Marine Corps study finds few women in combat in other nations’ militaries

You make strong arguments however I continue to believe that parts of countries can not just simply vote themselves into independence or into being a part of another country. While your arguments may be valid, they have not changed my beliefs on this subject.

 

Now it is not that women shouldn't be in combat rolls, but rather "shouldn't be at the sharp end?" and instead providing cover fire? That would seem a "combat role."

 

You saw what happened to the medic when Hanks put him in harm's way at the sharp end..

 

How the hell do you figure that?

Depends on their legal and moral authority to do so. The Confederate states circa 1860, for example, had neither.

Not in the US, it isn't, at least according to its founding principles.

 

There is a practical side independent of rights which you and I have both touched on this aspect. There is the right to self-determination, but also the requirement to be able to protect that right.

If a state wants to leave a nation, then it must have the will and means (economic, military) to force its decision on the nation.

One individual may have the will but does not have the power to force the nation to let him leave. In the USA, some states due to their location and economics, do not have the power to secede. Colorado for example, has limited resources and no transportation routes to non-USA entities (airtravel would go through USA airspace, roads through USA, etc.). Texas or California on the other hand, are large, have access to the outside world, have a multifaceted economy, large populations, and could succeed on their own. A large group of states - say the 30 "red states" - if they work jointly could very easily secede or impose their will on the nation and force the national government to make fundamental changes in accordance with its demands.

Government (really politicians) do not like to give up power and will almost always resort to force to prevent secession. As you have pointed out, it will almost always come down to force.

 

No, that's not correct. From the signing of the Constitution to the Civil War, states believed they had the right to leave the union and many states both North and South threatened to secede at various times. It was only in the mid-1800's (as the split between the North and South was becoming obvious and severe) that a strong anti-secession sentiment began to form and then only in the North (but not in all Northern states). The North had the economic and political power, they dominated the Congress and enacted legislation that favored the North at economic cost to the South - so obviously the Northern politicians and Northern businessmen wanted to keep their power and the status quo.

The Civil War did not eliminate the right of a state to secede, it just created the threat of violence against a state/s who tried to leave.

 

"...Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."

Abraham Lincoln 1848

Except when the federal government discovers that it can't pay it's bills without the tax revenues from the 13 succeeding states then it's time to invade those states and bring them back into the Union.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/...n-the-united-states-house-of-representatives/

 

Except the Confederate states did not have "the power" to shake off the existing government.

Opposing the formation of a slave country that essentially would be 13 independent slave countries of the ultra super rich of the era was the correct action. Those super rich had literally the power of life and death over their slaves. They could torture them, murder them, rape them, breed them, work them to death with whips and sell off their children, wives and parents. They were fabulously wealthy. Huge tracts of land. The ONLY thing they did not have was their own country to be king of for which there would have been a confederacy of 13 slave nations - and they figured their vast wealth could buy that too. If they can buy the very lives of humans, certainly they can buy their own countries too.

The Civil War ended slavery, therefore Lincoln's actions were justified in the end regardless or rationalizations otherwise.

This topic, of course, is entirely off topic from this thread and has been debated into the ground on this forum. What follows next? The other defenses of the Confederacy and slavery of that old hack Ron Paul are going to be dumped into this thread?

 

Actually it's perfectly correct, and I've proven it several times. This is not the place for a repeat performance.

 

I'm a student of 1800-1900 American History. Read all of the history books, but I've read more than a couple hundred personal diaries and journals kept by Americans who lived during the era. Today's revisionist historians and college professors haven't.

In 1833 Great Britain outlawed slavery.

The United States would have followed suit except something took place in America, rape, murder, the "Nat Turner Rebellion." ( 1831)

FYI:
England is given a complete pass and countries like Mexico where slavery was still practiced in southern Mexician states into the 1870's.

The slave trafficking is still alive today ... in black sub Sahanan Africa and the biggest customers are Muslims.

 

The 13th Amendment to the Constitution ended slavery in 1865, It would have have happended earlier in 1833 or 1834 if it weren't for the Nat Turner rape and murder spree.

The northern Congressmen rejected the 13th Amendment in the beginning in the fear of thugs from the south showing up in Harlem. Chicago, South L.A., Oakland, Detroit, etc...

 

Isn't this all mute, women by orders way on high have to be integrated into all roles including combat if they qualify for such duties so their fitness or not shouldn't matter they must still qualify for combat roles which is voluntary by the way so what they feel about it among the rank and file its going to happen. So its how best to do it.

 

No, you have not proven it because it is not provable. The Civil War did not change the law or the Constitution regarding the right of a state to leave the union.

 

Lincoln was a tyrant and got what he deserved. The United States of America was a union of sovereign states. You might want to look up the definition of "sovereign".

 

So what? Nations are made, change and fall based upon power, not words on paper that say "I'm right and you are wrong." Worthless once matters to go war - and South Carolina started the Civil War by attacking a federal military base.

Nor was this attack in any way desired by the majority of adults in South Carolina since even over 50% of males were not allowed to vote as blacks could not vote. It is notable that the State that started the Civil War by attacking the federal government militarily also was the state with the highest percentage of slaves per population.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

 

Women have no place in combat. You don;t risk your baby makers. If you ever have to use them it is when all the men have been killed and there is no one left to kill the enemy who is trying to conquer you.

Seems like civilization is regressing not progressing. It was progress when we kept the women and children at home protecting our future.

 

Because women only exist to be baby factories?

 

No. They belong in the military. But I can ask the new SPC in our unit if she thinks she can ruck 18 miles with 60lbs on her back and then engage in a 2 week fire mission.

Even she'd laugh at that notion.

I had a long discussion with a female cpt about the female bone structure and combat missions. Not as "feminist" as you'd think.

 

Considering that mission is absurd, I'd laugh too. Are we re-fighting WW2 leg infantry battles?

 

You don't know what you're talking about . . . as usual. Not a uncommon mission at all for special ops.

 

Your average Specialist, regardless of gender, is not going to be able to do a special ops mission.

Does that mean no one save special ops capable individuals should be in combat arms?

 

Clearly you've never been to Afghanistan.

I don't blame you for laughing. Ignorance is hilarious.

Ever climbed a mountain in a full load?

Absolutely not.

 

18 mile foot patrols are common in Afghanistan?

 

Who said it was common? It's something that should be expected. And who said foot patrols? Ever got dropped a dozen or so miles from where you need to dig out your II OP?

 

I was in an armored division, so no.