Women are allowed in combat situations now

[SavvySavage]

Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don't have all the details but that's what I heard.

What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.

[GeneChing]

In contrast, in Germany...

German Soldiers Are Growing Boobs On One Side of Their Bodies, Oh, Okay (http://gawker.com/5978945/german-soldiers-are-growing-boobs-on-one-side-of-their-bodies-oh-okay)
Caity Weaver

Are you there, God? It's me, German Soldiers. I'm growing breasts on one side of my body. Let's rap about that.

According to a report in the Cologne Express (link in German), soldiers from Germany's elite Wachbataillon military unit have found their bodies changing in ways many of us have not experienced since Girl Scout camp: they're growing boobs on the left side of their bodies.

The condition is called gynecomastia. Doctors believe the condition is developing due to a drill that requires them to slam their rifles into their chests, thereby stimulating unusual hormone production.

In other words, German soldiers are growing man-boobs ("Männerbrust") because they can't stop hitting themselves.

Stop hitting yourselves, German soldiers. Stop hitting yourselves. Stop hitting yourselves.

According to the German Herald, Professor Björn Krapohl, director of plastic surgery at the Military Hospital of Berlin, has proposed modifying the battalion's exercises to alleviate the problem:

"There is a very significant link between the activity in the Guard Battalion and the development of the breast on the left side. They need to change the way they drill. The constant slamming of the rifles against the left hand side of the chest is clearly a significant factor."

The military reportedly plans to research the condition further and alter the drills if necessary.

No trips are planned to Victoria's Secret because that place is for fast girls....is this the opposite of Amazons cutting off one of their breasts so it wouldn't interfere with their archery? :confused:

[Syn7]

Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don't have all the details but that's what I heard.

What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.

The reason I LOVE this change is now women can meet combat requirements for higher positions requiring critical thinking and prowess. I think some women will make amazing generals.

Interesting article, Gene. Men and women are not the same. They should be able to complete the same tasks but how they do it should be tailored for their physiological differences.

[mawali]

Just heard on the radio that the Pentagon is now allowing female soldiers into combat. I don't have all the details but that's what I heard.

What do you all think about this? Men and women fighting side by side.

Bad idea! Some women are in combat teams but they play a limited role within the area of operations. Translators, health care, vaccinations, etc by female medics in Afghanistan were all positive but they do not actively partake in battle.
A few are/were pilots like Tammy Duckworth.

[pazman]

What's the argument against women fighting, if they are physically capable?

[Syn7]

Bad idea! Some women are in combat teams but they play a limited role within the area of operations. Translators, health care, vaccinations, etc by female medics in Afghanistan were all positive but they do not actively partake in battle.
A few are/were pilots like Tammy Duckworth.

But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don't come with that misogynistic rape angle. I'm not saying you would, but just don't.

[SavvySavage]

What's the argument against women fighting, if they are physically capable?

The problem I see is that they will have to lower the physical standards like they did with police and fireman. Otherwise they will be labeled "sexist" for not "letting" women in.

[mawali]

But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don't come with that misogynistic rape angle. I'm not saying you would, but just don't.

Logically and syllogistically yes (BUT (yes, the Big but) the women who have went through such training washed out! I have no doubt that there are women out there who are tough and yes, also, some men have washed out of the same training. There are women generals but none to my knowledge, have been from combat units. Would I send an all woman combat unit (team) to capture the worlds' baddest terrorist? I don't know.

[bawang]

But why? What can you do that no woman can do? If they can do the job, what other possible reason could there be? And please, don't come with that misogynistic rape angle. I'm not saying you would, but just don't.

isnt army combat gear over 100 pounds

[Syn7]

Logically and syllogistically yes (BUT (yes, the Big but) the women who have went through such training washed out! I have no doubt that there are women out there who are tough and yes, also, some men have washed out of the same training. There are women generals but none to my knowledge, have been from combat units. Would I send an all woman combat unit (team) to capture the worlds' baddest terrorist? I don't know.

