Post: #26

(11-27-2012 10:25 PM)j r Wrote:  Anyone know how it works in the Israeli Defense Force?

Yes, and they are bloody tough soldiers too, don't mess with them!

What about the females from the ALLEGED Axis-of-Evil joint? :





"Lifes about, shooting your load"

Post: #27

Looks like a bad porno

Post: #28

(11-27-2012 09:31 PM)scorpion Wrote:  Honestly, I think feminists have really jumped the shark here. They know deep down that women have no place in combat. The entire idea is a farce. They've bitten off way more than they can chew, and if they're actually successful at getting women into combat units the result is going to be an utter disaster for everyone involved.

Females in combat would be even more of a liability. They're much more emotionally unstable than men, with notably less physical strength and endurance. There's just no fucking point to putting women in combat. It's not like there's a shortage of men willing to do the job. We're literally considering objectively weakening our fighting force simply because women are mad they can't get shot and blown up like men can? Is dying for your country now considered part of male privilege?

What the fuck?

They're leftist feminists, they despise America. They see American history as one long story of oppression, of women, blacks, native Americans, homosexuals and all the other minorities real or imagined. They want to see America collapse and fail. So the last thing they truly give a fuck about is how a change in policy will harm military 'effectiveness.' If your business rival got to dictate how your company is run, do you think he *wouldn't* actively try and sabotage you?

To these feminists, the military is just a canvas for a lovely story of sexual equality. The entire goal of the military, like every other institution in society, is to bolster feminism, in part by making women into men. Its goal isn't to defend the nation or attack our enemies. Feminism is totalitarian, as communism was; in a place like North Korea or Soviet Russia, institutions cannot have their own goals and principles, *everything* is in support of the party and the communist dream. Everything must be made to support feminism. So, in the estimation of feminists, it's impossible that the initiation of women into combat makes the military 'less effective.' That just doesn't compute, because the military is only effective insofar as it erases traditional sex roles.

If some other country managed to conquer America, these feminists would just say something like, "look how oppressive and patriarchal our society is, we deserved it." A strong military is not a great desire of theirs.

(11-27-2012 10:25 PM)j r Wrote:  Anyone know how it works in the Israeli Defense Force?

From what I've heard, the women are less likely to participate in combat ops, and stay back on bases in the homeland. Then the few jobniks left try and fuck 'em.

Post: #29

Quote:So, I have to disagree with you. Just because females can pass the APFT does not mean they are held to the same standards as males.

I'm not claiming they are, and I certainly admit that because of those differing standards there are some women in jobs they shouldn't have. But I've got two decades of service myself, and my sister is a warrant officer. I didn't necessarily mean the PFT standards. If they can do the job well, they should be allowed to do the job well. If they can't, they shouldn't. There are plenty of guys out there who can't, and shouldn't, and plenty of women who can and should.

A penis by itself will not let you fire a rifle, drive a tank, or pickle a bomb any better than not having one.

Post: #30

Some women need to stop their starship troopers marathon watching sleepovers

Post: #31

Could you imagine being in your hummer driving through some hostile city in the Middle East and getting ambushed....and then realising your only backup is three fat chicks in the vehicle with you? You would instantly know you are fucked.

Post: #32

you know what, make all these feminists join the army, force them off to Afghanistan and what not, let them die, bring back all the men.

Post: #33

(11-27-2012 11:28 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 09:21 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  Women sued to get into military school also.
Most of them also drop out.
Shannon Faulker led the way to get into The Citadel.
She didnt last a whole week

Good grief...These are women??

no just the middle one

Post: #34

(11-27-2012 10:31 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
-Napoleon Bonaparte

This is feminism hanging itself with its own rope. Give it time.

yeah.. i just wish 1) it didnt further endanger good, brave soldiers and 2) that it would hurry up and play out already so we can laugh in [what's left of] their collective faces and then move on as a species.

(cant help but feel like feminism is just some perverse modern manifestaion of the dark ages)

Post: #35

This will weaken u.s. military might, a positive thing in my view.

Post: #36

These special tests are given for women in many civil servant positions such as police officer etc. yet they get paid the same amount and dint have to perform the same entry test. Discrimination. Yet they will say the tests are biased against women. Well, politicians with no backbone gave in. The same will happen here. Physical positions many women couldn't compete with men. Policing and the military battle front are two. If she is a fighter pilot and passes the exams, fine she deserves to be in. But, if its a certain position that requires strength, well she is not gonna make it.

Post: #37

(11-28-2012 04:19 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  Could you imagine being in your hummer driving through some hostile city in the Middle East and getting ambushed....and then realising your only backup is three fat chicks in the vehicle with you? You would instantly know you are fucked.

Nah.

I'd sell the women for my own life, decreasing tensions in the Middle East, getting rid of some feminists and lowering the countries military spending all in one go.

In fact, I should get a medal for just thinking of the idea.

Post: #38

(11-28-2012 08:00 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 04:19 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  Could you imagine being in your hummer driving through some hostile city in the Middle East and getting ambushed....and then realising your only backup is three fat chicks in the vehicle with you? You would instantly know you are fucked.

I'd sell the women for my own life, .

