Kill the women first.

[Lucky Bicycle Works]

On the whole "needing to take a piss" thing ... it's a pretty wimpy soldier or astronaut who can't do their duty WHILE pissing their pants.

Someone told you pissing you pants was bad. I'll tell you why they said that. Because it was their duty to strip the piss-soaked garment off you and wash it.

As an adult who has to take their own underclothes off, and wash them, I can tell you: pissing your pants is no big deal. Smelly, yes. But not a threat to health, let alone life. Far less of a risk than crapping your pants, and even that should be considered fairly low-risk compared to, I dunno, getting hit with a rocket-propelled grenade or something.

I would rather that all members of a tank crew piss their pants, than stop in a dangerous situation so one of them can aim into a bottle.

[Virtud Tierra]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

[The Rifle Brigade]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

You claimed it was part of the male psychology, and that it couldn't be trained away.

Now you're saying that its a function of being a soldier? Part of the soldier's training or personality? That means it can be trained to be different.

[The Rifle Brigade]

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

I knew you couldn't stay away.

Would you care to join me for dinner? Then some dancing, perhaps we can have champagne on the Stratosphere Tower?

Then, back to my room where you can try to piss in a bottle with my legs over your shoulders.

[Maurepas]

I almost dont want to say this, but...

Prove a Woman cant effectively piss in a bottle inside a tank.

Come on now, I already have an example of the conditions inside of the tank and makes my point clear of why it is not a simple thing to do. If thought experiments work for quantum physics they work for the physics of pissing in a bottle in a cramped seat, ok?

You want me to show you a picture of a women sitting in the gunner's seat trying to manuvere a bottle to to piss in while her tank commander is resting his legs on her shoulders?

Well sorry, I don't have any pictures like that because there is no such thing as a woman tanker.

The bolded part is untrue...

And, you admit you cant do it...

[Barringtonia]

On the whole "needing to take a piss" thing ... it's a pretty wimpy soldier or astronaut who can't do their duty WHILE pissing their pants....*snip*

Someone told the story of some actor who wanted to climb Mount Everest or somesuch Himalayan mountain. He described sleeping on tent-hammocks trussed up against the cliff. To defecate, one had to inch out onto the cliff, drop trousers and release.

Of course, up high the wind is swirling around at a phenomenal rate so this is all a delicate balancing act.

Well apparently, one of the climbers came back into the tent and soon after people started to notice a smell - what had happened was that the wind had swirled the poo around for a while and back into his hood, which he replaced onto his head having finished - though not sure why it was off, probably for better head maneuverability for looking where he's going.

And there was really precious little he could do about it 15, 000ft up a cliff-face at night.

Not sure why I told that story, your post just reminded me..

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

Seems like your average soldier is somewhat schizo. First they're these wonderful John Waynesque "gentlemen" who are all holding doors and demonstrating courtesty, then they're these uncontrolled rapists who can't control themselves if there's a woman in their unit, then they'd give up their seats for a pregnant woman on a bus, while shooting a pregnant Muslim woman who may, or may not, have a bomb. Either your soldiers protect women or they don't. If they do, then having women serving with them is a non-issue because the respect is already there and serving side by side isn't going to be a problem. If they don't protect women, then we need to get guns and training to protect ourselves from those uncontrolled, uncontrollable yahoos who want to do us violence just because we exist (yeah, I'm not a "dude" I'm female).

[Virtud Tierra]

On the whole "needing to take a piss" thing ... it's a pretty wimpy soldier or astronaut who can't do their duty WHILE pissing their pants.

Someone told you pissing you pants was bad. I'll tell you why they said that. Because it was their duty to strip the piss-soaked garment off you and wash it.

As an adult who has to take their own underclothes off, and wash them, I can tell you: pissing your pants is no big deal. Smelly, yes. But not a threat to health, let alone life. Far less of a risk than crapping your pants, and even that should be considered fairly low-risk compared to, I dunno, getting hit with a rocket-propelled grenade or something.

