knoxxsouthy wrote:
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ladies with Seamen! Don't Ask, and certianly Don't Tell
Ladies with Seamen! Don't Ask, and certianly Don't TellFollow
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
Ah, the French Foreign Legion.
Locked,
Thinking is not one of your strong points. Perhaps you shouldn't try so hard.
But we are better armed. And the last thing we need is a bunch of radical lefties completely re-making the military based solely on their personal politics.
Thinking is not one of your strong points. Perhaps you shouldn't try so hard.
Quote:
Not better armed
But we are better armed. And the last thing we need is a bunch of radical lefties completely re-making the military based solely on their personal politics.
Allegory wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
GFY
You do understand how incredibly stupid you are for coming to a conclusion on the basis of assumed evidence?
And what conclusion is that, exactly?
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
Ah, the French Foreign Legion.
And Israel, where women have been part of the armed forces since the beginning.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
Ah, the French Foreign Legion.
And Israel, where women have been part of the armed forces since the beginning.
And Israel is just about as well-armed as the US, since we subsidize their military. But yeah, they are pretty bad-***.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Kakar the Great wrote:
Having women on the front lines is a different matter however, and one I'd never support.
Why not?
Ask yourself this;
Do you really want our enemies thinking they are fighting a bunch of p*ssies?
Do you really want our enemies thinking they are fighting a bunch of p*ssies?
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Do you really want our enemies thinking they are fighting a bunch of p*ssies?
Sure. Makes 'em easier to beat if they're not prepared.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Kavekk the Ludicrous wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Bingo! This is about having the most efficient bad as* military on the face of the planet.
I can think of at least two fighting forces more "badass" than US forces. Not better armed, of course, but hey, money talks.
Ah, the French Foreign Legion.
And Israel, where women have been part of the armed forces since the beginning.
Yup, IDF was the first that came to mind, closely followed by the Swiss Guard (which outside of their silly ceremonial costumes are a bunch of highly trained deadly troops).
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yup, IDF was the first that came to mind, closely followed by the Swiss Guard (which outside of their silly ceremonial costumes are a bunch of highly trained deadly troops).
Deadly with a halberd while defending the pontiff.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yup, IDF was the first that came to mind, closely followed by the Swiss Guard (which outside of their silly ceremonial costumes are a bunch of highly trained deadly troops).
Deadly with a halberd while defending the pontiff.
"Pontiff" as a word always confuses me. It sounds like something you'd use to cross a river.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Yup, IDF was the first that came to mind, closely followed by the Swiss Guard (which outside of their silly ceremonial costumes are a bunch of highly trained deadly troops).
Deadly with a halberd while defending the pontiff.
Extremists in any form are dangerous. Given military training and modern weapons (the halberds are for ceremony), nothing is as dangerous as a person willing to die for his religious beliefs and having the ability to take out others for that goal. Luckily they're kept close to home and on a short leash by the Vatican.
tarv wrote:
As a person with just a touch of actual experiance in this subject, the subject of Gays in the military is not an issue for people in the military.
Once you have a certain level of trust in the people around you, sexuality is not an issue. I had 4 openly gay men in my last messdeck and never had a single incident and they where no more or less popular or problamatic then the straight guys.
Once you have a certain level of trust in the people around you, sexuality is not an issue. I had 4 openly gay men in my last messdeck and never had a single incident and they where no more or less popular or problamatic then the straight guys.
While I would typically defer to your real world experience, Jack, in this I must take issue specifically in that your experience was in a British warship, with British sailors. I know some sailors quite well (yes, buttsehks) and they tell me the contingent of our military that enlists from south of the Mason Dixon line does have an issue with t3h gayz.
LockeColeMA wrote:
Given military training and modern weapons (the halberds are for ceremony)
It was a joke. I'm aware that the poleaxes are not their only form of defense.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Moebius,
Let's not forget the mid-west either. In fact you get out of major urban centers and most places are opposed to gays in the military.
Quote:
and they tell me the contingent of our military that enlists from south of the Mason Dixon line does have an issue with t3h gayz.
Let's not forget the mid-west either. In fact you get out of major urban centers and most places are opposed to gays in the military.
Jophiel wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
Given military training and modern weapons (the halberds are for ceremony)
It was a joke. I'm aware that the poleaxes are not their only form of defense.
They do come in handy for rowing those pontiffs, though.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Moebius,
Let's not forget the mid-west either. In fact you get out of major urban centers and most places are opposed to gays in the military.
Quote:
and they tell me the contingent of our military that enlists from south of the Mason Dixon line does have an issue with t3h gayz.
Let's not forget the mid-west either. In fact you get out of major urban centers and most places are opposed to gays in the military.
You are an obtuse mother f'ucker.
Moebius,
Oh yeah...well you're stupid.
It's really very simple for someone not playing the pc game. Most men in the military are opposed to allowing gays in. That should be the end of the conversation, unless of course you're pushing a political agenda.
Oh yeah...well you're stupid.
It's really very simple for someone not playing the pc game. Most men in the military are opposed to allowing gays in. That should be the end of the conversation, unless of course you're pushing a political agenda.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
It's really very simple for someone not playing the pc game. Most men in the military are opposed to allowing gays in. That should be the end of the conversation, unless of course you're pushing a political agenda.
Terrible logic. The military is not run on a democratic basis.
The military is a democracy? I never knew that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Most men in the military are opposed to allowing gays in.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Deathwysh wrote:
yossarian wrote:
As for women in the Navy, what I heard from my two friends with personal experience is that the women "pussified" the navy to some extent and many of the hazing type practices which used to occur are no longer as intense.
FTFY
Elaborate. Specifically: by "pussified" do you mean to imply the combat abilities of the navy are less now with women then before?
What I heard about was the most puerile of hazing.
Edited, May 10th 2010 10:13am by yossarian
knoxxsouthy wrote:
It's really very simple for someone not playing the pc game. Most men in the military are opposed to allowing gays in. That should be the end of the conversation, unless of course you're pushing a political agenda.
Congrats women warriors!
Only 2 potential issues I see.
1. As Kaolin said, women tend to require separate facilities and more personal supplies (yes a year worth of pads for each woman on a sub could be a big deal when space is tight), this is a big problem for a Sub and, if it effects efficiency, should prevent women from serving on them. If you can get around this issue (put em all on depo shots, and they have to use the same facilities/bunks as the men) then there is no reason women shouldn't be allowed to serve on a sub. I don't have numbers and I've never been on a sub, so perhaps this isn't an issue at all.
2. Men are more likely to save a woman in danger than a man. Now, you may say, "so what" and normally I would care less which person was saved as 1=1, but in an emergency situation on a sub a man having to choose between say, locking a bulkhead immediately, or waiting for someone to get through is more likely to wait, endangering the rest of the ship, if there are women on the other side of that bulkhead.
Men tend to be hardwired to protect women more so than other men, so having women present changes how we make decisions, it changes the weight on our pros/cons scale. This can be very bad in situations where hard, fast decisions with life and death consequences have to be made. I can't see a way around this in any integrated situation so really there just needs to be some good studies to figure out whether this is more of a pro or a con for efficiency. Maybe they've already been done, anyone read any?
Disclaimer: All submarine knowledge was gleaned from "The Hunt for Red October" and the sandwich shop down the street.
Only 2 potential issues I see.
1. As Kaolin said, women tend to require separate facilities and more personal supplies (yes a year worth of pads for each woman on a sub could be a big deal when space is tight), this is a big problem for a Sub and, if it effects efficiency, should prevent women from serving on them. If you can get around this issue (put em all on depo shots, and they have to use the same facilities/bunks as the men) then there is no reason women shouldn't be allowed to serve on a sub. I don't have numbers and I've never been on a sub, so perhaps this isn't an issue at all.
2. Men are more likely to save a woman in danger than a man. Now, you may say, "so what" and normally I would care less which person was saved as 1=1, but in an emergency situation on a sub a man having to choose between say, locking a bulkhead immediately, or waiting for someone to get through is more likely to wait, endangering the rest of the ship, if there are women on the other side of that bulkhead.
Men tend to be hardwired to protect women more so than other men, so having women present changes how we make decisions, it changes the weight on our pros/cons scale. This can be very bad in situations where hard, fast decisions with life and death consequences have to be made. I can't see a way around this in any integrated situation so really there just needs to be some good studies to figure out whether this is more of a pro or a con for efficiency. Maybe they've already been done, anyone read any?
Disclaimer: All submarine knowledge was gleaned from "The Hunt for Red October" and the sandwich shop down the street.
Recent Visitors: 587
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (587)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Ladies with Seamen! Don't Ask, and certianly Don't Tell
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC