Matrix Games Forums

I am an unashamed American Marxist. There is quit a long history of war being fought by the poor in the interests of the rich, I could post an analysis of the relationship between the interests of elites and their involvement in war over the last century, but I won't. Instead I will just point out this is an insight that predates Socrates and even appears in American history from Emerson to Major General Smedly Butler, and even from the mouth of Eisenhower.

So I am not merely mouthing "PC" bullcrap. In fact, you cannot get any less politically correct than being a card carrying Marxist in the United States. All of this is, of course, your attempt to marginalized my view point by dismissing it as "PC drivel." The fact remains the lives of none of my children are expendable to me--son or daughter.

It is also just a fact that you are wrong about both women, and their equal status in the eyes of history. Nor of course, are you capable of pointing out a single moment in history where the presence of women in the armed forces actually caused the collapse of anything, other than the friggen' Nazis. There are plenty of examples of the worlds elite armed forces where women actively serve in combat.

The real fact of the matter is that you are the wrong side of history. People will remember your opinion in future generations with the same deference we currently give to the arguments in favor of the racial segregation of the armed forces.

Ok, sweety, where are all the women KIA in all these elite forces. C'mon, make something up, you can do it.

Good grief..........

Pointing to the lack of women in combat as evidence of their unfeasibility of such an idea is more than just a little disingenuous if they're not being allowed to serve in such a capacity in the first place.

ok garden,

Which is it, 1) they've always been there or 2) never been there since "not allowed".

Time for me to go, way too stupid and not amusing. But..

Aurelian, good grief to you, dear friend, how many maimed corpses? answer, no limit. That would be something to express grief over, good or otherwise.

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

ok garden,

Which is it, 1) they've always been there or 2) never been there since "not allowed".

Time for me to go, way too stupid and not amusing. But..

Aurelian, good grief to you, dear friend, how many maimed corpses? answer, no limit. That would be something to express grief over, good or otherwise.

Charlie, you're right. Way too stupid and not amusing. You've helped get it there.

ORIGINAL: Revthought

I am an unashamed American Marxist.<snip>

<snip> In fact, you cannot get any less politically correct than being a card carrying Marxist in the United States. All of this is, of course, your attempt to marginalized my view point by dismissing it as "PC drivel." The fact remains the lives of none of my children are expendable to me--son or daughter.

It is also just a fact that you are wrong about both women, and their equal status in the eyes of history. Nor of course, are you capable of pointing out a single moment in history where the presence of women in the armed forces actually caused the collapse of anything, other than the friggen' Nazis. There are plenty of examples of the worlds elite armed forces where women actively serve in combat.

The real fact of the matter is that you are the wrong side of history. People will remember your opinion in future generations with the same deference we currently give to the arguments in favor of the racial segregation of the armed forces.

I was going to snip most of your drivel and just address some.

Of course you are a poor oppressed Marxist. You did not have to as much admit it as you could keep spewing the garbage and it would have pointed you out.
And, sorry the US has been marching consistently down the socialist path since the first Progressive thought they could get away with injecting the poison into our society. To the point that real conservative American thought seems to be in the minority.

Since you wish to ignore history it was, and is, the progressives who desegregated the military. Up until the turn of the last century Blacks were assimilating in to all aspects of American culture and life. It was the foul, Progressive, Woodrow Wilson who desegregated the military and fomented the Jim Crow Laws upon our society. (The very laws the socialist Adolph Hitler used to oppress the Jews.)
And, not to diverge too much, Nazi ideology and Soviet ideology are merely two sides of the same socialist coin.

It is also the Progressives who laud Darwin and the theory of evolution's, "survival of the fittest". Which was often used to further degrade Blacks in American society.

Sadly, you will never be convinced that genders do exist. Nor, that there is a difference between men and women. Always have been since the beginning of history itself.
My point again, since Marxists in America do not listen the first time, is that women who pass the requirements of the infantry fighter without it being watered down due to gender (which is what you want, right?) can become infantry fighters.
Women who require lower standards to pass should be passed over.

Merry Christmas! And, to all a good night.

RR

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

ok garden,

Which is it, 1) they've always been there or 2) never been there since "not allowed".

Time for me to go, way too stupid and not amusing. But..

Aurelian, good grief to you, dear friend, how many maimed corpses? answer, no limit. That would be something to express grief over, good or otherwise.

As has been pointed out, women were able to capably serve in the Soviet Union's military, when they were allowed to, and we don't have any evidence to indicate that they caused a decline in the quality of their armed forces during the time in which women were allowed to serve.

If you then ask about where are all the women and/or the women's achievements in Western militaries, I would circle back to how a lack of the same is mostly because they're not allowed to serve in such capacities as a matter of policy.

"as has been pointed out, women were able to capably serve in the Soviet Union's military".

I don't think anyone is suggesting here that women can not serve in the US military...the question is to what extent. Further, this debate zeroed in on front line infantry and standards.

As for the Soviets...look at how women were utilized...it was not some great emancipation utopia. They were not infantry. If they were found on the front lines they were severely punished. They were AA gunners, second line defenders, snipers, partizans, tank drivers, machine gunners, as well as all of the behind the lines duties you would expect (medics, etc...).

I have a problem when standards are reduced for political reasons to pass certain people...whether that is women in the military, or students/teachers in our public school system.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

As has been pointed out, women were able to capably serve in the Soviet Union's military, when they were allowed to, and we don't have any evidence to indicate that they caused a decline in the quality of their armed forces during the time in which women were allowed to serve.

Soviet Union had some good military hardware at the time, some even better than Germany it fought against. However, quality of the soldiers and officers was greatly lacking. That was partly becouse of need to get as many soldiers to the field as soon as possible. Including women. Women didn't degrade Red Army at the time. Stalin's "purging" nation's officer corps, deemed disloyal or politically incorrect, did it. My father says it contributed to save the Finland in Winter War and later.

If you then ask about where are all the women and/or the women's achievements in Western militaries, I would circle back to how a lack of the same is mostly because they're not allowed to serve in such capacities as a matter of policy.

There is a reason for that. In case you have overlooked previous discussion in this thread, in USA Army (and in most other armies elsewhere) women have lower fitness standards than men do. In USA Army man is required to throw hand grenade 35 meters. Woman can pass it with 25 meters. There are other differences, like run certain distance within certain amount of time, and women are allowed more time to cover it than men are. I presume those standards (of the men) are more demanding than what Red Army had for anyone in the Second World War. For such reasons, women have been deemed unfit for combat duty in the infantry units. Recently there has been change to allow women, who do not pass physical standards of men, to serve in combat infantry units.

Then that's really an indictment of the plans around integrating women into the armed forces, rather than against the concept of women-in-combat as a whole.

Yes, the plans to integrate women into the armed forces are F'ed. In my opinion and in theory women should be able to get in if they meet the universal male standard. However I personally have problems concerning sexuality and its distractions. I also would raise and lower the standards depending on the threat to the nation...ie...terrorism vs WWIII.

Who Cares...Prepare to be assimilated!

100 years from now nobody will know the difference.
I think women are more than capable.

Having fifteen thousand creaming women (bare breasted)charging towered you would be a frightful sight...

I suggested a PMS brigade earlier but was given a warning[:-]

Time to shut this one down guys... please...

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Time to shut this one down guys... please...

LOL! Just like saying "shut them up, I don't like what they are saying"? Except for when I am saying something I have the "right" to say it. [8|]

Then anyone can post on a thread and get it shut down? How about "let's keep to the topic? Even when the topic gets side tracked?" [;)]

Some will never understand. Others do it purposefully. [:-]

RR

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Time to shut this one down guys... please...

I agree with Rhonda

If you want to make a post in favor of woman in the infantry, you're more than welcome to do so.

That still doesn't make either that or this topic allowed, per the "no politics" rules, and it's just as germane either way to point that out.

And considering the topic is all the way back from 2013, thread necromancy is also at play here.

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

If you want to make a post in favor of woman in the infantry, you're more than welcome to do so.

That still doesn't make either that or this topic allowed, per the "no politics" rules, and it's just as germane either way to point that out.

And considering the topic is all the way back from 2013, thread necromancy is also at play here.

Never said I favored woman in the infantry, in fact I don't.

Never said the topic shouldn't be allowed, it's fine with me to have a reasonable, valid and proper discussion on the topic.

Why I agree with Rhonda is that some of the posts cross the line becoming insulting, sexual and beyond what falls into reasonable, valid and proper argument. That is what ruins the thread. It may become just one more locked thread because a few posters cross the line that takes away the ability of the others to have a thoughtful, reasonable, valid and perfectly proper discussion and difference of opinion for the rest.

What Rhonda said. I have commented in this thread, but it is crossing the line for this forum, and it has reached a point where lines are drawn and those taking part are not going to change their minds