I would rather that all members of a tank crew piss their pants, than stop in a dangerous situation so one of them can aim into a bottle.

Well, you see it isn't dangerous to piss in a bottle if you are equipped to do so. Granted, its a learned skill and you will piss all over yourself the first few tries, but if the uniform you are wearing is going to be the one you are going to wear for the next 2 weeks straight, its not wise to piss your fucking pants 12 times in a 4-hour shift.

I'd rather piss in a bottle then piss in my pants and it hasn't cost me my life. I'm not sure what state I'd be in if I pissed my fucking pants 24 times a day for 15 months straight, though. I guess probably be some goddamn VA mental institution.

Shit, even if you did piss your pants, it would smell like nothing considering the value of water you pass and the lack of food you eat. It smells no worst then a mountain glacier artisan spring melting in the springtime.

It'd probably start to crust up your uniform and you could expect to have some paperwork filed on you if you just pissed in your uniform for the entire 15 month deployment, on the other hand.

[Virtud Tierra]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

Seems like your average soldier is somewhat schizo. First they're these wonderful John Waynesque "gentlemen" who are all holding doors and demonstrating courtesty, then they're these uncontrolled rapists who can't control themselves if there's a woman in their unit, then they'd give up their seats for a pregnant woman on a bus, while shooting a pregnant Muslim woman who may, or may not, have a bomb. Either your soldiers protect women or they don't. If they do, then having women serving with them is a non-issue because the respect is already there and serving side by side isn't going to be a problem. If they don't protect women, then we need to get guns and training to protect ourselves from those uncontrolled, uncontrollable yahoos who want to do us violence just because we exist (yeah, I'm not a "dude" I'm female).

Yes, everyone knows soldiers are either spotless heros or psychopathic monsters. There is no inbetween. All soldiers can be safely pigeonholed as one or the other, depending on your ideological values. They are not humans, after all.

[Maurepas]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

Seems like your average soldier is somewhat schizo. First they're these wonderful John Waynesque "gentlemen" who are all holding doors and demonstrating courtesty, then they're these uncontrolled rapists who can't control themselves if there's a woman in their unit, then they'd give up their seats for a pregnant woman on a bus, while shooting a pregnant Muslim woman who may, or may not, have a bomb. Either your soldiers protect women or they don't. If they do, then having women serving with them is a non-issue because the respect is already there and serving side by side isn't going to be a problem. If they don't protect women, then we need to get guns and training to protect ourselves from those uncontrolled, uncontrollable yahoos who want to do us violence just because we exist (yeah, I'm not a "dude" I'm female).

Yes, everyone knows soldiers are either spotless heros or psychopathic monsters. There is no inbetween. All soldiers can be safely pigeonholed as one or the other, depending on your ideological values. They are not humans, after all.

So, normal Soldiers arent either, and can be around women without problems?

[The Rifle Brigade]

Yes, everyone knows soldiers are either spotless heros or psychopathic monsters. There is no inbetween. All soldiers can be safely pigeonholed as one or the other, depending on your ideological values. They are not humans, after all.

You're the one claiming they can't be cost effectively trained to fight alongside women.

You're the one claiming that Katganistan's example would never apply with a soldier (I guess you can pigeonhole them as you like).

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

The problem with women on the front lines is their lack of strength. Women are 70% weaker than men in upper body strength and 33% weaker than men in lower body strength.
The "chivalry" effect would also be difficult to overpass. The classic "leave no man behind" thought process would be even more difficult to overpass with women. When male soldiers risk everything to help a female soldier, everything is jeopardized, the mission, the safety of other soldiers, and the safety of innocent civilians. The risks are simply too great for the small amount of help they would provide.

Puhleese. I've been on public transportation. You're telling me that your average can't-be-bothered-to-get-up-for-an-expectant-mother guy is going to throw his life away for a fellow soldier because she's a woman?

That asshole on the bus isn't a soldier.

