Should women be allowed in the military?

>>136676271
Whole military are lesbians

Single mothers can still join. Soak your almonds in that.

>>136676271
As if that would make any difference for the US Forces. You are either driving around in humvees through the desert or handling a joystick and consider this being war. At this point the vast majority of your troops are just as good at soldiering as women are. When a real war starts you will put even France to shame with how fast your generals will put up the white flag.

No. Women cultivated in western society do not posses the mentality,maturity or physical requirements to excel in combat. The average capacity of fully grow women from the west is that of a teenage boy at best.

>>136676271
If men can play war, women can too. America is isolated by two oceans there's no country that is a physical threat to the US. You don't need to be a 6ft 200lb man to sit at a desk or cut grass. If you want to get pregnant and die overseas that's your prerogative.

Sure, just keep them the fuck away from any combat MOS.

File: IMG_2621.jpg (158KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 540x720px

Wamen are just as capable as men

>>136676271
Military? Yes.
Active combat? Fuck no.

Well,soldiers would love to have hookers with them all the time.

Yes but only in non-combat roles, or special female only units for tasks where combat is a possibility but isn't expected.

>>136677229
.....at what? You stopped mid sentence

File: 1498157429162.jpg (96KB, 476x566px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 476x566px

>>136677246
>women are fine being in the military
you've clearly never been in the military

File: 1456406699813.webm (2MB, 800x330px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 800x330px

>>136676271
Women are weaker than men and must be kept away from any combat role period

>>136677229
Shut up you sexist bigot. The magazine is fed backwards on purpose because she's firing blanks but if you turn them around they can be used as regular ammo with more destructive force because a blunt object at high speeds does more damage than a blank.

>>136677246
No and no.

No.

>>136677229
I didn't know HK made an LMG

>>136676271
yes .its their turn to die in some god forsaken rice patty

Is that Lauren southern

>>136676271
Yes, no doubt, but if they wish to be soldiers they need to actually meet the criteria, and no, I do not means the pussy version they are getting away with now, but the exact same requirements that men have to do.

Women in the military have to do less push-ups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and pull-ups then men, they also can get away with running shorter distances with slower times and cna pretty much skip most lifting, not to mention the fact that they get let off training early, while the men have to stay and finish. This is a disgrace, and just proves that they are either weaker than men and can not be held to the same physical standards, or are just as capable as men but lack the discipline and mindset need to reach their potential, both of which would make for an inferior version of a US soldier at the end of the day.

Disagree all you like, but once you check the numbers yourself and see how much difference the entrance exam is and standard testing is for women requirements versus the men, you will see it all for what it truly is.

>>136677182
This

>>136676271

Only if you don't have to drop standards.

>>136676271
Yes they should be allowed, but the standards need to be universal. No more lowering standards for women.

The best women I've ever met were military. There were also a lot of ratchet petri dish sluts, leeches, and parasites. Extremes on both ends.

File: 1488828183736.jpg (235KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 960x640px

>>136677229

Totally.

>>136676271

Military brothels and kitchens.

>>136679284
I dont think they need to be held to a higher standard as that simply isnt achievable in most cases. Women are weak.

However I see no issue with keeping men and women in separate platoons. This way commanding officers still know the capability of any teams they send out and can act accordingly.

Plus they could keep the weaker female teams in the defensive positions unlikely to be attacked which gives us more men to actualy attack with.

File: girl shoot.webm (3MB, 696x528px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 696x528px

>4 little empowered girls can't carry one 6ft guys on a gurney. I have seen it.
I ended up being one of 2 guys running back and forward, carrying this dude while they freaked out and panicked.

>not phisically capable
and "sand in my vagina" means they can't got 3 days without showers.

>also, they are over sencitive and file complaints, over any PC bullshit

>>136676271

Yes, but not in direct combat roles.

Women are really good at some shit, like logistics, communication and medicine. They're fucking horrible soldiers though. There's nothing wrong with having them in non-direct combat roles.

>>136679645

>handicapping your military to appease feels

That's where I draw the line.

If they can't meet the standards, they can do a non-combat role.

Period.

>>136677229
Oh shit thats the new super black ops secret LMG that has extremely accurate rounds developed by penis aliens at area 51.

