't a sport. Of civilian commanders screwing up, this is why I oppose conscription.

I'll tell you what, though, Adam, I will consider your question about laying down guns a valid one just as soon as the governments stop making warfare an inevitability. Because the flip side of that is What if nobody was compelled to pick up their damn guns in the first place?I, too, require equality. Women must be held to the same standard as men in the armed forces. A single uniform standard is what equality is all about. However, since life is on the line, that standard can not be lowered for any reason. Not for blind and deaf applicants, not for paraplaegics, not for weaker people.This avoids the point at hand. The point at hand is all women, including those that are qualified by the standard.I think you are imagining things. As far as I can see, most posters in this thread think women should be allowed to join combat provided they meet a uniform standard which sould apply to all soldiers.Yet you seem to be missing that point? In fact, I've seen little discussion regarding those women who meet the standard. I've seen a lot of fretting over the bad standards, a lot of condemnation of women, and you, yourself, have continued to press the generalization when presented with the specifics. I find your statement offensively inaccurate, Adam.One of Xev's favourite links: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fall...o-ridicule.html This website is devoted to 1) logical and rational debate, and 2) pointing out how some people use absolutely illogical and irrational behaviours when their debating skills prove inadequate. I suggest you give it a read.Yes, but unfortunately I'm already familiar with your debating tactics. Why show me the handbook?

Or are you going to pretend that the cheap sentimentalism and childish insistence of your other posts don't exist? Why, oh why, Adam, do you just hand out the darts? If I really wanted to throw them at you, I would. And if you don't like getting hit by them, then stop stepping in my line of fire and saying, "I'm the bullseye!"

Look, Adam, when sentences and paragraphs are too complex for you to understand, I can only put so much in bullet form. And if you have to isolate a sentence like that in order to retort to it, at least include a substantial retort.You absolutely 100% misunderstand everything about war and soldiers. You are like a virgin telling people about fucking, to paraphrase William Frisbee Jr (a useful website for authors). Soldiers are not expendable. I'll just point out a couple of things for you. WW2: soldiers and war protected your country from NAZIs and Japan and Mussolini. War Of Independence: soldiers and war created your country. You might find this interesting.Actually, I found the editorial to be vaguely written in many places, and generally begs the same questions that other such pabulum invokes. Namely, the article presumes that warfare is inevitable, thus foregoing any consideration of the policies that lead to war. In effect, the article presumes those policies noble, and views warfare not from an us/them notion, but from a purely "us" standpoint. Certes, the military efforts of many nations helped stem the Nazi advance, but I see no discussion of any contributions those nations might have made toward the rise of the Nazis. I love this part:This is irrational, illogical, dangerous, and tantamount to murder of one's fellows in a society. Without military forces, such extremists would at this very moment be living in a global NAZI state, worrying constantly about possible Gestapo observation, about when exactly their particular genes would be declared "impure", about when the police would come to drag them away to some concentration camp. It seems the author is presuming that the Nazis could strategically hold the world. This is impossible, even for the US. And, again, it seems the author is presuming the actions of Germany's eventual enemies to be noble in the years leading up to the war.

The author also makes a sad mistake when invoking disaster relief. This is a great reason for a military. If we want to keep hardware around to knock comets out of the sky or hold off the evil bug-aliens who want to eat our babies and who refuse to establish any dialogue, that's one thing. Such simplistic propaganda as that article demonstrates the weakness of its own argument with vagaries, sentimentalism, and presumption. It doesn't seem to help your argument at all.

• On WWII--The United States involved itself in Germany's affairs in two ways: by supplying its enemy (giving aid and comfort), and by declaring war on its ally (Japan). Hitler declared war on the US (an obvious strategic mistake) because of obligations to Japan. In the case of Japan, we opened diplomatic relations with them at gunpoint. Perhaps a little foresight, or at least respect for dignity, might have helped the situation before it got out of hand.

