Combat Women.

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
Funk Soul Brother

*plink*

WingNut

quote:


breeder


I an trying to remember the last time I heard someone describe a woman with that term. I am fairly certain it was a skinhead.

Funk Soul Brother

quote:


I an trying to remember the last time I heard someone describe a woman with that term. I am fairly certain it was a skinhead.

Think harder. It's a term used commonly by homosexuals when describing a person who has babies (breeds). Ususally used in an uncomplimentary way.

Nice try though.

I hereby offer my apologies to any group who also uses this term 'breeder' but whom I have forgotten to mention.

Moredreads

I have reviewed your posts on this subject and determined through careful analysis of your speech paterns, your mypoic understanding of Arab culture, your self-satisifed demeanor and your complete inability to see past your predetermined a priori assumptions that you are what is commonly reffered to as an idiot.

PS: Breeder, as commonly used in the gay community is a derogatory term.

1.('80s - n.) A heterosexual man or woman.
2.Derogatory term for a bisexual, or a gay or lesbian who wishes to have children.

[url=http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/b.html]From here: Gay Slang.[/url]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

Michelle

Oh no, Funk Soul is telling on us! And not only that, but his gf doesn't like us.

Well, my heart is broken. My whole life depended on what FSB's girlfriend thinks of the feminism forum on babble, and now - well, what is there left to live for?

Funk Soul Brother

*plank*

xrcrguy

{Warning, helmet and flack jacket may be requires before reading post.}

I guess I wasn't to clear with my first post, perhaps this one will shed some light.

[b]Physical Fitness Rant:[/b]

Rarely, if ever, had I ever had to shoulder a load greater than 90lbs unless it was for physical training purposes. If I did have to carry that much (during field exercises), it was only for relatively short distances. People do not go into combat with 90lb loads, if they do they become liabilities, grrls and guys. In combat, your looking at maybe 30lbs max (rifle, web gear).

Our Battle Fitness Test sets the standard at a 55lb load (ruck sack) over 16km aiming for a 2 1/2 hour finish time. Many people have difficulties with that.

I weighed 155lbs, certainly smaller than most people in the infantry. Many of the so-called muscle men were dropping like flies but most of the grrls completed it under the time limit.

Stamina, endurance and intestinal fortitude are what counts, not gender.

(BTW: My FEMALE platoon commander once organized a company level adventure race along the Bruce Trail from Wiarton to Tobermory (I think it was around 130 clicks, someone can check on that), 7 teams competed, since I was the platoon signaller I had the priviledge of being on Eli's team. We did it in 4 days, 60-70lbs, we came in first and only one other team completed it.)

[b]Teamwork Rant:[/b]

Unlike the American "Army of One" propaganda I keep on seeing, in Canada we teach each other to work as a team.

That includes:

Giving 110%
Knowing each others strengths
Knowing each others weaknesses
Taking the initiative and using that knowledge to function as a well oiled machine.

Lets use a little common dog here:

ex. I'm not going to give the General Purpose Machine Gun to the 155lb stealthy/fast soldier. I'm going to give it to the bigger person because the sudden weight won't slow him down as much.

ex.2 The 300lb muscle head isn't going to be tasked with moving ahead of the group to take a sneak and peek to look for enemy troops, that person is going to sound like a bull in a china shop crashing through the bush. The small troop is probably going to get that task.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule, but generally, this is the way things work.

Only a fool would fail to recognize the working dynamics of his/her team.

[b]Distraction Rant:[/b]
I can't believe that I have to even bring this up but here goes:

After 6 weeks in the bush, mud, sweat, carbon, cordite, swamps, sewars, bits of breakfast/supper mashed into your skin and clothes and NO SHOWERS! Chances are, you don't want to touch yourself, let alone someone else.

Get a grip.

Have a little professionalism, troop.

Pro Patria!
My army includes the grrls.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]

wei-chi

About rape.

If POWs are in the custody of a responsible, Geneva-abiding commander, then rape is rather rare. You might see the statistical similiarity to the civilian world.

However, in situations where POWs are not respected, such as in Vietnam, then rape is frequent. And it has nothing to do with sex, but with 'shaming' the enemy. This particularly includes men.

Men are raped as POWs. Of course, you don't hear about it. The stigma against male-rape is even greater than against rape against women.

paxamillion

quote:


I'm emailing this thread to Jack, Naomi and Alexa. Should be interesting.

Ok, so this is me shaking in my boots. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Michelle

You should be, pax. It takes a pretty connected guy to name-drop in such a fashion. I mean, he used their [i]first names[/i]. He must really be someone important.

paxamillion

Yes, a true Legend in His Own Mind. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I've been thinking about how to respond to this thread for much of the morning.

Let me start with this: I have an apology to make.

FSB, I should not have told you to kiss my ass. I shouldn't have allowed my temper to get the best of me. It is one of my greatest flaws, and it gets away on me sometimes. I apologize.

I do, however, expect an apology in return for being called a derogatory term. I won't ever apologize to anybody for being a mother. It's an integral part of who I am, and has been a proving ground for me in just how physically strong and resilient a woman's body naturally is. I am not insisting that you agree with me, but you do not have the right to denigrate my experience. Especially not in this forum.

quote:

Zoot, stop posting in this thread. You are out of your league.

What league would that be, exactly? The one where everybody agrees with you? Last I checked, audra was the arbiter of who posts or not in this or any other thread on this forum. If she asks me to bow out, I'll do so. But you? Well, who do you think you are, anyway?

I still stand by my statement that women physiologically have certain advantages over men in terms of endurance and function better when sleep-deprived. Men and women are strong in different ways, but it evens out. You haven't actually posted anything to refute this, nor have you responded to the information posted by paximillion and xrcrguy that show that your assumptions about the necessary lifting capacity in an infantry role are inflated.

So instead of insults, let's see some substance in your arguments. Or is that out of [i]your[/i] league?

Funk Soul Brother

*plenk*

Moredreads

61.

paxamillion

As he can't seem to stop at one, could FSB be powerless over the *plonk*? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

I do, however, expect an apology in return for being called a derogatory term.

I used to expect that of people, too.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: paxamillion ]

dale cooper

Is that counting all these witty variations on the word plonk?

writer writer's picture

quote:


So instead of insults, let's see some substance in your arguments. Or is that out of your league?

It appears we have an answer!

Sisyphus

Hey FSB, can you plonk me now just to get it over with? I'm not in your league either.

Moredreads

That is the current number of FSB posts on this board. I had been thinking that at some point that number would cease to increase due to the intervention of forces beyond my control. It was just an observation, I care not, really.

"Breeder?!"

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

googlymoogly

quote:


Ransbury says, "Women do better at air combat than men. I don't know if it's because their stomach muscles are stronger and can better withstand G forces, if they are less prone to nausea, or just more comfortable functioning in a three dimensional environment. The men who convince their wives to fly generally get their butts kicked."

This is from a website about flight instruction. Ransbury, acc to the website, is a fighter pilot himself.
[url=http://www.veteransenterprise.com/pages/mag_articles/spr01_fighterpilot.... isn't the point of the website, but I thought it was useful for argument's sake [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [/url]

And yes, Ransbury is a man (I don't know too many women whose first name is Paul)

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

Moredreads

FSB: Perhaps this will interest you:

SIZE AND STAMINA DO MATTER
More Than You Can Possibly Imagine!!
She is just trying to spare your feelings by telling you otherwise.

DON'T WAIT UNTIL SHE IS GONE
TO FIND OUT THAT YOU COULDN'T SATISFY HER!!!

INTRODUCING, THE FIRST ALL-IN-ONE
Male Performance Enhancer AND Penis Enlargement
WITH THE TRADEMARKED SWEDISH INGREDIENT CERNITIN.

Standard Results Include:

MALE PERFORMANCE ENHANCER
=============================

STAMINA: Up to 74% harder erections, this will help contribute to
longer sexual experiences.
CLIMAX: From 7 to 26 physical penile contractions
during orgasm. The average male experiences between 4 and 7.
LIBIDO: Enhanced feelings and stimulated sexual arousal combine to
increase desire.
RECOVERY: Faster recovery time means more sex more often.

PENIS ENLARGEMENT
===================
GIRTH: ?" up to 2"
LENGTH: 1" up to 3 ?"

THE FIRST AND ONLY PRODUCT OF IT'S KIND.
SPECIAL $33 PRICING AVAILABLE FOR A LIMITED TIME!

MILLIONS OF BOTTLES SOLD WORLDWIDE.