It has normal rifling and the newly developed bullet action flip rifling which makes the rounds spin vertically for super accurate long range shots.

to be honest, i served in the military,and it's my opinion that anyone who hasn't served at all should have no say in who should serve and who shouldn't.
im not jewish my self i was born in ukrain and some people who never served told me that i should not serve because i am from a different ethnicity...these two are not really relatable but the emotional response is,if you do not know what it's like to serve in the military then you have no say who might or might not be qualified
>o..oh the...then children can serve too by your admission!.
except the obvious things like children or handicap people or the mentally ill who should be not given weapons..trust me that i know why

>>136676271
In any support capacity not in direct combat, I don't see why not.

File: images (36).jpg (30KB, 434x339px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 434x339px

>>136676271
No. Only in a separate women's auxiliary that is not involved in fighting.

>>136676271
No, they shouldn't even have jobs. The primary focus for women should be the creation and maintenance of the family. You can either protect the nation or grow it. Anything else leads to the deterioration of society and nation.

>>136680117
female detected

>>136676271
if they can pass the same tests as men then why the fuck not?
no special accommodations, but special restrictions are equally retarded.

>>136676271
If they are able to perform at the same standards and meet the same requirements as males, yes.

No special treatment. You put on the uniform, you are not man or woman, you are a soldier, and the identity politics/special treatment STOPS.

File: 32335666532441.jpg (125KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 900x900px

>>136676410
>

File: 1482754896648.webm (873KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 500x500px

>>136677229
Wrong, women are emotion and have many health factors that make them unfit for combat. Also they are a key weak chain in a enemy structure that is easily exploitable for propaganda and demoralizing enemy soldiers/civilian population.

>>136680603
this picture has always said everything about the inherent differences between men and women

Wämän shouldn't be allowed in the military because they are weak and stupid

>>136680117

But I did serve in the Army. For 8 years.

>>136676271
>Women and men are both equal.
>But having female-only-squadrons fighting and dying. Getting their heads blown off, blown apart, decapitated.
>That would be somehow wrong.
I say, give the feminists and sjws what they want. The only way all of this can end is if somehow, somewhere, women face consequences for the policies they demand.

While you white-knights think you're doing the right thing by protecting them, you're actually making it worse. Like giving free rent to a drug addict, so they use all their neet-bux on weed.

>>136676271
Men go out to fight and die
Woman comfort her man so he's not broken

Woman are and always is a supporter than an attacker

>>136676271
Well, I think a study to find out with army man perform better after fucking a hoe is in order

>>136677229
She looks like Elliot rodger

>>136680427
great argument
here's your (You)

funny story from when i was in AIT, a female soldier got caught on camera fucking two male soldiers behind a vending machine. wish i had access to those tapes :>

>>136680565
that is the easy answer, but in reality I doubt it ever works that way

even if we assume the woman in question is some kind of hypothetical perfect action bitch who won't get scared or w/e you have the problem with how the rest of the unit will react to her being endangered

all I know is I'm glad I'm not in the military

>>136677246
Active combat yes.They do what they want

>>136680805
its not written in stone that people who didn't serve could not give their opinion on the subject its just my view, and besides it was more directed towards OP because I could feel that he has no idea what he's talking about by posting such a straw man question

>>136676271
There should be a small number of women who are active duty and a larger number who are reserve. No women should be in a combat MOS, not even logistics or engineering (excluding air support engineering MOSs), rather they should be in medical, cyber security/EW, law, and a few more I can't think of.

All men should be combat deployable, regardless of MOS.

File: 3__ilmavoimat2_sakuvafi.jpg (292KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

292KB, 1440x900px

Not in military directly but they should serve in something like Lotta Svärd. All the rear non-combat positions so you can relief more men to frontlines.

>>136681135

>Woman are and always is a supporter than an attacker

IDK, I've met a few bad bitches.

Few and far between, though.

>>136676271
Yes, round up all the SJW woman who want equality. Draft them, and send them to fight North Korea.

File: 1497506497603.jpg (25KB, 287x284px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 287x284px

>>136677827
Unrealistic but hot.

>>136676271
>be allowed:

Yes, there are few exceptions where they can perform decently. Though rare, they should have the opportunity.

>drafted:
No, the average is not as good as men for war, and we need someone on the home front