• Of the American Revolution (War for Independence)--show me, please, the two nations at war. And show me, please, their armies. Had the Crown not failed in its obligation to protect the interests of the people, they would not have been so compelled to reject the Crown. Revolutions are different from other wars. Generally speaking, they start in a flash. In the case of a revolution, as opposed to, say, the current American action, the revolutionaries do not have the same power in guiding the policies that might avert war. (I will say the same of the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution of 1918. And a few other revolutions you might bring up.) As opposed to two nations at war with each other, the American Revolution was one nation at war with itself.

(Edit: See? If you just throw enough crap at me, I'll eventually forget something. Namely, soldiers are, indeed, expendable. Agent Orange? The mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome"? I'm actually slogging through editorials because the Bush administration said something after the Canadians died in the friendly-fire incident that reminded me directly that soldiers are expendable, and that actually helped me feel better about the incident.)Probably. However, tell that to the aggressors.When speaking with fellow American citizens, I am. In the meantime, if you want to give me Osama's address, I'll take him some coffee cake and ask what's bugging him so damn much. I don't expect much new in the answer, but I figure sincerity is worth a try.

I'm trying very hard not to view your retort in terms of one nation being right and one being aggressors. That invites all sorts of difficulties, and is a vulgar presumption.To me, this debate seems to be forming into two camps. The first is Tiassa, who rants that camp 2 wants unfair discrimination against women. And camp 2, which wants a uniform, equal standard for all soldiers, regardless of race, gender, religion, et cetera.Adam, that's as dishonorable as you can get. Shall we do the review for you?It is not practical to treat the issue according to affirmative action or quota-related principles. Either method creates a practical problem that needs not be. But any woman who does, in fact, prove herself to the task earns the position, and I think a blanket statement such as the inability of women to perform under given circumstances is enough of a generalization that we might as well discard it immediately. Did you miss this one, Adam?So, what I'm seeing from you then, is that no woman is suited for combat? After all, you've rejected the notion that those who meet the task should be allowed to participate.You chose not to respond to this, I notice. Heck, you never even lamented that you never said that.We're also talking about the women who are as good as the next soldier. What you're looking at then is that you've got the equal training and the equal skill and you still aren't acceptable because you're a woman.Was I unclear on this point to Xev?Yes, and I don't recall any article saying that the unqualified women only would be removed, such as any unqualified soldier of either gender should. It seems the issue is all women? So once again I remind you that, in accord with your example, once you've proven your ability to do so, you still aren't allowed to. Is there something about that you missed?And just to be sure, Adam, I reminded Xev again of my point. What was unclear about this?And once you have demonstrated your ability, you're still told to sit down because you're a woman. Easy enough?It seems to me I'm quite consistent, Adam.As it stands right now, we seem to be having some difficulty with the idea of unqualified women versus women in general.It seems to me that I had to spend some time arguing against the notion that including qualified women in a fighting force restricts its quality.Squid, where I disagree with you most on this point, as relates to what you've pointed out about Adam, is that the larger issue we're discussing is the removal of qualified soldiers in accordance with a generalization.So it seems, Adam. that there is some sentiment expressed in this topic toward generalizations applied to all women.What nobody seems to be paying attention to is the fact that women do exist who meet standard. These women, as well, will be denied the role they've earned because of their gender, and because people seem to be unwilling to treat a woman fairly.I keep hammering home the point that the qualified women (those who meet the standard) are being removed because of their gender. So far, this seems to trouble only a couple of people in this topic. Curious, that.What is the result, in the field, of removing a qualified and effective soldier? Oh, well. Doesn't matter. It was just a woman, and that automatically means she's not qualified and will never be, right?A little sarcasm now and then might be effective. Then again, it might not.And that is what I find so repugnant about the attitudes flying around. I mean, I've got Xev over there telling me that if she wants to be equal, she has to prove herself equal, and all the while apparently without realizing that in the situation we're debating, the answer is flat-out "No." Having proven herself equal, she will not be given what she has earned. She does not deserve it because she cannot prove herself equal because she is a woman. This is the end result of the circumstances we are debating.I must insist that there is little or no room for confusion here.First off, the blanket "all" seems to be the removal of women. All I'm asking for is that the qualified ones be allowed to serve as they've earned. But people apparently have a problem with this. The qualified women, apparently, should be removed from certain duties because, despite their qualifications, they are women.Sigh. Are you bored with it yet? Are you still reading at this point? Because we'll get into the other camp just as soon as I finish addressing my role in this topic. Really, Adam, such misrepresentations of reality only work if there is no way to dispel the misrepresentation. In this case, there's a whole topic of it. But I digress; we shall continue:Sure you can. It's not wise. But neither is warfare itself. What, if not decreasing the effectiveness of your military unit, do you call removing a qualified soldier from the line because of gender? What, the person who saved your ass yesterday isn't good enough to save your ass today?Strangely, the last several are all from one post. I wonder what I was responding to. We shall see, we shall see.I really don't get it. I mean, one could pull the "unqualified troops" and make a statistical case for the large portion that is female. But to pull all women from the line--including those that are meeting their goals and standards--simply because they're women ... that's beyond stupid. That's ridiculous.Gee, maybe I should be more direct. It seems people don't know what I'm saying here.All I'm asking for is equality, but the mad rush of people to condemn women for existing has taken me by surprise. Hello, do you realize that this is not what they're talking about at this point? The crux? That a woman by this standard is presumed incapable of being qualified?Ooh, a statement that can be taken broadly enough to point toward a large number of women. Wow. We almost met one of your descriptive terms, Adam. Almost. The unwritten (implied, obvious, or otherwise unavoidable) point is that even the qualified female soldier will be presumed unqualified due to her gender.Maybe he shouldn't have been there in the first place. I mean, if the issue is really qualification, you wouldn't be using language like,