Seems like your average soldier is somewhat schizo. First they're these wonderful John Waynesque "gentlemen" who are all holding doors and demonstrating courtesty, then they're these uncontrolled rapists who can't control themselves if there's a woman in their unit, then they'd give up their seats for a pregnant woman on a bus, while shooting a pregnant Muslim woman who may, or may not, have a bomb. Either your soldiers protect women or they don't. If they do, then having women serving with them is a non-issue because the respect is already there and serving side by side isn't going to be a problem. If they don't protect women, then we need to get guns and training to protect ourselves from those uncontrolled, uncontrollable yahoos who want to do us violence just because we exist (yeah, I'm not a "dude" I'm female).

Yes, everyone knows soldiers are either spotless heros or psychopathic monsters. There is no inbetween. All soldiers can be safely pigeonholed as one or the other, depending on your ideological values. They are not humans, after all.

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

[Virtud Tierra]

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

Human indeed. What makes you think soldiers, being inheriantly human and flawed in nature are such reasonable creatures as to never be distracted or feel any sort of sexual urge with members of the opposite sex around in an extremely alienating, hostile and stressful enviroment?

You just confirmed my point, where are you going with this chain of thought?

[Virtud Tierra]

Yes, everyone knows soldiers are either spotless heros or psychopathic monsters. There is no inbetween. All soldiers can be safely pigeonholed as one or the other, depending on your ideological values. They are not humans, after all.

You're the one claiming they can't be cost effectively trained to fight alongside women.

You're the one claiming that Katganistan's example would never apply with a soldier (I guess you can pigeonhole them as you like).

Ok, so you are saying if a soldier steps into the killzone to medivac his buddy, he should give up his seat to some woman on the bus? Why are these two totally different situations in completely foriegn contexts be given the same weight, pray tell?

One might have to do with Katganistan's perception of a typical male met on a fucking bus and one is something exclusive to the responsbility of a soldier in his line of work.

[Maurepas]

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

Human indeed. What makes you think soldiers, being inheriantly human and flawed in nature are such reasonable creatures as to never be distracted or feel any sort of sexual urge with members of the opposite sex around in an extremely alienating, hostile and stressful enviroment?

If they cannot contain such urges, they are not mentally equipped to be soldiers...hell, they arent mentally equipped to get a job, or leave the house for that matter...

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

Human indeed. What makes you think soldiers, being inheriantly human and flawed in nature are such reasonable creatures as to never be distracted or feel any sort of sexual urge with members of the opposite sex around in an extremely alienating, hostile and stressful enviroment?

You just confirmed my point, where are you going with this chain of thought?

What did you miss about "should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way?"

Men and women already work together, both in civilian and military situations. It's been working quite well. Those who allow the "sexual urges" to get in the way of doing their jobs are the ones with the problems. Or do you believe that we should do as the more conservative Muslims do and isolate women from men so the men won't be tempted. Do you really think men have that little self-control?

[Virtud Tierra]

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

Human indeed. What makes you think soldiers, being inheriantly human and flawed in nature are such reasonable creatures as to never be distracted or feel any sort of sexual urge with members of the opposite sex around in an extremely alienating, hostile and stressful enviroment?

You just confirmed my point, where are you going with this chain of thought?

What did you miss about "should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way?"

Men and women already work together, both in civilian and military situations. It's been working quite well. Those who allow the "sexual urges" to get in the way of doing their jobs are the ones with the problems. Or do you believe that we should do as the more conservative Muslims do and isolate women from men so the men won't be tempted. Do you really think men have that little self-control?

I never said people didn't have self control, you said that. Thats why the military instills discipline, you know. Setting me up as a strawman isn't helping you. Filling in for what I haven't said, doesn't mean thats what I said.

I said its a distraction. Why do you translate "distraction" as something sinister?

[Maurepas]

You missed my point completely, didn't you. The point is that men and women are "humans" and, as such, should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way. The way you present things makes me think you're the one who has trouble seeing people, particularly women, as human.

Human indeed. What makes you think soldiers, being inheriantly human and flawed in nature are such reasonable creatures as to never be distracted or feel any sort of sexual urge with members of the opposite sex around in an extremely alienating, hostile and stressful enviroment?

