Jump to content
Jimmy__the__Pro

Women In Combat

Recommended Posts

 

i would destroy you with the submarines PIC (even though PICS are illegit.) best argument against this case. period.

 

It would be cool if you could explain to me what the submarines PIC is. I would much appreciate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
women are already involved in direct ground combat. I saw it on a daily basis in Iraq. or are you refering to women enlisting into combat jobs? because although women are not yet allowed to join areas such as infantry and artillery, they serve on the fronts just like most of the soldiers over there.

 

Even if I agree with you and you say that they are there already, the fact that Congress does not reconize women who are already in combat positions is a great disaster. What is happenining now is the women who are fighting illegally in direct ground combat are not being recognized by Congress, thus they are not able to get job promotions or equal treatment.

 

Other women not currently in the military see this happening and thus when they see Congress refusing to awknowledge the accomplishments of women, they dont want to join. For obvioius reasons. Thus, even though they are fighting now, because Congress does not recognize it, women now not in the military do not want to join and thus when we repeal it they will because now women are recognized and thus....yeah.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be cool if you could explain to me what the submarines PIC is. I would much appreciate it.

 

do the plan except on submarines basicallly. Let women in combat everywhere but submarines, usually with a spending NB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoah whoah, please tell me you are not confusing basic training and thinking that means you can fight in direct ground combat.

 

Like, there is more training you need before you are considered ready for "direct ground combat". That's why women can have basic training, yet Congress disallows them from direct ground combat.

 

If these two things were the same, women could not enter basic training, thus not fight at all.

 

Second, I would contend that just because you can pass "basic" training does not mean you are ready for "intense" fighting, this is where men and women are put in direct ground combat training and in fewer #'s than basic. Two totally different types of training and readiness to fight for sure.

 

the Army arcronym for boot camp is BCT. Basic combat training. all soldier who complete this , have made themselves trained, though perhaps not prepared for combat. this is the purpose for the 3 weeks in the program spent just on rifle skills. i'll post more later but i should get some sleep its almost 8 in the...dammit! scratch that i need to go to work. more to come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do the plan except on submarines basicallly. Let women in combat everywhere but submarines, usually with a spending NB

 

why no submarines? lol i think I know the answer to this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why no submarines? lol i think I know the answer to this one...

 

submarines would cost tons of money to reconfigure for women as well, so we wont allow women on the current submarines, but we will reconfigure future submarines to support both men and women

Also, i heard there was this weird card that says women's uteruses would explod if the submarines went up or down to fast but i dont think it actually exists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the Army arcronym for boot camp is BCT. Basic combat training. all soldier who complete this , have made themselves trained, though perhaps not prepared for combat. this is the purpose for the 3 weeks in the program spent just on rifle skills. i'll post more later but i should get some sleep its almost 8 in the...dammit! scratch that i need to go to work. more to come later.

 

Okay I'm going to say this again. Direct Ground Combat is different than basic combat training.

 

If it weren't then women couldnt fight in the army at all because they couldnt recieve basic training because according to you that would make them ready to fight. If they were ready to fight in direct ground combat then according to the Combat Exclusion laws, women would not be able to enter basic training, thus not fight at all. Because this is not the case, you can see that the types of training offered for basic and direct ground combat are different.

 

Links:

 

 

http://www.goarmy.com/life/basic/index.jsp?hmref=qu this shows how you can prepare for a combat situation but does not say what specific situation you will be facing. That kind of spec area fighting requires more training.

 

http://www.goarmy.com/life/advanced_individual_training.jsp this shows what specific training you will need to develope your skills in the military. Notice some of the schools offering different training are not offered to women. This is because of the combat exclusion policy passed by Congress. BUT WAIT!! There's more

 

http://www.wood.army.mil/usamps/14thMPBde/787thMPBn/OSUT_787th.htm and as you can see on this type of training, some of the intensive course components have either not been achieve by or are not available to women.

 

Point concluded. Just because you give women basic training but at least 2 other types of training preparing them for direct ground combat are not available to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Point concluded. Just because you give women basic training but at least 2 other types of training preparing them for direct ground combat are not available to them.

