The end of Australian military superiority

[Dragon Zachski]

[citation needed]

[Shane for Wax]

I am so upset I'm breaking away from using Kate Moennig to use Ruta instead:

[Dragon Zachski]

Oh, and also...

/me stares at lighthorseman again before turning to someone else and twirling his finger by his ear again

[tolpuddlemartyr]

Stick to what you're good at LHM. The world is round.

Now prove me wrong!

[Art Vandelay]

Lighthorseman, can you at least point to some proof that fully integrated units have decreased combat effectiveness? Maybe a study of another country's military that has allowed integrated units or some such. If you're going to claim that integrated units are less combat effective, then you need a little more evidence than simply your own speculation if you want to be taken seriously, especially when the other side actually has evidence (Canada's army has not suffered any drop in quality since integration).

As for Australia being "best in the world", again proof would be nice. In fact, show me that Australia has the world's highest overall kill/death ratio of any country in the world. I know it's not a perfect indicator, but I'd consider it adequate to at least prove you're basing your position on something factual rather than patriotic dick-waving.

[lighthorseman]

Jun 16, 2011 0:22:14 GMT -5 Oriet said:

Jun 15, 2011 23:56:47 GMT -5 lighthorseman said:

I thought my point was pretty clear. I believe that integrated male female units will be less combat effective than single sex ones.

Why? Because men can't keep their penises in their pants?

Wanna know what the proper course of action if that is the case? You discharge the soldiers that lack the discipline to control themselves, and allow the ones that can to serve. In this case (or at least by your argument) it would mean dishonourably discharging the men that make unwanted advances and allow women to serve. Any course of action besides that is sexist, made even worse by the fact you refuse to admit the possibility of it being so.

Right, because that sort of action has worked so well in, for example, the US Army *rolls eyes*

[lighthorseman]

Jun 16, 2011 0:23:10 GMT -5 Keiro said:

LHM:

You are being stupid. Others have posted evidence of integrated forces elsewhere.

I think that makes your point entirely moot. And worthless.

Please drop it. You're just making my brain hurt. And I really hate when that happens. -_-

Seriously, you're making points that're ridiculously easy to be shown as erroneous.

Um... I never said there weren't fully integrated forces elsewhere, did I?

[Yaezakura]

You're essentially saying that what should be some of the most highly disciplined people on the planet are not disciplined enough to handle people of the opposite gender nearby.

Despite the fact that it's been shown that people in the militaries of other nations are disciplined enough to handle the same situation.

So, which is it? Is the Australian military the "best fighting force on earth" and thus able to work under the exact same conditions as several other prominent military forces, or are they a bunch of unruly idiots who can't keep their dicks in their pants when a woman is around?

[Shane for Wax]

We're still waiting on LHM's proof of the Aussie military being teh best f0rce evar.

[Yaezakura]

Jun 16, 2011 4:57:53 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

We're still waiting on LHM's proof of the Aussie military being teh best f0rce evar.

Oh, I know. The idea is quite laughable, really.

But his two statements in this thread are completely at odds. The Australian military cannot be both the best on earth and unable to cope with having tits nearby.

Because seriously. If you're so distracted by a pair of nearby tits it weakens your combat effectiveness... you are far from the best military force on the planet.

[Shane for Wax]

I don't think LHM knows what he's arguing about anymore. He's got his pants on his head and his mittens on his feet.

[katsuro]

I'm with Nappy. I don't want to sound like I'm having a go at the Aussies (you gotta love the Aussies) but I have to ask - the BEST military in the world? Military superiority...the Australians?? Are you actually joking?

[lighthorseman]

Jun 16, 2011 2:40:42 GMT -5 Art Vandelay said:

Lighthorseman, can you at least point to some proof that fully integrated units have decreased combat effectiveness? Maybe a study of another country's military that has allowed integrated units or some such. If you're going to claim that integrated units are less combat effective, then you need a little more evidence than simply your own speculation if you want to be taken seriously, especially when the other side actually has evidence (Canada's army has not suffered any drop in quality since integration).
www.warandgender.com/chap2pap.htm Interesting article.

However, I think in general terms, there isn't enough experience of integrated unisex units to draw an objective evidence based conclusion. The Caracal Battalion, for example, doesn't have a whole lot of actual combat experience. I'm interested to find out more details about the Canadian integrated units though, and to what level the integration occurs. I still don't think its a good idea though.

As for Australia being "best in the world", again proof would be nice. In fact, show me that Australia has the world's highest overall kill/death ratio of any country in the world. I know it's not a perfect indicator, but I'd consider it adequate to at least prove you're basing your position on something factual rather than patriotic dick-waving.

Its really not patriotic dick waving. Yes, the "best in the world" in something as broad as the military is going to be pretty subjective, but by anyone's standards, the ADF is right up there.

Here is a very well written couple of discussion points on the topic though. wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_has_the_best_army_in_the_world Obviously we aren't the largest, nor best equipped. However, in terms of quality of soldier, I would put Australian fores up against an equal number of anyone else in the world and expect them to have a better than average chancce of victory, all other things being equal.

[lighthorseman]

Jun 16, 2011 4:54:05 GMT -5 Yaezakura said:

You're essentially saying that what should be some of the most highly disciplined people on the planet are not disciplined enough to handle people of the opposite gender nearby.

Pretty much. Discipline is great and all, but it doesn't trump basic biological urges.

Despite the fact that it's been shown that people in the militaries of other nations are disciplined enough to handle the same situation.

I'm still a bit hazy as to whether that is accurate, actually, until I hear more about the Canadian experience perhaps.

So, which is it? Is the Australian military the "best fighting force on earth" and thus able to work under the exact same conditions as several other prominent military forces, or are they a bunch of unruly idiots who can't keep their dicks in their pants when a woman is around?

Why do you think the two are necessarily exclusive?

Again, yet to see an example of a "prominent military force working under the exact same conditions", though I am prepared to accept they may be out there, and I am not familiar with them.

[lighthorseman]

Jun 16, 2011 5:02:33 GMT -5 Yaezakura said:

Jun 16, 2011 4:57:53 GMT -5 Shane for Wax said:

We're still waiting on LHM's proof of the Aussie military being teh best f0rce evar.

Oh, I know. The idea is quite laughable, really.

Only if you are ignorant about the history of the Australian Army, I would contend.

But his two statements in this thread are completely at odds. The Australian military cannot be both the best on earth and unable to cope with having tits nearby.

Because seriously. If you're so distracted by a pair of nearby tits it weakens your combat effectiveness... you are far from the best military force on the planet.

Right, because the two are so intimately linked *rolls eyes*