Jump to content
fixer

Are Females A Combat Liability?

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

As Patriots we must not forget the fact that if a war breaks out at home... there will be cultural, ethical, moral, and legal conversations taking place. 

 Sir, with all due respect if war breaks out at home, cultural, ethical, moral and legal will go out the window when that first bullet flies by your head.

 

23 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

Sorry if I've made a simple question more complicated than it needs to be. 

 I'm sorry you thought i was too stupid to understand it

 

27 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

Does the service of women in combat roles potentially weaken our military?  Maybe.

This is an OPINION not backed up by facts, hence your own answer "Maybe". Just as my answer is my OPINION.

Also you quoted Paul saying that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  Well, there's another saying "Don't be so heavenly minded that your of no earthly good. That being said, this world isn't getting any better. If you study and understand Bible prophecy then your familiar with the "Days of Noah". If you read Genesis 6 you'll get a better understanding of what i'm talking about.  But with the way this conversation is going, i would imagine that we would disagree on that as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bottom line is if it is decided that a standard needs to be met including physical and skills needed, whoever passes all minimum standards needed is good to go whether male or female.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Idlestorm said:

 Sir, with all due respect if war breaks out at home, cultural, ethical, moral and legal will go out the window when that first bullet flies by your head.

 

 I'm sorry you thought i was too stupid to understand it

 

This is an OPINION not backed up by facts, hence your own answer "Maybe". Just as my answer is my OPINION.

Also you quoted Paul saying that a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  Well, there's another saying "Don't be so heavenly minded that your of no earthly good. That being said, this world isn't getting any better. If you study and understand Bible prophecy then your familiar with the "Days of Noah". If you read Genesis 6 you'll get a better understanding of what i'm talking about.  But with the way this conversation is going, i would imagine that we would disagree on that as well.

I don't think you're too stupid to understand anything.  You're taking my statements as being combative.  They're not, it's cool brother.  I stated that I made the question more complicated than it originally was. In other words, I was digging deeper into the question than what it was really asking for.  That's my fault and not a criticism of anyone else - I changed the topic and spirit of the original conversation.  

 

If war breaks out anywhere, there will always be an obligation to maintain morality and ethics.  Just because a bullet flies by my head, that does not give me license to rape and pillage - even if others feel differently. 

 

I don't think the world is getting any better.  I don't know the day or hour.  I've read enough from the history of the Church to recognize that every generation of the faithful has held the same exact belief - the world is in terrible condition and the end must be near.  Friend, America could collapse tomorrow and a new empire arise - just as empires have fallen and new ones have formed since the beginning.  That is in the realm of possibility.  We are suffering from the same depravity and decadence of S & G, the empires of the OT, the Greeks, Rome, and the like.  They fell and other rose up.  I'm not very fond of those nations rising to power in the wake of our decline.  The world could end tomorrow... it could end 2000 years from now.  That being said... as a Christian, I think we are close to the end.  Itching ears and the world being like the days of Noah are evident.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, RevRifleman said:

If war breaks out anywhere, there will always be an obligation to maintain morality and ethics.  Just because a bullet flies by my head, that does not give me license to rape and pillage - even if others feel differently. 

 Nor do I believe that rape and pillage is moral or ethical, it will be us who are pillaged. I believe you follow the law, but i'm going to fire back before i read the rules of war. I will not give in to rape and pillage, and will stop those who try. No man knows the day or the hour, but i believe that we will be persecuted just as those in the church of the first century, and lets not forget the disciples and how they met their end. Other than posting my opinion on here or quoting what other conservatives say, I study Bible prophecy, and we are in the end times.

 

  Let me say that i'm sorry i misunderstood the way you were coming across. I humbly apologize.

  How can two walk together except they be agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we've altered the tone a bit, and this has become a real discussion, here's a thought I'd like to share in hopes of getting some guidance.

 

Here's the purely hypothetical scenario:  You're on patrol with the militia on US soil.  You come upon a scene of beheadings, rape, torture and what-have-you (clearly criminal behavior).  There are three enemy combatants just finishing up scavenging jewelry from the dead (or they are half mile down the trail with the jewelry, bloody clothes etc.).

 

Scenario II:  After a fight there are two enemy left.  These are 'occupying forces" (civilian round-ups, detention camps etc.) on US soil.  

 

Do you take them prisoner or exact punishment on the spot?  This is a question I wrestled with for some time, and I would appreciate your input.  Remember as Militia, you don't  have the resources to tend POWs, also that summary execution itself is a crime. 

Edited by John Last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

Scenario 1:  If they are enemy combatants and a patrol stumbles upon them the question is whether or not a firefight breaks out.  If they are identified as enemy combatants that more than likely assumes you'll be fighting them unless they immediately surrender.  Which takes you right into Scenario 2.

 

Scenario 1 becomes more complicated if they are not enemy combatants but are merely looter types who are taking advantage of the civil unrest.  Is it WROL or are you working along side military and law enforcement?   If you are working with the Military and Law Enforcement, I assume that taking prisoners and detaining criminals will still be the norm. Otherwise, you have to make the call given the circumstances you find yourself in.  WROL, you have three options: Execute justice on the spot, take prisoners, or keep walking while looking the other way.  Assuming that in WROL taking prisoners won't be possible due to limited resources and lack of governing bodies... you're down to two options unless your unit and elements of the community you're operating in have put some system together to deal with this issue.  I can't advocate for walking away.  If taking that life will help save others from being harmed and there is no other option - you do what you have to do.  That's between you and God at the point.  It's one thing if someone is lifting a bag of flour to feed their family... you can walk away from that.  It's another if they are engaging in the gruesome acts you describe and there is no Law Enforcement or Detention system in place to deal with it.  

 

Scenario 2:  If the enemy surrenders and pow camps are not an option.  I would suggest we strip them of all their equipment, disorient them, maybe redden them up with socks and bar soap haha, and drop them off in an undisclosed location so they cannot track or report on the movements of your unit in the region.  Make them walk a few miles back to civilization, give them time to think about how dang lucky they are to be breathing.  That assumes a truck is available.  If on foot, you might just have to forego the road trip. Strip or destroy their equipment and send them out. Granted, the risk of them getting back into the fight is a reality.  That assumes they can quickly be re-equipped and supplied and won't be a bit sore from their encounter.  But, I can't advocate for committing war crimes.  We don't want that to be our legacy.  The hope is that we will have some backing from LEO and Mil to handle these issues so that we can get enemy combatants off the street and deal with them according to the justice system rather than carrying it out on our own.  The risk we run is that the enemy becomes aware of the release upon surrender practice and uses that to their advantage - at which point our tactics may have to change.  Then again, that may run them out of weapons and supplies more quickly than they can replenish them.  

 

Good question.  Interesting topic.  I hope to hear from others.  

 

That's my take at the moment.  I'm certainly open to other perspectives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dali Lama said the world will be saved by the western woman, why? Because we have the most to lose. We are already at war, but the weapons are silent and the rules of engagement very different. The only man to walk the earth was Jesus Christ and he alone saw us as equals. You can do basic training better because of upper body strength, but we have better endurance and pain management skills. In the end both are equal sides of a coin. We need to get past males/female/ black/white, gay/straight and be humans that will do what is needed to defend the freedom here at home that is already under attack.

 

Sadly we are not helping each other now or defending those losing their guns now. So not sure how caring if women are in combat matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Spiritwomyn said:

Dali Lama said the world will be saved by the western woman, why? Because we have the most to lose. We are already at war, but the weapons are silent and the rules of engagement very different. The only man to walk the earth was Jesus Christ and he alone saw us as equals. You can do basic training better because of upper body strength, but we have better endurance and pain management skills. In the end both are equal sides of a coin. We need to get past males/female/ black/white, gay/straight and be humans that will do what is needed to defend the freedom here at home that is already under attack.

 

Sadly we are not helping each other now or defending those losing their guns now. So not sure how caring if women are in combat matters.

 

It is a fact that I don't know one man who could take childbirth, and I was in the delivery room for all three of my kid's births.  I have a nephew who is a homosexual, and I would fight to the death to save his life.  He's a good fellow.  In a militia, gender is not going to make that much of a difference.  In the military ... especially in ground forces ... I see a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spiritwomyn said:

Dali Lama said the world will be saved by the western woman, why? Because we have the most to lose. We are already at war, but the weapons are silent and the rules of engagement very different. The only man to walk the earth was Jesus Christ and he alone saw us as equals. You can do basic training better because of upper body strength, but we have better endurance and pain management skills. In the end both are equal sides of a coin. We need to get past males/female/ black/white, gay/straight and be humans that will do what is needed to defend the freedom here at home that is already under attack.

 

Sadly we are not helping each other now or defending those losing their guns now. So not sure how caring if women are in combat matters.

I'll put it this way.  Winter survival training .   The woman dropped the group way back.  While the all Male group set record times and pushed harder and faster.   

 

I dont believe women can endure more just because of child birth.     Women by nature are a weaker sex and that isnt a bad thing.  They are by nature to be gathering and family oriented. 

 

Women over seas couldn't handle the children in the prisons and ended up going home for getting knocked by banging the prisoners dudes.  Why because in general women cant separate emotions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to agree that women generally don't do as well as men on strength related issues, like combat training in the US military.  That said, ESPECIALLY AS PERTAINS TO MILITIA... use ALL your resources to their maximum potential.  For example: a 27 year old female UPS driver/warehouse worker will probably make a better infantry soldier than a 58 year old male insurance salesman/stock broker, all other factors being equal. 

 

As others have mentioned, Israel is a perfect illustration.  They don't have the option: it takes ALL HANDS to accomplish the mission.  Put another way; a squad that's short a fire team won't do as well as one that's up to strength, even if one team only operates at 70%.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all that being said, we are at war and the rules of engagement are very different. Silent weapons are being used against us. Language has been weaponized. Technology used to spy on our every move, medicine used to kill us, 5G is a weapon and a mind control element. We are at war, but because it is quiet and no one shooting at us, like frogs in water, we wait. Your physical strength is no longer the issue. But keep waiting as you are certainly not defending those losing their rights unconstitutionally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2019 at 4:22 PM, fixer said:

2009415173_ScreenShot2019-10-12at3_59_42PM.thumb.png.a8015081a97a4db7b9a68281c0603c4c.png

 

Women can serve in most areas of the military except riot control. They have been allowed in submarines, including nuclear submarines, since 2014. Women are allowed to serve in combat infantry. 1.7% of combat infantry are women.

 

Conservatives often stand accused these days of standing firm on "traditional existence" Yet liberals can be blinded by a sporadic ideology, and nowhere is this divide more true than in the debate over women in combat.....

 

Over the past two decades, the United States has moved steadily to open all military roles to women. Women may henceforward qualify for every duty, including combat infantry.

 

Yet to deny the highly combat-relevant differences between the sexes is to deny reality as blatantly as ever done by any anti-evolutionist - and with potentially much more lethal consequence.

 

In 2007, Kingsley Browne gathered the evidence in a clear and concise book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars. The case presented by Browne won't come as news to any military decision-maker. But it will and should jolt those who have relied on too credulous media sources for their information about what soldiers do and how they do it.

 

The case for women in combat runs more or less as follows:

1) We have entered an era of push-button war in which purely physical strength has lost much if not all of its military relevance.

2) To the extent that strength continues to matter, some women can meet requirements and should be given a chance to qualify.

3) Other than physical strength, there are no militarily relevant differences between men and women.

4) To exclude willing women from military service is unfair and unjust.

 

So maybe it's because War as we know it has changed and now they are more suited for it?

 

Fact is... many units will not go into combat with a female, The reason i was given was that if the female is captured the men are more prone to risk life and limb and make bad decisions in order to rescue them. Ever since being a child and maybe a bit of evolution involved but Men are naturally programed to protect Women, the physically weaker sex.... just the same as Women are naturally programed for a number of other things. I have been told by respected high ranking military personnel that putting a Woman in a combat situation puts the entire unit at risk and that they have refused to accept them into their units and are willing to accept punishment for this decision in order to protect their men.

 

Our enemies will use our culture and conventional being against us... In the most evil ways.

 

So...What do you think? Comment Below...

This shouldn't even been a question in the first place.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MONICA said:

This shouldn't even been a question in the first place.

 

 

Agreed.  The militia is not the United States Armed Forces.  Our mission is different, our standards are much less stringent, and our membership is widely diverse.  Now, if you want to develop a militia-ranger/special operations unit, then by all means set the standards where you like.  But, in reality we will be lucky to have 10 people from teenagers to grandparents, both male and female, fit and unfit, in our ranks.

 

I believe a big mistake many people make, when talking militia, is thinking that we will be conducting large-scale offensive operations; like the US Army or Marines.  Field training often includes squad assault tactics and the like from US military manuals.  I recently watched a III% national training video (General Blood Agent), and if that group or any other in similar condition, thinks they are any kind of match for the US forces, or UN armored troops, they should seriously re-think their position.  These elite guys can't even stay off the trail, much less spot trip wires.

 

I believe the only realistic operations, at least in the early phases, should be guerrilla-style actions.  Practice non-conventional tactics, and when you're accustomed to working together, and know your limitations, then you can start working on more advanced stuff.

 

search: youtube;  III% militia training 2019, day 2 part 1

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qCEwFBLARg

Edited by John Last

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

     Sounds like good arguments on both sides. I'm  somewhat undecided based on most arguments, but for two things I would reject women in combat: if they get captured by terrorists, the chances of them being raped are far greater than men being sexually assaulted, and; I think that women who think they need to prove that they can be as masculine as men have an inner issue.

     Men and women are wired differently, including physically. Howbeit, women can excel as much as men in some things, especially academics, and in martial arts, where physical strength is not the deciding factor. But trying to make men and women equal in all regards is upsetting an intended and needed balance.

     Men and women are not equal, never were, never will be. Each gender excels over the other in certain things, with some overlap and exceptions in some cases. The issue is another of liberals trying to implement more Socialist, anti-God thought.

     I have read where some countries, N. Korea, I think Russia, a few others, train women in the infantry and special forces. So be it. If so, then it probably should be either all male or all female units.

     I seen a video once, a movie, supposedly based on fact, of an experimental, all female, special forces unit in the Vietnam Conflict. Would be interesting to find out if that really happened. In the movie they were all killed. Who knows?

     Carlos Hatchcock shot the infamous "Apache Woman", a very cruel and barbaric, Vietnamese warrior, who was a greatly feared sniper and torturer, more feared than the males. Imagine that.

      The old adage, I think ought to be considered here: "Just because you can do something, doesnt  mean you should".

      On a practical note, what male wants to live with and climb into bed every night with something that is no different than they are, other than physically? Maybe being combat trained and battle hardened doesn't  warp them, I don't  know. Been there, done that, just not in war, and all I can say is, it doesnt  do you justice once you've  killed, other than giving you more appreciation for life, especially your own.

Edited by Todd A. Slee
addition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Females are most definitely a combat liability. For those of you (males only. females won't get what i'm talking about. The closest comparison for females would be the sound of a crying baby) wondering why males would be more apt to risk their lives for a female than a male, watch the following video, listen to the sound (you'll know which sound i'm taking about when you hear it), pay attention to your response to it, and put yourself on the battlefield hearing that: 

 

 

Females are physically weaker than men. Significantly. 

 

Most importantly, the physical structure of the hips between males and females is different. The forces experienced by the body whilst carrying a child are VERY different from those experienced from the weight and rigors of carrying gear. If you hold females to the same standard as men for infantry work, and give a proper training regimen, 40% of females will experience crippling injuries to their hips, specifically where their femurs meet their hip bones. If a man could somehow carry a child, he would be crippled from the experience for essentially the same reason. 

 

The hip bones are specialized designs.

 

The superpower known as "building a new human" DEMANDS a specialized design. As with all specialized designs, whatever you specialize in, draws away from other abilities. Example:

 

most folk with a few hours of practice can reliably hit an 18" steel plate at a 400m with a good bolt rifle, but they will basically be completely unable to conceal it.

 

EVERYONE would need to fire hundreds of thousands of rounds worth of practice to do the same thing with a snub-nosed pistol, but with this pistol, EVERYONE, with ZERO practice, could EASILY conceal it.

 

Females, your ability to create new humans is why you're not suitable for combat. If you have a problem with that, take it up with God.

 

Females, being a supply line is fighting too. Even Rambo couldn't do what he did without bullets blades and food. Also, both sexes respond to female caretakers (nurses, doctors, etc.) better than male ones. There's more than one way to "fight." Having a lot of babies and raising them up as good constitutionalists for example.

 

Females need to stay off the front line.......that being said, sometimes the front line comes to your door, and all females should be able to at least accurately shoot back should that dark day arise.

