|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 5:39:24 GMT -5
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? Nope. Per capita, best soldiers in the world. (Being as objective as possible, I accept that the Gurkhas, IDF and the French Foreign legion are around about on a par) |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 16, 2011 6:22:48 GMT -5
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. Call me crazy, but if male soldiers are expected to maintain discipline and composure in a firefight, I hardly think it's too much to ask that they behave in a civilised manner around female soldiers. You are correct though that there isn't enough information to conclude definitively one way or another, at least for a modern army (although it does seem to point to women soldiers being a good idea), so claiming it most definitely will bring down the quality of the army as you did is a little bit silly. 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. I personally don't think the average soldier is anything special compared to the rest of the world. I will say that the ASAS are right up there with the best, even by special forces standards. The average grunt though, are just average. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 16, 2011 6:34:19 GMT -5
Sooo... basically you don't have proper citations to back up your claim and it's all patriotic dick-waving. Is that what you're trying to say, LHM?
Also, if a soldier cannot behave himself around female soldiers I shudder to think how he behaves around female captives or the female locals or the females he has rescued from the enemy.
Your remarks about how females shouldn't be in the military because men can't control themselves is the same argument that fundies have.
I repeat: fuck you.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 6:46:42 GMT -5
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. Call me crazy, but if male soldiers are expected to maintain discipline and composure in a firefight, I hardly think it's too much to ask that they behave in a civilised manner around female soldiers. You are correct though that there isn't enough information to conclude definitively one way or another, at least for a modern army (although it does seem to point to women soldiers being a good idea), so claiming it most definitely will bring down the quality of the army as you did is a little bit silly. See, you might think that, but experience shows diffewrent. Now, I know this is anecdotal... but when I was in Iraq, I had to charge 4 of my guys with AWOL. You know why? Because they jumped the fence to go and pick up. In... IRAQ... think about that for a second... these young guys were so desperate to score, they went out, by themselves, with no support, in a place where the locals are known to kidnap and behead soldiers. Further, under combat conditions, I'd have no problem writing any of those guys up as the very model of combat effectiveness and soldierly discipline. Think about, say, footballers. Now, I'm no sports fan, but credit where credit's due, the NRL guys are disciplined as hell. But not a week goes by you don't hear about yet another sex scandal for some footy "legend". Young people, particularly young people who are fit and healthy, do stupid shit if they think they can get away withg it. Its just a fact of life. 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. I personally don't think the average soldier is anything special compared to the rest of the world. I will say that the ASAS are right up there with the best, even by special forces standards. The average grunt though, are just average.[/quote][/quote] And what are you basing this on? FYI Australian basic and corps training is longer and harder than most other nation's militaries, as is our pre-deployment training. Our results on the battlefield speak for themselves. For example, we won our bit of Vietnam, and Iraq and Somalia. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 16, 2011 7:14:30 GMT -5
See, you might think that, but experience shows diffewrent. Now, I know this is anecdotal... but when I was in Iraq, I had to charge 4 of my guys with AWOL. You know why? Because they jumped the fence to go and pick up. In... IRAQ... think about that for a second... these young guys were so desperate to score, they went out, by themselves, with no support, in a place where the locals are known to kidnap and behead soldiers. Further, under combat conditions, I'd have no problem writing any of those guys up as the very model of combat effectiveness and soldierly discipline. Think about, say, footballers. Now, I'm no sports fan, but credit where credit's due, the NRL guys are disciplined as hell. But not a week goes by you don't hear about yet another sex scandal for some footy "legend". Young people, particularly young people who are fit and healthy, do stupid shit if they think they can get away withg it. Its just a fact of life. So don't let them get away with it. If they're found to be sexually harassing female soldiers, give them a dishonourable discharge. Better yet, increase the male:female ratio to 1:1, that way the females will have the numbers to hold their own against such idiots. And what are you basing this on? FYI Australian basic and corps training is longer and harder than most other nation's militaries, as is our pre-deployment training. Our results on the battlefield speak for themselves. For example, we won our bit of Vietnam, and Iraq and Somalia. I'm basing it largely on history. Yes, Australia won its share of battles, in some cases against some rather impressive odds, however, you can say the same about pretty much any other country. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 7:23:09 GMT -5
