Seriously folks, ever since they started to let the weaker sex into the military we have not been able to win a war. We did great in WW1 and WW2. But after that once they started to let more and more girls in, we have not done so well. Look at the military right now, bogged down by a bunch of 3rd world country heathens with home made bombs and 20 year old rifles.
Who else is with me on this? Our military has gone soft becuase of all the women in its ranks.
2007-07-07 19:38:49 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I for one HAVE served and I would say they should be banned unless they can meet the male standards and the same would be expected of women, IE no sitting around and letting the men do everything, no pregnancies or any other bullshit females get away with.
Hmm... a few thumbs down. I guess some people just aren't ok with expecting from a woman what is expected from a man when they're recieving the same pay and benefits.
2007-07-07 20:01:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Weaker my ***... First off get your facts right. Women are not aloud to hold an artillery or infantry MOS. In case you don't know what a MOS is it's your job in the military. So most of the fighting going on right now is still being done by men. Second if you are wondering why we are still In Iraq here's your answer. The only war that the US has ever considered a "loss" was Vietnam, that's because we occupied it not invaded, the same goes for Iraq. Every other war we invaded. Which means, Went in... blew the **** out of everything and left. We never waited around to clean up are mess.
2007-07-07 20:41:23 · answer #2 · answered by broncogal_88 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
WWII lasted much longer than the entire War on Terrorism has. Back then we were fighting a real Army who didn't hide amongst the population and plant only road side bombs. WWII had thousands more casualties than Afghanistan and Iraq combined. It is a different world today, and I believe that to compare both wars and associate its success or failure with the fact that we now have more women in our ranks is wrong. The military knows what it is doing.
2007-07-07 20:05:32 · answer #3 · answered by Sneebs 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I say no unless we send them to the front lines like men are. I served and they get away with more and are held to less physical standards which makes sense but doesn't help anyone when you need to carry out a soldier. The reason why we're getting our ***' kicked by IED's and antique weapons. Lack of technology (which is finally coming up to speed) and lack of common sense. A humvee even fully armored doesn't provide much protection for a soldier. Moderately armored track vehicles like troop carriers would make more sense in protecting our soldiers. . Not to mention Iran is giving them better IED's that are set off by remote and are formed to slice through armor. It don't matter really who is on the front line as long as they can get the job done
2007-07-07 20:14:51 · answer #4 · answered by secretagentman466 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the protection tension is to user-friendly on women human beings and in the event that they choose infantry attempt against roles like men they must ought to fulfill the comparable standards. In te marines men ought to do pull up. women human beings do arm hangs. they are in a position to take longer and do issues greater basic on them. Plus while in te conflict it somewhat is a mans instinctive nature to shelter a woman in any respect costs which might reason men to lose their lives. the guy concerning to the mortar communities? Yeah nicely think of roughly this you're interior the sphere and have been for 3 months your on a hill at evening and this is quiet. All you needs is a woman's touch to sense alive lower back. Yeah this is going to easily reason issues and that i will quit there. undesirable theory
2016-10-01 03:11:44 · answer #5 · answered by dickirson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you were smart enough to actually look at this with some common sense...you would realize that males have just as much right to join as women do...we all have the same opportunities...so NO women have not made out military "go soft".
2007-07-07 20:27:53 · answer #6 · answered by Spiral Out 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
You are the lonely moron to think this way. Since you are probably a Jr. High school dropout, you didn't learn the roles the women had during that era. Don't be hating because you refuse to accept that women are capable of doing things just as well as men do, and 1 of these days, you will thank a woman for saving your life, but since you are an egotistical moron, I hope you can change your thoughts and views, but I seriously doubt that.
2007-07-07 19:59:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
All offence intended, old_one_eye isn't very smart. As i'm sure you've never been in the military, i'll just say this.
Women are not to blame for current military positions of any countries. The current problem with the allied military position is that were using a conventional military to fight a non-conventional enemy.
2007-07-07 19:49:40 · answer #8 · answered by converseidiot 2 · 8⤊ 1⤋
If any thing I wouldn't blame females for making the military weak. I would have to blame our politicians, the soldiers are only the pons of the board game of war. They've been trained to follow rules from the government. So you need to get your facts straight before you try to insult the opposite sex.
2007-07-07 20:06:56 · answer #9 · answered by smiling_cyanide 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is almost the funniest question I have ever seen.
Not only my dad who served in WW2 and most of my relatives always talk about the female WACS and etc that they met as helping them thru the worst time of their lives.
Ask a Vietnam vet about the nurse that held their hand.
A military nurse saved my life when I was in the Service. Her name was Leslie Waters.
2007-07-07 19:56:33 · answer #10 · answered by Milmom 5 · 7⤊ 1⤋