 

Females, Know how to shoot, know you might need to shoot a HUMAN, accept that fact, and learn how to become supply lines, medical personnel, and patriot factories.

 

THIS is how females fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Author of the topic Posted

Well that is informative, interesting and a lot to process.

 

First the screaming. I do 100% agree.

 

Generally speaking...

I think it is natural instinct to protect the physical weaker gender, pretty much has to be that way or we would be extinct. Proven fact Men respond differently to a female in distress than they do a Male, many squad leaders will not operate with a Female as they feel they put the entire squad at risk. They will abandon training to revert back to natural instinct and the enemies know this and will use it to their advantage.

 

Objection to every rule...

Some women are more than capable to hold their own and if not better then some men. I wouldn't say that there best place is making more patriots... that's kind of shitty thing to say. For example in the revolution war them women did everything they could to support the efforts from emergency combat medics to keeping us fed, without them no way we would be where we are and thats much more than them birthing patriots :) 

 

Personally speaking...

I would rather serve with a women than a flaming gay man. is he more combat capable? probably better physically equipped but i'll take the women any day in any situation.. I'll carry her gun for her until she needs it if i had to.

 

I love women, I love them for their differences they can do a lot that men cannot and this should never be seen as a weakness! it's by design so when we work together we are unstoppable.. we compliment each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patriot factories?....  while I agree with some of it.  Women can fight and we train our group to have everyone fight thats willing.   While I dont expect my wife to don 50lbs of gear and get to the front line.   She is more then capable of running a pistol ar or larger and hitting what needs to be hit.

 

 

 

I do want to add the ... health as a issue.  Myself this year I gained 20lbs and its sucks and I feel it when I run.  What I am going say is that males before you thump that chest make sure you're not getting winded going up a flight of stairs.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only problem people have with my post is the phrase "patriot factories"??? Seriously? Would you guys FEEL better if called them "future mothers of patriots?" Or something else? Or should just refuse to mention the fact altogether because saying women should be mothers is "oppressing" them?

 

The fact that everything about females, from the way their brains are wired, to their pain endurance levels, to their very bone structure, TO THEIR DNA ITSELF...revolves around making children. That this is a fact...DOES NOT...simultaneously...mean...that that's their ONLY purpose! Obviously!

 

And really? Women can do something truly extraordinary that men ABSOLUTELY CANNOT. Period! That ability is a little too valuable to waste on the front line firing a rifle, getting shot at, and massively risking permanent crippling injuries to her hips and femurs! Also, for EVERY female patriot capable of having children that loves the constitution and wants america to survive that dies or is rendered unable to have children because they were wounded...there goes several future patriot children right along with her.

 

Again...MEN. CANNOT. HAVE. CHILDREN. You know what this means right?

 

Women can do something men cannot. This is obviously, objectively, factually true. If you have a problem with this fact, then you're a moron. Now reverse the positioning of the words "men" and "women." Men can do something women cannot. Is there suddenly a problem with this sentence?

 

Because if so, you're a sexist, and also a moron.

 

Stop this crap. Women are objectively a liability in combat. The only time women should be fighting in combat is when combat forces itself upon her. Females should NEVER seek it out. This DOES NOT MEAN that they shouldn't be ready for combat, or that they can't fight! Gaaah!

 There's obviously exceptions to every rule, but males and females are NOT equal in ability! Obviously! This isn't complicated!

 

 

 

 

"Let's put women on the front lines, just like the Left wants us to do!"

 

...If the Left agrees with an idea it's almost certainly a bad one. Dangit guys! Don't you realize what the left has done, and your doing the very thing they programmed you to do? God DID NOT make men and women equal! This is why Satan tempted eve and not adam. This is why those two got different punishments. It's why eve has an extra rib. It's why men tend to look more stern and women more caring. On and on.

 

Btw, I'm 31. A millennial. I've done a hard reject of the Left in it's disgusting entirety, and if everyone else did too, this world would get massively better overnight.

 

I'm so sick of this "much more than being a mother" crap! Seriously??? What job is more important than being a parent????? What's more important THAN MAKING A NEW HUMAN THAT LOVES FREEDOM FROM A BUNCH OF FOOD AND WATER??? Stop with the stupid feminism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...