quote:

It's so damn easy when you're sitting back in Washington and trying
to decide how many PC votes you can garner with a photo-op of the
female warrior 'Who Can Do The Job' and yourself.


because, in case you noticed, part of what the new rules are doing is taking that qualified soldier who is capable of carrying you out and pulling her from combat merely because she's a woman. It's well and fine to condemn women as inferior in order to distract ourselves from the idiocy of war, but when all you've got is "photo op", I'm wondering if you're actually considering the issues.A bit lengthy, but I boldfaced the most relevant part for you.What really bugs me about this topic is that the debate really does seem to focus on what's wrong with women, and not the fact that our government is applying that standard even to those with whom there's nothing wrong.And here we come to the moment of your erroneous representation of this topic. It's quite a shameful lapse of attention or honesty on your part, Adam. You'll notice that I spoke of the equal standard in my first post in this topic--it's included above. The point starts with the words: It is not practical to treat the issue according to affirmative action or quota-related principles.

Sorry you missed it.

So what we see in "Tiassa's camp" (as you have it) is the simple point that a woman who meets the standard ought to be allowed to serve in the position she earns, and that a uniform presumption of inadequacy based on gender is wrong. That's a far cry from your summary.

And your "Camp 2"? Shall we review?I don't like women in infantry/combat roles. Why? Because in the navy I trained with some women, and they could not do the job when it comes to combat. I'm all for equal rights under the law, but the fact is women are generally inferior to men when it comes to physical strength and fighting ability. I don't want to be killed in combat simply becuse politically correct lobby group dumb-arses have placed at my side a weak soldier. (Adam, 6.3.02, 10.49 PDT)I don't see any reference to an equal standard. Perhaps you think it's in there, Adam, but why leave it with the generalization of all women? You very easily could have clarified yourself with the position of those you have labeled as "Camp 2", but chose not to. Since it only takes about one sentence to do so, I'm left wondering why not. Oh, well.I don't think we must allow such equality. (Adam, 6.3.02, 12.18 PDT)Okay, so Goofy posted, you responded, I responded, and you then responded to me, beginning with the above line. Two factors point toward a misogynist bigotry: (1) That you are responding to the "equality" of allowing qualified female soldiers to serve; it seems you disagree with that allowance, (2) That you once again had the opportunity to clarify and place yourself with the "equal standard" camp, but chose for some reason not to.

