Thread: Fighting Females.

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Since the american civil war its been known that only about 5% of soldiers shoot to kill most aim off or just dont shoot maybe the girls can improve on this. Although for military purposes wounding is better than killing it takes alot more resources to look after a wounded soldier than a dead one.

I don't think it comes down to that in battle. Dudes might say they shoot to kill or shoot to wound, but in general combat it's more like shoot to neutralise/stop the threat. If someones shooting at you or posing an immediate threat, you shoot. Maybe you hope to wound only, but that'd be just a hope. Centre of the seen mass or the general direction of the incoming fire in a heated exchange.

Most probably wouldn't know a female was hit until the clearing after (particularly as current enemies all wear dresses no matter what gender!)

In any case, it's us we're talking about do the point about be able to shoot a girl is moot. We won't be shooting our own girls!!

Originally Posted by blitz

also some one mentioned rape? so bloody what? men cope it as well . not nice for either sex - really not nice so what is the issue??

The issue is that rape and war go hand in hand, and it's a fact that considerably more women are raped than men! Even the American military get involved. Rape and murder of the very people they are there to protect.

So is it reasonable to put female front line troops at greater risk than their male counterparts ? Does it matter that women may 'want' to be there or is the additional risk that they would be taking a determining factor ?

Imagine the 'Duty of Care' argument a smart lawyer could put forward in the case of a female front line soldier who had been raped. .............. "yes, Colonel you knew that your female infantry stood a much greater chance of rape (than males), what did you do to lessen this risk"....... A losing argument whatever the response.

Deano

Watched "GI Jane" last night on TV. Pretty lame movie about a woman (Demi Moore) trying to qualify for the US Navy Seals. Interesting theme though - made me think of this thread.

Bottom line was the comment by the Defence Senator that no politician would risk having a woman on the front line - lose too many votes.

Soooo, is it about an individual "rights" or a societies fears?

here is a old photo of a girl that makes the issue fuzzy

Wait till they are so fat and over weight.
Some are in our police force and cant even walk properly, never mind doing foot patrols in town.
Lots of news and rumours used to do the rounds about sexual asault on female soldiers in the US milatary.

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

...plenty of fat men in the armed forces

I have heard one refer to himself as "a fine example of the contemporary western soldier"...

Should fatties be allowed on the front line.

Just think they'll:

• eat all the rations
• decrease the range of LRPV
• give in to enemy interogation techniques ...."Just tells us where your troops are hiding and the Krispy Kremes are yours"
• increase hit rate of enemy snipers

Raaf get more food then the army does,.. they are just trim cause they spend so much free time in the gym..

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

Saw on the news one night they the armed forces are trying to get their troops to lose weight

BUT....you should see what they are feeding them It's no wonder they are fat