Would you get that good a price for them

Post: #39

as they are fat, they could fetch a premium in a starving region of the world.

Post: #40

(11-28-2012 08:00 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(11-28-2012 04:19 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  Could you imagine being in your hummer driving through some hostile city in the Middle East and getting ambushed....and then realising your only backup is three fat chicks in the vehicle with you? You would instantly know you are fucked.

Nah.

I'd sell the women for my own life, decreasing tensions in the Middle East, getting rid of some feminists and lowering the countries military spending all in one go.

In fact, I should get a medal for just thinking of the idea.

No! Not far enough. Negotiate with all of the frustrated Muslim jihadists. They can have all of our fat, independent feminists and obese women.

It's a win - win. They get poon (polygamy makes it tough to get laid over there for the average guy) and we get rid of all of the feminists.

Most women are discouraged from being feminists and the women who persist get sent away to poison somewhere else until they are humped into submission by horny arabs.



Peace in the middle east - peace in the world as other countries soon follow America's example.

I forsee a Medal of Honor in your future.

Post: #41

There is no equality in war

Post: #42

One thing we need to consider - whether we like it or not the capture of a female soldier has psychologically different implications on the civilian population back home than a male POW. This gifts the enemy with a power psychological weapon - one that can give them an avenue to demoralize and influence their opponent's strategy. Combine this with the 'feminized' MSM of say the USA and it is a recipe for disaster. Think how they'd react to a female POW being tortured or being subjected to sexual assault (more likely for females as proved by the history of war) vs a male POW being tortured. Even the thought of it is enough for the mainstream. But sadly they won't think about these implication until it's too late. For now it's 'Go feminism'.

You have now added a perhaps unnecessary dimension to the theatre of war.

Thanks feminism!

Post: #43

I wonder if these women realize that they WILL be raped if captured by enemies.

Post: #44

(11-28-2012 01:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  I wonder if these women realize that they WILL be raped if captured by enemies.

...maybe thats their plan

Post: #45

As a soldier in a support unit, I can tell you first-hand that females don't pull their own weight.

Can't imagine chicks in a line unit.

Post: #46

You're pinned down under enemy fire and fighting for your life, you need to rely on the guys beside you and trust them implicitly. Tell me if you looked around and saw women you'd feel confident if shit hit the fan?

Hand to hand combat wtf is a woman seriously going to do there?

The last thing you'd want is to have a liability and not trust the people you're with.

They shouldn't have to lower the physical entry tests just to appease feminists, that's absolute hogwash.

If you can't pass the tests you can't get in.

There are just some things women aren't suitable for.

Did they go around hunting deer while the men stayed at home in the cave and looked after the kids? Of course they fucking didn't.

Post: #47

(11-28-2012 02:21 PM)dk902 Wrote:  The last thing you'd want is to have a liability and not trust the people you're with.

That's exactly it. They're a liability.

Post: #48

(11-28-2012 11:59 AM)Nineteen84 Wrote:  One thing we need to consider - whether we like it or not the capture of a female soldier has psychologically different implications on the civilian population back home than a male POW. This gifts the enemy with a power psychological weapon - one that can give them an avenue to demoralize and influence their opponent's strategy. Combine this with the 'feminized' MSM of say the USA and it is a recipe for disaster. Think how they'd react to a female POW being tortured or being subjected to sexual assault (more likely for females as proved by the history of war) vs a male POW being tortured. Even the thought of it is enough for the mainstream. But sadly they won't think about these implication until it's too late. For now it's 'Go feminism'.

You have now added a perhaps unnecessary dimension to the theatre of war.

Thanks feminism!

It's like tossing a huge bone to the enemy. "We're going to try to kill you, but if we don't succeed, we'll provide you with comfort women."

And then we'd get stuck with raising their bastard spawn on welfare because after all "if men didn't start this war..."

And let's face it, in real, shooting wars, sometimes officers in the field have to give orders to soldiers that are basically suicide missions. We also know that women will happily suck a dick or throw out some pussy to get what they want, or to avoid being unpleasant things. What will that do to unit cohesiveness?

What does it do to your demographics if you kill off thousands of females who are prime breeding age?

And contrary to popular belief, Israel has women in their military, and they're even trained for combat, but long ago they realized that co-ed fighting units were a fucking disaster and they put a stop to it.

Post: #49

I heard about this on NPR.

My first thought was, "I wish we were still in medieval times so we could slather some fat bitches up in oil, light em up on fire, and catapult them into the enemy castle to explode in a revolting mass of blubber and hot feminist fat."

I think that'd be more effective.

Post: #50

Another thing: How can we be sure the women will remain loyal in the face of defeat?

There's a consistent pattern in history: the conquerors kill the invaded men and rape/marry their women. In WWII, many native women in Nazi occupied territories freely took up with Nazi men. Women are attracted to men who can overpower and dominate them - when those men are not on their side, will their loyalty hold? When surrender means death, as it does for men, submission to the enemy makes no sense. But as a woman, if you can submit and reclaim your life by consorting with your victor, submission to the enemy may not be out of the question.

1984's point is a good one, America simply doesn't have the stomach for seeing females tortured.