Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps. The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. You are currently reading a thread in /b/ - Random
There's this law since 1996, the Violence Against Women Act. It expressly forbids anything that anyone with an imagination could consider domestic violence. Influence her religious beliefs? Felony. Force her to have kids, or prevent her from having kids if she's retarded and wants them? Felony. Withholding money from her, even if the reason is that the checking account is overdrawn? Felony.
There is this law since 1964, the Civil Rights Act, specifically title VII, that prohibits workplace discrimination, including making hire/fire decisions based on among other things gender.
Therefore, there is no need for a feminist movement. In the US, women are protected. They are fucking covered.
You sound like my brothers lazy useless wife. She cant cook, cant clean, wont care for her child, wont work, lived with me rent free for 2 years and did nothing till I threw her out. Now she whores herself out to everyone to live and my brother got his kid. What did she get nothing Good riddance.
Let me help you ma'am >I walk over to the femanon >delicately place right hand on her left shoulder while placing left hand in hers, gently escorting her out. >The fear washes over her face like waves on a beach of what I'm about to do >She takes a deep breath, panick begins to set in. >I slowly, meaninfully reach for the door. >My hand reaches the door knob >Her knees are about to buckle >My penis goes Super Sayain >The other men in the room stare, sweat dripping from their brow. >I open the door >It is so quiet you can hear a fly fart >All the other men begin to violently unleash their sperm onto nearby walls >AND WITH ONE SWIFT MOTION I WHISPER IN HER EAR....It was my privilege ma'am
>>528821726 >"We want equality!" >demand right to become front-line infantry >congress agrees >door now open to women >women fail basic entry-level PT tests >cry >demand standards be lowered to mend bruised vagina ego "EQUALITY!"
>>528823241 >in muzzie country >infantry unit comes under fire >female "soldier" captured >gets raped, because no one outside of the West gives a fuck about feminism >feminists/women activists get on TV and shriek >"OMG WHY DIDNT THE MILITARY DO MORE TO PROTECT THIS PROUD WOMYN!!!!!!"
You fucking wait and see if that doesn't happen. It happened when that pogue chick got nabbed in Iraq during the invasion. Feminazis didn't blame the Arabs, they blamed the military.
>>528823836 They don't want role reversal. They want female privilege. They want everything delivered at their feet, work/labor-free, because they were born with a vagina. They think that because they have a damp slit they shouldn't have to work or do anything productive, should never have their views challenged, should never be told they're wrong, should never have any social interaction unless they deem it to be absolutely necessary, and that anyone who is not like them should worship their very existence. Meanwhile, they should also have absolute social mobility and be able to live/do/be anything at any time, regardless of education or merit, and that all reproductive decisions should be left to them forever.
And all of this stems from the fact they were treated as "princesses" growing up.
Feminism is nothing but privileged suburbanite women hitting adulthood and realizing the world will not kowtow to them. And instead of adjusting to this new reality, they freak out with impotent anger and rage because there's no longer any magical omnipotent patriarchal figure (their father) giving them everything they want for free, anymore. So now that there's no more free ride from daddy, they look at all male members of society and say "I want more free stuff!! Now!!!!!"
>>528823882 You missed the point, like all feminists do.
They weren't mad about being NOT being infantry. They were mad about the door being closed to them. Now that it's open, barely any of them are going through. They hated an idea, rather than the practical reality of actually serving, refusing to put their money where their mouth is.
And of the few that DID try to get in, almost all of them failed. They couldn't pass the PT tests that any fat asshole redneck from middle-of-nowhere USA could pass, once again proving men and women are not biologically equal and that feminists should shut the fuck up. But instead of shutting the fuck up, they're now demanding PT scoring for women be LOWERED so that more of them can get into infantry.
It's not about them actually working and achieving that goal. It's about the bar being lowered so they can pretend they accomplished something when they fucking didn't. And all the regular infantry units out there are going to have to eventually put up with sniveling whining angry little women who can barely lift their own rifle, because they want to feel like special snowflakes. People are going to die because of feminism.
>>528825595 You're complaining about women being in the military, I'm sorry, you have no point so please STFU. I didn't even read past the second part.
Hurr durr, these women complained that they weren't allowed to die for their country, hurr durr, evil feminists. The bar having to be lowered or not lowered is a different topic. But the original post I was responding to was in the format of "first they X, now they even Y" which somehow implies that X is bad. X in this case was them arguing that they weren't allowed to join infantry. Are you agreeing with him that feminists should've never complained about not being able to join the infantry? PS, don't imply I'm a feminist you scumbag.
>>528827317 I didn't read it because you already had a false premise, which was that somehow them being mad that the closed door to being infantry wasn't a bad thing. Why should I listen to the rest of your argument when that's completely hypocritical bullshit. >complain about women not joining the military >women fight to join the military >complain about women joining the military See son, that's just some infuriating shit. Forget about feminism and male rights, when you're anti-logic and change goal posts then I'm not on your team.
>>528828000 We keep giving people equal rights they keep asking for more, sooner or later they try to take power and control us. Because the above poster was correct no one wants equal rights or treatment they just want to change the rules to make life easy on them and hard on everyone else. I say fuck them all if that's the way it is let them suffer.
>>528828046 Wasn't me that wrote it, and why I laugh is becaus you h e no idea what that post says because you didn't read all of it, maybe you should read all of that before you get auto pissed because someone has different views than you, mam
>>528827070 >You're complaining about women being in the military, I'm sorry, you have no point so please STFU What a commanding counter-argument.
Feminists demand the door be opened. Then it is. Barely any women apply. Those that do overwhelmingly fail. Feminists demand bar be lowered to preserve special feelings. If it is, unfit female soldiers will join the infantry and get people killed.
It's not that hard to understand.
>don't imply I'm a feminist I don't have to. Given your lack of logic and completely crazy rambling response, it's painfully obvious you are.
>>528823241 >women in front line >fighting arabs from uglyasfuckistan >entire squad gets captured >rape.jpg >feminazis screaming >"We will fight this war ourselves, we dont need help from men." >All feminazis then bring their rape whistles to their mouths and blow >Squad hears this call >All of their vaginas start swelling >Arabs flipping their shit >The vagina flaps grow bigger until they are like extra legs >DoctorOctopussy.wtf >The vagina flaps gather all of the arabs together >hold them there >Squad starts screeching pro-women rights and stupid banter >Arabs heads explode from the sheer stupidity >Squad is ok, back in Amerifuck >Man goes to congragulate >All women retreat >Man follows them home >Fumbling with keys >Man picks them up >"Let me get that for you" >Women starts crying, begging for him to stop. >Opens the door >"Why did you do that?" >"It was my privilege."
>>528828595 I can guess, some shit about them lowering the military standards being bad? At the same time while telling me "I don't get the point", when my argument has nothing to do with the lowering of military standards. You don't get the point, retard. I read the rest of the argument, out of all the stupid terrible shit that feminism does, you pick the least damaging to society. Women should join the military, just because the way they don't do it is perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable. You guys fight about women not dieing for their countries while expecting the same amount of respect, which is completely understandable. But then you start fight about them dieing for their countries, and that's where it stops being logical.
>>528829019 Exactly. >Feminists demand the door be opened to the military A couple of years ago, wasn't this the big argument, that feminists never fight for responsibilities like joining the military? This is a complete 180. So given your tendency to be a hypocrit, you're more of a feminist than me.
The only people unfit female soldiers will get killed by being unfit is themselves.
>>528830365 first rule in military, you fight for your fellow soldier. You leave no man behind. If a girl can't drag 90KG of a male on her shoulders to safety, how is she going to save her fellow soldier.
>>528830570 She's not, and she shouldn't be relied on, and she will probably get killed, injured and raped. And then she'll have my respect just like any other soldier who was killed or traumatized on the battlefield for either being too weak or in the wrong situation.
>>528830570 Oh, and the other thing, more combatants on your side (such as when women are in the military) = higher chance of victory for you. You don't pick a fighting strategy and then pick the people who are good at that strategy for your military, you find the people who are willing to die for their country and then figure out the best way to keep them alive.
>>528830696 but surely they already get off easy without being bitches..
guys work so hard to get hot girls with their piles of cash.. so men are basically letting chicks get off easy because they dont look for an intelligent woman with her own money, they just look at how hot she is.. so bitches dont think they need to do shit for themselves. they just think about making themselves look hot so rich faggots fall for them..
>>528829813 No one says women should not be in the military. They just shouldn't be in any grunt capacity. They're overweight, under-trained, under disciplined, and their personalities aren't broken down in BCT like male recruits are. Again, because of female vagina privilege. While the men are doing night marches, the girls barracks is tee-heeing around in their underwear taking selfies for Facebook.
At the end of the day, who is capable of marching ten miles uphill in 120 degree weather with 100lbs of shit on their back, and then fight a 48-hour battle with no sleep or food? Spoilers: It's not fucking women.
And yes, lowering standards is probably the worst, most crippling change you can make to the military. If you don't think so you're a fat retard. No grunt wants a 200lb suburbanite entitled blob in their squad who can't even haul their own gear just so some twinkle twat stateside can feel special and make Tumblr macros about it. Putting females in with the infantry is a fucking terrible idea, and even female soldiers know it.
