Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

You and your 8 personTeam (6 Males 2 Females) are on Patrol. You get captured. The bad guys kick the crap out of you for 2 days to get intel about your Basse and manpower....ect. He drags out one of you female team mates and tells you if you don't tell them the Security Code to the Base, He and 200 of his men are going to dog fuck the two females. DO YOU TELL????

ME, those two women are going to be real angry at me.

Do these people ever think that this will not happen?? IN some countries in Africa and Asia, They rape women like gong to the corner store.

Is it really that different a scenario vs. one where he puts a gun to another male's head and demands info from you or he'll be killed?

I'm fine with women being allowed in combat roles.

They should have the same physical standards as men... and, women should now be required to register for selective service.

None of this is as violent as living in Chicago...........except in a war you can defend yourself.

To be frank, they'll probably get raped regardless...so I wouldn't talk. Considering bad guys never follow the Geneva Convention, human history shows that the spoils of war almost always include raping women.

∞∞∞ wrote:Considering bad guys never follow the Geneva Convention, human history shows that the spoils of war almost always include raping women.

Men too (ex: Abu Ghraib)

mrklean wrote:You and your 8 personTeam (6 Males 2 Females) are on Patrol. You get captured. The bad guys kick the crap out of you for 2 days to get intel about your Basse and manpower....ect. He drags out one of you female team mates and tells you if you don't tell them the Security Code to the Base, He and 200 of his men are going to dog fuck the two females. DO YOU TELL????

ME, those two women are going to be real angry at me.

Do these people ever think that this will not happen?? IN some countries in Africa and Asia, They rape women like gong to the corner store.

They've already been raped. Besides, do you trust them to keep their word?

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm fine with women being allowed in combat roles.

They should have the same physical standards as men... and, women should now be required to register for selective service.

Women don't have the same physical standards as men in ANY area of the military. I would expect combat roles to be no different, sadly.

Other than Jordan O'Neill, I wonder if any female will ever get a Trident and become a SEAL?

I'm not sure that's possible...

Quit acting as if the only "combat" is ground combat, and a defined "front lines" combat action at that. Women have been in combat since the dawn of time (and I'm not talking Xena and Gabby). Women cross-dressed to join the Army during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Women in rear-echelon deployed areas have been in combat. Heck, women have flown combat air missions and been part of all areas of combat warships.

The point is that there has NEVER been a ban on women in combat, per se (at least since women have been included in the Armed Services). They started out "in the rear with the gear," so to speak, but combat has a way of finding its way back there, too. There has merely been a progressive move to include women in combat roles in which they have ALWAYS (as a group) proven equal to the task. The only areas left (for US forces, anyway) have been infantry and submarines. Last year, the first few women started going to subs.

Does this mean that every woman will be qualified to be a "grunt?" By no means. But will there be SOME? Certainly. Assuredly, like in any other military endeavor, there should be standards, both in intelligence and in physical capability. But the line doesn't have to be (nor SHOULD it be) set at some superhuman level just for the sake of "proving" that women can't hack it. Doing that just weeds out guys who would otherwise be perfectly capable of doing the job, which is NOT the point. Just like in other areas into which women have been welcomed over the years, you set some standards, make some allowances for the difference in gender (separate berthing when not in the field, separate tents when possible when "out there"), and expect ALL involved to be the adults they are. If they can't be adults, then send them home. There's a VERY good chance that those are the same types who'd do something to screw their unit over even if females weren't out there with them.

SuperHornet wrote:Quit acting as if the only "combat" is ground combat, and a defined "front lines" combat action at that. Women have been in combat since the dawn of time (and I'm not talking Xena and Gabby). Women cross-dressed to join the Army during the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Women in rear-echelon deployed areas have been in combat. Heck, women have flown combat air missions and been part of all areas of combat warships.

The point is that there has NEVER been a ban on women in combat, per se (at least since women have been included in the Armed Services). They started out "in the rear with the gear," so to speak, but combat has a way of finding its way back there, too. There has merely been a progressive move to include women in combat roles in which they have ALWAYS (as a group) proven equal to the task. The only areas left (for US forces, anyway) have been infantry and submarines. Last year, the first few women started going to subs.

Does this mean that every woman will be qualified to be a "grunt?" By no means. But will there be SOME? Certainly. Assuredly, like in any other military endeavor, there should be standards, both in intelligence and in physical capability. But the line doesn't have to be (nor SHOULD it be) set at some superhuman level just for the sake of "proving" that women can't hack it. Doing that just weeds out guys who would otherwise be perfectly capable of doing the job, which is NOT the point. Just like in other areas into which women have been welcomed over the years, you set some standards, make some allowances for the difference in gender (separate berthing when not in the field, separate tents when possible when "out there"), and expect ALL involved to be the adults they are. If they can't be adults, then send them home. There's a VERY good chance that those are the same types who'd do something to screw their unit over even if females weren't out there with them.