Sooo... basically you don't have proper citations to back up your claim and it's all patriotic dick-waving. Is that what you're trying to say, LHM? Also, if a soldier cannot behave himself around female soldiers I shudder to think how he behaves around female captives or the female locals or the females he has rescued from the enemy. Fuck you right back atcha. I never said females shouldn't be in the military. I heartly encourage women to be in the military. I hope one day my daughter follows in my footsteps and joins the Army. My mother was in the airforce. Further, I happily accept that a woman who passes the requisite tests and standards is going to be equally combat effective as any similarly trained and equipped man. Indeed, I seem to recall reading somewhere recently that female fighter pilots score better in most exercises than their male counterparts. I just don't think men and women should co-deploy in the same unit, because it adds extra distractions and difficulties to an already difficult situation. But no no, by all means, mischaracterise my point as a sexist one, rather than attempting to understand some one else's POV. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 7:27:36 GMT -5
See, you might think that, but experience shows diffewrent. Now, I know this is anecdotal... but when I was in Iraq, I had to charge 4 of my guys with AWOL. You know why? Because they jumped the fence to go and pick up. In... IRAQ... think about that for a second... these young guys were so desperate to score, they went out, by themselves, with no support, in a place where the locals are known to kidnap and behead soldiers. Further, under combat conditions, I'd have no problem writing any of those guys up as the very model of combat effectiveness and soldierly discipline. Think about, say, footballers. Now, I'm no sports fan, but credit where credit's due, the NRL guys are disciplined as hell. But not a week goes by you don't hear about yet another sex scandal for some footy "legend". Young people, particularly young people who are fit and healthy, do stupid shit if they think they can get away withg it. Its just a fact of life. So don't let them get away with it. If they're found to be sexually harassing female soldiers, give them a dishonourable discharge. Absolutely. But we're not discussing sexual HARASSMENT here. My concern is about the entirely consentual stuff.Um... and how do you plan to do that without conscription? I mean, sure, it would probably work, having a 50/50 ratio... but where are you going to get the extra female soldiers from? [/quote]History is largely what I base my claim on... the fact that we seem to win more than our share of battles, when compared to other countries' militaries. We fight above our weight. This is acknowledged by every other military I've come into contact with, and its out there on the net. Of course, subjectivity, so its not something one can really "prove". |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 16, 2011 7:45:14 GMT -5
Absolutely. But we're not discussing sexual HARASSMENT here. My concern is about the entirely consentual stuff. As long as they can stay disciplined in combat, I fail to see the problem if it's consensual. Yes, I do realise it can lead to drama, but again, if either one or all parties involved can't keep it under control, then separate them or if need be, dishonourable discharge. Um... and how do you plan to do that without conscription? I mean, sure, it would probably work, having a 50/50 ratio... but where are you going to get the extra female soldiers from? I never said they had to be evenly distributed across all units. Maybe as many 50/50 units as female numbers will allow, with the rest staying all male. History is largely what I base my claim on... the fact that we seem to win more than our share of battles, when compared to other countries' militaries. We fight above our weight. This is acknowledged by every other military I've come into contact with, and its out there on the net. Of course, subjectivity, so its not something one can really "prove". Australia is a first world country and as such the military is going to be of a high standard in terms of equipment and training, so of course it's going to be above average. My main gripe is claiming that Australia is THE best in the world, when as you just said, it can't be proven (assuming it's true in the first place). |
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 16, 2011 7:52:07 GMT -5
History is largely what I base my claim on... the fact that we seem to win more than our share of battles, when compared to other countries' militaries. We fight above our weight. This is acknowledged by every other military I've come into contact with, and its out there on the net. Of course, subjectivity, so its not something one can really "prove". Fight above our weight? The only times the ADF has 'fought above its weight' is when Americans have been doing the heavy lifting. WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, all these times time the US military has done most of the work. And just because other soldiers think Australian soldiers are good doesn't mean the ADF is the (or one of) top fighting force in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 7:57:00 GMT -5
History is largely what I base my claim on... the fact that we seem to win more than our share of battles, when compared to other countries' militaries. We fight above our weight. This is acknowledged by every other military I've come into contact with, and its out there on the net. Of course, subjectivity, so its not something one can really "prove". Fight above our weight? The only times the ADF has 'fought above its weight' is when Americans have been doing the heavy lifting. WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, all these times time the US military has done most of the work. And just because other soldiers think Australian soldiers are good doesn't mean the ADF is the (or one of) top fighting force in the world. The Americans do most of the work, because there are more of them. However, on a pound for pound examination, (as much as one can do such a thing given the subject) Australians outfight Americans. Again, we won our bit of Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans in similar situations lost theirs. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:00:35 GMT -5