No, no, I just mean let em try. Hold them to the same standards and if they wash they wash. Treat everyone as people and keep the requirements the same. If they can't carry gear and handle whatever is expected to be handled, then they wash. Many will fail, many will pass. Look, I don't think anyone wants to see like some "positive action" thing here where sub par soldiers are thrown into the mix to send the appearance of equality. I mean real equality, everyone has the same opportunity to pass or fail. It's on them, if they can't cut it, bye bye.

So yeah, if it was an elite crew of women that excelled alongside their male counterparts and were experts in their fields, sure, why not? Send em in.

[David Jamieson]

isnt army combat gear over 100 pounds

A pack, rifle and gear is about 65lbs on a Canuck regular.
Dunno about anyone elses crap though.

As for women in combat, the psychological stress will likely be more on the men, but I'm just guessing.

I believe it is a given they make better fighter pilots due to the virtue of being able to sustain more G force than a male pressure suit or not.

On the ground, I think a properly trained individual, male or female benefits from the shmuck effect as far as killing power goes. the gun introduces the shmuck effect. It just doesn't take a lot of skill like blades and such and so, most anyone can be an equally dangerous combatant when it gets right down to it.

This is modern times after all. Good luck ladies.

now, when are they going to be introduced to the selective service requirement?

[SavvySavage]

No, no, I just mean let em try. Hold them to the same standards and if they wash they wash. Treat everyone as people and keep the requirements the same. If they can't carry gear and handle whatever is expected to be handled, then they wash. Many will fail, many will pass. Look, I don't think anyone wants to see like some "positive action" thing here where sub par soldiers are thrown into the mix to send the appearance of equality. I mean real equality, everyone has the same opportunity to pass or fail. It's on them, if they can't cut it, bye bye.

So yeah, if it was an elite crew of women that excelled alongside their male counterparts and were experts in their fields, sure, why not? Send em in.

Most women will not get in and the feminists will rally like they did with the police force and firemen. My friend was fdny and he had to carry a person weighing over 200 points up and down stairs for his test. Women couldn't do his so they made the test easier to not look sexist. Now anyone, weak little boy or female, can pass the test and put our loves at risk.

In the nypd there are statistics that never make it into the public domain. These statistics are about how often female officers' guns get taken away by criminals. The feminists keep these facts suppressed to perpetuate the belief that men and women are equal in strength. Everyone knows these things deep down but never talk about it for fear of sounding sexist.

If women can pass the same combat tests a man can then let them in.

I know I sound like a women hating pig but hate not true. I want true equality between men and women. Both take and pass/fail the same physical exams without any b!tching about unfairness. I want women in combat but only the ones that are as tough as their male counterparts.

[bawang]

i think a lot of these women dont know what theyre getting themselves into. the military is a separate society.

[Syn7]

A protected class? Isn't that the problem? All this sheltering bull****?

You wanna do something to help women have an easier time? Address the rape problem in the military. The statistics are freaking unacceptable. Clean house and maybe women won't feel so alienated. I think there are many jobs women are better suited for. Like lawyers, but that doesn't mean a man shouldn't have a crack at it. Just so happens that women make better lawyers, but it's only an average. I know some women that would do just fine as combatants.

[Drake]

I love it when people don't know what they're talking about, and keep talking like they do. :D

I reckon it'll be much like the Marines' experiment. You'll have a handful who try it, decide it's awful, and the interest will peter out. Infantry is hard enough on males, and even many of them either don't make it, or get through by the skin of their teeth, hating life.

As for female generals... we have had them for years. I don't even get how that makes sense to assume that will be a new thing.


I'm a strong supporter of allowing all people the chance to realize how much combat arms sucks. A lot of folks in combat arms eventually reclass to a softer MOS after a few years of damage to the knees, feet, and the rest of the body.

The physical standard for these jobs IS harder, and I imagine that for most females, the limitations may be very, very difficult to overcome. They have a number of physiological differences that make it very hard for them to be successful in that field. Going back to my original point, it's hard enough for men.

[Syn7]

So what? If they can pass, they pass. If they can't, they can't? What's wrong with that?