>>528831513 Tell that to the other people that died because their teammate was unfit, while you at it tell the dead men's families. Its a soldier's job to be fit for duty if he is not he is a disgrace to his unit and a liability.
>>528830365 Jesus christ you're retarded. No one operates independently in today's military. Everyone works as a team. When you have a team member PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF DOING HER PART, it endangers the whole team.
What happens if a squad takes shrapnel, and the only one left standing is Private Crazycooch? Is she going to be able to drag them out of fire to a waiting pararescue team? Of fucking course not.
Why do you think so many women fail out of infantry? Because they can't do basic shit like that. Lowering the standards will only make it worse. You're an absolute moron if you can't grasp that.
>>528831749 You can't blame women for not being willing to die for their country, then blame them for willing to die for their country. And turning away people based on their capabilities isn't a good idea, unless they're actively going to cripple the batallion (like being an alcoholic or kleptomaniac) it's just stupid. If you've ever agreed to that "never forced to die" (and I know you have) for your country pic, but this is your position then you're just not giving women any chance of being respected. I'm sorry, I'm anti-feminist, but my position isn't women are pieces of shit no matter what they do. That's yours.
>>528832571 Have you ever tried to carry a 200lb man while being shot at? I am willing to bet the answer is no. A woman is in most cases not physically capable of doing so. Now please go back to reddit your ignorance is stinking up the joint.
>>528831293 >Oh, and the other thing, more combatants on your side (such as when women are in the military) = higher chance of victory for you.
Dear fucking god. You know absolutely nothing about the military. It's not World War 1 anymore. No one is throwing waves of conscripts into battle.
Today's military is more expensive, more capable, and more specialized. Smaller, tighter, more efficient. Most militaries, INCLUDING the United States, are actually shedding soldiers. We're at 1.7 million right now and that number is going to drop. We only want the best to fill the ranks, not the lowest common denominator. There's actually waiting periods to get in, now. You can actually be disqualified for various reasons. It's not an open door where all they give a shit about is numbers.
Now that being said, why the FUCK would we want worthless females to fill the ranks when you can have strong, college-educated men do the job that women are physically incapable of doing?
>>528832303 >>528832264 >>528831847 Change your fucking tactics, LEARN TO USE WHAT YOU HAVE PROPERLY. I don't care if it was "go in after every soldier" for 1000s of years. More people in the military = higher chance of winning. If they want to die, how about you don't stand in their fucking way? Make all female batallions, don't go in to save somebody who died because they weren't able to do what everybody else could do.
In the Royal Navy, overweight women are allowed to serve on board ships. This one woman had to sign a waiver stating that in the event of a hull breach/flood, she must wait last until everyone else had cleared the compartment because she was so fat she couldn't fit through the kidney hatch without compromising water tight integrity. When the shit hits the fan, you just know that fat bitch is gonna stampede through everyone, get stuck, and have everyone killed. Diversity.
>>528833290 >We only want the best to fill the ranks, not the lowest common denominator. There's actually waiting periods to get in, now. You can actually be disqualified for various reasons. It's not an open door where all they give a shit about is numbers. Yeah, why? That's retarded. Give me 1000 females vs 100 men any day. Numbers do win fights, and there's more than one way to win a fight than "pull something 90kg".
>>528833294 Sorry I prefer to live rather than have teammate who will get me or themselves killed. I guess I am just heartless, you know the whole not wanting to die or watch my friends die. To make some stupid cunt feel better about herself.
>>528833391 >she was so fat she couldn't fit through the kidney hatch without compromising water tight integrity That's fucking bullshit. Unless she's some kind of super genius, they can find someone else to do her job and kick her ass of the ship.
>>528832596 You're dodging and dodging and dodging and continuously refusing to address the central point:
Why should anyone let women join the infantry when they're physically incapable of being an infantryman? Why should the standards be lowered to let women into the infantry when all that will amount to is more dead soldiers?
You can pretend to be "anti-feminist", but when you say shit like >but this is your position then you're just not giving women any chance of being respected It's obvious you're a retarded feminist. Not only do you NOT address the central points being stated, but you're trying to attack me for pointing out the reasons why its a bad idea to lower the standards.
Your argument is >"The standards should be lowered so females can get in and die, and if you disagree you disrespect womyn!!!!"
So basically, for every 30 men that get through training, there'll be one female applicant. You want that female applicant to get in NOT because she passed the PT standards that the men were held to, but because she has a vagina. And you think this is a good idea out of a fucking convoluted belief that this will somehow be a good thing because it will get feminists killed.
Newsflash: There's not going to be a Womyn's Battalion. These fat under-trained dykes will be put in with the men that actually passed their training and didn't get shoed-in due to their genitals, and will then promptly get those men killed because she won't have any idea what the fuck she's doing, nor will she be capable of doing any of it even if she knew.
Stuff like this: >>528833163 Absolutely proves to me you have no idea what you're fucking talking about. Wounded are DRAGGED. Not CARRIED. Women get drummed out of infantry because they can't even fucking DRAG A GUY.
>>528833294 >More people in the military = higher chance of winning No. It's better to have good soldiers than to have a lot of soldiers. Women can be good soldiers, but they just have to work harder to get to the same fitness standard as men.
>>528834438 There's not going to be more dead soldiers because there will be more soldiers. More soldiers = more chances of survival for any one of those soldiers. You don't seem to understand that the way things are done take into the account the amount of infantry and their capabilities, given that there are 1000 soldiers, the demands for them are X. Given that there are 2000 soldiers, the demands for them are Y. You think the military is lowering the standards knowing this will get MORE people killed? That's exactly what the military is for, it's to get people not killed. >>528833163 And this guy, isn't me. >>528834487 You know how tae-kwan-do was invented? It was a civillian martial art for uprising, they purposely trained in high-kicks because they didn't have horses and the kicks were meant to kick soldiers off horses. You use what you have because warfare is the most flexible thing there is, and no matter how small or weak you are, what seperates you is your will to fight and creativity not your ability to fit rigid standards.
>>528833294 >Change your fucking tactics, And here's the crux of the feminist argument. Here's why you are dangerous. You want the ENTIRE FUCKING MILITARY to change the way it operates, disregarding centuries of accumulated know-how and field-expertise, in order to make yourself and a token few others feel better about your gender, and in the process getting thousands of people needlessly killed. Just more blood sacrifice upon the altar of "equality", I guess.
Women are not biologically equal to men. They never have been. They never will be. The reason women fail entry into the infantry is because they are physically weaker. No amount of PC bullshit is going to change biology. I suggest you deal with it.
>>528833783 >Numbers do win fights Not joking, not being sarcastic here. You are actually retarded.
>>528834495 We should stop discriminating against stupid people >let people with IQs of <50 become astronauts >let them go into a shuttle with other people >let them inevitably do their job wrong, because they AREN'T RIGHT for it >let them get everyone in the shuttle killed because they made a mistake >these deaths are justified because they were done in the name of equality This is what you're saying.
>>528834936 Ok, and how will that get you killed, because she can't pull YOU out of the line of fire? That's you getting you killed, not her getting you killed. Or because you chose to run back to save her because she's too slow to get out of the line of fire in a reasonable amount of time? Again, that's YOU getting YOU killed. That she spots the enemy faster because she's simply looking in another direction, that she's carrying extra ammo so when you run out she can give you more, that she can call for a medic when you get hit? That's her saving your life.
>>528835380 Because a quadriplegic could make a good soldier if he really wanted to be? We can't just give every random fuck who wants to kill foreigners a place in the military. There needs to be a set of standards to ensure some kind of quality control.
>>528834495 first, it is not respectable going to fight only to die, it's the same as suicide... second, even if a men don't treat she differently from other soldier when in action he will abid by he's instinct (protect those who are fighting with him or run) and when this happens he will protect the female first or more than the others, because it's our nature we are programed to do this by nature, and has be seen exemples if soldiers that where teammed with females and become useless when the female is killed, such is the instinct psicology. and I know someone will rage about this... women should be in the military? sere, if they can do what is necessary to be a military. should they be acepted if inapty? no, for the same reason anyone will not be acepted for a job he is not capable to do.
>>528835498 No, I want the military to change their tactics because if you're somehow losing more when you have more people. Then you really need to rethink wtf you're doing. Being physically weaker does not mean you will lose in a war. Having less people, more cowards, worse technology, and stupider strategy is what makes you lose in a war. This isn't UFC. >>528835680 No, we shouldn't, but when there's another, better way to get the job done then you should do it that way. When you have more people working towards one goal, that goal should in theory be accomplished more efficiently. >>528835558 I mean percentage wise, you're less likely to get shot when there are more people to notice if someone's a threat. You can clear areas faster. There's more backup in case 1 part of the system fails. >>528835558 ^Read that.
Let's flip your logic. Let's say some dumbass female private gets shot by Muslims. All the male members of her squad are perfectly fine. She's screaming at them to save her life, but then they tell her they can't drag her to be medevaced because that would be touch-rape and would violate her rights as a stronk independent womyn. So she bleeds out and dies.
According to your logic, it would be her fault for being there and getting hit, not the men's fault for being unable to drag her to safety.
