combat roles to women?

andreboba said:
That's my point.

Physical fitness isn't what makes someone a capable soldier. Being an MMA level fighter doesn't make you a formidable soldier.

Not one U.S. military commander during the Vietnam War era classified the Vietcong as an 'elite' fighting force. They were rag tag, undersupplied, poorly trained and yet they could not be defeated by the American war machine.

The Afghanis who drove out the Soviet Army weren't elite fighters per man, but they were supplied by the CIA with American shoulder fired stinger missiles than leveled the battlefield.

Weapons and tactics are the bedrock for modern warfare, not the gender or physicality of a particular soldier.

'Soldier' is defined differently in other countries, and the standards are arbitrary.

We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined, and yet we rarely have a tactical advantage on the battlefield. That has nothing to do with whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat. That stat isn't going to decrease if a handful of women are allowed to serve in combat either.

I stand by the comment we haven't faced a real professional army since WW2.(And the Korean War).
Click to expand...


you have got to be shitting me

you mean to tell me all these commanders and trainers, with years of actual service under their belts, have it all wrong by maintaining grueling physical and mental regimens at schools that produce combat troops?

hold the phone..lets forgo all that hard training and send our boys into combat right off the freaking couch

as for the 'professional army since WW2/Korea,' again i'm just in complete awe

the North Vietnamese Army WAS a professional army...

they HAD one of the most ELABORATE SAM networks we ever faced

they HAD logistic capabilities that we COULD NOT stop with all of our bombing and supply interdiction forces

they DID record Air-to-Air kills in jet combat

the list goes on and on

if you think they weren't professional because they weren't all german white guys in perfectly-pressed uniforms and shiny boots and aristocratic tendencies....im shocked

seriously...i just need to know when I can stop LOL'ing
 
andreboba said:
That's my point.

Physical fitness isn't what makes someone a capable soldier. Being an MMA level fighter doesn't make you a formidable soldier.

Not one U.S. military commander during the Vietnam War era classified the Vietcong as an 'elite' fighting force. They were rag tag, undersupplied, poorly trained and yet they could not be defeated by the American war machine.

The Afghanis who drove out the Soviet Army weren't elite fighters per man, but they were supplied by the CIA with American shoulder fired stinger missiles than leveled the battlefield.

Weapons and tactics are the bedrock for modern warfare, not the gender or physicality of a particular soldier.

'Soldier' is defined differently in other countries, and the standards are arbitrary.

We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined, and yet we rarely have a tactical advantage on the battlefield. That has nothing to do with whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat. That stat isn't going to decrease if a handful of women are allowed to serve in combat either.

I stand by the comment we haven't faced a real professional army since WW2.(And the Korean War).
Click to expand...

if I may interject....

Iraqi soldiers in 2003 and the kuwaiti war...Iraq back then. they are professional...may not be good but they are professional.

carry on.
 
pettyofficerj said:
you have got to be shitting me

you mean to tell me all these commanders and trainers, with years of actual service under their belts, have it all wrong by maintaining grueling physical and mental regimens at schools that produce combat troops?

hold the phone..lets forgo all that hard training and send our boys into combat right off the freaking couch

as for the 'professional army since WW2/Korea,' again i'm just in complete awe

the North Vietnamese Army WAS a professional army...

they HAD one of the most ELABORATE SAM networks we ever faced

they HAD logistic capabilities that we COULD NOT stop with all of our bombing and supply interdiction forces

they DID record Air-to-Air kills in jet combat

the list goes on and on

if you think they weren't professional because they weren't all german white guys in perfectly-pressed uniforms and shiny boots and aristocratic tendencies....im shocked

seriously...i just need to know when I can stop LOL'ing
Click to expand...
When are you gonna get it through your thick skull? Height doesnt matter strength and agility dont matter natural testosterine fueled aggression doesnt matter. You just have to BELIEVE you can do it. Dont you ever listen to Journey. Get with it Broad St.
Mofos in Philly smh
 
goodlove said:
if I may interject....

Iraqi soldiers in 2003 and the kuwaiti war...Iraq back then. they are professional...may not be good but they are professional.

carry on.
Click to expand...

if I may interject...

during the initial stages of the second Iraq invasion, General Barry McCaffrey discussed the famed Iraqi Republican guard and how they were the elite troops of the Iraqi Army. He then went on with serious bravado and said that our answer to them, would be our Airborne and Ranger units

evidently these guys were professional enough to make one of our generals say without a doubt, that we would need to dispatch them with our best soldiers

food for thought

carry on :p

The Dark King said:
When are you gonna get it through your thick skull? Height doesnt matter strength and agility dont matter natural testosterine fueled aggression doesnt matter. You just have to BELIEVE you can do it. Dont you ever listen to Journey. Get with it Broad St.
Mofos in Philly smh
Click to expand...