Absolutely. But we're not discussing sexual HARASSMENT here. My concern is about the entirely consentual stuff. As long as they can stay disciplined in combat, I fail to see the problem if it's consensual. Yes, I do realise it can lead to drama, but again, if either one or all parties involved can't keep it under control, then separate them or if need be, dishonourable discharge. I wonder why it is necessary to make it a potential problem in the first place. Again... where you going to get the extra female soldiers from? [/quote] We're better than other developed countries. Our training is better, and the finished product is better. This is largely due to the nature of the ADF, i.e. its very small, and has to do a lot of work, therefore it is most effective if individual soldiers are better trained, rather than training more of them. The Americans, on the otherhand, (or Indonesians, or Chinese, or Indians etc) have the mainpower available to use 5 soldiers to each of our one. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 16, 2011 8:06:25 GMT -5
Sooo... basically you don't have proper citations to back up your claim and it's all patriotic dick-waving. Is that what you're trying to say, LHM? Also, if a soldier cannot behave himself around female soldiers I shudder to think how he behaves around female captives or the female locals or the females he has rescued from the enemy. Fuck you right back atcha. I never said females shouldn't be in the military. I heartly encourage women to be in the military. I hope one day my daughter follows in my footsteps and joins the Army. My mother was in the airforce. Further, I happily accept that a woman who passes the requisite tests and standards is going to be equally combat effective as any similarly trained and equipped man. Indeed, I seem to recall reading somewhere recently that female fighter pilots score better in most exercises than their male counterparts. I just don't think men and women should co-deploy in the same unit, because it adds extra distractions and difficulties to an already difficult situation. But no no, by all means, mischaracterise my point as a sexist one, rather than attempting to understand some one else's POV. It's the same damn thing! You're segregating the fucking military. It's the same thing no matter how you spin it. I don't care if you're talking about segregating the males and females for deployment. It's the same thing. You're STILL saying that males can't control themselves around females. If you segregate the military you might as well be saying women shouldn't be in the military. You know the reasons for segregating the military for blacks and whites? The idea that black men couldn't control themselves like white men could. Just admit you're sexist deep down just like all the other little bigoted ideas you have that you refuse to admit. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 16, 2011 8:07:14 GMT -5
I wonder why it is necessary to make it a potential problem in the first place. If someone can't keep their drama under control, they're not soldier material. Simple as that. Again... where you going to get the extra female soldiers from? I didn't say extra, I said as many 50/50 units as the current numbers will allow. We're better than other developed countries. Our training is better, and the finished product is better. This is largely due to the nature of the ADF, i.e. its very small, and has to do a lot of work, therefore it is most effective if individual soldiers are better trained, rather than training more of them. The Americans, on the otherhand, (or Indonesians, or Chinese, or Indians etc) have the mainpower available to use 5 soldiers to each of our one. I know that, my point is that it doesn't mean Australia is objectively #1 in the world. It's one of the best in terms of quality, but THE best, can't be proven even if it is true. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jun 16, 2011 8:07:47 GMT -5
LHM, I'm going to do some research on women in Canada's army, to get the exact stats on harassment, battlefield performance, etc. I'd do it now, but I have to leave for work soon, so hopefully I can get back to you on this one later on today.
As it stands, I can tell you that women in combat is treated as very unremarkable up here, to the point where I was surprised when I first learned that the US and other first world countries don't permit women in those roles. I mean, I live in Calgary -- arguably the most conservative of the major cities in Canada -- and even here, you'll still find a ton of people who support women in combat. It's also treated as old news in the media. I can't recall having seen all that much about it in the media, aside from the usual "History of Women in Combat" documentary pieces.
Of course, that's anecdotal. I'll try to get some solid data later on.
|
|
|
|
Post by largeham on Jun 16, 2011 8:10:16 GMT -5
The Americans do most of the work, because there are more of them. However, on a pound for pound examination, (as much as one can do such a thing given the subject) Australians outfight Americans. Again, we won our bit of Vietnam. Similar numbers of Americans in similar situations lost theirs. Per capita quality does not mean that the ADF is a better military force. Also, Australian artillery, armour and navy are quite inferior. Being small allows the ADF luxuries other armies don't have. Also, the Americans barely lost any military engagements in Vietnam (though I do recall an ex-Vietcong/NWA soldier saying that the only troops they feared were Australians, but that doesn't mean the Americans were outfought). |
|
