The "thousandS" was due to your awkward worded post ("trust me thousand of men die in war everyday...). I read it and it struck me as a plural. Whatever. I realize that the full count is never reported BUT I still strongly doubt your claim of a thousand per day is accurate - even when non-combatants are included.
so then you make condition of employment the right to Implanon etc implantation before deployment and then when deployed in a combat situation you implant it and when they come home they can chose to remove it. Problem solved Tiassa I'm flattered that you would quote me on that, just wish I had worded it better the first time. I really wanted to change "good" to "important" because no loss of life is good
link: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20110106/Problems-reported-with-Implanon-contraceptive-implant.aspx So Asguard, you are suggesting a previously failed technology of contraception to be utilized with women going to the army?
So what? That's far from being the *only* method. Sadly, you strike me as a petty nitpicker who doesn't even bother to look at or consider the ENTIRE issue. <shrug>
The entire issue is that women in the military is a bad idea and I have listed statements backing that up. What have you listed as proof that women are a great asset for a military? "Petty" accusations @ me? Perhaps post traumatic stress military women can reinforce your ideology. Ask them. PTSD in women is 10% higher then in men, and that is even though they are not deployed at front lines! Your "petty" nitpicker is using statistics to disprove you... link: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/19/news/la-heb-ptsd-women-military-20110519
I haven't addressed those issues - yet. What I was responding to was your VERY]/b] stupid response to what Asguard suggested. Besides, I've read many, many of your posts and your personal credibility here is pretty much zero. A good example is *everything* you said in the thread about CCD in honeybees. It was all nonsense based on urban legend (like the cellphone towers - something completely debunked LONG ago!) and a gross misunderstanding of the topic in general.
1) Asguard's contraception/pills to get rid of pregnancy for women in military is not going to work. I showed why. 2) The honeybees communicate in swarms at the frequency I listed as 150Hz, majority of electrical components like transformers make noise at that frequency, they are widespread. I have listed scientific basis for my hypothesis on why bees are dissapearing. WHAT HAVE YOU CONTRIBUTED? ***t.
#2 is still just nonsense - and you posted nothing of value to support that stupid idea! And I contributed PLENTY of solid scientific evidence on the topic in a thread some number of years ago (when it was a HOT topic) along with the most likely true cause (unlike your silly nonsense) that was found by Israeli researchers. And your credibility still remains a big fat zero. <shrug>
Number 2 is not related to this thread and I did not know what you have contributed to many years ago, so so sorry. My "silly nonsense" has merit to it, just as your backed Israeli researchers, whatever explanation they came up with.
This and That Well, it's one of those questions I've wondered about before; I doubt I'm alone on that count. While the NFL is nothing compared to a war zone, a female friend of mine frequently makes jokes about players pissing themselves. And there was a drama on HBO a few years ago about WWII, and in one of the episodes I saw, a guy was sent off the line to a military hospital for enuresis. I joked, at the time, "If it was that easy, I'd just piss myself all the time." Either way, those are trivial details. And I'd probably rather come off the line caked in my own waste than in a body bag. While I can't be certain, I would imagine such relief etiquette depends greatly on the circumstances. It is, I suppose, an inevitable question. I am not, however, convinced that it is a proper basis for objecting to women in combat. Well pointed, but I think you also answer your own question, to a certain degree: In truth, I would imagine it's like anything else; you do what you have to when you must, and other things when you can. But I also read her post in a slightly different context. I understand the idea that many men might see their female comrades differently, but one of the points I keep hearing over the years as the female question comes up is that the only thing that counts is whether one can carry the burden. And what I've been hearing from Iraq and Afghanistan is that women carry their burden as well or poorly as men. But on the menstrual question specifically, I read an accent in the sentence that affects my perception of the question: • As written: "and what does happen when they get their period?" • As read: "And what does happen when they get their period?" I read it more as curiosity than anything else. It's a functional question asked in an environment where the social taboos against such inquiries are considerably relaxed. The answer I would suggest, while acknowledging the informational and practical shortcomings of being male—and thus never having to use a tampon or pad—is that tampons might be a bad idea for the toxic shock risk that would become a factor six hours into an eight-hour firefight, and in a combat zone I can certainly imagine a female soldier willing to bleed down her leg rather than take the time to switch her pad for comfort. Beyond that, I also think of those guys wearing the black-rimmed eyeglasses. I have, in fact, heard a Vietnam vet describe his feelings, being pinned down in a firefight, having lost his glasses, and listening to one of his mates dying the long way. The guy telling the story shot the wrong person as his people were falling back in the face of a VC offensive. And he gut-shot his comrade. And he couldn't get thirty feet out to seize hold and drag the guy back. He listened to his friend die for a couple hours in between the explosions. I wear glasses; not the thick bottle-glass lenses, but without them I can't read the street signs until I'm pretty much on them. I've wondered, before, how that would work in a combat zone. Nobody's going to say, "Time out! Time out! I lost a