They Will Ruin Our Military!

[Cow Poke]

Between the 12 of them they have 225 confirmed kills.
775 Confirmed Kills In One Picture

OK, I gotta know.... 225 or 775?

But, yes, that's impressive!

[Raphael]

OK, I gotta know.... 225 or 775?

But, yes, that's impressive!

Ooops, 775, not 225. Fixed (my typo levels are still higher then normal because typing hurts like blazes at the moment)

[Cow Poke]

Ooops, 775, not 225. Fixed (my typo levels are still higher then normal because typing hurts like blazes at the moment)

So sorry!

[Irate Canadian]

Hear me out:

Both men and women should be in the army, however all candidates should pass the basic requirements (that even a man or a woman struggles with). If we drop standards, how exactly are people supposed to be effective in a combat situation?

[Darth Executor]

But, yes, that's impressive!

That only looks impressive until you look at the top male snipers and they're all in the mid hundreds. Sniper kills near the end of WW2 are not particularly indicative of anything anyway since by then both the Germans and Russians were sending young kids into the fray, having run out of grown men to grind up. When you're desperate for manpower in an existential fight it might make sense to send in women but I don't think a modern volunteer military should be informed by that.

[Cow Poke]

That only looks impressive until you look at the top male snipers and they're all in the mid hundreds. Sniper kills near the end of WW2 are not particularly indicative of anything anyway since by then both the Germans and Russians were sending young kids into the fray, having run out of grown men to grind up. When you're desperate for manpower in an existential fight it might make sense to send in women but I don't think a modern volunteer military should be informed by that.

Maybe I should have said "for a girl"

[JonathanL]

That only looks impressive until you look at the top male snipers and they're all in the mid hundreds. Sniper kills near the end of WW2 are not particularly indicative of anything anyway since by then both the Germans and Russians were sending young kids into the fray, having run out of grown men to grind up. When you're desperate for manpower in an existential fight it might make sense to send in women but I don't think a modern volunteer military should be informed by that.

Like for example, who had 505 confirmed kills during the Winter War of Finland.

[Raphael]

Like for example, who had 505 confirmed kills during the Winter War of Finland.

And Lyudmila Pavlichenko

[Psychic Missile]

What you're playing is.

We could be talking about older and younger soldiers or black and white soldiers or gay and straight soldiers or brown-eyed and blue-eyed soldiers

No, it doesn't. This isn't kindergarten. It was agreed that there were plenty of other places women could serve in the IDF, and they worked it out without your help.

Normally, people, including you, would agree that if someone does something wrong, they should face the consequences. In this case, people, including you, are discarding the definition of justice, but for what purpose? This is irrational behavior.

[Psychic Missile]

Hardly. In this case excluding the vast majority of women is the most expedient solution, and many would consider not being assigned to combat a blessing.

It is the most expedient solution and the most convenient solution. It is not a fair or just solution.

[Psychic Missile]

Are you saying an all-women military would be just as effective?

No, I'm saying CP's argument was unsound because it supported the position he's against. His argument was that if a group degrades the unit's effectiveness, that group should be removed. If men are disobeying protocol, they are degrading the unit's effectiveness.

It's not true, my representation of your argument is pretty much perfect. You think women are entitled to being in the military and your entire idiocy is derived from that as anyone can see from subsequent posts, which is why you just give a flippant response instead of actually debating the points.

I do not think standards should be lowered unless they can be shown to be too strict. It is a bad thing for men to disobey orders to protect women because they risk failing the operation and jeopardizing more lives.

[Paprika]

It is the most expedient solution and the most convenient solution. It is not a fair or just solution.

So you say.

[Cow Poke]

We could be talking about older and younger soldiers or black and white soldiers or gay and straight soldiers or brown-eyed and blue-eyed soldiers

We're not.

Normally, people, including you, would agree that if someone does something wrong, they should face the consequences.

You are so totally clueless.

In this case, people, including you, are discarding the definition of justice, but for what purpose? This is irrational behavior.

It is not irrational behavior at all for a man to feel protective of a woman. It is human nature.

[Cow Poke]

No, I'm saying CP's argument was unsound because it supported the position he's against. His argument was that if a group degrades the unit's effectiveness, that group should be removed. If men are disobeying protocol, they are degrading the unit's effectiveness.

If it was because they were gambling, or being lazy, or were acting cowardly, that would be different. They are being real men, and are acting out of a natural protective instinct.

I do not think standards should be lowered unless they can be shown to be too strict. It is a bad thing for men to disobey orders to protect women because they risk failing the operation and jeopardizing more lives.

What orders were they disobeying? Be specific, please.

[Darth Executor]

No, I'm saying CP's argument was unsound because it supported the position he's against. His argument was that if a group degrades the unit's effectiveness, that group should be removed. If men are disobeying protocol, they are degrading the unit's effectiveness.

But it IS the women who degrade the unit's effectiveness. If you remove them from the equation the unit operates at peak effectiveness. If you mix them up the effectiveness drops. If you leave just the women effectiveness drops. The only way your claim makes sense is if both women and men are of equal effectiveness, which would limit the reduction in effectiveness to male behavior.

I do not think standards should be lowered unless they can be shown to be too strict. It is a bad thing for men to disobey orders to protect women because they risk failing the operation and jeopardizing more lives.

It's also a bad thing for men not to stop artillery shells by holding out their hand in their path because they would obliterate them and hurt others around them. It doesn't change the fact that it's a behavior that needs to be overwritten (to the detriment of both the military who has to waste time and money on it and society who has to take these men back in after their service is done) for no legitimate reason.