http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08287/919582-470.stm?cmpid=elections.xml

Quote :

"Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft. But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn't think women should have to register. Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not. "Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," said Wendy Morigi, Mr. Obama's national security spokeswoman. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain." According to his campaign, Mr. McCain supports the current Department of Defense restrictions on women in combat units, including armor, field artillery and special forces."

10/13/2008 12:02:51 PM

At least I don't plaster on the body armor like a trollop, you cunt!

10/13/2008 12:05:28 PM

Quote :

"But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn't think women should have to register."

I think this is the more relevant portion, actually.

Selective Service: yet another thing Obama won't change. Except, perhaps, in expanding it. (Which, while it ends the inequality issue, kind of misses the point altogether.)

10/13/2008 12:16:37 PM

the Selective Service system is important. If we do ever need to revive the draft it is important for the State to know who is of age.

10/13/2008 12:19:14 PM

Someone give me credit for the clever thread title.



kkthx

10/13/2008 12:21:35 PM

Quote :

"Selective Service: yet another thing Obama won't change. Except, perhaps, in expanding it. (Which, while it ends the inequality issue, kind of misses the point altogether.)"

Huh?

What do you mean it won't change? Adding women will change it.

But, I agree, the point of not having women join, I always thought, was so society could still make babies if most of the men got killed, so I don't see what making women sign up is suppose to accomplish.

In any case, I don't really foresee the draft ever being used.

10/13/2008 12:28:09 PM

Quote :

"What do you mean it won't change? Adding women will change it."

By "change" I assumed it was implied, "Change for the better." Which we assume is implicit in Obama's whole campaign message of "Change."

Because "Change (for the worse)" isn't exactly a catchy campaign theme.

10/13/2008 12:55:28 PM

Wait, so Obama wants to put women on the front line?

I have nothing against women in the military. However, I don't want to see women on the front lines. Hand to hand combat would get ugly if it got to that point. Female POWs is a publicity nightmare.

I'd also have concerns of them to carry heavy weapons and gear, but I don't know so much about the strength of female soldiers.

10/13/2008 1:37:02 PM

Quote :

"Hand to hand combat would get ugly if it got to that point. "

I don't know what kind of military women you've met, but most of them are plenty capable of taking care of themselves.

And by "taking care of themselves" I mean "beating the dogshit out of people."

Besides, as has been pointed out, women have been on the front lines for a looooong time in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's unavoidable. They're getting shot at as much in their current capacity as the men are.

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 1:49 PM. Reason : ]

10/13/2008 1:47:42 PM

Quote :

"Hand to hand combat would get ugly if it got to that point."

Hand-to-hand combat hardly matters these days. We tend to shoot people with guns or blow them up with explosives. Besides, females could do as well in a brawl as any man with the same amount of lean tissue.

10/13/2008 2:18:37 PM

Yes, let's have the radical pacifist explain to us the finer points of modern military tactics.

10/13/2008 2:26:59 PM

Do you contest anything I typed? If so, what?

10/13/2008 3:07:39 PM

99% of women don't belong in the combat arms. The vast majority of women just aren't physically capable of doing it. Women are in combat, and women should have to register for the Selective Service, since they can perform the vast majority of jobs.

But really, does Obama have any clue what is required of an infantryman? 249 with ammo would be hard enough for the majority of women, let alone a 240. And an infantryman must be able to carry and use both of these weapons. I like how they didn't even mention the Infantry as a combat arm lolz.

This is silly, and extremely stupid. I can't think of any army in the world were women are in the combat arms.

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 4:01:32 PM

yet many of our allies have women serving in active duty in combat roles.

10/13/2008 4:05:49 PM

there's plenty of men who aren't fit for front line combat duty

and guess what

they're not on the front lines

10/13/2008 4:07:17 PM

Quote :

"yet many of our allies have women serving in active duty in combat roles."

Name a country where women are in the Infantry, or Special Forces type unit. Please, enlighten us.

10/13/2008 4:18:59 PM

Norway has removed that prohibition.

10/13/2008 4:24:51 PM

Well shit, if Norway did it, then fuck why don't we. Because Norway has so much experience fighting in combat, or wait, they don't.

10/13/2008 4:25:42 PM

Canada.

Also, nice job insulting a NATO ally and Iraq War ally

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 4:31 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 4:31:03 PM

Israel has a bunch of women in their military, some of them pretty hot, but I'm not sure to what capacity they serve...I know they have rifles

10/13/2008 4:32:29 PM

Women in Israel have not served in combat duty since the War of Independence in 1948

We also have women serving as infantry combat medics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/12/AR2005051202002.html

[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 4:37 PM. Reason : .]

10/13/2008 4:35:06 PM

Quote :

"Also, nice job insulting a NATO ally and Iraq War ally"

Yeah, because they are so much help..