 

Technically, you're correct.

 

The point GPX was making, however, is that there really isn't a "front line" in Iraq - the definition of DGC been twisted so much that women already face the same risks as men.

 

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21557/

 

Despite rules that have prohibited women from fighting on the front lines, female soldiers in these conflicts are facing virtually the same risks as men because of the nature of these missions and because of overall troop shortages in Iraq, some military analysts say. In light of this – and in response to charges that the military has failed to adequately protect its female soldiers – the House Armed Services Committee is preparing a report on the feasibility of assigning women to combat-related positions.

"These rules no longer make sense because no place is safe in Iraq," said former Congressional Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., who served on the House Armed Services Committee from 1973 to 1996. "The whole place is literally a front line."

 

Second, even where the rules do still exist, they're being virtually ignored thanks to troop shortages.

 

same source.

 

The Army is covertly violating its collocation rule and assigning women to units that support front-line troops, says Elaine Donnelley, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy organization in Livonia, Mich. Donnelley contends this is because commanders are failing to follow established regulations and because an overall male troop shortage means there is a lack of adequate male troops in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Technically, you're correct.

 

The point GPX was making, however, is that there really isn't a "front line" in Iraq - the definition of DGC been twisted so much that women already face the same risks as men.

 

Like i would concede to some degree that no there is no front line in Iraq. However, I would contend that the need for women in combat exceeds our need in Iraq. Examples would include Fighting in Sudan and Darfur and any other types of commitments beyond the field of Iraq.

 

Also, that's fine if they face the same risks, but they aren't getting the same recogition as men do. When Congress fails to recognize that these women in direct ground combat then you have inequality, identity politics, discrimination and women who are discouraged from joining.

 

 

 

Second, even where the rules do still exist, they're being virtually ignored thanks to troop shortages.

 

Same point I made above, when Congress fails to recognize them, the problem continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point GPX was making, however, is that there really isn't a "front line" in Iraq - the definition of DGC been twisted so much that women already face the same risks as men.

 

 

thanks. this is what i've been trying to say...not just on this thread.

given current situations over there, a porto-john can become just as "front line" as any other part of the country in a matter of seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks. this is what i've been trying to say...not just on this thread.

given current situations over there, a porto-john can become just as "front line" as any other part of the country in a matter of seconds.

 

Okay I understand frontlines can become frontline battle fields in a # of seconds, that is fine. But when those women are in combat. Congress does not recognize it. When Congress doesn't recognize it, women cannot get promoted, they are discriminated against, ect...

 

You betta recognize!!! Otherwise women get pissed off.

 

Think of it this way. If you are in school and all of a sudden you are handed a pop quiz. Now you have had the proper education to take this quiz however, when you take it (no matter how you do) the sexist teacher decides not to count the grades of the girls in the class because s/he feels they are not smart enough. The girls took the quiz, they did the work. You tell me how it's fair that they dont get recognized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why no submarines? lol i think I know the answer to this one...

Also women on submarines uniquely destroy their effectiveness (according to the evidence), Subs key to heg, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay I understand frontlines can become frontline battle fields in a # of seconds, that is fine. But when those women are in combat. Congress does not recognize it. When Congress doesn't recognize it, women cannot get promoted, they are discriminated against, ect...

 

.

Aside from the Medal of Honor, Congress does not dictate how medals are awarded. They are done at the battalion level with higher ranked medals done at the brigade and sometimes division level. The same is true for promotions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aside from the Medal of Honor, Congress does not dictate how medals are awarded. They are done at the battalion level with higher ranked medals done at the brigade and sometimes division level. The same is true for promotions.

 

Im not talking about medals, I am talking about even releasing the very existence of women in combat. Congress cannot say there are women in combat because guess what? That means they are breaking the law and then everyone looks bad.

 

Thus, because Congress doesnt want to look like a bunch of law/rule breakers, they make sure that commanding officers fail to report any information concerning women in direct ground combat. When no one reports, women dont get promoted, when women dont get promoted...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it destroy their effectiveness?

similar easons to close cmbat but with a few more warrants and other impacts:

1) Relationships: Relationships that would develop between crew members are bad. If a man and a woman had sex on one of those lonely submarines and a child was conceived a lot of bad stuff hapens and the entire mission is jeopardized (submarines can't go back to port to drop off a pregnant woman and her baby)

2) Men protect women: The men on the submarine would fell that theyhad to protect "their" women and would e less willing to take the risks necessary for submarine missions

3) Noise and Detection: With advanced sonar silence during attacks is key to submarine effectiveness and some cards talk about how women and men might interact in a noisier (sp?) way and ruin the mission.

4) Rape: Submarines are a lonely place. Men might end up raping women while they're all alone out on the seas. If you had a fem advantage it would turn that and that would also destroy morale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
similar easons to close cmbat but with a few more warrants and other impacts:

1) Relationships: Relationships that would develop between crew members are bad. If a man and a woman had sex on one of those lonely submarines and a child was conceived a lot of bad stuff hapens and the entire mission is jeopardized (submarines can't go back to port to drop off a pregnant woman and her baby)

 

I would contend that in while there is the posibility of that happening, the likelyhood is not very high because A) this is a job, not a dating service and B). if relationships did develope, superior officers would snuff them out quickly because as the superior officer their job is staying focused on completing the mission. Thus anything that could harm the mission they would quickly put an end to it.

2) Men protect women: The men on the submarine would fell that theyhad to protect "their" women and would e less willing to take the risks necessary for submarine missions

 

First, if you are advocating this then I dont see how point 4 happens. Anyways, look a submarine is the worst place to put this arguement. I mean what are the men going to do? Throw themselves at the torpedo to save the women? If they want to protect a woman on a submarine the best way to do that is by doing their job. Honestly I dont see what a man could do on a submarine to protect a woman any more than doing his job. Do you?

3) Noise and Detection: With advanced sonar silence during attacks is key to submarine effectiveness and some cards talk about how women and men might interact in a noisier (sp?) way and ruin the mission.

 

Like what? sex? Cause other than that I dont see how men and women are any noisier than men alone and women alone. Also, I mean unless you have ultra super spectacular sonar, I dont see how a man and a woman make enough noise to be noticed. Chances are btw, that the submarines are either A) proofed so that the sound cant carry outside the submarines or B) that the sonar will find the sub before it detects the noise.

4) Rape: Submarines are a lonely place. Men might end up raping women while they're all alone out on the seas. If you had a fem advantage it would turn that and that would also destroy morale

 

Probably the most legit point out of all of these. Again to point out, you wouldn't argue points 4 and 2 in the same round. (I'm sure you're just saying what people will say, not what you are actually going to argue in a round, so it's cool) I would contend that not just like 1 woman is going to be put on a sub with all these men. I would say that they will come aboard in groups. Strength in #'s. As long as we put more women on subs then the less of a chance for rape to occur. Also, I would have a little more faith in men to handle themselves and a little more faith in women to defend themselves (esp. if anyone uses this to advocate that rape will happen all the time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the military, relationships that would be harmful to morale, are not allowed. these are ones in which one party is in a position of direct authority over the other party. when I was in Iraq, we had a case come up in another unit at the base we were on. Two soldiers in the same unit were involved. A male Sergeant First Class was being investigated for having indecent relationships with a female Private First Class. The Uniform Code of Military Justice forbids all such relationships in a combat zone with the exception going to married couples. Anyway because the female soldier was in the same platoon as the senior NCO in question, the Army was really looking to burn these two. Because of the chain-of-command, a relationship like this creates a conflict of interest and favoritism and therefore is harmful to moral. Both individuals testified that the relationship was consensual so the end result was the SFC was demoted to Specialist and the PFC was demoted to PVT and both soldiers fined 1/2 months pay for 6 months with the male soldier sent to another company for the duration of the deployment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy_the_Pro - 2 and 4 don't actually have to conflict - sometimes the reason rape occurs in the first place is from the mindset that occurs when men feel protective of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmy_the_Pro - 2 and 4 don't actually have to conflict - sometimes the reason rape occurs in the first place is from the mindset that occurs when men feel protective of women.

