And if they have been through training and shown themselves to be physically and emotionally capable of carrying out their duties?
As for being able to trust your fellow soldiers because of their morals and values, how close to your own does someone's morals and values have to be? Do you think that the millions of soldiers in our army agree on all moral issues?
When I was in? Yes. That was my personal experience with my Platoon, Company, and Battalion. We were all pretty much on the same page.
What is that based on? All the female soldiers I know (some of them from the US) are just as capable as their male counterparts. They HAVE to be, or they wouldn't have made it to the field.
When I was in, women had their own "special" physical requirements. For example, the women had relaxed times on the run test, had fewer sit-up requirements, and fewer push-up requirement. They could even do push-ups with their knees touching the ground. I wonder why?
Originally Posted by firechyld
I find your use of the word "trust" to be rather odd...
Why? I am being honest. When I was in, we all felt that way about women and all felt that way about the prospect of soldiering with homosexuals.
Originally Posted by firechyld
Would you feel the same way about a soldier you knew to be cheating on his wife? Or a soldier you knew to be living with a non-marital partner?
Yes. I actually knew a few of soldiers who were cheating on their wives and it bothered me. I know of two soldiers who were court marshalled because of this. I admit that the deception made me wonder what else they were capable of being dishonest about.
Maybe if we get enough homos in the military, all we will have to do is threaten to send them over seas, and our enemies will be so grossed out they will surrender.
Do military homos qualify as biological weapons?
There's the dilema in many affrican nations where their military, due to both homosexual behaviour and immorality, are being decimated by HIV/AIDS. Granted most of africa is being so decimated but the point is that such things make a country impossible to control. You can say that such is not an issue with "protection" but it really is. Despite the fact that it would be relatively easy to question the effectiveness of such "protection" in acts that would be carried out there's the added problem of creating an appetite that is nigh impossible to turn off. All you need is some logistical break down and you can't get the so called "protection" to those that have their hormones raging (and terribly mis-directed). It wouldn't take much for our military, if it was ever to openly permit and/or encourage such behaviours, for the spread of deadly STD's to quickly travel through all those who engaged in such acts.
I talked to an old vet one time that worked at an infirmery at a base in Japan during and shortly after WWII, he said the things they had to be witnesses to would have made just about anyone who was unsure about what course they wanted to take with regards to their sexuality to become stringently allegient to the ideals of marital fidelity in a heterosexual relationship. Seeing such sites of deformed, rotting and afflicted flesh, in first person, on a day to day basis, would be some true abstinence before marriage, and fidelity after, education.
"For a man to be great, he must not dwell on small things, though he may enjoy them."
Thy mind, O Man, if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation must stretch as high as the utmost heaven, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss. Thou must commune with God.
And then there's the problem of permiting such things to be open when our troops are in, and likely to remain in, lands where many of the people see our civilization as the Great Satan precisley because we are permiting of things such as adultry and homosexual behaviours.
So do they. They don't publicize it and they kill the offenders. What makes you think these "people" you're talking about are more morally pure and upright than we?
You're joking, right? Women don't even have to meet the same physical standards as men in the U.S. military.
Physical standards, in both Australia and America, change according to both the sex and age of the applicant.
Physical standards, however, are not the only measures of capability. My statement still stands.
I don't have a problem with them performing in a support role, because frankly, a lot of the jobs in the Army don't require someone to have the physical strength or endurance that is needed in a combat job. But to pretend that most females would be capable of performing a combat role, such as infantry, just as well as most men is unrealistic.
I disagree, and say it depends on both the man and the woman being tested. Not all women will perform to the standard of all men... but not all men could outdo all women.
Most women, at least in our culture, do not have the same "killer instinct" that most male soldiers possess either (and to suggest otherwise would be ignoring reality).
I suggest you spend time with more feminists.
Of course, there are exceptions to both situations (physical and mental), but as a rule of thumb women differ from men in these instances.
Of course there are exceptions. In the men, as well.
What Would Cthulhu Do?
He who knows one religion knows none. - Max Muller
That's the kind of liberal thinking that leads to being eaten! - Principal Snyder, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the rest! - Kang as Bob Dole, The Simpsons