And Canada allows women if they pass the men's requirements. I *never* met a woman in the Infantry form Canada. I didn't even realize they had that policy. But again, if you read what I first wrote, I said the vast majority of women couldn't cut it, sure there are a few rare exceptions, but they have to be held to the same physical standards as men, which is not how it is in the army right now (which is fine to a degree, but the standards are way to low for women).

10/13/2008 4:38:38 PM

Quote :

"This is silly, and extremely stupid. I can't think of any army in the world were women are in the combat arms."

10/13/2008 4:40:50 PM

Oddly enough... Iran. Around 25% of the volunteer military there is made up of women and they are assigned to combat roles. Still, they do get treated a LITTLE different than male troops-



Being serious though-

Sweden
Thailand
Russia (if nothing has changed since end of cold war in terms of policy)
Norway
New Zealand
Lybia (not joking like I was with Iran, but they're kind of kadaffi's toy unit)
Israel (they have a segragated womens' batallion that does include combat roles, generally combat roles for women are limited to artillery and field intelligence though.)
UK (Navy- recently reopened debate when Iranian soldiers captured a female naval officer.)
Eritrea
France
Nepal
Sri Lanka



[Edited on October 13, 2008 at 8:10 PM. Reason : list]

10/13/2008 7:54:16 PM

Why so surprised? Obama wants as many people as possible protecting his skinny ass.

10/13/2008 8:19:05 PM

Protecting America's ass you fucking lout.

10/13/2008 8:20:18 PM

10/14/2008 4:08:29 AM

Quote :

"..... so I don't see what making women sign up is suppose to accomplish."

IT'S FUCKING "SUPPOSED" YOU METRO.

Quote :

"Why so surprised? Obama wants as many people as possible protecting his skinny ass."

EXACTLY, BUT YOU'D BETTER NOT PROTECT YOURSELF YOU FUCKING METRO ASSHOLE. IF THE GANGSTERS WANT TO HAVE GUNS THAT'S FINE, BUT IF I CATCH YOUR LAW ABIDING ASS WITH A LEGALLY OWNED GUN FOR SELF PROTECTION I'LL SNATCH IT OUT OF YOUR GOD DAMNED HANDS SO FAST YOU'LL SHIT YOURSELF SON.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 8:56 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2008 8:54:08 AM

Quote :

"EXACTLY, BUT YOU'D BETTER NOT PROTECT YOURSELF YOU FUCKING METRO ASSHOLE. IF THE GANGSTERS WANT TO HAVE GUNS THAT'S FINE, BUT IF I CATCH YOUR LAW ABIDING ASS WITH A LEGALLY OWNED GUN FOR SELF PROTECTION I'LL SNATCH IT OUT OF YOUR GOD DAMNED HANDS SO FAST YOU'LL SHIT YOURSELF SON. "

You actually believe this.

10/14/2008 9:00:11 AM

That's exactly what his track record has been and it will continue. He supports the complete removal of the right to own firearms from law abiding citizens through any means necessary.

He will continue to do this through massive taxation of ammunition, ridiculous "assault weapon" bans that ban nothing even remotely related to real assault weapons, etc. He understands that outlawing it outright will not work, so he's trying to get it done step by step. Illinois is one of the shittiest states to live in if you want to be able to protect yourself as a law abiding citizen.

The gangsters know that less people can be armed and thus they're more comfortable committing crimes.

If firearms are outlawed for law abiding citizens it will do nothing to stop gangsters and other thugs from owning firearms. All you have to do to see this is look at the drug trade. Even though it's 100% illegal, drugs arrive here in massive quantity on a regular basis. The same people bringing drugs into the country can bring firearms in, they already do to some degree and it would just make the market bigger.

Look at the places where guns are controlled the most, such as California, New York and Illinois. Need I name the notoriously violent cities in these locations? Need I explain the fact that these laws have done nothing to prevent gangsters from having guns? Need I explain what the knowledge that the only people who are armed are criminals will do for thugs? That is EXACTLY what they want because it makes their job that much easier and that much safer.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 9:13 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2008 9:10:07 AM

Every time I leave my apartment in Pittsburgh I'm terrified that roaming gangs of gangsters will kill me.

I'm unarmed, so this is a particularly large concern of mine.

10/14/2008 9:11:40 AM

I didn't mention that state, but it is one of the shitty states for self defense. There's no way to predict whether or not you'll need a gun, it's like insurance. You have it hoping you'll never need to use it. But if you did ever need a firearm and didn't have one, you'd change your mind quite quickly about how "pointless" it is, just like insurance.


It's like that idiot up at the Food Lion on Western who asked me why I was open carrying a Glock 17.

He was like "so um, are you a police officer?"

I was like "um, no......"

Then he said, "Why do you carry that then?" while simultaneously making this facial expression intending to imply that only the police should be allowed to protect themselves.