100% SAFE - NO SIDE EFFECTS

100% ALL NATURAL - RECOMMENDED BY DOCTORS
WORLDWIDE
100% UNCONDITIONAL GUARANTEE

Here is the e-mail address I was given: Yongjev@sverige.nu

paxamillion

Ok. I think *that* is over the top.

Moredreads

Look out. Here comes the boss...

paxamillion

Just my opinion is all. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Moredreads

Rather, I thought it was below the belt, as is the term breeder. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

But I have interceded in what was really a very interesting discussion, and this is an unprofitable digression.

[b]The only thing that I would add to that discussion is that if I were a woman in Iraq today, I would most definitely want to be armed, and I would accept training from any person willing to give it.
[/b]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

david 40

Replying to Zoot and Kindred...
1)pilots: It happens that I am a pilot myself (commercial, coastal/floats, not military). Happily, Transport Canada's flight examiners care not an atom about the test candidate's gender. Because of that, we can all be be assured as passengers that whoever is sitting left-seat got there because of competence, not affirmative action. That said, men outnumber women in aviation by about 8:1. This is not to say that all men are one way, and all women another: It is correct however, to observe that the sort of cognitive/spatial/motion awareness skills required for flying are found above the utility threshold more often in men than women. (Similarly, a 3-D recall of lots of static detail seems found significantly more present in women.) To the point, I am indifferent to the gender of whomever has demonstrated the competence to handle the aircraft.
Military aviation, however, requires a caveat. There is status attached to attack/fighter pilots. This is not my opinion; it is fact, observable in that strike pilot applicants outnumber recruits by vast margins. Thus, ambitious women might well, and do, aspire to the cachet that attaches to military flying. I was in infantry/armour battle school, training for platoon and company command at a time when women were first being considered for strike aviation. Understand that on the ground, when you call in tactical air, your needs are simple--to save lives of your soldiers, you want flame and steel on the enemy position. Strike pilots kill people. It's the job description. In the officers' mess one evening, I overheard two women at the next table discussing their applications to flight training. They were optimistic, but the gist was, "...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.." Doubtless, an admirable, humanistic sentiment. But if you hold it, you shouldn't apply for the job. If a ground commander calls in a strike and the pilot has a conscience spasm-induced miss, his men on the ground will die. So long as the strike pilot has been vetted by the military equivalent of Transport Canada's indifference to gender; so long as (s)he can effectively deliver fire, I'd have no concerns whatever about the genitals in the cockpit. If there are women who can fly the equipment, and bore in for the strike, more power and my support. Given, however, that Canada has a track record of inept social engineering, here is yet another reason that I wouldn't want my infantry kid's safety depending on the last-minute second thoughts of an affirmative-action-recruited attack pilot.
2) a)The presence of young women affects the work of young men.
b)Several countries within living memory (USSR, Israel, etc) have used women in battle. It didn't work well. They stopped. To my knowledge there is no example in human history of women prevailing in battle. To the degree that my information is incomplete, I further note that if there have been any instances (examples, anybody? Respondents name three, please), they are stastically insignificant.
c) Given that battle is--by definition--a life-or-death affair, and that it is near-exclusive enterprise of men, and that the presence of women is at best, a distraction, consider a thought-experiment: I recognize that anyone reading this thread is unlikely to have a 19-year-old child in uniform, in battle for what you both accounted a cause worthwhile, but suppose you did? Do you imagine he and his mates' attention-to-task, their survival, is helped or hindered by young women nearby?
d)By way of analogy, my experience with sled dogs is modest, but I am confident that hitching to the team's(however strong and disciplined) traces a breeding-phase female (however, strong, athletic, confident, self-assured, etc,) would not help your sled's efficiency.
D

skadie

Oh, and David 40, paragraphs REALLY help when trying to read a post.

skadie

I spoke to the group of men that sparked this topic again today, and brought up some of the points I've seen on this thread. Once again, they used a protective attitude on the part of men to uphold their positions. I guess they feel the desire to protect female soldiers would distract the enlisted male. It seems almost fatherly.

Hey, it's nice to know they care! And to have a protective attitude as opposed to some of the attitudes expressed on this thread may be the lesser of several evils.

quote:

People do not go into combat with 90lb loads... In combat, you're looking at maybe 30lbs max (rifle, web gear).

Precisely. Look at all the support that comes with modern warfare! (I now have CNN!) I also have heard that the British even drop their webbing when in active combat.

FSB has an outdated and romanticized view of battle. There aren't many men who could carry their comrade for 20 miles. Too many movies perhaps?

quote:

I have been an infantry soldier and officer.

That just scares me. I'm serious.

When officers have the opinions and outlook that you have DavidB, it's no wonder so many women have a foul life in the military.

There's so much more to say! So little time. If I could borrow xrcguy's comment:

quote:

Pro Patria!
My army includes the grrls.


wei-chi

The 'protective' instinct is there regardless of gender. How often is the cliche tossed about that soldiers fight for their buddy and not their country or their cause? It comes down to the person next to you in the trench. In a sense, that is teamwork.

David:

quote:

"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

A poor point, this sentiment is carried by men, infanteers too.

The spatial skills you refer to, as well, probably have to do more with systemic factors within society, and less to do with physiology. Obviously, people in the positions must be able to do the job, but your inference is that "statistically men are better pilots, so women shouldn't be pilots." It is poor logic.

Ultimately, arguments based on this logic would have us create an army full of lower-class, musclemen, with violent tendancies.

I want my army to drawn equally from all classes, educated, ethical, and efficient.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

quote:


d)By way of analogy, my experience with sled dogs is modest, but I am confident that hitching to the team's(however strong and disciplined) traces a breeding-phase female (however, strong, athletic, confident, self-assured, etc,) would not help your sled's efficiency.

So what you're saying here is: Men are dogs.

Like we didn't already know [i]that[/i]!

[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

xrcrguy

quote:


"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

I don't know if I could shoot somebody, I've never had it get to that point, thank God.

david 40

Dear Skadie, Wei-Chi, Zoot, xrcrguy:
Skadie:
1) "Fatherly", in the sense of caring, supportive, demanding, stern; yes and absolutely. A commander of any unit incorporates all of these traits. You use the adjective in derision. RSVP then, how is this view not sexist bigotry?
2)Webbing is dropped (save water and ammunition) for close engagement. Otherwise the fighting load must be carried. Thanks to Federal policy, most Canadian soldiers do not have carriers or helicopters to carry it. They carry it on their backs.
3) You find it "scary" that I have been a soldier and officer. I am supposing that you are a child of the seventies, else you would know that at the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest navy, and the fifth-largest army on the planet. Virtually every man you have ever met who is over 75 now was either a soldier, sailor or officer. It is a construct of surrender activists that defence of one's homeland is cause for fear. If you think otherwise, do expound on how the Iraqi army is scary.
4)For some reason, when I incorporate paragraph structure into my correspondence, the indents to not appear on the website.

Kindred

You kind of lost me Dave40, however ..

quote:

"...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."

This is a human variant (sp) not a female one - lots of men couldnt kill, lots of women could. When I was at the range trying out some hand guns with a cop my first shot hit the itty bitty little bulls eye dead center on the male target and my cop buddy said "I dont want to know who that was for.." [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] I could have told him it was definitely for my exe .. however the laws being what they are the man is still alive out there somewhere, dammit.

Seriously though, to fall back on the old adage that women are too "gentle" and "soft" to kill is old, and tired, and not valid IMO. I am a female, I could and would kill under the right circumstances. One of them being personal survival.

I am pretty calm and level headed in emergency situations and can stick to the first priority of getting my ass outta there alive - My first solo X country .....which turned into my first solo night flight and landing [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

Ahem FSB I have tried so hard to bite my tongue and be polite and now all I have is a pool of blood on my keyboard and a raging headache ..

quote:

I showed my gf this thread. She thinks you are all daft.

This does not surprise me in the least when one considers the type and personality of the woman who would put up with you. Of course she would think we are all daft, given the fact that she is probably unable to relate to women having real thoughts and opinons, other than "is your beer cold enough ?"

quote:

It's a term used commonly by homosexuals when describing a person who has babies (breeds). Ususally used in an uncomplimentary way

Is there something about your preferences that you wish to share with us? It might explain your hostility towards women. So much for mom and apple pie 'eh? moms a lowly breeder, and I bet you can think of nasty things to do to an apple pie.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against differing gender preferences or gender confusion I am merely a tad curious thats all ....

Also curious do you profess to protect the weaker sex or just keep them in their place?