contact!" Can the military afford to establish a rule that says, "No myopic personnel in combat"? And what would be the functional line on those sorts of disruptions to combat capability? Plenty have held the line while too scared to shoot at anything definitive. That one breaks both ways. I'm sure someone has died before because the next guy wasn't actually targeting anything, but I think I'd rather have the guy on the line creating enough thunder to make the enemy think twice about leaving cover to advance than say, "Last I saw him, he was running away." But you can't say, "No extremely frightened personnel in combat." There would be too few left to fight against an enemy widely believed to be willing and even anxious to die. As a practical issue, perhaps the menstrual consideration is an inevitable question. But in a broader consideration of who's on the line, I don't think it makes for a proper objection. And to that end, I probably read Orleander's post in a different context. The syntax stood out, I guess, at first glance: "what does happen" versus "what happens". Compared to the years I've read Orleander's posts, and discussed issues with her, the formulation did, in fact, make the word "does" stand out. Maybe I'm wrong. • • • I think you're generalizing compared to the details we don't know. That is, while we don't necessarily know the specific details on any given day, the article was written during a time of relative quiet in Baqubah; a list of known attacks at Baqubah suggests some degree of calm between an October, 2008 mortar attack against FOB Warhorse and a March, 2010 coordinated suicide bombing that hit a police station, the provincial administration building, and a civilian hospital. The image you included might be a bit hyperbolic. From your source article: Many of the women at Warhorse serve in jobs that have traditionally accommodated women: the base hospital, food service, supply and administration. Others, though, serve on the brigade staff, in intelligence and psychological operations, which until recently were part of the Special Forces and thus off limits to women. “We have changed so much,” Col. Burt K. Thompson, the commander at Warhorse, said of the Army, noting that every time he leaves the base, his patrol includes two women, including Sergeant Cloukey “on comms” — communications — and a medic, Sgt. Evette T. Lee-Stewart. “To have a female on an infantry brigade staff? Oh my God.” Like many commanders who have served in Iraq or Afghanistan, he said that women have ended the debate over their role by their performance. “I’ve relieved males from command,” he said. “I’ve never relieved a female commander in two and a half years as commander.” (Myers) I don't think Col. Thompson would have been able to make that last statement if women were getting soldiers killed so they could take a leak. And, besides, technology already accommodates a resolution to the question: “I actually had this million-dollar idea my first deployment,” Sergeant Bradford said of her tour as a truck driver hauling supplies in 2004. “I was like, I need something that’s like a beer bong that I can hold in place so I can pee standing up without pulling my pants down. Cause we were truck drivers. We’d stop on the side of the road. There’s no bushes. I was telling one of my soldiers about this great idea, and he said they already make that.” She produced from her bunk in her CHU a device sold by REI called a “feminine urinary director.” “It’s even pink,” Specialist Hoeppner interjected. Warhorse’s supply officer — a woman — acquired dozens of them.____________________ Notes: Wikipedia. "Baqubah". December 7, 2012. En.Wikipedia.org. January 26, 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqubah Myers, Steven Lee. "Living and Fighting Alongside Men, and Fitting In". The New York Times. August 16, 2009. NYTimes.com. January 26, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/us/17women.html
Do you know any soldiers? Every soldier I have known would risk almost everything they had to save a fellow soldier, no matter what their sex. Perhaps I just have a higher opinion of soldiers than you do. You think a soldier would do more for a woman soldier; I do not think a soldier would do less for any fellow soldier just because they are male. Both require you to pull over and squat in the middle of the road while some unpleasant business is done. Same/same.
do I know any soldiers? Did you read my post? If you think pooping and changing a tampon are the same, ask the women you know which one they would rather do in front of a group of men they know very well. And you probably do have a higher opinion of soldiers than me. They are all people with human flaws, opinions, needs, and yes, bravery. But I grew up with them and I know there are issues. Just because we all want it to be fair and equal doesn't mean it will be. And Tiassa is right, but then he knows how to read my curiosity Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, I train them. I did read your post. I didn't claim they are the same. I claimed that, if you have to "pull over to the side of the road so she can change her pad" you have to do the same for a male soldier who has to poop, so no new problems for the military. Now, as you said, women might RATHER not do that, in which case the military is not for them. Fortunately, they can then choose an occupation that affords them as much privacy as they desire. However, if it's not a big deal for them, why would you want to ban then from doing what they want? Agreed there! They are human, just like everyone else. But they are also trained so that the worst in them does not come out under pressure. (Much of military training is to avoid panic reactions.)
OK. Shall I assume you are lying about knowing any soldiers as well, then? Sorry, I assumed you were arguing that women in combat were a problem and thus should not be allowed. My apologies if that was not your intent?
Look if some people want to go out and fight and die in war that their choice, I'm not going to stop some of them just because they have vaginas!
It's probably due to the amount of sexual harassment and abuse they get from the male soldiers they are supposed to work with.