I told him that this world is a dangerous place. Sure enough, recently there was a violent event right down the street from that Food Lion. You can, in fact, find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. You may need that firearm to make it out alive. The idea that many people have, that only police should have guns, sickens me. It's as if they wish for this place to be a police state in which there is no right to protect yourself.

I take responsibility for my own safety, I don't put it in some cop's hands. When seconds count the police are, at best, minutes away. The police have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect citizens or even respond to their requests for help, no matter how the request is made, be it 911, a verbal request in person, etc. If, after considering all of that, you still think nobody should be allowed to own a firearm then you're a disgusting person. If you decide that you don't care about your own safety, then don't take responsibility for your own safety. But don't you fucking dare to try to take that right away from me.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 9:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/14/2008 9:21:38 AM

Again, a woman should do as well as a man with the same amount of lean tissue. The main reason we think of females as weaker would be their lower average weight and higher fat percentage. If small dudes can handle the military, many women should be able to as well. I even remember reading about a study that found females met standards fine if trained properly.

10/14/2008 10:00:57 AM

Biggest problem I can see is that they won't be in the kitchen.

10/14/2008 12:19:16 PM

Quote :

"Again, a woman should do as well as a man with the same amount of lean tissue. "

Skeletal structure is quite different, as well as bone density. Both relatively important.

Quote :

"I even remember reading about a study that found females met standards fine if trained properly."

What sort of standards? In the American armed forces, they meet female standards just fine, but those standards are far below the male standards.

I love this thread, a lot of people who have never served yapping about a bunch of shit they have no clue about.

Oh look, a few countries with relatively small populations, have some combat arms open to women, that must mean it is the best way to go. Never mind, even in those countries the number of women that are actually IN combat arms is very small.

I have no problem with women in combat arms, if they can pass all physical requirements that men can with absolutely no exceptions. Even some of the more "gung-ho" women I met in the Army couldn't meet the physical demands of a regular infantryman. It's more than just passing a PT test, and even then the vast majority of women in the Army couldn't even get a 180 on the men's scale.

10/14/2008 6:01:15 PM

Yeah, Russia's a small country.

10/14/2008 6:03:22 PM

Unless it's changed, Russia doesn't allow women to serve as infantry/special forces/etc.

Quote :

"Even Russia, which allowed women to fight as infantry during the second world war – albeit out of necessity – will not allow it now."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4187621.ece

But yeah, can't let facts get in here.

10/14/2008 6:17:19 PM

Ok, so they've regressed. Cut the vitriol and strange bitterness. It's creepy.

How does the current prejudices of Russian society change the fact that women served successfully in combat roles throughout WWII. Many of their top snipers were women. I'm not saying relax standards for women. I'm saying that plenty of combat roles can be filled by women, have been filled by women, and don't require the same upper body strength that would limit their service in some aspects. Women can kill pretty well.





303 kills.

[Edited on October 14, 2008 at 6:23 PM. Reason : ]

10/14/2008 6:22:03 PM

Quote :

"Ok, so they've regressed. Cut the vitriol and strange bitterness. It's creepy. How does the current prejudices of Russian society change the fact that women served successfully in combat roles throughout WWII. Many of their top snipers were women. I'm not saying relax standards for women. I'm saying that plenty of combat roles can be filled by women, have been filled by women, and don't require the same upper body strength that would limit their service in some aspects. Women can kill pretty well."

Yeah, so who are you arguing with then? Some positions they can fill. But the thing is, right now, if you are Armor or FA you very well might be used as Infantry in Iraq. Women just can't physically cut it in the more demanding aspects of the combat arms right now. There are very few women that could, but we are talking one in a thousand women, if that.

Quote :

"strange bitterness. It's creepy."

What bitterness? Creepy? Whatever. Yeah, a woman can shoot a rifle well, but there is much more to it than that. There are real reasons why Israel use to have women in combat roles and now don't, and they have to do with results that they saw.

10/14/2008 6:34:20 PM

I just thought Russia still used women in combat roles. You assumed I was attacking your entire position and felt the need to condescend.

10/14/2008 6:35:12 PM

You mean, you tried to play gotcha and be a smart ass? Sure, you did that.

10/14/2008 6:38:35 PM

if women can walk around without a man you could have hundreds of women dressed in those full burkas walking around baghdad feeding back intel...or carrying an ak.

10/14/2008 6:58:58 PM

If someone can meet all the requirements, there is no point in denying them the opportunity to serve based upon their plumbing.

10/14/2008 7:01:24 PM

Quote :

"If someone can meet all the requirements, there is no point in denying them the opportunity to serve based upon their plumbing."

Money. We would spend literally hundreds of millions to allow a very small amount of women to serve in combat arms. It isn't worth the amount of money that would need to be spent for the very limited return.

10/14/2008 8:38:15 PM

Why spend the millions to let anyone serve in combat arms?

10/14/2008 8:39:13 PM