 

so wait, how does that mean they dont have conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Not all women are going into combat, only those that can physically prove themselves. Thus spending is greatly decreased, no disadvantage.

 

2. Training and Equipment already provided in budget for recruits. Women need no special equipment or training, thus intergrating them into the training and equipment would be no different than putting new male recruits there. No spending issues. No disad.

 

Actually, this proves you untopical further because you aren't nessacerally (spelling?) going to increase the persons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. Training and Equipment already provided in budget for recruits. Women need no special equipment or training, thus intergrating them into the training and equipment would be no different than putting new male recruits there. No spending issues. No disad.

 

Actually, this proves you untopical further because you aren't nessacerally (spelling?) going to increase the persons.

 

Nah, I'm still pretty topical. Just because training and equiment is in the budget doesnt mean we shouldnt see an increase from repealing the Combat Exclusion Policy.

 

Second, look at the arguement you make, "new male recruits" not existing memebers. The word new shows how I am topical because the word signifies how i have increased more people. (Actually I think this response I am giving is weak sause)

 

Anyways, yeah Im also topical on the fact the by breaking down discrimation and allowing women to be promoted I am giving women now who dont want to join, a reason to join, thus when they do I am substantially increasing #'s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
someone more competent than i tell me if this idea is alright.

 

1N: T - Persons

womyn aren't people

2A: *something about patriarchy*

2N: we overidentify and solve, &c.

 

Wow, you know what? This is good, I lose automatically.

 

haha, this makes me laugh though. Mainly because something like this has been run against me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

run case turns

there are soooo many good case turns against this aff

also I would suggest looking at this

Great stuff to cut for Women Militarism

http://www.wilpf.int.ch/publications/womenmilitarism.htm

 

OR

these are some on case that i had on my laptop right now

PM me if you want more.

 

(__) Turn—Women in combat risks cultural suicide—the result of the aff forces us to teach men to brutalize women.

Krikwood ’03. (“What King of Nation Sense Women Into Combat?”) April 11, 2003 R. Cort Kirkwood. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/893228/posts

Because turning a woman into the kind of person who views such gore without blinking an eye, or who participates in the wanton killing war requires, is a step down to pagan barbarism and cultural suicide. In some sense, given what we've seen in the Gulf, we've already taken that step. But the feminists won't quit until they get women into ground combat units. As recent events prove, no one seems to care what all this means not only culturally but also psychologically.

It will require training men and women toregard the brutalization of women, and a woman's brutalization of others, as normal and acceptable. To train the men properly, a woman commissioner observed, we must erase everything their mothers taught them about chivalry; i.e., that a real man protects a woman from harm. Instead, they must be trained to brain a woman with a pugil stick in training. This truth raises two paradoxes.

On one hand, to completely desensitize the men, such training would be required. But the feminists don't want that because women can't meet the same standards as men; they won't survive it. Yet how are these women to survive combat if they cannot survive real, not gender-normed, basic training? The men would have to protect them. Successfully integrating women in combat means this: A soldier must ignore the screams of a woman POW being tortured and raped.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(___) Turn – Militarism – Putting women in combat increasing the militaristic mindset in society and perpetuates militarism.

Burke ’06[Colleen Burke, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom] http://www.wilpf.int.ch/publications/womenmilitarism.htm

A very contested area of debate about women and militarism is the role of women in the military. While feminists seeking equality with men are opposed to any occupational field being closed to them on the basis of their sex, the goal of having more women in the military is not without its problems. Greater participation in the military as an appropriate means achieving women's liberation must be questioned. To see it as such reinforces its centrality and to integrate women into the military only increases the militarization of society. The military itself uses the argument of promoting women's equality in its recruitment information; however, an institution built on masculine ideals such as aggression can hardly be expected to play a sincere part in women's emancipation. If in joining the military women are also turned into unquestioning killing machines, then what progress or liberation exists in that? What kind of society are they defending?

 

peace out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...