I apologize now to all those people who are going to say "Kindred is so mean and nasty.."

david 40

Dear Wei-Chi:
It is the case that trained infantry also have reservations the first time they lay their sights on a chest. I don't know how much history you care for, but the majority of men in recent wars either do not fire at all, fire into the air, or fire to miss. Laudable humanism, doubtless, but the result (until recent training modifications) was that some 15% of the riflemen did 80 % of the killing. My point is that if you are going to be in a killing trade--whichever your gender--you should accept that fact before your last-second reservations put your comrades' lives at risk. If you don't think people should kill at all, that is a worthwhile perspective; but given that the discussion is about participation in the armed forces--by institutional definition, a killing enterprise--it is at best, a sidebar.
If you interpreted that I believe that women should not be military pilots either you are wrong, or I was unclear. For clarification, I believe that strike pilots--regardless of their skins' shape, colour, or area--should be competent to handle the machine, and disposed to strike an enemy. If they don't want to do that, they shouldn't take up the space of those who will.
I find your preference for an armed force (equal, educated, egalitarian, heterosexism-free, vegetarian, environmentally sensitive...just kidding) curious. I have reason to believe my physician is a socialist nutbar. He is, however, competent at his craft, which is keeping me healthy. My accountant is a religious fundamentalist, but she keeps my taxes straight. It is a Stalinist sort of orthodoxy that supposes that a service provider must be in a state of informed consent to all the client's viewpoints. The role of an armed force is to destroy an enemy's will to resist, by killing people and breaking things. (Are you scared yet? Skadie was). History has found that it works best if the officers are broadly-educated liberals (in the John Stuart Mill sense), the Other Ranks curious, alert and athletic, and the whole ready--for the few years of their service to the nation--to subscribe to a violent, patriarchal, heirarchical, meritocracy. Countries that don't believe that have an armed force that is ineffective and a foreign policy that is irrelevant.
Best regards. D

Jimmy Brogan

quote:


In the officers' mess one evening, I overheard two women at the next table discussing their applications to flight training. They were optimistic, but the gist was, "...but you know, I don't know if I could ever bring myself to actually shoot at somebody.."


quote:

the majority of men in recent wars either do not fire at all, fire into the air, or fire to miss. Laudable humanism, doubtless, but the result (until recent training modifications) was that some 15% of the riflemen did 80 % of the killing

If you believe the second quote what point are you trying to make with the first?

david 40

Dear Zoot;
Analogies are by definition fraught with flaw. To briefly clarify my point, I account almost all military jobs to be within the perview of women, with the exception of infantry, (and perhaps armour). The vanishingly few women who can do the job are probably not worth the degradation of combat power that attends their presence.
I was an infantry soldier, and my daughter is now. I have therefore a credible professional and personal view of the issue. Should you take issue with my viewpoint, do so, if you please, by stating your own, and listing your qualifications, and not by indulging the sexist bigotry ("men are dogs,...We already knew that" I believe was the theme,) of your last post.
Sincerely, D

david 40

Dear Jim Brogan:
I don't "believe" the second point, I am reporting it ("On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society", Lt. Col David Grossman, Little, Brown & Co, New York, 1996).
My point is that if you/we are going to spend the money on an armed force, it should be effective in its role. Generally speaking, this is killing people, and breaking things, for political ends. Recruits should be suited to their jobs. If you put unsuited people into high-risk jobs, you endanger them, and those around them. The very few women up to the job of infantry are--despite their patriotism--probably a greater cost to the combat power of their unit because of their gender than their individual skills are a benefit. I believe this would be valid even in an otherwise gender-neutral environment. Canada has a recent history of encouraging unsuitable people into combat trades for reasons of "diversity". If this government ever puts such units into combat, I think it likely that people will die because of this policy who otherwise wouldn't.
I agree also that most men are unsuited--by reason of physical weakness, or indisposition to kill other men--and should likewise be screened out of the combat trades. I explicitly said so earlier.
Sincerely, David

Aviator

I do not wish to "muddy the waters" on this topic, but let us take the issue of killing one step further. I will discuss this by way of a true story.

During Operation Desert Storm, an American Special Forces Unit was dropped well into Iraqi territory. There job was to gather intelligence on troop movements. They were instructed to avoid combat unless forced to do so. After several days of covert observation they were discovered by a sheperd who ran to report their position to a nearby Iraqi army unit. Needless to say this US unit was forced to engage the enemy. In the ensuing battle, several Iraqi soldiers were killed. As the battle continued, several civilians, a women and a pre-teenaged boy, attempted to retrieve the weapons of the dead soldiers and return them to the Iraqi unit. They were immediately shot.