So you can go into any position as a general w/o combat experience?

[Drake]

So what? If they can pass, they pass. If they can't, they can't? What's wrong with that?

So you can go into any position as a general w/o combat experience?

It's not required. Besides, females have been having combat experience for the last 11 years. Our reserve partner unit lost a female to an IED in 2005 while she was out on patrol, and one of our females on our transition team in 2012 engaged the enemy with a machine gun and walked away with a CAB. The change is simply that women can now enter any job, such as infantry. You don't have to be infantry, however, to operate in a combat role.

Goes back to my point that people don't even understand the present reality enough to even begin talking about what's happening now.

[pazman]

Drake, thank you for your input. Do you think that the same physical standards will be applied to both men and women as they begin to implement this policy? What are the opinions of people in the military?

[Syn7]

Sure. I'm not a soldier. I was under the impression that certain higher up jobs required certain experience, no? Not being able to join things like infantry have kept certain higher positions closed to them. Is that wrong? If so, please, explain. And you don't have to say "people", we both know that was for me.

What jobs are available to a female general now that was not before?

Why should it be such a big deal if they get the chance to try? If they all fail and get discouraged, so be it. If a bunch of superlibs come out the woodwork to call you guys misogynists for not passing any women, I will be right there with ya, calling bull****. Look, if they can't do it eventually it will level off. So yes the cost of allowing all these women to try something they aren't likely to pass may be an initial factor, but it will balance out and you will have achieved more equality, real equality.

What is your opinion on all these insane numbers coming out about sexual abuse and rape? Where I live there is a huge issue right now about the abuse of female police officers from male counterparts. Huge civil suit, bluh bluh. How bad it is, I dunno, but clearly there is an issue here. There is very little doubt that the numbers are higher than the national average.

It's an interesting dynamic. Ever heard of desert island syndrome? It's interesting to see who pairs off under stressful conditions. You could spend a lifetime studying that stuff. I read a story about the percentage of unwanted pregnancies are double that of the national average. More sex? Less access to birth control? Forced or coerced? Curious!

[Drake]

Drake, thank you for your input. Do you think that the same physical standards will be applied to both men and women as they begin to implement this policy? What are the opinions of people in the military?

There's talk of it, but nothing has been set in stone as of yet. Currently, the standards for men and women are only equal for the situp event. Pushups and the 2-mile run both have very wide margins between male and female. And as one goes up in age groups, the margin grows even greater.

The problem is, do you apply this only to females in combat arms, or does it apply across the board. A change like this will certainly cause problems if implemented Army-wide.

From the officer side of the house, the discussion is over. Our job is to enforce DoD directives, not complain about them.

[Drake]

Sure. I'm not a soldier. I was under the impression that certain higher up jobs required certain experience, no? Not being able to join things like infantry have kept certain higher positions closed to them. Is that wrong? If so, please, explain. And you don't have to say "people", we both know that was for me.

What jobs are available to a female general now that was not before?

Why should it be such a big deal if they get the chance to try? If they all fail and get discouraged, so be it. If a bunch of superlibs come out the woodwork to call you guys misogynists for not passing any women, I will be right there with ya, calling bull****. Look, if they can't do it eventually it will level off. So yes the cost of allowing all these women to try something they aren't likely to pass may be an initial factor, but it will balance out and you will have achieved more equality, real equality.

What is your opinion on all these insane numbers coming out about sexual abuse and rape? Where I live there is a huge issue right now about the abuse of female police officers from male counterparts. Huge civil suit, bluh bluh. How bad it is, I dunno, but clearly there is an issue here. There is very little doubt that the numbers are higher than the national average.

It's an interesting dynamic. Ever heard of desert island syndrome? It's interesting to see who pairs off under stressful conditions. You could spend a lifetime studying that stuff. I read a story about the percentage of unwanted pregnancies are double that of the national average. More sex? Less access to birth control? Forced or coerced? Curious!

At the general officer level, it's all pretty much a level playing field. Think much lower, down to the lower enlisted soldiers and junior officers, which is where this will actually be causing the most change. Field grade officer and above are pretty much a non-issue, as a Battalion Commander likely has several female officers working for him/her, so the change is negligible.

[Syn7]

This post makes no sense. I think you are asking if a protected class is the problem. If so, the answer is yes. You then ask if I want to help women have an easier time. The answer is no. Then you tell me to clean house and maybe women wont feel so alienated. That makes no sense at all. How do you jump from a topic like women in combat to house cleaning so that women will not feel alienated? You are a very confused person. If you are going to address me directly, be coherent and civil.

Drake, if you were referring to me when you said, "I love it when people don't know what they're talking about, and keep talking like they do.", then I am disappointed as you talk like you are a vet. If not talking about me then I am glad. Vets have to stick together.
SKM

I'm sorry you don't see the connection.

I think I was pretty clear from the get go that they shouldn't be treated any easier than a man. That goes for rape and meeting requirements. I don't hear of a male on male rape problem? So, yeah, not being raped or sexually assaulted is most definitely an equality issue. Again, I'm sorry you don't see that. When I said easier time, I was not talking about meeting requirements. I was talking about being shown a reasonable amount respect from ALL their peers.

No, his comment was directed towards me. You're brotherhood honor is intact.

Am I not being civil? I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings or made you feel insecure. If I didn't do either of those, then what's the problem? I'm being honest and straight forward about my opinions. Do you feel I am not showing your military enough respect? Is that the issue?

[Drake]

I think what is misunderstood is the idea that the military is about equality and fairness. It isn't. We have age limits, weight limits, physical limits, medical disqualifiers, educational limits, and even limits imposed by picking the wrong job.

Flat feet? You may not be able to join. A small bout of depression as a teenager? Sorry, apply elsewhere. Tattoos on the face, neck or hands? Sorry, bye bye. Too old? Can't help you.

There is a long list of reasons preventing someone from either joining or picking a certain job. From a civilian perspective, it seems unfair. From the no-**** reality on the ground? It's saving lives.

[Drake]

This post makes no sense. I think you are asking if a protected class is the problem. If so, the answer is yes. You then ask if I want to help women have an easier time. The answer is no. Then you tell me to clean house and maybe women wont feel so alienated. That makes no sense at all. How do you jump from a topic like women in combat to house cleaning so that women will not feel alienated? You are a very confused person. If you are going to address me directly, be coherent and civil.

Drake, if you were referring to me when you said, "I love it when people don't know what they're talking about, and keep talking like they do.", then I am disappointed as you talk like you are a vet. If not talking about me then I am glad. Vets have to stick together.
SKM

I'm still serving, actually. Regardless of whether or not my comment was directed at you (and it wasn't), vets don't always have to stick together, and in no way, shape or form, should I be compelled to agree with you when I actually don't, simply because we both served in the armed forces.

[Syn7]

I think what is misunderstood is the idea that the military is about equality and fairness. It isn't. We have age limits, weight limits, physical limits, medical disqualifiers, educational limits, and even limits imposed by picking the wrong job.

Flat feet? You may not be able to join. A small bout of depression as a teenager? Sorry, apply elsewhere. Tattoos on the face, neck or hands? Sorry, bye bye. Too old? Can't help you.

There is a long list of reasons preventing someone from either joining or picking a certain job. From a civilian perspective, it seems unfair. From the no-**** reality on the ground? It's saving lives.

Yeah, and most of those are reasonable. But if they can pass the test, they pass the test. If a woman can do exactly what a man who passed the test can do, why not? Some women are freakin amazons, and some men are absolute *****es! Why is it even a gender issue at all? As far as I can see the biggest issue is attitude.

[Drake]

Yeah, and most of those are reasonable. But if they can pass the test, they pass the test. If a woman can do exactly what a man who passed the test can do, why not? Some women are freakin amazons, and some men are absolute *****es! Why is it even a gender issue at all? As far as I can see the biggest issue is attitude.

It's not a discussion anymore. It's been decided, and the problem has moved from "what if" to "how to implement".