>>528836563 You seem to be under the impression that there's some kind of shortage of soldiers. We aren't even making use of all the enlisted, able-bodied soldiers we have now. Why would we lower the entry standards so we can have a greater amount of less useful soldiers we don't even need?
>>528836462 Not an argument. >>528836456 How is her not being there at all a better option? >>528835680 No, this isn't what I'm saying. >>528836034 Can't read this much because there's too many people disagreeing with me.
>>528836563 You are completely ignorant of what you speak, your words are hollow and fall on deaf ears. Go educate yourself on the points you wish to argue before posting here. Some times it is best to remain quiet and look stupid that to open ones mouth and remove all doubt. For you this is one of those times.
>>528837121 I never said this. >>528837019 Why aren't we using all the able-bodied soldiers? It's not like there isn't shit to do. >>528836848 I AM! Damn it, that's exactly it. If there's a line of fire, and it's 300 feet, and everyone else gets out alive because they could run 300 feet in 10 seconds. But that one soldier, who takes 18 seconds gets hit, let them die.
All of these complaints you guys have could easily be solved with an all female batallion.
>>528837183 >How is her not being there at all a better option? The better option is to instead put one of the military's many available able-bodied soldiers in her place. If the weak woman gets in, she's going to get put on someone's squad, to the detriment of that squad. If she doesn't get in, then a good soldier will be put into that squad instead of her.
>>528837651 >It's not like there isn't shit to do. Every military decision has to be carefully weighed for its financial and political consequences. The President won't just say "TERRORISM IN IRAN" and send the entire U.S. military force there, because a lot of other countries would not like such a show of force. Name something you think our military should be doing.
>>528837728 Putting an able-bodied soldier where you need to be means taking an able-bodied soldier away from where able-bodied soldiers are needed. So yeah, maybe your mission might have a higher success rate, but it's at the cost of other missions and some things might not even be attempted because there's simply not enough man power.
>>528836563 >if you're somehow losing more when you have more people. Then you really need to rethink wtf you're doing. I realize you're probably a teenage girl, but I'll try to explain something to you in baby-terms so you can process it.
In every army on the planet Earth: Quality > Quantity
Back during the Boxer Rebellion, the Chinese would regularly attack the foreigners with tens of thousands of imperial and irregular Chinese militia. The foreigners would often have less than 500 people with them, and most times less than 200. Despite the vast numerical advantage, the Chinese lost almost every single battle. During the Korean war, the South was overwhelmingly outnumbered and outmatched. Yet the North and their Chinese allies lost over a million and a half soldiers and militia, and oh yeah, lost the war.
Numbers mean fuck-all in war.
You speak of things like you know, when it's clear to anyone reading you know nothing. This is why we're not taking you seriously.`
>>528811 You just called a dude a "pig" for his opinion, saying that men have had it " easy for to long". So you mean we have to suffer for your imagined slights? Your the rain feminism gets a bad rep. Shut up, do some fucking research before calling yourself a feminist. You're soilingthe name feminist.
>>528838106 >means taking an able-bodied soldier away from where able-bodied soldiers are needed Do you realize that there are plenty of able-bodied soldiers not even serving right now because the government doesn't have shit for them to do? The military doesn't send a half-strength squad into a mission. If they need more soldiers, they'll have them called in. Maybe your proposal would have merit when we start running out of soldiers, but until then, why not use the best we can?
>>528838007 Figuring out ways to win wars with fewer casualties, searching and seizing more weapons from enemy combatants along with strategically useful areas, rebuilding more infrastructure in the countries we bombed the shit out of so that we don't create more future enemies.
>>528838236 >Numbers mean fuck all in war Please find me any military scholar or general who agrees with you. Just name a few. >>528838483 That's administrative fault, I worked at a scrap factory. There was always shit to do, but half the people stood around. It's like that everywhere.
>>528838575 >Figuring out ways to win wars with fewer casualties Do you think they aren't doing that? And anyway, that's not a soldier's job, military strategists do that. > searching and seizing more weapons from enemy combatants along with strategically useful areas We can't just dump our entire supply of soldiers into Iran. Like I said, that would be a bad political move. >rebuilding more infrastructure in the countries we bombed the shit out of so that we don't create more future enemies. Not really the military's job, and we can't babysit our former enemies any more than we already have.
>>528837651 Here is a piece of advice. We have a board named /k/ - weapons. It's full of military personnel. Go there, start a thread asking for stories of actual combat or opinions on women in the military, whatever, just get informed before you state stuff about a field so vaste and complicated as military tactics.
>>528838745 I disagree, if you need a soldier to do something it just come down to if he can do it in the best, I'm from a military force and have see women that are as good as men in many areas of expertise and can act as good as anyone in it.
>>528838845 I'd say most of the time, but not all the time. Everyone tells me lil wayne is a good rapper. >>528838650 What's the problem, if the policy of the military isn't and doesn't have to be as aggressive as with a few gun-ho soldiers who are on a razors edge because they're always out numbered.
Women already fought for their right to work and vote and do whatever the fuck they want.
That's why we want you to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
It's already done and over. You assholes have gone and changed the arguments from RIGHTS to perceived equalities. Now its anything you find offensive, or hurtful, or hindering to your agenda. It's beyond what is right versus what is privilege, it's now about being a bunch of cunts.
>>528839409 No, I'm saying we DO need them. They're just not being sent to where we need them. >>528839359 More soldiers on one side = fewer casualties, and less need for reactive, aggressive tactics and more ability to do pre-emptive, less destructive tactics. More soldiers on both sides = more casualties, which won't happen because 3rd world countries won't let women read let alone join the military. >>528839281 Might do. >>528839278 Sending a bunch of troops >bad political move Rebuilding the shit you bombed >not really our job to be political, y'know
>>528840141 >Rebuilding the shit you bombed >>not really our job to be political, y'know The last place we seriously bombed was probably Vietnam, and we've offered them a fuckton of aid. Are we supposed to just carry all those countries on our back forever?
>>528839202 >Please find me any military scholar or general who agrees with you I don't have to do shit. History is already on my side. If the military agreed with your argument we'd have 20 million poorly-trained conscripts instead of 400,000 dedicated VOLUNTEER infantry.
You're basically trying to hide the fact you lost the argument by forcing people to do fetch-quests for information you won't even read if retrieved. I've seen this tactic before. I'm not playing that game. Your next post will prove numbers convey an advantage, despite the fact every war in the past two centuries having proven you wrong, or I'll consider this as your surrender and acknowledgement you've lost.
Matter of fact, I'm going to drive this point home just to show everyone reading how goddamn stupid you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
Finland: >337,000–346,500 men >32 tanks >114 aircraft
USSR: >998,100 men >2,514–6,541 tanks >3,880 aircraft
Result? Finland buttfucked the Red Army
Casualties: >126,875 dead or missing >188,671 wounded, concussed or burned >5,572 captured >3,543 tanks >261–515 aircraft >323,000 total casualties
>>528840049 So basically, that's just your opinion. >implying most of the time battles where people are outnumbered are usually advantageous for the people with less numbers >>528825584 Where the fuck is this from. >>528839657 I'm not a she, I have no motive to keep arguing something which doesn't benefit me.
>>528840141 >More soldiers on one side = fewer casualties We already have that. Our current military force is larger than all of Iran's, including Taliban forces. But it's more efficient to kill them in small groups over a long period of time than it would be to fly our entire army in and raze the country to the ground.
>>528840867 If history agrees with you then there should be a bunch of observations and conclusions about it from generals. Don't pull out your anecdotal evidence of smaller batallions winning and then claiming that's the general pattern. Conscripts are bad for entirely different reasons than there not being lots of people, conscripts are people who don't want to fight. But more willing soldiers is most of the time a good thing.
>>528840990 When people are outnumbered, they give up quicker. It's intuitive. I don't have a list of wars and battles on hand because I'm not a military general, but neither is anyone in this thread. And no, I'm not a feminist I'm an egalitarian who thinks 1st world white women are the most priviledged group of people alive today.
You still haven't provided any evidence that quantity trumps quality in the military, whereas you've been provided numerous instances where the opposite has been true. I can only assume because you have no evidence, and are merely talking out of a "MY FEELINGS" standpoint.
>>528843047 See, I could do that too, I didn't want to start picking and chosing battles because it wouldn't paint the bigger picture. The Anglo-Zanzibar War for starters. >>528843085 People were complaining that women are in infantry which I thought was hypocritical because in all earlier anti-feminist threads people were complaining that women weren't in infantry, so then I pissed everyone off.
>>528843639 >People were complaining that women are in infantry No, people were complaining that women don't have to meet the same standards as men to get into infantry. It's perfectly fine for a woman to be in infantry if she can perform as well as the average man in infantry.
>>528843085 Because some vaginally devastated feminist is mad that men don't want infantry PT standards lowered so a few token dykes can be shoed-in solely for having a pussy, and in the process getting regular grunts killed because those women are unfit and unqualified to be there.
Once this was pointed out, the feminist went crazy and started saying absolutely hilarious shit like if you get shot and the unfit unqualified woman can't drag you to safety, its your fault, and that "more numbers = less casualties" in war. Despite being proven wrong numerous times when someone pulled out stats from previous wars, she refused to accept that evidence and is now demanding scholarly articles at the academic level. Anything to keep her from admitting she's wrong.
>>528843315 Yes, me and you should create a list of battles and compare differences in strength vs number of casualties for about 60 or so battles. >>528843424 No, I'm demanding scholarly evidence that it's militarily wise to have fewer soldiers. From every time I've heard about war, the factors of who wins always include # of soldiers, technology, terrain etc. There's too many times I've heard of people giving up when they're outnumbered in history (thus less casualties). You're right though, I should have scholarly evidence of it.
>>528842428 To your arguments we are fighting wars that rely primarily on small scale tactical and special ops missions now more than large pitched battles. Asymmetrical warfare is the name of the game now son with small squads doing most of the missions. If a soldier, can't keep up, can't carry the necessary equipment and and can't carry or provide physical help for their teammates when they are in danger then that squad is going to fail more often.
Just do a little research and you'll see ever since Nam small scale special ops have been the deciding factors in war. That's how we operate now.
An IED goes off and a teammate is pinned by debris or has had a leg blown out with shrapnel. If the member of his unit isn't strong enough to help him, or is going to greatly extend the time they and other soldiers will be spending in the line of fire that is a huge liability. I think your concept of war and how it is fought, especially with regards to today is completely off the mark
Also the discipline point illustrates that a team working together efficiently is the most important factor in winning. If members of a team cannot sufficiently keep up or perform certain duties the team will suffer in a way similar to an undisciplined team that doesn't react as quickly due in inattention?
>>528844597 Yeah, they stopped fighting because they knew they couldn't win. Because they were losing, because they were outnumbered as fuck. >>528843917 I could only read the summary page because I have to register, even to read it online free. And there was nothing promoting the idea of having a small military size.
>>528844805 >From every time I've heard about war, the factors of who wins always include # of soldiers, technology, terrain etc. Number of soldiers mattered more in the eras before gunpowder. Guns have been the great equalizer for several centuries now. And 10 guys who can fire them good is always better than 100 guys who can fire them poorly. Every war involving firearms has proven it.
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_of_the_United_States_Army
World militaries are shrinking because the need for massive armies is logistically, economically, and strategically worthless. Weaponry has FAR surpassed the need for huge divisions of light infantry. That era ended with World War 1. More men = more bodies, more mouths to feed, more transports needed, more gasoline required, etc etc etc. Why have 1,000 men when 100 men armed with the latest weaponry can out-perform that 1,000? Why have 200 people manning AAA turrets when three guys with a SAM launcher can do the same job much more effectively?
>>528844923 But if you have a generally larger army than there can be more small scale OPs. >>528845729 And I doubt even those are the norm. A common argument for the inability to invade the US through ground force is just that there's too many people who have guns, it's the same principal.
>>528846721 I'd shit in their slick wet ginies and make em call me Big Boy Lafferty until somebody talked. Then I'd put a hollow tube in my ass and put the other end into their puss puss and fart into after eating broccoli and drinking apple juice.
>>528846223 Physical strength =/= tactics you retard, no one is arguing about the women not being able to shoot as well, or that they don't follow orders as well or that they don't know what to do in certain situations. You're all arguing about them not being able to do 1 task, out of the 100s of things you need to be able to do in the military, and saying that it somehow negates the benefits of having an army twice the size. The ability to lift things doesn't make you a good soldier. I think instead of yelling at wtf women can't do on the battlefield you should be looking at what women could do, that needs to be done and that men can't do as easily as women could do. >>528845989 The extra spending from the U.S military goes to cover technological advances because we don't have 2 million willing soldiers like China, not transportation. It's not like a female soldier can't operate a weapon as much as a man can, and it's a bad idea to kill everything and just leave, that's why the US has so many enemies.
>>528847378 Cont'd, there was a segment on the daily show about pre k-school education and how we should put funding in it. In the end there was a general or someone who said one of the biggest problems the military was facing was that they were struggling to learn how to use the weapons because they were too complex and the soldiers needed better education. Women complete secondary school at higher rates than men, they could be more valuable at operating complex weaponry.
>>528843639 This whole started when someone said that feminists complained about not being allowed in the infantry, but when they were allowed barely any women even joined, proving that feminists are just whining cunts and you completely missed the point. It's still going because you can't admit you're wrong.
>>528847378 They have to be able to run, get into position and move with 50-100 lbs of gear and ammo on them. There's a reason that there were physical requirements to get into the military in the first place. It's not some arbitrary thing that they came up with you dolt.
You are being raped in this debate and you are making it too easy. It's like you're getting wasted drunk and flashing your vagina to a bunch of niggers in the middle of the ghetto, and judging by your desperation to prove your unthought out arguments you're probably going to blame us for not arguing less logically so that it's a more even playing field.
>>528847873 Lol. Great. When they can't even get into position carrying 50+lbs of equipment to fire at the target in the first place that won't even make a difference. R maybe we should just make one of her squad mates have to carry the extra weight and call it equality,
>>528828046 Women can be in the military, no beef there. Not all of them are shitbags and even then, there are some who can out pt even the toughest rangers.
However, those women are in the extreme minority, and bleeding heart feminist vagina bullshit has effectively changed combat related positioning and policies based on the complaints of those extreme minority.
Ive been an infantrymaz for nearly ten years, with multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm telling you right now, that if I were shot or otherwise incapacitated, there is no female soldier, or athlete on this planet that is physically,mentally or emotionally capable of carrying my dead weight, fully geared, as well as her own mass and gear, the required distance it would take to save my life. Multiply that to the effective size of the infantry and you just lost whatever war were fighting next.
Leon panetta even said outright in a briefing with my commanders, "oh were fully expecting this to fail. Were just tired of hearing about it"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-hero-project/articles/2014/01/07/lowering-standards-for-female-marines-is-not-gender-equality.html I'm going to sleep, but lastly, this is what I'm talking about. The military isn't 100% about physical fitness, if you don't need it why implement it so stringently just because that's the way it's always been. But women in the infantry don't somehow magically make the infantry weaker as a whole. And you can't be mad at feminists for not wanting to do the dirty jobs, then when they offer to do the dirty jobs be mad at them for doing the dirty jobs. That's just hypocritical and there's 100s of other more important things wrong with feminism other than the military angle.
>>528847378 >Physical strength =/= tactics you retard, The Israelis were outnumbered during that war and won because of tactics and technology, which you just got done fucking admitting, destroying your own goddamn argument. Now you're back-peddling to save face. You are the biggest fucking retard to walk the Earth.
Oh and the IDF put the women into their own separate outfit because they sucked and caused casualties among the regular men. I bet you didn't know that, did you?
>>528848269 Feminism is not about equality. Egalitarianism is about equality. Egalitarianism has existed FAR longer than feminism. Feminism is about putting down men to lift women up. Blame, shame and ridicule = Feminism
>>528848269 And before that you argued that they never complained about not having certain luxuries that men do, like not being expected to join the military. And when they finally do you just hate them anyway, that makes no sense. If all feminists did was "complain" they wouldn't be a problem. Feminists take away rights from men and that's the problem.
>>528848807 It's not 100% about it but it is still an important factor. If they can't carry the heavy gear that they have to the squad is going to sacrifice maneuverability which is especially important with the small squad tactics that our military relies on today. There's a reason there was a physical requirement. It isn't some archaic tradition of the past. It relates to very real needs for soldiers so that they can adequately perform their duties in the field.
>>528849215 Anecdotal? How is it anecdotal that the military says that one of the biggest problems the military is facing is not being academically skilled enough to keep up with the technology? No one's saying, we shouldn't have to lower the academic testing of the infantry just because men don't do as well in school. It's the same argument and just because you can lift 50 extra pounds doesn't mean you can do jack shit when it comes to operating the complex machinary which the US military loves the fuck out of to win it's wars.
>>528848764 >there is no female soldier, or athlete on this planet that is physically,mentally or emotionally capable That's kind of a stretch. They're certainly uncommon, but I'm sure such women do exist. Women have held warrior roles in the past.
>>528850774 Just wondering (off-topic) how much does your weapon weight with a full clip, what it is, and how much you weight in regular clothes. Canadafag so never held a real weapon and just wanted to know.
>>528850387 I'm actually really sorry I derailed a perfectly anti-feminist thread. But anti-feminist threads are becoming just purely women hating threads, and that's disgusting. >letting women get custody of children all the time >false accusations of rape ruining the lives of innocent people >forcing someone to take care of a child they didn't consent to >giving women more jobs because of how they look >4x more homeless men, same for mental illness yet there's no help centers for those people >you got raped as a man? suck it up >not being persecuted for pedophelia But that faggot choses the one thing that feminists did right to complain about.
>>528851450 But the original post said they shouldn't have complained to join the infantry, which is wrong. The second thing I totally agree with, we should pressure women to serve their country and "not be such a faggot pussy" as much as we pressure men.
>>528851882 >>"We want equality!" >>demand right to become front-line infantry >>congress agrees >>door now open to women >>women fail basic entry-level PT tests >>cry >>demand standards be lowered to mend bruised vagina ego >"EQUALITY!" You mean this one? I repeat, you completely missed the point.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.