I believe the rules of engagement are clear. Any person who assists the enemy automatically becomes a combatant. In war, you cannot choose your enemy. In this light, killing now takes on a whole new dimension.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: Aviator ]

Jimmy Brogan

Hmmm.

I'm trying to understand your point. You say a very small percentage of people, regardless of gender, are suited, either physically, emotionally or intellectually, for front line infantry duty? I'm not sure how small that percentage is but let's grant that your assertion is more or less correct.

This being the case I don't see where we differ. The training process should be designed to weed out those who do not measure up, and what is left, [i]regardless of gender[/i] is your infantry. Anything else brought to the table like "women are a sexual distraction" or "men feel the need to protect women" is the problem of the male soldiers who harbour these feelings. If even one woman, and we know there are many, can pass the training, then all woman should be given the right to try.

None of the women I know in the forces wants standards to be lowered, or wants special treatment based on gender. They are driven, exceptional women who would be insulted if they were offerred exemptions or special treatment. Your daughter seems to fit this mold.

All they want is to be given a chance to succeed or fail on their own merit. Treat them all as individuals and try and see past their gender.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: JimmyBrogan ]

Kindred

Ahem, while some of your points have [i]some[/i]validity. Men cant keep their mind on business when there are women around .. Which is what makes women so much more powerful ..

I wish to point out that not so many years ago people were horrified at the idea of a man being a nurse. A man in nursing was gay, or would take advantage of their female patients - hence perverts. They lacked the gentleness and caring that were clearly female traits. Their motives were beyond questionable - they were outrageous. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] They would hurt people, the big oafs dropping patients and crushing little bones in their ungainly masculine paws --

Needless to say neathderthal thinking evolved to the point of where we can understand and accept men as nurses without feeling threatened or horrified, and in fact my favourite ER nurse is a man. He's damn good at what he does.

Clearly none of the "old way of thinking" applies to you, so if thinking can involve in terms of suitable occupations for men, why arent they keeping pace with occupations for women?

xrcrguy

quote:


I believe the rules of engagement are clear. Any person who assists the enemy automatically becomes a combatant

Wrong, you have to display weapons in order to become a combatant under Geneva Convention.

quote:

Webbing is dropped (save water and ammunition) for close engagement. Otherwise the fighting load must be carried. Thanks to Federal policy, most Canadian soldiers do not have carriers or helicopters to carry it. They carry it on their backs.


When the hell did you drop your webbing? Why? That IS where your water and ammo are carried.

We have battle groups of LAV 3 Armoured vehicles now, and before that we had the Grizzly and M113 APC's. There are "light" Battalions but they are in the minority and are being phased out.

[ 02 April 2003: Message edited by: xrcrguy ]

Kindred

I thought the Geneva convention didnt apply in this war, seeing as both sides are displaying pictures of POWS among other things.

Aviator

xrcrguy:

Just talking to a friend, a former infantry officer. He was very clear: assist the enemy by carrying arms, ammo, etc. or acting as a spotter, you are now a target. In fact, there is clear precedent for this. I am in the process of looking up the info on this. Further, I know that if such people are captured - bang! or hanged, if you wish to be formal about it.

In the story, the woman and the boy, were "displaying arms." Hence they are now dead.

xrcrguy

I'm certain you're being sarcastic but:

They'll always apply to who ever signs on, no matter how often they break them, and we'll never let them forget that.

But this has been a bit of a thread drift soooo:

The Old Guard has made it clear that they are out of touch with the current realities of modern warfare and attitudes of the fighting troops.

There is no distraction factor. If there is, the person being distracted would have a hard time in any workforce.
The "torture" arguement holds no weight, just ask Abner Louima.
Mental suitability is a non-starter. The so-called "killer instinct" is cultivated at a group level and doesn't just apply to guys.;

xrcrguy

Aviator: you could be correct, I may be confusing them with my NATO ROE's for Kosovo where grounds for self defence through Deadly Force started at "Imminent Attack" (ie. weapon was cocked, now aimed at you)

SamL

I wouldn't know about dropping webbing in combat, but I would theorize that the purpose of "shoot straps" on some of the older rucksacks is to enable infantry to respond to an ambush.....

xrcrguy is right. The web belt has the canteen, the ammo pouch, and other 'combat essentials'.

skadie

quote:


Skadie:
1) "Fatherly", in the sense of caring, supportive, demanding, stern; yes and absolutely... You use the adjective in derision. RSVP then, how is this view not sexist bigotry?