[Syn7]

I'm still serving, actually. Regardless of whether or not my comment was directed at you (and it wasn't), vets don't always have to stick together, and in no way, shape or form, should I be compelled to agree with you when I actually don't, simply because we both served in the armed forces.

I should hope so. Do you deal with many people who disagree with that? Or do most people around you pretty much feel the same? All the soldiers I know can think for themselves.

[Syn7]

It's not a discussion anymore. It's been decided, and the problem has moved from "what if" to "how to implement".

Lol. Yeah, we'll see. I have a feeling we are gonna be hearing both ends for awhile. How to, of course. But also those who disagree and will continue to obstruct as best they can.

So do you have any issue with the change? In theory, I mean? Ofcourse if they relax requirements for women there will be a lot of noise. But we dunno how it will all go down yet.

[Drake]

Lol. Yeah, we'll see. I have a feeling we are gonna be hearing both ends for awhile. How to, of course. But also those who disagree and will continue to obstruct as best they can.

So do you have any issue with the change? In theory, I mean? Ofcourse if they relax requirements for women there will be a lot of noise. But we dunno how it will all go down yet.

If anyone in the military attempts to obstruct a DoD directive, I will personally ensure they are sent packing.

[Syn7]

If anyone in the military attempts to obstruct a DoD directive, I will personally ensure they are sent packing.

No, I mean politically. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm saying we are going to hear a ton of crap for awhile. As far as how it's implemented, I don't really care as long as it's fair for everyone involved. That means letting anyone who can do the job do the job. And that also means not putting other people in more danger just to fill some quota.

I know a female firefighter, she kicks ass. Everyone thinks she's great. It was an issue at first because she did have slightly less intense assessment, but ultimately she has done great. She's been in for years now and has respect from pretty much everyone who isn't a douchebag. I understand the fear of relaxing requirements though. I think it's counter productive in an equality sense. Not only are you putting people in potential danger, but you are also setting these women up for future ridicule. Like "you only got here because your test was easier" isn't exactly good for anyone morale. On both sides of it.

Also, they have relaxed the requirements for police in general in order to fill all the positions. It's showing too.

[bawang]

No, I mean politically. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm saying we are going to hear a ton of crap for awhile. As far as how it's implemented, I don't really care as long as it's fair for everyone involved. That means letting anyone who can do the job do the job. And that also means not putting other people in more danger just to fill some quota.

I know a female firefighter, she kicks ass. Everyone thinks she's great. It was an issue at first because she did have slightly less intense assessment, but ultimately she has done great. She's been in for years now and has respect from pretty much everyone who isn't a douchebag. I understand the fear of relaxing requirements though. I think it's counter productive in an equality sense. Not only are you putting people in potential danger, but you are also setting these women up for future ridicule. Like "you only got here because your test was easier" isn't exactly good for anyone morale. On both sides of it.

Also, they have relaxed the requirements for police in general in order to fill all the positions. It's showing too.

fightfighting is saving life. soldiering is taking life.

[David Jamieson]

fightfighting is saving life. soldiering is taking life.

There is a philosophy of taking lives to save lives that is part and parcel to all military organizations.

It is the logic of Mars. It is part of our human experience and has been so for all time.
What we want and what we find ourselves with are two different things all too often.

[mawali]

Or do most people around you pretty much feel the same? All the soldiers I know can think for themselves.

In USA, the political climate has changed to the extent that, there are those who can think for themselves, others who follow a political aganda because they believe in that AGENDA, despite evidence to the contrary and the freethinkers who based on weather, can change at a moments notice. Veterans, as you know, come from the same social milieu as others in society so there will always be disparate views. As an example, a few of my brethern scoff at gun control measures while for myself, I do not really care one way or the other.

As Drake noted, women have served but the main problem is implementation of the new Order. A few women have been killed by IEDs/VBIED serving as part of their duties and responsibilities. WIll more women actually volunteer for Combat Arms positions to the extent that Israeli or Canadian female volunteers have?
TIme will tell!

