|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Jun 16, 2011 9:47:06 GMT -5
Well, according to LHM's logic, anyone outside of white Christian males should be shuffled off into their own neat little units.
After all, a homophobe who functions fine in a military where homosexuality is banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having openly gay soldiers. It "creates drama".
A racist who functions fine in a military where black people are banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having black people around. It "creates drama".
LHM, the entire train of thought is bigoted. All you're concerned about is maintaining the status quo, regardless of the current situation's impact on others. To hell with what the women want so long as the men get to keep doing what they wanna do.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 9:47:35 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. I think your over simplifying the sort of issues we're talking about here. Remember, we're also talking about combat situations... sending people home to think about what they've done isn't exactly an option.Right. You can't change human natuire, you can only try to make allowances for it, which is what I'm trying to do. First of all, I never said anything about banning anyone from the military. Next... gay men are different, because of the percentages. You don't get the same highschool angst crap in a unit with a couple of gay guys as you do in a unit where 10 blokes are chasing the same girl. You just don't. Why? Couldn't tell you, but thats the way it works. But you did. You said the world's best. Not one of the world's best, the world's best.[/quote]Because, subjectively, I believe it is. Frankly I wasn't expecting a semantic inquisition over it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 9:48:38 GMT -5
Well, according to LHM's logic, anyone outside of white Christian males should be shuffled off into their own neat little units. After all, a homophobe who functions fine in a military where homosexuality is banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having openly gay soldiers. It "creates drama". A racist who functions fine in a military where black people are banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having black people around. It "creates drama". LHM, the entire train of thought is bigoted. All you're concerned about is maintaining the status quo, regardless of the current situation's impact on others. To hell with what the women want so long as the men get to keep doing what they wanna do. This doesn't relate to anything I have said, even remotely. Maybe you should go back and read what I said, rather than making assumptions and putting words in my mouth? If women want to serve in combat units, great. More power too them. Just not in the same units as men, below about, say, company level. |
|
|
|
Post by Ranger Joe on Jun 16, 2011 9:50:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on Jun 16, 2011 9:52:18 GMT -5
Well, according to LHM's logic, anyone outside of white Christian males should be shuffled off into their own neat little units. After all, a homophobe who functions fine in a military where homosexuality is banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having openly gay soldiers. It "creates drama". A racist who functions fine in a military where black people are banned shouldn't be forced to deal with suddenly having black people around. It "creates drama". LHM, the entire train of thought is bigoted. All you're concerned about is maintaining the status quo, regardless of the current situation's impact on others. To hell with what the women want so long as the men get to keep doing what they wanna do. This doesn't relate to anything I have said, even remotely. Maybe you should go back and read what I said, rather than making assumptions and putting words in my mouth? If women want to serve in combat units, great. More power too them. Just not in the same units as men, below about, say, company level. Except that's exactly what you just said, yourself, right there. "Sure, women can serve, but they can only serve in the special women's groups. They get pink guns!" |
|
|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 16, 2011 10:07:30 GMT -5
... 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. And if it weren't for the woman riding shotgun for Rookie, he would be more perforated as he was hooking his tow truck to a broken vehicle. LHM, I am really trying to see any kind of logic in your point. I really and truly am. And it seems to be this. If we let women serve in forward deploying combat units (infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers, and the like) unit cohesion would suffer due to an element of drama that is not currently present. Am I close? Before I address your point, I want to make sure I understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 10:19:07 GMT -5
Actually, the 3 main pieces are. M1A1, ASLAV and M113. Its the crews that make them world beaters. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 10:20:27 GMT -5
... 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. And if it weren't for the woman riding shotgun for Rookie, he would be more perforated as he was hooking his tow truck to a broken vehicle. LHM, I am really trying to see any kind of logic in your point. I really and truly am. And it seems to be this. If we let women serve in forward deploying combat units (infantry, armor, artillery, combat engineers, and the like) unit cohesion would suffer due to an element of drama that is not currently present. Am I close? Before I address your point, I want to make sure I understand it. Thats pretty much it. Note I never said women shouldn't serve in front line units though, just not the same ones as men. Have at it. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 10:33:43 GMT -5
This doesn't relate to anything I have said, even remotely. Maybe you should go back and read what I said, rather than making assumptions and putting words in my mouth? If women want to serve in combat units, great. More power too them. Just not in the same units as men, below about, say, company level. Except that's exactly what you just said, yourself, right there. "Sure, women can serve, but they can only serve in the special women's groups. They get pink guns!" You're reading things into it that I'm simply not saying. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jun 16, 2011 10:34:21 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) What about the Scottish regiments? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 10:38:28 GMT -5
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) What about the Scottish regiments? Well... once... In all fairness... the British Army and all its regular regts are very good. But they run into the same issue as the sepos, i.e. they have a large enough population base that they can afford to invest less in training. I would put the house hold division in the top grouping though. Although they're borderline special forces, rather than regular forces en mass, which is really what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Jun 16, 2011 10:42:04 GMT -5
Actually, the 3 main pieces are. M1A1, ASLAV and M113. Its the crews that make them world beaters. 59 M1A1 (without depleted uranium layers in armor) 700 M113 255 ASLAV That does not make a "world beaters", no matter how good the crews are. |
|
|
|
Post by scotsgit on Jun 16, 2011 10:50:57 GMT -5
What about the Scottish regiments? Well... once... In all fairness... the British Army and all its regular regts are very good. But they run into the same issue as the sepos, i.e. they have a large enough population base that they can afford to invest less in training. I would put the house hold division in the top grouping though. Although they're borderline special forces, rather than regular forces en mass, which is really what I'm talking about. The army has taken one hell of a pasting thanks to the efforts of Bliar and friends (the idiots who thought that the RAF Regiment should no longer be used for air defence, no really), but the Scottish regiments are still giving a good account for themselves - this despite the British gov't (Bliar, Brownnose and Cameron) all doing their utmost to fail to support the troops in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 10:57:04 GMT -5
Actually, the 3 main pieces are. M1A1, ASLAV and M113. Its the crews that make them world beaters. 59 M1A1 (without depleted uranium layers in armor) 700 M113 255 ASLAV That does not make a "world beaters", no matter how good the crews are. *sigh* against a similar number of OPFOR. Is there a reason why I'm the only person on thios site who isn't allowed to make slight generalisations? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jun 16, 2011 11:00:24 GMT -5
Well... once... In all fairness... the British Army and all its regular regts are very good. But they run into the same issue as the sepos, i.e. they have a large enough population base that they can afford to invest less in training. I would put the house hold division in the top grouping though. Although they're borderline special forces, rather than regular forces en mass, which is really what I'm talking about. The army has taken one hell of a pasting thanks to the efforts of Bliar and friends (the idiots who thought that the RAF Regiment should no longer be used for air defence, no really), but the Scottish regiments are still giving a good account for themselves - this despite the British gov't (Bliar, Brownnose and Cameron) all doing their utmost to fail to support the troops in any meaningful way. Yes, we have a labour government here, who for a long time have had a policy of reducing the ADF to an offensive capability on par with the Salvation Army. I feel your pain. I'm not saying the Scottish Regts are BAD. I don't think any British regiment is bad. I just think, generally speaking, that, all other things being equal, the average Australian soldier is better than the average British soldier. That doesn't mean I don't think the average British soldier is still trained and integrated exceptionally well. |
|