Now, if you disagree with the equality of letting qualified female soldiers serve in the positions they have earned, well ...? It seems you've disqualified yourself from Camp 2, which means you are in a different camp. So in addition to mischaracterizing "Tiassa's camp", you've also shown that there are more than two camps, thus pretty much blowing your whole representation of the topic out of the water. Nice show.I said "I'm all for equal rights under the law, but the fact is women are generally inferior to men when it comes to physical strength and fighting ability." (Adam, 6.3.02, 13.05 PDT)And how does this relate to the topic? You almost clarified yourself into that mythical "camp 2" in discussing the only woman you would consider valuable in combat. But at no time in that post did you clarify that a qualified female soldier should be allowed to serve in the position she has earned.

At this point, the debate picks up another poster, Pollux V, who seems to be leaning into that "Camp 2" you described. But as I go through this, I'm seeing that there is at least a third camp, so I'll continue with the one I'm actually examining, despite its lack of a label at this point.The women had much easier tests to pass. They did not come up to the same standard. They were not required to be as strong or fast as men. They were allowed into the very same job while not meeting the same job requirements. Except for that major babe who joined the CDs; she passed the same tests as the guys. (Adam, 6.3.02, 15.53)I just find this exceptionally humorous. Sad measure of value, eh?Hell, they don't even have to meet the same entrance requirements! (Chagur, 6.3.02, 20.04 PDT)This is an interesting point, which reminds us of the policy-based inferiority of women without commenting on those women who qualify. It's actually part of what I was referring to in the paragraph which apparently incited your ill-considered summary of the topic.

And it is tough to figure out what people mean by such things as that, but what is the point of bagging on women because of policy? At this point, I am already firmly entrenched in my position advocating the inclusion of the qualified female soldier.You know I mentioned that girl from the navy? That is what I find sexy, a woman who is strong, smart, competent, and able to look after herself. (Adam, 6.3.02, 20.19 PDT)Again, sad and humorous. Irrelevant, and contributory to the generalizations against women in this topic, but I'm not inclined to take that particular post seriously. I don't think I'm supposed to. Of course, I often wonder if I'm to take any or your posts seriously.You can't escape the biological fact that women are in general, not physically as capable as men, and therefore (again generalising) would not be as effective as a military unit. Where would you stop? Would you allow paraplegics to join military units because, philosophically, all humans should be treated equally? (Squid Vicious, 6.4.02, 3.43)There is no consideration of the qualified individual in Squid's post. None whatsoever. A couple more samples:OK, lets move on. Let's say you're right, and that some women would be equal to the rigours of combat. This raises another problem, and one which the Israelis have already encountered in real combat situations. Men, by instinct, have a tendency to try to protect women. The Israelis had instances where entire UNITS of male soldiers forgot their immediate objectives when seeing women in tight spots on the battlefield. This caused problems where they moved contrary to orders to help out, and strategic objectives were not met. (ibid)As I pointed out in my response to this post, that seems to speak ill of the male soldiers and their qualifications.However having female ground troops could lead to an entirely different situation, as noted above in the Israeli example. (ibid)I liked this one, Adam. Maybe you'll get a chuckle out of it.

