Thread: Fighting Females.

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

Wow women all around the world have fought beside their men throughout the ages. And ably so. Are men really that easily distracted?

Yes, they will be fighting for the females and forget why they are there

When i was in the army we had to learn about the geneva convention we were told it was against the convention for women and children to be in front line positions has that changed

Doesn't the Geneva convention say you cannot use shot guns against human targets?

Who sticks to that?

FMJ only!

what ****s me to tears is how women claim discrimination if they arent allowed to go to the front lines, but the moment one becomes a prisoner of war, the powers that be will move heaven and earth to get her back..... lets skip the bonus points available for having a woman prisoner as a propganda tool, and the "special" treatment she'll be getting whilst a prisoner

Cutting to the chase.

As I see it there are two arguments against women in the front line.

1/. Duty of care. Women soldiers captured will be raped. Not generally an issue for male front line soldiers.

2/. Male front line soldiers may go into 'protection mode' re female front line soldiers degrading decision making ability. A cultural thing not easily negated.

Solve these and it shouldn't be an issue.

Deano

good luck to them..........

if they want to go onto a two way range then let them fill their boots, i was more than happy sticking to the one way ranges

don't get me started on a female that took the defence department to court about a job/trade that was male only, she won the battle to only change her mind six months into training wanting to pull the pin..........the army stuck to their guns and denied her discharge, she had to complete her training and ROSO

Doesn't the Geneva convention say you cannot use shot guns against human targets?

the convention says lots of things about how war should be fought but dont we scream blue murder if someone else dosnt obey the rules I think the convention needs to be be updated it was writen before WW2 but at the moment we are still signatories to it.

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

the convention says lots of things about how war should be fought but dont we scream blue murder if someone else dosnt obey the rules I think the convention needs to be be updated it was writen before WW2 but at the moment we are still signatories to it.

i think the convention is only enacted when both parties are signatories. Germany was never a signatory in WW2 for example neither was Japan N Korea or North Vietnam, Argentina was, but then they shot there own troops and 1/2 there officers got lost and could not locate there way back to there boys when it all whet noisy.