women on the frontline (2 Viewers)

[zombie omie jay]

should they be there?

or should then not be there?








also fix the fucken search cunts

 

[zombie omie jay]

omg wat if they get their period!? they will attract bears/taliban

 

[mirakon]

boobs are a better distraction than smoke grenades though

 

[antonio primo]

Women in the military has, or at least would be, a disaster for reasons that should be obvious to all. They create sexual rivaly, they get knocked up, they require wasteful duplication of quartering and medical facility, and they're really just not cut out to be soldiers in the first place either physically or mentally.

Unit cohesion is not a bullshit argument, and it is one of the most important assets of warfare. In nearly every war it has been found that more homogeneous units are less likely to desert or break in battle and more willing to take lethal risks for their unit. For instance, the most successful units in the Civil War were those in which the soldiers came from the same communities and had similar professions. This is why boot camp exists in the first place: the idea is to break down the individual identity of the soldier and integrate him into the collective military identity.

For instance, in the U.S armed forces unit cohesion is severely undermined by subversive liberal ideology. Fortunately for them, they haven't had to fight a serious war in a long time. The last time they did, their units were consistently less successful than that of their main opponent (Germany) which had significantly more homogenous units and did not rotate individuals around like raw materials.

Unit cohesion should be at the heart of armed forces personnel management policy, not a minor issue to be sidelined for harebrained politically correct fads. There exists a very large body of data from diverse disciplines including evolutionary psychology (Philippe Rushton's genetic similarity theory), sociology (Robert Putnam's work as the quintessential example), military science (applied research about unit success), etc, showing that homogeneous groups have significantly higher levels of trust and cooperation. This should surprise no one except the fucking retards who have swallowed the diversity-is-strength lie.

Feminists and liberal equalitarian and equal rights worshippers can fuck off.

 

[krnofdrg]

omg wat if they get their period!? they will attract bears/taliban

lol -1... that is EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

 

[LonelyWolf]

Women in the military has, or at least would be, a disaster for reasons that should be obvious to all. They create sexual rivaly, they get knocked up, they require wasteful duplication of quartering and medical facility, and they're really just not cut out to be soldiers in the first place either physically or mentally.

Unit cohesion is not a bullshit argument, and it is one of the most important assets of warfare. In nearly every war it has been found that more homogeneous units are less likely to desert or break in battle and more willing to take lethal risks for their unit. For instance, the most successful units in the Civil War were those in which the soldiers came from the same communities and had similar professions. This is why boot camp exists in the first place: the idea is to break down the individual identity of the soldier and integrate him into the collective military identity.

For instance, in the U.S armed forces unit cohesion is severely undermined by subversive liberal ideology and extremely short-sighted personnel management policy. Fortunately for them, they haven't had to fight a serious war in a long time. The last time they did, their units were consistently less successful than that of their main opponent (Germany) which had significantly more homogenous units and did not rotate individuals around like raw materials.

Unit cohesion should be at the heart of armed forces personnel management policy, not a minor issue to be sidelined for harebrained politically correct fads. There exists a very large body of data from diverse disciplines including industrial psychology, ordinary psychology (consensual validation theory), genetics (genetic similarity theory), sociology (Putnam's work etc), military science (applied research about unit success) showing that homogeneous groups have significantly higher levels of trust and cooperation. This should surprise no one except the fucking retards who have swallowed the diversity-is-strength lie.

Feminists and liberal equalitarian and equal rights worshippers can fuck off.

this.

 

[funkshen]

so cosmo, what you're arguing for is a clone army.

p.s. your next account name should be cesare lombroso

 

[antonio primo]

attack of the clones

 

[Lolsmith]

Women in the military has, or at least would be, a disaster for reasons that should be obvious to all. They create sexual rivaly, they get knocked up, they require wasteful duplication of quartering and medical facility, and they're really just not cut out to be soldiers in the first place either physically or mentally.

Unit cohesion is not a bullshit argument, and it is one of the most important assets of warfare. In nearly every war it has been found that more homogeneous units are less likely to desert or break in battle and more willing to take lethal risks for their unit. For instance, the most successful units in the Civil War were those in which the soldiers came from the same communities and had similar professions. This is why boot camp exists in the first place: the idea is to break down the individual identity of the soldier and integrate him into the collective military identity.

For instance, in the U.S armed forces unit cohesion is severely undermined by subversive liberal ideology. Fortunately for them, they haven't had to fight a serious war in a long time. The last time they did, their units were consistently less successful than that of their main opponent (Germany) which had significantly more homogenous units and did not rotate individuals around like raw materials.