I mean, people are so after women in general that they will blame a woman for a man's mistake.This is only my opinion on this matter, but I do believe they could be effective in SOME combat roles, but not a blanket "all" such as you describe. (ibid)What's really funny, Adam, is that Squid is responding to a point that you happened to miss. Don't worry, he missed it too on a certain level, so you're not alone. But when he used the phrase "blanket all", he tipped his hand. He missed a vital part of which I've already reminded you.But my main point, to reiterate... you CANNOT decrease the effectiveness of your military units just to prove a philosophical point. Try it, and you just might find your particular nation won't be in a position to make philosophical points ever again. (ibid)Apparently including qualified soldiers in a combat unit is decreasing its effectiveness? I know he's after the blanket-all situation with that, but it's only on the table because others choose to put it there.

And most of 6.4.02 (yesterday) was taken up with our battle, so those camps have been covered.

Now then, what do we have so far?

• Tiassa's camp: I'm still respecting this label until we get through to the end. And then I can reclassify the Tiassa camp with whatever camp it belongs with.

•*Camp A: Because the two-class scheme sucked so badly, I am renaming to a completely separate Camp. The second set of citations makes up this camp, and constitutes the most part of the posts to which I responded in this topic. This camp continues to focus on women, and speaks nothing of that qualified female soldier being denied her earned role because of her gender.

• Camp B: There is at least this third camp, and in it I would place Goofy, Xev, Pollux V, and Nebula. In fact, Nebula's post seems to hit the nail on the head. (In fact, I owe it a direct response, anyway ....)

• Camp C: This is Orthogonal's camp, for now. I'm very kindly disposed toward it, though I've committed myself to standards in this debate. Personally, I say let anyone who wants to serve do so. Let them all get mowed down. However, I want my soldiers to come home once we've sent them out, so I stick with the standards.

• Camp D: At least one of Chagur's informational posts goes here. But I created it for KMGuru because I'm starting to wonder about the close-combat issue. I can deal with generalizations themselves when it comes to certain physical work, but I'm unsure how close-combat comes into play here. In one circumstance, being a woman or a small man might be to your benefit, and in another it's a moot point. What is the third circumstance? The one I'm missing? The one that makes size so important to close combat?

And now that I've qualified everybody (I think) in the topic, should I microclassify for you any? I can, I'm sure, if I try.

But I can only ask that next time, Adam, you pay closer attention to the topics and their posts. I can only conclude a lack of attention helped determine your woefully inaccurate summary of the topic:

• It would seem that Tiassa's camp, in fact, aligns with what you have described as Camp 2.
• Furthermore, it would seem that Tiassa's camp is not accusing the posts which match your description of Camp 2 of anything.
• Furthermore, it would seem that what you have described Tiassa's camp of accusing against Camp 2 does, in fact, exist among some of those you've included in Camp 2. (Really, Adam, how smart was it not to summarize the topic into only two camps? And how smart was it not to include yourself as part of something--e.g. equal standard--that you evidently are not?)

I only conclude a lack of attention because the foremost alternatives are a lack of honesty or a lack of capability.

But that was an exceptionally poor performance, Adam. The outright falsehood of your summary reaches to new depths, well below your normal standard.

If you're not proud of your stand, why did you lie about it and include yourself with a group not representative of what you've expressed? A single sentence in favor of equal standards on the second page of the debate doesn't do much in the face of your constant reliance on generalizations or your stated distaste toward the equality of a qualified woman, or your comparison of being female to paraplegic or blind.

Perhaps you should lighten up a bit? I know that sounds funny coming from me in such a long post, but you seem to be taking this debate so personally that you're throwing away any integrity we might respect, and sacrificing your dignity at the altar of Victory.

I mean, really, what was the point of your "Camps" bit? In addition to being quite stupid, it was, as I have shown, severely inaccurate. It seems deliberately misrepresentative, Adam.

So pardon me if I don't thank you.

--Tiassa :cool:

Nonetheless, what you're advocating is the denial of her position in combat because of her gender.

I advocate only that all soldiers meet one standard. That woman from the CDs, as I said, I would trust in combat, because she was capable.


But here's the problem: you're applying a gender-based bigotry against the qualified women by advocating such a policy.

A single uniform standard is not in any way bigotry. Applying separate standards based on gender, as you seem to be advocating, is sexism.

What, Tiassa, is so hard about that?


Take the sentimentalism and shove it, Adam... Again with the worthless sentimentality. Come on, Adam, you can do better... Sloganeering, the last resort of the empty? Come on, Adam, you can do better than that.

Rather than responding to points and questions, you say simply "That's silly, I'll just walk straight past it."[I] This may pass for a reasonable method of deabet in Seattle, but here it looks like you are simply incapable of responding to the points and questions and wish to side-step them. What you have said there is equivalent to me responding to your endless euphemisms with [I]"Pure bollocks, I think I'll ignore all that and move on." Which, to be honest, I feel like doing, but I'm polite today.


Frankly, I think it should be mentioned again that you don't think a government has any obligation to avoid wars.

I suggest you read through my posts again. I have never said that. Again, you are making things up out of whole cloth.


• Show me a war fought unarmed.
• Quite frankly, I've seen a number of trained women who can defeat equally-trained men in unarmed combat. It isn't just about the brute force stuff--it's also about what you do with it. Equal skill and experience? Fine. But what people do with that skill an experience is the measure of it. What, then, is the secret weapon of these inferior women? They think better and faster.

1) No wars since the start of tool-use. Individual combats, however. And as we are discussing the capabilities of individual soldiers (rather than logistic chains and airrcaft carriers and the rest of war), that is the only matter of concern.

2) I have never seen a woman defeat an equally trained man in unarmed combat. In non-contact sports, yes, but never in combat. As I said, in the navy, the women could not train with the men. This is an important point, Tiassa: experience is far superior to watching sports from your armchair.


Ha! Less resistant to pain? This is where your lack of experience shows, Adam. Give birth. Carry a child for nine months.

Are you saying the ability to give birth makes one a superior combatant? We simply have no way to tell if males could withstand that pain. There is no way to measure or compare. Thus using childbirth as a comparison of pain-bearing capacity is completely baseless.


You're telling me that women generally aren't good enough and that means that you should reject the women who are.

No. Read my previous posts. I say accept the women who are good enough, as long as they meet the exact same standard as the men. Equality. "As soon as you understand that concept, let me know."


This is flat-out ridiculous, Adam. Shamefully full of shit on your part.

• Only one woman in the whole of the Aussie armed forces ever met the standards? Only one woman in the CD program? Or only one woman of your knowledge and acquaintance? How, incidentally, does that assessment apply to all women?

• Now then, agreeing that the standard is the same, what issue do you have with a woman who has "proven her ability to do so"? If she meets the standard, she still doesn't meet the standard?

Good grief, Tiassa, try reading my posts. I have stated many times in this thread that if they meet the standard they should be accepted. I have said that many times. Ignoring what is just so you can preach is what we call "grandstanding".

She was the very first woman to ever successfully complete CD training. Many women tried before her, and all failed. She met the standard, and was thus acceptable. As stated earlier, I would absolutely trust her in combat. What issue do I have with it? As stated, none. She was completely acceptable.


Are you out of misogynist generalizations? Have you lost track of the times that you've said that an equal woman still isn't equal?

1) Please prove that I am a misogynist.
2) Please show me where I have said that a woman who has proven herself is still unequal.

What you are doing here is casting aspersions upon my character instead of addressing the material of the thread. In effect, what you are saying is a bit of this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html), a bit of this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html), and a little of this (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html).


• Adam advocates this.

I put it in bullet form in hope that you can follow it; I know you prefer things that way.

No, I did not advocate the complete removal of women from the front lines. Your point is entirely invalid.


Now, again in bullet form so as not to confuse you:

I suggest you try to use what has been said here rather than your somewhat limited and repetitive imagination. I have advocated only equality here. I have not at all advocated the removal of capable women from the front lines. *Puts on Tiassa voice* I know this is confusing for you, but...


Truly, Adam, I'm wondering what the hell the problem is. I mean, even the qualified female soldier you refer to would be removed by this policy because of gender. You can say that this is simply not the case, but frankly I don't know what you're referring to by that point.

I have not once even slightly suggested I agree with the policy mentioned in the originating post of this thread. I have stated only my own ideas, whic do not involve removal of all women from the front lines. Your inability to see this is based in your habit of imagining people are saying things that they are not.


Really, the bullshit sentimentality that makes people revere warfare is part of the reason people go bad.

I don't know of any soldiers who revere warfare. I know of politicians who see it as a valid tool for policy. I do, however, know soldiers who revere what they see in other soldiers on occasion when humans are pressed in such dire circumstances. In wars we tend to see the very best and the very worst of humanity. Life is never more valuable than when someone is trying to take it from you (and yes, I have been in that situation). Life itself has the greatest meaning for an individual in such circumstances. I doubt very much that you have ever experienced such. If not, you have thus far lived in the mediocre band of life, not being personally a part of the best or worst of humanity. From this lofty height, from this vast well of experience, you can clearly judge all facets of this matter? Congratulations. Again, like I said, that is akin to a virgin telling people how to shag.

It is not killing and warfare which is noble. Ask anyone who has been in a war, anyone who has had people actively trying to snatch their life away from them, and I bet they will be the most vehement supporters of the idea that war sucks. What is noble is the courage and honour one can see in individuals in such situations. My grandfather spent several years tromping around in jungles and deserts saving lives, treating the wounded and such, under fire. He missed seeing my father growing up for the first years of his life because he was off saving lives. He sacrificed for the good of others.


You seem to have a problem with this, so I'll try it in bullet form.

• Nation A hurts Nation B.
• Nation B gets upset, and strikes Nation A.
• Nation A has no choice but to go to war.

Perhaps Nation A should not have hurt Nation B in the first place.

In Utopia, that would be nifty. But Utopia by definition does not exist. I say again, soldiers more than any others would prefer to live in that world. However, achieving such a world would reqiure 1) eradicating history, and 2) "purging" the minds of humans of all thoughts and urges which might have them do anything even vaguely detrimental to ayone else.


This is what I mean when I say you have forgotten the state's obligation to protect it's people by not going to war.

I have covered this before. Again, read my posts.

Why, oh why, Adam, do you just hand out the darts? If I really wanted to throw them at you, I would. And if you don't like getting hit by them, then stop stepping in my line of fire and saying, "I'm the bullseye!"

This is equivalent to me saying "Tiassa, all you ever do is demonstrate your lack of knowledge and experience. You provide endless ammunition to use against you in debates. YOu have no debating skill. You avoid points continuously and instead go on grandstanding from your starting point of a lack of knowledge and experience. You damage your own credibility with every word. Please continue supplying ammunition." Such a passage would make no sense. Yet you do it with almost every post. Trying to use point A to justify point B when there is no actual point A.


It seems the author is presuming that the Nazis could strategically hold the world. This is impossible, even for the US.

Rome. With much lower technology and fewer resources, Rome held a great portion of the world. Please don't get into discussing strategy.


The author also makes a sad mistake when invoking disaster relief. This is a great reason for a military. If we want to keep hardware around to knock comets out of the sky or hold off the evil bug-aliens who want to eat our babies and who refuse to establish any dialogue, that's one thing. Such simplistic propaganda as that article demonstrates the weakness of its own argument with vagaries, sentimentalism, and presumption. It doesn't seem to help your argument at all.

Read this (http://bad-sports.com/~archive/revolution/military.html), and please pay particular attention to the mentions of disaster relief. Just one page. I will extract just one paragraph for you:


My own nation's (Australia) military has been involved in eleven wars 1, nine of them since we actually became a nation with our own government. Those eleven wars were fought over one hundred and forty years. Over the past ten years alone, the Australian Defence Force has been involved in more than twenty disaster relief and peacekeeping operations 2. In such situations, the military is called into action by civilians to solve problems and protect human life, and this is exactly what happens. Such activities, no matter how one looks at them, can not possibly be viewed as oppressive to the individual. Such activities can not be seen as anything but humanitarian and productive.


And now history...


• On WWII--The United States involved itself in Germany's affairs in two ways: by supplying its enemy (giving aid and comfort), and by declaring war on its ally (Japan). Hitler declared war on the US (an obvious strategic mistake) because of obligations to Japan.

The USA was attacked by a nation openly allied with Germany. At this point the USA was already an ally of England, and thus under obligation to support England, which they were doing with supplies and intelligence and more. Indeed, the USA had already been active in combat for years in both China and Spain, already involved in the policies which would carry them into WW2.


• Of the American Revolution (War for Independence)--show me, please, the two nations at war. And show me, please, their armies. Had the Crown not failed in its obligation to protect the interests of the people, they would not have been so compelled to reject the Crown. Revolutions are different from other wars. Generally speaking, they start in a flash. In the case of a revolution, as opposed to, say, the current American action, the revolutionaries do not have the same power in guiding the policies that might avert war. (I will say the same of the French Revolution. And the Russian Revolution of 1918. And a few other revolutions you might bring up.) As opposed to two nations at war with each other, the American Revolution was one nation at war with itself.

The European settlement of North America had been underway for quite some time when this war occurred. How long does it take for the residents of a continent to start considering themselves a nation, or a groups of "us" as opposed to "them"? Revolutions build for a long time before they "start in a flash".


Namely, soldiers are, indeed, expendable.

Soldiers are not expendable. However, many government seem to treat as though we are. That is not the same thing.


So, what I'm seeing from you then, is that no woman is suited for combat? After all, you've rejected the notion that those who meet the task should be allowed to participate.

AGAIN, read my posts. If they meet the standard, they're in. If they don't, they're out.


I don't see any reference to an equal standard. Perhaps you think it's in there, Adam, but why leave it with the generalization of all women?

I did not refer to all women. I referred to women I trained with in the navy.


I just find this exceptionally humorous. Sad measure of value, eh?

What is a sad measure of value? That she passed the same tests as the guys? An equal set of tests? As explained earlier, I value her strength, intelligence, and competence. I also thought she was a major babe, but that has nothing to do with the other things. I am quite capable of discussing several streams at once. One such is that woman's value as a soldier. The other is entirely separate, that I liked her sexually. I do not tie my sexual attraction to her value as a soldier.


If you're not proud of your stand, why did you lie about it and include yourself with a group not representative of what you've expressed?

I am absolutely proud of my ideal that all soldiers be held to one standard. And that those who do not meet that standard, regardless of gender, race, religion, or any other factor, be excluded from combat roles.

Throughout this thread, you have continuously asserted that several other posters support segregation based on gender. That is your "camp". And it is based on mud, not firm ground. I do not, and never have, supported complete segregation based on gender. I have, however, mentioned that in my experience as a soldier (experience which you do not have), only one woman has ever been up to the standard. Any segragation should be based on a single standard. In my experience, women have proven unfit for full combat roles in the military, and based on that experience I believe most women are currently unfit for such roles. I would be quite pleased if our education and phsyical exercise routines in normal life encourages all people toward a similar state of physical fitness and capability. But that is not the case today.

I advocate only that all soldiers meet one standard. That woman from the CDs, as I said, I would trust in combat, because she was capable.It's rather late to be getting around to that. Actually, I'll tell you why I'm chuckling so much at that.

You flat-out rejected the notion when responding to my posts early in the topic. I even pointed it out to you in my last post which you don't appear to have read except for something to yap about.

Furthermore, I do wonder why it takes you so long to get around to these things. It appears to be that you're after some stylish p