[Drake]

In USA, the political climate has changed to the extent that, there are those who can think for themselves, others who follow a political aganda because they believe in that AGENDA, despite evidence to the contrary and the freethinkers who based on weather, can change at a moments notice. Veterans, as you know, come from the same social milieu as others in society so there will always be disparate views. As an example, a few of my brethern scoff at gun control measures while for myself, I do not really care one way or the other.

As Drake noted, women have served but the main problem is implementation of the new Order. A few women have been killed by IEDs/VBIED serving as part of their duties and responsibilities. WIll more women actually volunteer for Combat Arms positions to the extent that Israeli or Canadian female volunteers have?
TIme will tell!

Actually, I am of the notion that you stand a better chance of being hit by an IED as part of a transportation unit (which has always been open to women) as opposed to infantry.

And it's more than a few women who have died. :(

[mawali]

Actually, I am of the notion that you stand a better chance of being hit by an IED as part of a transportation unit (which has always been open to women) as opposed to infantry.

And it's more than a few women who have died. :(

On point! The case in mind is the TransportCo. that was ambushed in Iraq, where they made a wrong turn and were ambushed by insurgents and 3-4? of personnel were captured but were finally rescued! Of course, direct combat need not be the main cause of death and injury.

Ramona Valdez, USMC (RIP) -part of Female Search Team. 3 killed, the rest injured but they persevered unitl reinforcements arrived! Falluja debacle
http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/WHM08KitUSMC.html

[Drake]

There is a philosophy of taking lives to save lives that is part and parcel to all military organizations.

It is the logic of Mars. It is part of our human experience and has been so for all time.
What we want and what we find ourselves with are two different things all too often.

This reminds me of a work I am researching and writing right now on qualitative phenomenological methodologies, and how they run the risk of being inaccurate, both in validity and reliability due to the lack of direct knowledge of the subject.

[Syn7]

This reminds me of a work I am researching and writing right now on qualitative phenomenological methodologies, and how they run the risk of being inaccurate, both in validity and reliability due to the lack of direct knowledge of the subject.

lol..... :p

[RenDaHai]

There is a philosophy of taking lives to save lives that is part and parcel to all military organizations.

It is the logic of Mars. It is part of our human experience and has been so for all time.
What we want and what we find ourselves with are two different things all too often.


This reminds me of a work I am researching and writing right now on qualitative phenomenological methodologies, and how they run the risk of being inaccurate, both in validity and reliability due to the lack of direct knowledge of the subject.

Interesting Paradox.

So the only person who can lecture on the philosophy associated with killing is someone directly experienced with killing...... A fact which immediately calls into question their impartiality on the subject and so their ability to lecture it.

As with all things those experienced in something have knowledge of it. But this knowledge cuts both ways. It affects perception and allows you to see more detail but at the same time blinds you to other features the inexperienced may notice. So in all things it is necessary to heed both the experienced and the inexperienced alike. The master and disciple teach each other. The sage looks through the eyes of a child.

[pazman]

Interesting Paradox.

So the only person who can lecture on the philosophy associated with killing is someone directly experienced with killing...... A fact which immediately calls into question their impartiality on the subject and so their ability to lecture it.


Nobody can be impartial. Direct experience sometimes lead to a drastic change in opinion.

(BTW, I have lots of anecdotal evidence to back this up.:D)

[RenDaHai]

Nobody can be impartial. Direct experience sometimes lead to a drastic change in opinion.

(BTW, I have lots of anecdotal evidence to back this up.:D)

Indeed, precisely in fact. If direct experience leads to a drastic change in opinion then that illustrates my point even further. Perception is shaped by experience. It can be good to look through clean eyes.

[Drake]

Interesting Paradox.

So the only person who can lecture on the philosophy associated with killing is someone directly experienced with killing...... A fact which immediately calls into question their impartiality on the subject and so their ability to lecture it.

As with all things those experienced in something have knowledge of it. But this knowledge cuts both ways. It affects perception and allows you to see more detail but at the same time blinds you to other features the inexperienced may notice. So in all things it is necessary to heed both the experienced and the inexperienced alike. The master and disciple teach each other. The sage looks through the eyes of a child.

