beckster aka Tatertits Wrote:LeNeve Wrote:does the army let the girls drive the tanks?
Yes
Not yet they don't, at least not the Armor branch tanks. They can drive non combat tanks, like bridge layers and combat engineer vehicles. But they will be allowed too soon.
Pete Nice Wrote:LeNeve Wrote:does the army let the girls drive the tanks?
No, they can not be in tanks at all, but that is changing soon also. I have no issue with that.
fo real? were they bitching about the a/c on too high and shit like that?
20 REASONS
Before I list them I must tell you I do not agree with trying to allow women in the infantry, BUT most of these are more for humor and some are factual. You should be able to pick them out.
1. Women are physically weaker
2. Too much emotion
3. Violence is more likely to make them feel bad
4. Need to shower a lot more than men because they are more likely to get infections of the you know where
5. Their nails might break
6. They are smaller
7. A female being tortured is far more traumatic to the American public than males
8. Males feel they need to protect women so it would throw the men on the line off their game
9. Men naturally don't trust females in threatening situations
10. There would be no privacy thus not allowing a woman the chance to do her woman things without men watching
11. They would not get to watch jersey shore on a regular basis
12. Perfume will give away their position
13. Coach does not make a rut sack
14. Why is not the answer to an order
15. It is hard to find a tampon in Afghanistan
16. To distracting for the males no matter how you look you're the only thing they see
17. How is a 120lbs girl going to carry a 200lbs guy (weight is before adding in the 100lbs of gear) for extended periods of time in the event of a casualty
18. What if she gets pregnant. That's just a whole other topic
19. Who will be left to cook for the men at home
20. We would have to completely change the standards for the infantry
Conclusion
All in all I was not serious about all of those reasons and was not trying to be nor am I actually sexist. I do however believe whole heartedly that females should not be in any of the combat arms for a lot of those reasons. I don't understand why people are pressing the issue so hard. What if they do allow women in the infantry and because of their lack in physical ability some people die. To me if one person dies then it is a failure and should be treated like that. everyone who keeps fighting for the so called "rights" of females just leave it alone and let the people actually fighting the wars decide if it is a good idea or not. I mean come on I think we know what would be best for ourselves don’t you?
I would like some opinions on the topic and if you have some reasons they should be allow I would love to hear them. Oh, and by the way, just because we need them to talk to and search the females of Afghanistan due to their culture does not mean we will always need them so that argument does not hold water.
Chip Wrote:beckster aka Tatertits Wrote:Quote:Women Have Stronger Immune Systems
A 2009 study by scientists at McGill University indicated that women have a built-in mechanism to protect from infection. Estrogen naturally found in our bodies suppresses an enzyme that interferes with our defense system. These findings may inspire estrogen-based treatments to boost immunity in those (ahem, men) who don't already possess the hormone.
I'm pretty sure Pete never said anything about immune systems or pain tolerance...
I am pretty sure you are right :high5:
we are going to lose the next war.
ad:
LeNeve Wrote:Pete Nice Wrote:LeNeve Wrote:does the army let the girls drive the tanks?
No, they can not be in tanks at all, but that is changing soon also. I have no issue with that.
fo real? were they bitching about the a/c on too high and shit like that?
The last time they experimented with women driving tanks, she rolled the tank into a ditch while driving and fixing her makeup at the same time.
I would like to get a knobber from a chick in a tank.
oh snap. Mitt Romneys a mexican!!
![[Image: mittbc_main.jpg]](http://l1.yimg.com/dh/ap/ap/default/120529/mittbc_main.jpg)
whatever happened to Elian Gonzalez. He's probaly all grown up in the cartel by now.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/gumball-3000-cross-country-supercar-race-boon-lucky-171733133.html">http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/ ... 33133.html</a><!-- m -->
An article I found:
I can tell that the person who wrote this is not military, and it shows in some generalizations. I also do not agree with some of his generalizations, but do agree with the conclusion.
How induction of women in the infantry can be bad
In today’s world, every nation and every army wants their armies to be the best, most professional and most dominating in the battlefield. Countries pump in tons of money from their budgets on defense. One key debate has been is the induction of women in the infantry and other combat units of the armed forces.
Feminists claim that they can be as good as men or even better than men in most civilian fields and in that case there needs to be no second thoughts on inducting women in the combat units of the armed forces. Women today serve in non-combat roles in the military such as the medical services, judicial services, accounts and research. And this is true for most of thearmed forces where women are allowed to serve.
It should be clearly understood that the combat units are the people who do the actual fighting, especially the infantry. This is where the highest risk is.They form the backbone of the armed forces. The fighting, the training, the killing, all of it, happens here in the infantry. And let us face it, the infantryis no domain for a woman.
First of all, a woman’s body structure is not made for combat. Women ARE physically weaker than men. Soldiers on the battlefield require a strong physique such that the soldier is able to perform certain essential tasks like picking up a wounded soldier during battle, being able to lift heavy loads and fight with the same heavy load etc. The training for a male in the infantry cannot be applied to a female. The training for the infantry is pretty rigorous and women cannot do this training because their bodies are unable to take the heavy stress which is associated with such rigorous training.Various armies have conducted research on women joining the infantry. Many physical tests were conducted and recorded and in the end they all point to the same thing : WOMEN ARE NOT PHYSICALLY CAPABLEOF HANDLING THE FIGHTING.
Women do not perform as good as men in the battlefield. It is a disadvantage having females in the battlefield alongside men as men would try to make the protection of their female colleagues as a priority and eventually the women turn out to be a distraction. The real problem lies when a woman would be captured and be made a Prisoner-of-War. Time and again, research has proved that women are easier to break during interrogations. Women simply do not have the endurance to stand horrific torture at the hands of the enemy. The enemy may not take into consideration that the soldier is awoman and may inflict maximum amount of torture on the female P.O.W. If this becomes the case, then the women may leak sensitive information to the enemy and put the armed forces into further jeopardy. When a female P.O.W is taken, it can be almost certain that she could get raped and probably even murdered.
Their safety is not even guaranteed when they are not fighting the enemy. They could face sexual harassments and rape by male colleagues. These men are away from their families for long and it is understandable that they would have accumulated a large amount of sexual frustration and dissatisfaction and they may try to vent all of it on the next available females which here happen to be their female colleagues.
Extra psychological training is needed to get females over the guilt of killing enemies as well as to bear separation. This translates to higher cost of training per soldier and it takes much more time for them to actually become fully fledged soldiers into battle and it does NOT guarantee that they woulddo their best in the battlefield. So it is a risky investment without a guarantee which any government in the world would not want to take.
We simply cannot have separate facilities and training for women. That would mean a not-up to-mark army. And as we all know having something like that is a great strategic blunder. Not only, that, investing a high amount on each woman is an unwise investment as women usually would want to leave the army soon to get married and bear children. This would mean a big waste of resources of the government and investments gone completely wasted.
Therefore, women should not be inducted into the infantry and other comba tunits of the armed forces as not only are they a strategic blunder, but they also could turn out to be a financial and economic liability to the nation as well.
This is probably the best one:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles2005/20054172330.asp">http://www.strategypage.com/dls/article ... 172330.asp</a><!-- m -->
Why do rappers hold their guns sideways?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/12/why_do_rappers_hold_their_guns_sideways.html">http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... eways.html</a><!-- m -->
Joe Wrote:Pete Nice Wrote:Joe Wrote:People that had the GI JOE aircraft carrier as a kid grew up to be dickheads. It's a fact.
Didn't Chip say once he had it?
"I Dislike Chip" :roflmao:
Me too!!! With a strong emphasis on dislike :wink: