tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) In 30 years the military will be all killbots anyway. Sheeit, a few teenagers in Rockstar-proof flightsuits working from Mom's house be all we'll need to wreak havoc against the world's peasantry. Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The mysogyny is running strong on Facebook, complete with lamentations from soldiers about pregos and sluts! 2013? Not everybody got that memo. I saw a documentary earlier this week about sexual assault of women in the military. They estimate it is as high as 50%. And it has been systematically covered up for decades. Does this mean they are also addressing that issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The mysogyny is running strong on Facebook, complete with lamentations from soldiers about pregos and sluts! 2013? Not everybody got that memo. I saw a documentary earlier this week about sexual assault of women in the military. They estimate it is as high as 50%. And it has been systematically covered up for decades. Does this mean they are also addressing that issue? And pregnancy has been a problem in the services for years. No, nothing to look at here, move along! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 The mysogyny is running strong on Facebook, complete with lamentations from soldiers about pregos and sluts! 2013? Not everybody got that memo. I saw a documentary earlier this week about sexual assault of women in the military. They estimate it is as high as 50%. And it has been systematically covered up for decades. Does this mean they are also addressing that issue? And pregnancy has been a problem in the services for years. No, nothing to look at here, move along! The pentagon doesn't seem to think it's too big of a problem, I'll defer to them. I don't currently have any complaints about the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force -- just our missions and strategies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) The mysogyny is running strong on Facebook, complete with lamentations from soldiers about pregos and sluts! 2013? Not everybody got that memo. I saw a documentary earlier this week about sexual assault of women in the military. They estimate it is as high as 50%. And it has been systematically covered up for decades. Does this mean they are also addressing that issue? And pregnancy has been a problem in the services for years. No, nothing to look at here, move along! Haven't read a single piece about that being much of an issue in effectiveness, but hey, you're the expert, Gen'ral. I also hear rumors that DARPA is funding the development of something that will stop pregnancy. No, it's not your posts. Bottom line is: half our military could be gerbils and we'd still have the largest force in the world several times over. To say that putting our money where our mouth is regarding basic civil rights in our almost purely offensive military puts our precious democracy at risk is pretty much a joke at this point. It's been, what, over 70 years since we fought a defensive action. Yeah...we're all really shaking in our retro Nikes over here. We could sure use some kick ass women in the higher ranks to replace retarded crackers like Tommy Franks and Bright Idea Primadonnas like Patreaus. They're finally starting to take the drool soaked reigns away from the Gerber brained melt downers in Congress. Fuck me, this shit is so long overdue. Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I heard all of this shit at the Naval Academy in 1979, the second year women were allowed to attend. Will someone please author a detailed history of the collapse of the US Navy since then? THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckshot Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Now they need to sign up for selective service. If they can serve in combat only if they feel like it, but can't be drafted, that's not equal rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 We should only draft hot women. There would be no more wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Now they need to sign up for selective service. If they can serve in combat only if they feel like it, but can't be drafted, that's not equal rights. Yeah, fucking selfish bitches. Why don't you gather up a group of women soldiers and deliver this valuable message to them? We'll chip in to help pay your hospital bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 Starship Troopers taught us that women and men can fight next to each other in peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Why rather fuck than fight when you can do both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 But the leadership of a conservative Christian group, the Family Research Council, immediately weighed in with its opposition, sending out a statement from Jerry Boykin, a retired three-star general with a long career in Special Operations Forces. General Boykin said that “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.” He especially criticized the concept of placing women into Special Forces units where “living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” No climbing either, ladies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 The pentagon doesn't seem to think it's too big of a problem, I'll defer to them. I don't currently have any complaints about the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force -- just our missions and strategies Google it. It's not hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 "Here's the way I want to enter the gates of Heaven. I want to come skidding in there on all fours. I want to be slipping and sliding and I want to hit the gates of heaven with a bang. And when I stand up and I stand before Christ, I want there to be blood on my knees and my elbows. I want to be covered with mud. And I want to be standing there with a ragged breast plate of righteousness. And a spear in my hand. And I want to say, "Look at me, Jesus. I've been in the battle. I've been fighting for you." Ladies and gentlemen, put your armor on and get into battle. God bless you" - General Jerry Boykin You just can't make this stuff up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 The pentagon doesn't seem to think it's too big of a problem, I'll defer to them. I don't currently have any complaints about the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force -- just our missions and strategies Google it. It's not hard. What are you suggesting? That unplanned pregnancies in the military are on the rise, or that they are specifically affecting our ability to have an effective fighting force? I can find evidence for the former but not the latter. I also can't find anything to lead me to believe that the Pentagon would intentionally do anything to negatively affect our fighting capabilities, so if the Pentagon seems to think that military pregnancies are not a big enough reason to segregate genders, then I will defer to them. I read that the Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended this action. Are they not in a position to know? Should I not trust their judgement on such matters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) The pentagon doesn't seem to think it's too big of a problem, I'll defer to them. I don't currently have any complaints about the effectiveness of our military as a fighting force -- just our missions and strategies Google it. It's not hard. Um...no need to Google. It's all over the front page of every newspaper right now. Apparently, both Congress and the White House were kind of surprised by the Pentagon's change in policy, so it was pretty much all them. Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 What are you suggesting? That unplanned pregnancies in the military are on the rise, they are on the rise, it affects deployments, and sexual assault is also a big problem are you suggesting none of these to be the case? and I love how you now, in this one case, "defer to the judgement of the Pentagon". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) I also might add that the NAZI's made the same arguments against employing German women in the war effort. Pregnancy, "time of the month", weaker sex, blah blah. They didn't. The Allies? We did. Turns out that women can build bombers and tanks, too. Who knew? It's an old, tired song. Conservatives of limited imagination telling others what they are or are not capable of. I say, let people aspire to accomplish what they will. I think that's called freedom or something. Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 24, 2013 Author Share Posted January 24, 2013 What are you suggesting? That unplanned pregnancies in the military are on the rise, they are on the rise, it affects deployments, and sexual assault is also a big problem are you suggesting none of these to be the case? Nope, but I'm suggesting that they may not be a big enough problem to cause me to support segregation. These arguments don't sound very different than theories that a desegregated army would "damage unit cohesiveness." What if blacks in combat DID affect unit cohesion, should we ban them from combat just so the rednecks don't get pissed? Pregnancies and assaults are better handled by providing birth control (the three studies I read on the first page of google all mentioned lack of access as a main causative factor in the problem) and assaults are better handled by prosecuting the criminals and other matters of culture. I don't think that you should disenfranchise an entire gender just because they're slowing down the troops after they get raped or pregnant because you couldn't provide the troops with condoms. Are you saying we can't fix these problems any other way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) they are on the rise, it affects deployments, and sexual assault is also a big problem Sexual assault is a problem in the military. Obviously, banning women is the solution - cuz the bitches practically beg for it. Pregnancy is on the rise because the % women in the military is on a very steep rise. Duh. Not enough of a problem to continue to shit on women who serve, however, in the Pentagon's estimation. And both are problems that can be greatly mitigated with the right leadership, policies, and discipline. One of the plaintiffs in the ACLU's suite was a national guard pilot who was shot down, returned fire, and was lucky enough to survive and be rescued. Sorry, no combat ribbon for you, Missy! Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlab03 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Equal rights? How about this, treat them equal! Let them have the same physical fitness standards as us, after that I will look at them like they are equals on the battlefield. Why should we treat them as equals when we have to do 77 push-ups to get a 100 on the APFT and they only have to do 50? Why are their standards so much lower than ours? Now you want to put them in a job where they will have to carry the weight of a man but their physical standards are so much lower? This isn't a desk job, this is a job where if you can't pull your weight people die. If they make female PT scores the same as males, I am all for this! Let them get out there and spread some hate to the bad guys. After 14 years of service in Combat Arms units, Sof units, and co-ed support units, I have met 1 female that could mentally and physically do the job. She was a fucking stud and people gave her the respect she earned and deserved. 1, out of a few hundred. Just sayin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Nope, but I'm suggesting that they may not be a big enough problem to cause me to support segregation. These arguments don't sound very different than theories that a desegregated army would "damage unit cohesiveness." What if blacks in combat DID affect unit cohesion, should we ban them from combat just so the rednecks don't get pissed? Pregnancies and assaults are better handled by providing birth control (the three studies I read on the first page of google all mentioned lack of access as a main causative factor in the problem) and assaults are better handled by prosecuting the criminals and other matters of culture. I don't think that you should disenfranchise an entire gender just because they're slowing down the troops after they get raped or pregnant because you couldn't provide the troops with condoms. Are you saying we can't fix these problems any other way? I'm saying that, minimally, it's stupid to ignore these problems and just truck along, making them potentially worse. Another poster asked if the problems are being addressed as well. We already have problems and they are not being handled properly, hey, let's make them worse and do nothing to fix them. The American way I suppose. Fatboy: you are on ignore just like ggk so bugger off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Perhaps you can lecture Maj. Hegar, who was awarded the Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross during her 3 tours of duty in Afghanistan, on proper birth control and conservative dress so as not to attract male attention, KKK. Can I film that exchange? And OF COURSE the pentagon is doing nothing about unplanned pregnancies and sexual assault as a direct result of lifting the ban, cuz they can only do one thing at a time. LULZ Edited January 24, 2013 by tvashtarkatena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Equal rights? How about this, treat them equal! Let them have the same physical fitness standards as us, after that I will look at them like they are equals on the battlefield. Why should we treat them as equals when we have to do 77 push-ups to get a 100 on the APFT and they only have to do 50? Yep. 100% on point. You meet the standards or you are not in. Period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.