:smt005

if only it was as simple as pulling a trigger
 
pettyofficerj said:
if I may interject...

during the initial stages of the second Iraq invasion, General Barry McCaffrey discussed the famed Iraqi Republican guard and how they were the elite troops of the Iraqi Army. He then went on with serious bravado and said that our answer to them, would be our Airborne and Ranger units

evidently these guys were professional enough to make one of our generals say without a doubt, that we would need to dispatch them with our best soldiers

food for thought

carry on :p



:smt005
Click to expand...

LOL:D

now them mofos are delited/deleted...get it :D
 
andreboba said:
That's my point.

Physical fitness isn't what makes someone a capable soldier. Being an MMA level fighter doesn't make you a formidable soldier.

Not one U.S. military commander during the Vietnam War era classified the Vietcong as an 'elite' fighting force. They were rag tag, undersupplied, poorly trained and yet they could not be defeated by the American war machine.

The Afghanis who drove out the Soviet Army weren't elite fighters per man, but they were supplied by the CIA with American shoulder fired stinger missiles than leveled the battlefield.

Weapons and tactics are the bedrock for modern warfare, not the gender or physicality of a particular soldier.

'Soldier' is defined differently in other countries, and the standards are arbitrary.

We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined, and yet we rarely have a tactical advantage on the battlefield. That has nothing to do with whether or not women are allowed to serve in combat. That stat isn't going to decrease if a handful of women are allowed to serve in combat either.

I stand by the comment we haven't faced a real professional army since WW2.(And the Korean War).
Click to expand...

I must be out of my mind. I have no real reason as to why I still answer your posts. AGAIN, another post that is so flawed I don't know where to begin to answer it.

There is a movie called CHARLIE'S WAR or something like that. It has Tom Hanks as the main character. There was this female socialite who felt sorry for the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Russian's. She looked at them as serious underdogs in that war.

She befriended a Congressman from Texas, Charlie Wilson. She wanted him to do something to help the Afghan rebels. Charlie was the one who supplied them with stinger missiles. The Russians were losing the war. They had lost on every front except in the air where they had attack helicopters that the Afghans had no defense against.

Once Charlie gave them the stinger missiles and they started shooting down Russian helicopters, that's when they packed up everything and left. This was near the end of the war, the Russians was losing except for superior air power.

Stormin' Norman Schwartzkoff, who led the American troops to victory in Desert Storm in 1991, stated repeatedly that you can only win a war with the foot soldier. Superior "weapons and tactics" is NOT the bedrock of modern warfare. Even with America using unmanned drones those still are turning out not to be as effective as having boots on the ground.

In the New York Times, they wrote an article of how the decision was made to use special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden. Vice president Joe Biden and some of the others voted to use the drone to bomb the suspected hide out. They figured this would save American lives by not putting any soldiers in harms way. Obama voted against it. Him and General Mckay put together a plan to send in elite forces. They wanted to make SURE they got Bin Laden.

The Seal Team that went in to get Bin Laden even had camcorders mounted on their helmets. Obama and his executive staff were in Washington DC and was able to watch the assault LIVE on TV as it was happening way on the other side of the world.

Even with "weapons and tactics" like that, it was the boots on the ground that made all of that happen.

AGAIN, I'm having a hard time understanding your post.
 
pettyofficerj said:
you have got to be shitting me

you mean to tell me all these commanders and trainers, with years of actual service under their belts, have it all wrong by maintaining grueling physical and mental regimens at schools that produce combat troops?

hold the phone..lets forgo all that hard training and send our boys into combat right off the freaking couch

as for the 'professional army since WW2/Korea,' again i'm just in complete awe

the North Vietnamese Army WAS a professional army...

they HAD one of the most ELABORATE SAM networks we ever faced

they HAD logistic capabilities that we COULD NOT stop with all of our bombing and supply interdiction forces

they DID record Air-to-Air kills in jet combat

the list goes on and on

if you think they weren't professional because they weren't all german white guys in perfectly-pressed uniforms and shiny boots and aristocratic tendencies....im shocked

seriously...i just need to know when I can stop LOL'ing
Click to expand...