And from what do you base this assertion?

[Syn7]

I don't think you have to be x to research x. As long as you choose your datasets wisely, it's all good.

If that were the case, every non perfectly healthy doctor would be a fraud.

[RenDaHai]

And from what do you base this assertion?

Zen. Tao. Life. It is the way of things.

Perception is painted by experience. A change in perspective can offer amazing solutions to problems. Someone whos perception is not already coloured by experience, someone who has not already formed prejudices and preferences, they can offer a different perspective from their different perception of the things that are. Experience begets expectation. And things are unpredictable. Two different perspectives are better than two similar ones.

I think if all things were controlled ONLY by those with the most experience, it would be just as disastrous as if things were controlled only by those with none. Balance. This may seem an outrageous opinion but if you think on it a long while I believe you may see my meaning.

Theory and Application exist in all disciplines. Both are necessary and one is worthless without the other.

[Drake]

Never pet a burning dog?

[Drake]

Zen. Tao. Life. It is the way of things.

Perception is painted by experience. A change in perspective can offer amazing solutions to problems. Someone whos perception is not already coloured by experience, someone who has not already formed prejudices and preferences, they can offer a different perspective from their different perception of the things that are. Experience begets expectation. And things are unpredictable. Two different perspectives are better than two similar ones.

I think if all things were controlled ONLY by those with the most experience, it would be just as disastrous as if things were controlled only by those with none. Balance. This may seem an outrageous opinion but if you think on it a long while I believe you may see my meaning.

Theory and Application exist in all disciplines. Both are necessary and one is worthless without the other.

You aren't basing your assessment off of a foundation. You might as well suggest it's because Jesus H. Christ said love thy neighbor, and therefore this is applicable.

Perceptions and biases are discussed in depth throughout virtually any research text, often referring you to bracketing as a method by which you can identify and to some extent, eliminate bias.

I could say it doesn't matter, because we are all actually dragons maintaining an intricate balance with the nature elves. It means nothing. You assume balance because someone told you it was there. However, some very credible quantitative research suggests there is anything BUT balance in the universe. Even wrote a law or two about it, I believe...

[RenDaHai]

You aren't basing your assessment off of a foundation. You might as well suggest it's because Jesus H. Christ said love thy neighbor, and therefore this is applicable.

Perceptions and biases are discussed in depth throughout virtually any research text, often referring you to bracketing as a method by which you can identify and to some extent, eliminate bias.

I could say it doesn't matter, because we are all actually dragons maintaining an intricate balance with the nature elves. It means nothing. You assume balance because someone told you it was there. However, some very credible quantitative research suggests there is anything BUT balance in the universe. Even wrote a law or two about it, I believe...

Energy is not made or destroyed but its state of order is decreased and the universe will eventually become a chaotic mess. Entropy is unbalanced yes.


Never the less that has no bearing on what I said.

Can someone have a useful insight into something they have never experienced?

Certainly.

I do not need a basis for this comment because it happens every day to all of us. It is the way of things.

The balance refers to the person making the decisions. Not to ignore advice just because it comes from inexperience but weigh it on its own merit as opposed to on its origins.

[Syn7]

there are many approaches to choosing your datasets wisely.

[Drake]

Energy is not made or destroyed but its state of order is decreased and the universe will eventually become a chaotic mess. Entropy is unbalanced yes.


Never the less that has no bearing on what I said.

Can someone have a useful insight into something they have never experienced?

Certainly.

I do not need a basis for this comment because it happens every day to all of us. It is the way of things.

The balance refers to the person making the decisions. Not to ignore advice just because it comes from inexperience but weigh it on its own merit as opposed to on its origins.

So if I cannot observe the curvature of the Earth, it must be flat, because that is evident to me? insight into something observed and not experienced, but there are risks. If you deny this, then happy reality to you, sir!

Someone CAN have

[RenDaHai]

So if I cannot observe the curvature of the Earth, it must be flat, because that is evident to me? insight into something observed and not experienced, but there are risks. If you deny this, then happy reality to you, sir!