Unit cohesion should be at the heart of armed forces personnel management policy, not a minor issue to be sidelined for harebrained politically correct fads. There exists a very large body of data from diverse disciplines including evolutionary psychology (Philippe Rushton's genetic similarity theory), sociology (Robert Putnam's work as the quintessential example), military science (applied research about unit success), etc, showing that homogeneous groups have significantly higher levels of trust and cooperation. This should surprise no one except the fucking retards who have swallowed the diversity-is-strength lie.

Feminists and liberal equalitarian and equal rights worshippers can fuck off.

OR

We could not be involved in any foreign wars, increase commerce with our supposed enemies and then not waste billions of dollars on the defence force.

 

[LonelyWolf]

OR

We could not be involved in any foreign wars, increase commerce with our supposed enemies and then not waste billions of dollars on the defence force.

this will never happen, aggression/power is inherit in all humans - preventing war is just suppressing what is natural

 

[zombie omie jay]

ive got no problem with the current military setup

we do need to pull out of the ghan etc though what a waste of money

but i also feel that afghanistan is pretty much just a training run. helps keep our guys trained and tactics up to date. war is changing etc ieds, insurgencies, fobs, its all changing

our military is based around defending us from the indonesians or someone and thats good and afghanistan is pretty much just a small scale thing to keep our skills up to scratch

 

[Lolsmith]

this will never happen, aggression/power is inherit in all humans - preventing war is just suppressing what is natural

No it isn't please exit this forum, you have literally no idea what you're talking about

prob unrealistic yes but thats what id prefer ideally o - we should not be in iraq or afghanistan nor should have assisted (if we even did) the bombing to high heaven of gaddafi's libya

however we happen to live in the real world not non-existent and never will-be-existent libertopia where this sort of thing is actually being debated and these arguments have some relevance to what will actually happen and may have some genuine influence on this matter

That's a bit of a cop out. I'm under no illusion that the vast majority of people, let alone Australians, are awful people who love chewing soldier's dicks because that guy with the moustache and those guys with the strange eyes and dot for a flag once threatened the sovereignty of millions of people. But that doesn't make any part of my argument less legitmate or effective. If people have a vested interest in your wellbeing, they aren't going to threaten it, it's very basic.

More people just need to be exposed to this before the government gets their hooks in them.

 

[antonio primo]

No it isn't please exit this forum, you have literally no idea what you're talking about


That's a bit of a cop out. I'm under no illusion that the vast majority of people, let alone Australians, are awful people who love chewing soldier's dicks because that guy with the moustache and those guys with the strange eyes and dot for a flag once threatened the sovereignty of millions of people. But that doesn't make any part of my argument less legitmate or effective. If people have a vested interest in your wellbeing, they aren't going to threaten it, it's very basic.

More people just need to be exposed to this before the government gets their hooks in them.

eah i wasnt content with that post so i removed it

i think i need to word it out/think it through better

 

[krnofdrg]

No it isn't please exit this forum, you have literally no idea what you're talking about


That's a bit of a cop out. I'm under no illusion that the vast majority of people, let alone Australians, are awful people who love chewing soldier's dicks because that guy with the moustache and those guys with the strange eyes and dot for a flag once threatened the sovereignty of millions of people. But that doesn't make any part of my argument less legitmate or effective. If people have a vested interest in your wellbeing, they aren't going to threaten it, it's very basic.

More people just need to be exposed to this before the government gets their hooks in them.

were we even useful in Iraq and Afghanistan or we just kissing the American's asses ???

 

[antonio primo]

is kissing ass never useful

 

[zombie omie jay]

were we even useful in Iraq and Afghanistan or we just kissing the American's asses ???

pretty useful

 

[LonelyWolf]

No it isn't please exit this forum, you have literally no idea what you're talking about

Please continue, you're just advocating a 'make love not war' attitude you fucking hippie

were we even useful in Iraq and Afghanistan or we just kissing the American's asses ???

nothing wrong with kissing america's ass

 

[Funky Monk]

he's advocating "make money not war" you spastic

you *do* have no idea gosh

 

[Funky Monk]

replace "money" with "mutual prosperity" if it floats your boat

 

[krnofdrg]

Please continue, you're just advocating a 'make love not war' attitude you fucking hippie



nothing wrong with kissing america's ass

True that we make a good alliance with them.