During the Vietnam War the U.S. military faced the actual North Vietnamese Army, professional soldiers who were provided with artillery, firearms and MiGs from the USSR and China. But we also faced rebel/guerrilla forces recruited by the North Vietnamese who had no formal military training. But it's still wrong to say U.S. forces didn't fight professional soldiers in Vietnam.

ArmyRanger made the statement female soldiers would be going up against " elite male forces of the enemy," it was the word 'elite' I had a problem with.
However elite isn't the same as professional soldiers.
The Mujaheddin who fought the Soviets weren't elite soldiers and they weren't professional. Many were foreign Arab civilian volunteers who came to Afghanistan to fight the infidel.

The Afghanis our troops are fighting now aren't professional soldiers either.

Back to the original point, the argument that female combat soldiers need to be equipped to fight 'elite male forces' of the enemy is wrong, because in many cases that's not who American troops are encountering in battle, particularly in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq.
 
andreboba said:
During the Vietnam War the U.S. military faced the actual North Vietnamese Army, professional soldiers who were provided with artillery, firearms and MiGs from the USSR and China. But we also faced rebel/guerrilla forces recruited by the North Vietnamese who had no formal military training. But it's still wrong to say U.S. forces didn't fight professional soldiers in Vietnam.

ArmyRanger made the statement female soldiers would be going up against " elite male forces of the enemy," it was the word 'elite' I had a problem with.
However elite isn't the same as professional soldiers.
The Mujaheddin who fought the Soviets weren't elite soldiers and they weren't professional. Many were foreign Arab civilian volunteers who came to Afghanistan to fight the infidel.

The Afghanis our troops are fighting now aren't professional soldiers either.

Back to the original point, the argument that female combat soldiers need to be equipped to fight 'elite male forces' of the enemy is wrong, because in many cases that's not who American troops are encountering in battle, particularly in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq.
Click to expand...

Its not about who you're fighting now, its more about who you might have to fight later fam.
 
andreboba said:
During the Vietnam War the U.S. military faced the actual North Vietnamese Army, professional soldiers who were provided with artillery, firearms and MiGs from the USSR and China. But we also faced rebel/guerrilla forces recruited by the North Vietnamese who had no formal military training. But it's still wrong to say U.S. forces didn't fight professional soldiers in Vietnam.

ArmyRanger made the statement female soldiers would be going up against " elite male forces of the enemy," it was the word 'elite' I had a problem with.
However elite isn't the same as professional soldiers.
The Mujaheddin who fought the Soviets weren't elite soldiers and they weren't professional. Many were foreign Arab civilian volunteers who came to Afghanistan to fight the infidel.

The Afghanis our troops are fighting now aren't professional soldiers either.

Back to the original point, the argument that female combat soldiers need to be equipped to fight 'elite male forces' of the enemy is wrong, because in many cases that's not who American troops are encountering in battle, particularly in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent Iraq.
Click to expand...

funny...remember that little known group called Al Qaeda?

yes...yes.. they're still alive and ticking..and yes..they ARE considered to be elite forces

how quickly people forget about those guys since Bin Laden's death

[YOUTUBE]n5JEpn5TuEU[/YOUTUBE]

older documentary which highlighted the ferocity of the fighters in Afghanistan...advise you watch and listen to the recounts of the men that fought there

mind you..these were OUR best and brightest warriors, and they STILL got ambushed and beat to hell before coming out with a bloody win

this was just one of the battles in which the enemy in Afghanistan proved to be pretty competent and deadly...youtube is full of clips and helmet cam footage to remind you
 
If you give 100 committed men automatic rifles, they are deadly, I don't know if that makes them elite.
Were Al Qaeda fighters a formidable opponent?? Yeah.
But I think in part that's because of their ideological beliefs(religious fanatics) and their willingness to engage U.S. forces. I don't think they were vicious combatants because of any unique training.

A 'fearless' soldier/enemy combatant is another way of saying someone is willing and in some cases has a desire to die for their cause.

I imagine if you're fighting guys who otherwise would be suicide bombers, they're probably a nightmare to face in combat because they don't let up.
 
andreboba said:
If you give 100 committed men automatic rifles, they are deadly, I don't know if that makes them elite.
Were Al Qaeda fighters a formidable opponent?? Yeah.
But I think in part that's because of their ideological beliefs(religious fanatics) and their willingness to engage U.S. forces. I don't think they were vicious combatants because of any unique training.

A 'fearless' soldier/enemy combatant is another way of saying someone is willing and in some cases has a desire to die for their cause.