I'm sorry if you interpreted my comment as sexist bigotry. I was merely trying to best express the attitude of the men I was discussing this with. I don't agree with their attitudes, but I don't disrespect them.

quote:

2)Webbing is dropped (save water and ammunition) for close engagement. Otherwise the fighting load must be carried. Thanks to Federal policy, most Canadian soldiers do not have carriers or helicopters to carry it. They carry it on their backs.

For Christs sake! When was the last time the Canadian infantry was engaged, anyway? Thanks to federal policy our infantry and the bulk of our military is useless to begin with. If you think our infantry in any way reflects modern warfare then I question your background and experience.

quote:


3) You find it "scary" that I have been a soldier and officer. I am supposing that you are a child of the seventies, else you would know that at the end of WW2 Canada had the third largest navy, and the fifth-largest army on the planet. Virtually every man you have ever met who is over 75 now was either a soldier, sailor or officer. It is a construct of surrender activists that defence of one's homeland is cause for fear. If you think otherwise, do expound on how the Iraqi army is scary.

Er, what I found scarey is that you were leading young people and providing them with training and expertise. Your obvious misconception of the capabilities of women, and your obvious difficulty in keeping your libido under control (did you want to tell us about your daughters bust again?) are what scares me.

quote:

4)For some reason, when I incorporate paragraph structure into my correspondence, the indents to not appear on the website.

Just add spaces, not indents. It's so much easier on the eyes.

xrcrguy

SamL: Yeah, the rucks have quick release precisely for that reason.

On a side note, many of the grrl troops seem to prefer the old Airborne rucksacks, as do a few of the guys. I think it has something to do with ergonomics.

skdadl

Just read this entire thread for the first time.

I am assuming that FSB is gone for his use of the term "Breeder"? Or, as MoreDreads has said before me:

quote:

I had been thinking that at some point that number would cease to increase due to the intervention of forces beyond my control. It was just an observation, I care not, really.

"Breeder?!"


I mean. Tonstant weadah fwowed up.

If I were a woman in Iraq -- and a few other places -- right now, I also would be grateful to anyone who would give me a gun and train me to use it. I am an utter wimp -- but at some point, self-preservation kicks in, eh? And even more powerfully, the Mother Bear instincts kick in.

Love the ones you're with, and save 'em for as long as you can remain vertical.

[ 03 April 2003: Message edited by: skdadl ]

wei-chi

Dear David,

Dear Wei-Chi:

quote:

...It is the case that trained infantry also have reservations the first time they lay their sights on a chest...etc

No, I agree, generally with your point that people in whatever position, particularly in a life-and-death one, should be qualified. That means people in the military should be prepared to kill. But, as you point out, many men in combat don't. And it has little to do with the combat effeciency of women.

I see no evidence that precludes women from performing effectively on the battlefield.

Arguments about 'distraction' et al have been applied in some form to black people and other minorities as well. They are not valid.

quote:

I find your preference for an armed force (equal, educated, egalitarian, heterosexism-free, vegetarian, environmentally sensitive...just kidding) curious.

I'm glad. Let me explain further.
I believe that if us citizens truely believe in our state, and its democratic actions, then we should be prepared to fight for it. This shouldn't mean dragging out all the unemployed, hicks, criminals, and inbreeders from society and plunking a university-educated officer ontop of a platoon of them and sending them into battle. No, we should be prepared to send our best into battle.

I don't think education or ethics negates subscribing to a rigid command structure or efficient killing.

With a highly informed public, the mistakes of the military become quickly known. This reduces favour of the military, and will prevent them from acting effectively in the future (budget cuts, political interfence in operational tactics). So it behooves the military to employ smart, ethical soldiers who will make fewer tactical and MORAL mistakes on the battlefield.

If a democracy's army cannot conduct ethical and LEGAL warfare, this will undermine its legitimacy. (See Vietnam)

In Canada the army is small, and it is becoming heavily specialist and technologically dependant. We are in a unique position to create an army of 60,000 of 'the best'.

Pages

Topic locked