|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 16, 2011 8:13:56 GMT -5
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. ....and in War numbers mean something. Best quality, you maybe able to argue that from an overall point of view. Overall superiority, not even close. As you said that ADF is a small force. Larger forces, even not as well trained or equipped, would be able to defeat the ADF. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:19:43 GMT -5
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. ....and in War numbers mean something. Best quality, you maybe able to argue that from an overall point of view. Overall superiority, not even close. As you said that ADF is a small force. Larger forces, even not as well trained or equipped, would be able to defeat the ADF. Of course. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:21:05 GMT -5
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. WTF? So... your going to completely disregard what I say, say I'm saying something else, and then blast me for the thing I never said??? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:22:41 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). Australian armour is the best in the world. No. There is no argument on this topic. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:26:39 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. But don't you see that by adding MORE opportunity for drama, you knock more potential soldiers out of contention? If you have X number of soldiers who are perfectly good soldiers under present conditions, why change the conditions to make some of them unfit? I would also wonder how one goes about determining who is at fault with some of the drama. Who's fault is any given messy breakup? Oh, OK, yes, I think I see what you mean. That could work. Heck, I think I'd even be in favour of that, actually. Too bad they won't do it that way. I never said that OBJECTIVELY, we were. OBJECTIVELY, we're certainly right up there, but I don't think there is an OBJECTIVE "best in the world". |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 16, 2011 8:31:37 GMT -5
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. WTF? So... your going to completely disregard what I say, say I'm saying something else, and then blast me for the thing I never said??? No. I definitely blasted you for wanting to segregate the military. It's there. Saying men and women shouldn't deploy together IS SEGREGATION you thick-headed womp rat. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 8:32:41 GMT -5
WTF? So... your going to completely disregard what I say, say I'm saying something else, and then blast me for the thing I never said??? No. I definitely blasted you for wanting to segregate the military. It's there. The combat units of it, yes. But not for sexist reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 16, 2011 8:34:18 GMT -5
No. I definitely blasted you for wanting to segregate the military. It's there. The combat units of it, yes. But not for sexist reasons. There's something wrong with you if you think segregating males and females isn't based on sexist reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 16, 2011 8:39:33 GMT -5
Australian armour is the best in the world. No. There is no argument on this topic. It seems to be English. It has punctuation and grammar, but all I can read is fap fapfap fapfap. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 16, 2011 8:50:26 GMT -5
But don't you see that by adding MORE opportunity for drama, you knock more potential soldiers out of contention? If you have X number of soldiers who are perfectly good soldiers under present conditions, why change the conditions to make some of them unfit? I would also wonder how one goes about determining who is at fault with some of the drama. Who's fault is any given messy breakup? The person at fault is whoever lets their drama negatively affect their work. I never suggested the military should try to police people's personal lives (that would only end badly), just that it should take action against people who can't keep it to themselves. Besides, as you pointed out already, people who're inclined to be morons on that front will find some way to do so, like for example running off to "cruise for chicks" in Iraq. Besides, what about gay men? They're just as likely to get caught up in such drama as heterosexual men serving with women. Should they be banned from the military for the sake of avoiding drama? I never said that OBJECTIVELY, we were. OBJECTIVELY, we're certainly right up there, but I don't think there is an OBJECTIVE "best in the world". But you did. You said the world's best. Not one of the world's best, the world's best. |
|
|
|
Post by dakotabob on Jun 16, 2011 8:56:50 GMT -5
This thread is why people think Australia was originally a prison colony.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 9:06:16 GMT -5
The combat units of it, yes. But not for sexist reasons. There's something wrong with you if you think segregating males and females isn't based on sexist reasons. Only if you don't know what "sexist" means. Sexist involves the discrimination AGAINST women, does it not? No one is being discriminated AGAINST here. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 9:07:59 GMT -5
This thread is why people think Australia was originally a prison colony. Ifyou have anything constructive to add... feel free. Again, my contention is that mixed gender combat units would suffer from problems that single sex combat units would not. Discuss. If you're just here to rag on me, take it to F&B. Everyone else does. |
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on Jun 16, 2011 9:23:56 GMT -5
There's something wrong with you if you think segregating males and females isn't based on sexist reasons. Only if you don't know what "sexist" means. Sexist involves the discrimination AGAINST women, does it not? No one is being discriminated AGAINST here. No. No. No no no no no. No. Sexism means saying an entire group of people of a certain gender will behave a certain way because they are that gender. Sexism can easily be against either gender, and right now you're not only being sexist against men, you want women to be discriminated against because you think men are weak. What you are saying is akin to "women shouldn't be in the workplace because it will distract the men from getting real work done". Men are incapable of behaving themselves, so let's favor them, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jun 16, 2011 9:46:13 GMT -5
They had military superiority in the first place?
If it wasnt for a female paratrooper medic, Ranger Joe would not be breathing and typing and wondering why the hell the Australians think they have military superiority.
|
|