I imagine if you're fighting guys who otherwise would be suicide bombers, they're probably a nightmare to face in combat because they don't let up.
Click to expand...

the fact that these guys knew how to properly establish ambushes and killzones meant that they had small unit training. religious ideology and a willingness to die for allah doesn't equate to shooting down multiple helicopters and successfully engaging and maiming multiple special ops groups. these guys are trained and have their own 'boot camps,' which have been targeted/destroyed before

if you think all they do is pray and shoot ak-47s from the hip as they ready themselves to die......i laugh

Al Qaeda forces mirror our own special forces units (which we can all agree upon..are elite) to certain degrees, from acts of terrorism and sabotage, to direct-action engagements as seen in the video i posted

these guys are not half-assed qu'ran thumpers.....stop playin


also...google the '055 brigade' when you get a chance
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/13/al-qaeda-builds-a-shadow-army/?page=all

-"Al Qaeda has reorganized its notorious paramilitary formations, setting the stage for a dramatic come back. Formerly known as Brigade 055, the military unit has been rebuilt into a larger, more effective fighting unit known as the Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army, a senior US intelligence official told me."

-"The Shadow Army also operates in Afghanistan. In July 2008, a unit comprised of al Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizb-e-Islami conducted a complex assault on a US outpost in Wanat in Nuristan province. The force nearly overran the base, and nine US soldiers were killed. This is the largest loss by US forces in a single engagement in Afghanistan to date. "


-"A U.S. Army officer who saw the video observed: “You just watched a full battalion, supported by tanks, break contact after an attack by a supposedly undisciplined, ‘rag-tag’ force of Taliban fighters. For the Taliban to drive off that unit, it has to be organized, disciplined, well-armed, and competent.”
 
pettyofficerj said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/13/al-qaeda-builds-a-shadow-army/?page=all

-"Al Qaeda has reorganized its notorious paramilitary formations, setting the stage for a dramatic come back. Formerly known as Brigade 055, the military unit has been rebuilt into a larger, more effective fighting unit known as the Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army, a senior US intelligence official told me."

-"The Shadow Army also operates in Afghanistan. In July 2008, a unit comprised of al Qaeda, Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Hizb-e-Islami conducted a complex assault on a US outpost in Wanat in Nuristan province. The force nearly overran the base, and nine US soldiers were killed. This is the largest loss by US forces in a single engagement in Afghanistan to date. "


-"A U.S. Army officer who saw the video observed: “You just watched a full battalion, supported by tanks, break contact after an attack by a supposedly undisciplined, ‘rag-tag’ force of Taliban fighters. For the Taliban to drive off that unit, it has to be organized, disciplined, well-armed, and competent.”
Click to expand...
Damn Hammer don't hurt em
 
I think if a woman wants to be on front line, then be my guest. This is not my type of woman anyways, so what happens to her doesn't affect my world. Might even take some aggressive bitches out of the picture.:smt071
 
genuineforce said:
I think if a woman wants to be on front line, then be my guest. This is not my type of woman anyways, so what happens to her doesn't affect my world. Might even take some aggressive bitches out of the picture.:smt071
Click to expand...

Oh snap!!:shock:

BTW pettyofficer, I had no idea Al Qaeda had elite forces that helped provide cover support for the Taliban's regular armed insurgents.

I also wasn't aware of the level of training Al Qaeda volunteers were given in camps on the opposite side of the Pakistani border.

It puts the entire Afghan war in better perspective
 
Last edited:
andreboba said:
Oh snap!!:shock:

BTW pettyofficer, I had know idea Al Qaeda had elite forces that helped provide cover support for the Taliban's regular armed insurgents.

I also wasn't aware of the level of training Al Qaeda volunteers were given in camps on the opposite side of the Pakistani border.

It puts the entire Afghan war in better perspective
Click to expand...

From what I understand is that we trained Bin laden and his forces and supplied them with the tools to fight when we were allies. Thats why I'm trying to drive home the idea that our guys are fighting some hardcore dudes

All you had to do tho was click on that national geographic video I linked

It's a recreation with cheesy effects, but the story is sound and those guys repelled seals and rangers
 
genuineforce said:
I think if a woman wants to be on front line, then be my guest. This is not my type of woman anyways, so what happens to her doesn't affect my world. Might even take some aggressive bitches out of the picture.:smt071
Click to expand...

I'm just going to come out and tell you that I reported this disgusting trash you posted.
 
TheHuntress said:
I'm just going to come out and tell you that I reported this disgusting trash you posted.
Click to expand...

ive seen you report far less inflammatory

just figured i'd come out and tell you that


ive also seen women referred to as bitches lots of time here...they maybe weren't wished to be dead...but still...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom