Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-27-2013, 05:06 AM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamt View Post
i wonder if the women are going to have to pee standing up?
These are the type of important details you need to think of when making decisions like this!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-27-2013, 05:54 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
and lots of unplanned babies.
The quickest way for a female soldier to get sent home from a deployment is to get pregnant. When I was in Bosnia, we had several women suddenly turn up pregnant and they had to be sent home. Many of them had husbands back in the States.

So I foresee lots of female soldiers having lots of unprotected sex with the male soldiers in the hopes that they can get pregnant, be sent home and not have to continue to put their lives in danger on a daily basis. Of course, that will have the potential side effect of creating breakouts of STDs within the ranks.

The only way to get around that is to prosecute sex inside a combat zone as a general order violation. This way if a woman turned up pregnant, she would be sent home and put under guard until her baby was born, then she would receive a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge from the military. They could waive the severity of the punishment if she identified the father of her child and had that confirmed with a DNA test. The father would then be subject to the exact same punishment. That wouldn't create a very good situation for the baby, but the idea is to make the punishment severe enough that it would be a deterrent for most soldiers.

Or they could just not allow women in combat zones in the first place and this wouldn't even be a problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-27-2013, 06:34 AM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,698
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
The quickest way for a female soldier to get sent home from a deployment is to get pregnant. When I was in Bosnia, we had several women suddenly turn up pregnant and they had to be sent home. Many of them had husbands back in the States.

So I foresee lots of female soldiers having lots of unprotected sex with the male soldiers in the hopes that they can get pregnant, be sent home and not have to continue to put their lives in danger on a daily basis. Of course, that will have the potential side effect of creating breakouts of STDs within the ranks.

The only way to get around that is to prosecute sex inside a combat zone as a general order violation. This way if a woman turned up pregnant, she would be sent home and put under guard until her baby was born, then she would receive a maximum sentence of 2 years imprisonment, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and a dishonorable discharge from the military. They could waive the severity of the punishment if she identified the father of her child and had that confirmed with a DNA test. The father would then be subject to the exact same punishment. That wouldn't create a very good situation for the baby, but the idea is to make the punishment severe enough that it would be a deterrent for most soldiers.

Or they could just not allow women in combat zones in the first place and this wouldn't even be a problem.
I didn't even think about the spread of STD's when I was listing all those other negatives!

The article says "Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff", but wouldn't you think the seasoned military people in there know the folly of such an idea...I'm suspicious that all this is "political" and has Obama's handprint on it.
__________________

Last edited by Bonnie; 01-27-2013 at 06:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-27-2013, 10:00 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 17,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR View Post
1) I'm about 150% positive that this would be a problem in any military that allowed women to fight side by side with men. However, I'm not using that as a reason that women shouldn't be allowed into combat. I think they shouldn't be allowed into combat because they physically aren't able to do the job. Which will require the military to lower their standards and result in a less effective military.

2) I fully believe that a male soldier should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if he rapes a woman. However, the Pentagon is clearly hesitant to do that, so it's not right that they would force women into that scenario if they are not serious about solving the problem.

3) Also, for the record, I do believe that years of sexual repression are a contributing factor behind Catholic priests molesting young boys. I don't think many of them started out as sick perverts, but the legalistic and un-Biblical standards of the Catholic Church gradually turned them into that.
1) See I think thats just sexist, the reason why I think its just sexist is because I dont really see how a combat role would be more physically demanding for a woman then a man. If you had to lift big weights I would understand...but surely smaller equates to higher speed.

It really is exactly the same as the attitude the UFC take with their fighters, insisting really, that what people want to see, what makes the best fight, is two heavyweight strikers...because presumably the smaller, potentially weaker men cant pull it off.

I bet there are probably women who are fitter then some of the men. I also think that your military might be getting to the stage where it potentially has to lower standards, or not be able to keep its full quota. That happens when men get killed at war and someone needs to replace them.

But its not a matter I feel strongly about, coz obviously, for my own reasons, I believe they are out of place on the front line also...I challenged you because you saw fit to bring up the rape issue in the armed forces.

2) In your eyes, can I ask you a fundementally important question. What makes a culture Civilized? Is it about standard of living and modern utilities? You could say an african state is uncivilized if they have to walk ten miles to get water, and babies die of easily vaccinated against disease. But could you not also say that our cultures are uncivilized because there utilities are extravagent beyond the point of need, and their standard of living is high enough to make people live for years but in a sheltered environment where some would say they never truely live at all?