You just confirmed my point, where are you going with this chain of thought?

What did you miss about "should be able to work together without preconceived idiocy getting in the way?"

Men and women already work together, both in civilian and military situations. It's been working quite well. Those who allow the "sexual urges" to get in the way of doing their jobs are the ones with the problems. Or do you believe that we should do as the more conservative Muslims do and isolate women from men so the men won't be tempted. Do you really think men have that little self-control?

I never said people didn't have self control, you said that. Thats why the military instills discipline, you know. Setting me up as a strawman isn't helping you. Filling in for what I haven't said, doesn't mean thats what I said.

I said its a distraction. Why do you translate "distraction" as something sinister?

Its sinister because you want to use it to oppress women...In real life, its not a real distraction for normal people...

[Virtud Tierra]

If they cannot contain such urges, they are not mentally equipped to be soldiers...hell, they arent mentally equipped to get a job, or leave the house for that matter...

Well shit, bro, I suppose that means no human being is mentally equipped to be anything if they think about sex. Man, how did evolution take us to this grave, dark place that is the modern human being?

Who said anything about acting on any urges? Quite the imagination you got there, bro.

[Maurepas]

If they cannot contain such urges, they are not mentally equipped to be soldiers...hell, they arent mentally equipped to get a job, or leave the house for that matter...

Well shit, bro, I suppose that means no human being is mentally equipped to be anything if they think about sex. Man, how did evolution take us to this grave, dark place that is the modern human being?

Who said anything about acting on any urges? Quite the imagination you got there, bro.

Then it isnt a problem then, and isnt an argument against women serving in the front lines,

[Ryadn]

Noted, as has been stated, its not a real concern, however,

How is a urinary tract infection not a concern?

So now the reason it's utterly ridiculous to put women in combat situations is... UTIs?

Is anyone else trying to figure out a logarithm for the regression of this argument?

[Callisdrun]

Women can fight, I'm sure they could fight well.

But can they pull a trigger when looking strait into their opponents eyes? Can they pull a trigger even though their target is a women or a child? (It happens, children and women avenge their husband/father by shooting at us, no one wants to return fire but someone has too)

Oh yes. Women are capable of just as much cold-bloodedness as men, and just as much viciousness as well. Besides, women have served as snipers before.

[Callisdrun]

Noted, as has been stated, its not a real concern, however,

How is a urinary tract infection not a concern?

So now the reason it's utterly ridiculous to put women in combat situations is... UTIs?

Is anyone else trying to figure out a logarithm for the regression of this argument?

No, I hate math. I've known for a while now that there's no rational reason not to let women fight.

[Maurepas]

Noted, as has been stated, its not a real concern, however,

How is a urinary tract infection not a concern?

So now the reason it's utterly ridiculous to put women in combat situations is... UTIs?

Is anyone else trying to figure out a logarithm for the regression of this argument?

No, I hate math. I've known for a while now that there's no rational reason not to let women fight.

Its the Irrational ones that take forever to sort out,

[Anti-Social Darwinism]

If they cannot contain such urges, they are not mentally equipped to be soldiers...hell, they arent mentally equipped to get a job, or leave the house for that matter...

Well shit, bro, I suppose that means no human being is mentally equipped to be anything if they think about sex. Man, how did evolution take us to this grave, dark place that is the modern human being?

Who said anything about acting on any urges? Quite the imagination you got there, bro.

Thinking about sex is not the same as allowing sex to control you. You say that I give the term distraction a sinister connotation - well, yes, when men use the excuse that women are distracting to exclude them from their "old boys' clubs" or any activity that could by productive, useful, interesting or "human." War is an unfortunately human activity. Women are involved in it whether they are military or civilian, and have been since the beginning of time. Don't you think it's time that the victimization stopped? In order to stop the victimization of women (and other groups) by war you either need to stop war or allow full participation in it. You cannot have half-measures. You cannot have women continue to be acceptable collateral damage - women either have to fight or war has to end.