Jesus H. Christ you're a blowhard. A GI isn't expected to be "superhuman", but 98% of the women in the world couldn't carry a GI's backpack 50 feet without collapsing. And if they expect to get tea and crumpets when they're taken prisoner they've got another thing coming.

This is a stupid idea, borne out of political correctness. Perhaps the worst possible justification for ANYTHING.

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm fine with women being allowed in combat roles.

They should have the same physical standards as men... and, women should now be required to register for selective service.

Who are you and what have you done with Felchyfetty?

That isn't the point, AZ. At least, not "open EVERYTHING to EVERYONE," anyway. So, you guesstimate that 98% of women can't handle a 50 pound pack. I disagree with that, but I'll grant it anyway for the sake of argument. Why the crap should the 2% (by YOUR unproven figures) who CAN carry a ground combat load be refused entry into ground combat arms for the dubious reason that 98% can't? That doesn't make sense.

It also ignores my OTHER point, which is that direct ground combat isn't the only form of combat which our armed forces see. You of all people here should know that, AZ. Many women have acqitted themselves in exemplary fashion when the front lines have been overrun to the point of reaching the log train (where, yes, there ARE women), in the air, and at sea. Combat exists in all of those areas, and those who say otherwise are just deluding themselves.

SuperHornet wrote: Women in rear-echelon deployed areas...

I think we've all had a woman in a rear-echelon deployed position.

mrklean wrote: IN some countries in Africa and Asia, They rape women like gong to the corner store.

Savages. They can't help themselves.

SuperHornet wrote:That isn't the point, AZ. At least, not "open EVERYTHING to EVERYONE," anyway. So, you guesstimate that 98% of women can't handle a 50 pound pack. I disagree with that, but I'll grant it anyway for the sake of argument. Why the crap should the 2% (by YOUR unproven figures) who CAN carry a ground combat load be refused entry into ground combat arms for the dubious reason that 98% can't? That doesn't make sense.

It also ignores my OTHER point, which is that direct ground combat isn't the only form of combat which our armed forces see. You of all people here should know that, AZ. Many women have acqitted themselves in exemplary fashion when the front lines have been overrun to the point of reaching the log train (where, yes, there ARE women), in the air, and at sea. Combat exists in all of those areas, and those who say otherwise are just deluding themselves.

I bet you that 99.9%, couldn't go for miles with 90-100 lbs of gear.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 5_ch11.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There is likely ZERO chance a chick could make in in any of the branch's Spec Ops.

BDK: What GUY could do that, for that matter? I've done my share of humping with the Marines. I had problems keeping up with just my pack and my rifle, let me tell you. Plus, nobody outside of a mortar section had to carry those nasty mortar baseplates. Most of the average Marines couldn't have handled that. Of course, the "average" Marine doesn't go into the mortar section, either. Saying girls "can't hack it" because they can't do what the average guy can't do is dumb....

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm fine with women being allowed in combat roles.

They should have the same physical standards as men... and, women should now be required to register for selective service.

^^This.

SuperHornet wrote:BDK: What GUY could do that, for that matter? I've done my share of humping with the Marines. I had problems keeping up with just my pack and my rifle, let me tell you. Plus, nobody outside of a mortar section had to carry those nasty mortar baseplates. Most of the average Marines couldn't have handled that. Of course, the "average" Marine doesn't go into the mortar section, either. Saying girls "can't hack it" because they can't do what the average guy can't do is dumb....

This explains so much.

ASUMountaineer wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:BDK: What GUY could do that, for that matter? I've done my share of humping with the Marines. I had problems keeping up with just my pack and my rifle, let me tell you. Plus, nobody outside of a mortar section had to carry those nasty mortar baseplates. Most of the average Marines couldn't have handled that. Of course, the "average" Marine doesn't go into the mortar section, either. Saying girls "can't hack it" because they can't do what the average guy can't do is dumb....

This explains so much.

SH, I cannot help you out when you walk right into these type of situations.

Grizza: I can't help it if scatalogically-minded civilians choose to take standard military lingo out of context. He's the perv, not me.

SuperHornet wrote:Grizza: I can't help it if scatalogically-minded civilians choose to take standard military lingo out of context. He's the perv, not me.

Are you sure?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm fine with women being allowed in combat roles.

They should have the same physical standards as men... and, women should now be required to register for selective service.

Women don't have the same physical standards as men in ANY area of the military. I would expect combat roles to be no different, sadly.

No shit. Didn't all but one wash out at the Marine standards.

Not to mention, they smell once a month. Not trying to be a jerk, but women in combat have real troubles.

Cue Da #1 Bozo.

SeattleGriz wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Women don't have the same physical standards as men in ANY area of the military. I would expect combat roles to be no different, sadly.

No shit. Didn't all but one wash out at the Marine standards.

Not to mention, they smell once a month. Not trying to be a jerk, but women in combat have real troubles.

Cue Da #1 Bozo.

Didn't you watch GI Jane? She made it...right?