In the same vein You could say that those countries rulled by a dictatorship are uncivilized because they do not take into consideration the views of their subjects, but can it not also be put that those countries whose deomcratic vote systems are a sham, are almost worse for the pretense of an ellection? After all, its strictly speaking a lie, that any American can run for president, when the largest factor against any citizen is the amount of money they would need for a campaign. In England, its nothing more then an ellected dictatorship, all the politicians make promises to be ellected, but once ellected, they dont have to keep with those promises.

Perhaps you might say its the Countries attitudes to development and the freedoms granted to their citizens that mark them as civilized. Yet all you Americans argue over consitutional rights which are already ammendments to the original document. Any ammendment indicates the possibilitiy of addition and subtraction by the relevent body, which indicates that a consitution isnt permanent and unchanging, that your rights might only be rights until the next ammendment. In a similar way, the British Government has no quarms in letting protestors take to the streets, and march. But that is no indication that the Government listens to them. What point is being permitted to show your dissaproval if all they do is ignore you?

Above all you could say its access to Justice that makes a country civilized. If like you have argued (and in different, but no less injust ways our Government also) your pentagon, stands AGAINST Justice in order not to create a scene, or embarissment, or to save its own reputation (no doubt those that protect its reputation think thats far more important then the voice of a few individuals ) Is it civilized at all?

3) Do you think its the legalism that does it I mean...thats a link between the Military and the Church if ever there was one. The legalistic framework which stands apart from the law of the land as an alternative strand. Whether it be Cannon Law from The Roman Curia....or Military Law under a Court Marshal....or Even Civil Law under a Capitalistic Institution....as opposed to the Criminal Law of The Land.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-27-2013, 10:12 AM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is offline
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 17,097
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnie View Post
I didn't even think about the spread of STD's when I was listing all those other negatives!

The article says "Pentagon and Joint Chiefs of Staff", but wouldn't you think the seasoned military people in there know the folly of such an idea...I'm suspicious that all this is "political" and has Obama's handprint on it.
Since when have the powers that be...who, actually are totally unqualified in the actual day to day running of whatever they preside over...inquired of those actually doing the job before making rullings

In ALL the organisations ive ever worked for there has always been people paid millions at the top to make sweeping decisions on matters they dont know at the practical level.

They believe they know best...so why would they ask someone who might know the practicalities of the job before making their rulling.

Nine times out of ten, you will find their protocols CREATE more problems, and the people on the ground are left to adapt...if you remain with a company long enough you even see the recycling of old protocol. Protocol A comes down from one administration to tackle Problem A...it doesnt work, and actually Creates Problem B as a side effect. So Protocol A is abandoned as one problem is better then two. The Administration changes, and some bright spark reinvents Protocol A to Tackle Problem A ALL OVER AGAIN...and when you get the briefing you think...hang on, we've tried this one before....Some are quicker to come about then others...He says...awaiting the upcoming news that we are going to swap chillers AGAIN to make things easier...and in my time we have ping-ponged between these chillers FOUR TIMES IN EIGHT YEARS

Mix pure politics into that...as happens in Government, or the church...and it just makes it worse.

But as the old poem goes "ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do and die"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-27-2013, 11:13 AM
TexasRN's Avatar
TexasRN TexasRN is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Texan living in NC
Posts: 4,709
Default

Dave, heavy lifting is part of the job. I'm sure there are women who can work out enough to eventually be able to lift heavy objects and pass that part of the test but at what cost to her health? Will she be able to maintain that strength at all times, even in bad living conditions with smaller amounts of food? What about when a woman is on the front lines, on some critical mission, and she starts her period? She'll have to carry feminine products with her at all times and figure out how to dispose of those items in such a way that won't attract wildlife. These are all things that have to be discussed and figured out.


~Amy
__________________
__________________________________________

My son made this for me:
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-27-2013, 01:00 PM
adamt adamt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 1,511
Default

we can just mandate birth control and abortion for all female soldiers who are on active duty--------or maybe chastitiy belts or sugically implanted rapex devices







since they seem to be heck bent on being men, maybe we could just give them a penis while we're at it?????? of course now gay sex is encouraged too so still in a sticky wicket






















and i assume you all know me well enough to know how tongue in cheek that comment was
__________________
Reply With Quote