Someone CAN have

I'm a little confused by the above.

Do you mean that to form a valid opinion you would need at least observation of something and this would run risks of being less accurate than direct experience?

Well, thats the real trick isn't it. What we observe is never what is true, what we observe is our minds interpretation of what we saw. And this interpretation is heavily distorted by past experience. You see? But thats getting a little philosophical.


When approaching a complex philosophical problem, such as the philosophy behind socially acceptable killing, then someone would not require direct experience to form a reasonable insight into it.

On the contrary, the philosopher should be a third person, an impartial observer. Now of course being truly impartial is impossible. But certainly anyone involved in the actual 'experiment' cannot be the observer. Asking the opinions of just one set of soldiers would be wrong. We need the opinions of their enemies, of the civilians caught in the middle, of the families of the dead. We are all human and we all have the 'potential' to be any one of the subjects and so our own insight through imagination is part of the process.

Sure, the more information the better, observed, experienced or theorised it is all useful and all valid. But to argue about it requires no qualifications of the arguer. Being sentient is qualification enough.

[Drake]

Researchers have already discussed this. At length.

[David Jamieson]

Well, I'm willing to bet they haven't come up with any conclusions whatsoever. :)

[Syn7]

Well, I'm willing to bet they haven't come up with any conclusions whatsoever. :)

Yeah, I don't like those odds. You win!



You don't need to experience everything to understand it. Besides, eye witness testimony/personal experience is the weakest form of evidence we have. PERIOD. Find me one researcher who values anything like that without any other supporting evidence. You will find frauds and jokes.

Now, can experience add perspective? Sure.... But it can just as easily trip you up.

[Drake]

Yeah, I don't like those odds. You win!



You don't need to experience everything to understand it. Besides, eye witness testimony/personal experience is the weakest form of evidence we have. PERIOD. Find me one researcher who values anything like that without any other supporting evidence. You will find frauds and jokes.

Now, can experience add perspective? Sure.... But it can just as easily trip you up.

Can you effectively and qualitatively understand heroin addiction as Well as one who has actually been an addict?

[Syn7]

Can you effectively and qualitatively understand heroin addiction as Well as one who has actually been an addict?

Well, you need to distinguish and classify your subjects. Human beings are x factors. As an intelligence officer I don't need to tell you just how unreliable and unpredictable people can be at times.

If you are studying an object, you don't need that experience, just the ability to understand it. Whatever that may be.

With people, it's a lil more messy.

And to answer your question, no, you cannot know how it feels personally w/o your own opioid addiction. That being said, you don't need to know HOW it feels to know what you need to know to develop treatment. Physically, that is. Mentally is a whole new ballgame. While it helps to be with people who you believe understand what you're going through, it's not a pre req for creating a great program.

So can you know how to assess a Moslems intentions w/o actually converting, Drake?

[Syn7]

I used to engineer and build devices and rigs to assist handicapped people with unique and/or specific needs.

So did I need to have that handicap to develop the perfect tools for them? No, of course not. You can use a million diff techniques to simulate experiences. Or you can go trial and error using the subjects feedback. I use em all.

Give me some examples where this broad model is not possible? With access to those with experience and your own ability to objectively assess this data, you're good.


Remember what we're talking about here. Your original insinuation was that people who aren't in the military don't have the experience to judge the policy. I say **** that. All I need is access and the tools.

[Drake]

Well, you need to distinguish and classify your subjects. Human beings are x factors. As an intelligence officer I don't need to tell you just how unreliable and unpredictable people can be at times.

If you are studying an object, you don't need that experience, just the ability to understand it. Whatever that may be.

With people, it's a lil more messy.

And to answer your question, no, you cannot know how it feels personally w/o your own opioid addiction. That being said, you don't need to know HOW it feels to know what you need to know to develop treatment. Physically, that is. Mentally is a whole new ballgame. While it helps to be with people who you believe understand what you're going through, it's not a pre req for creating a great program.

So can you know how to assess a Moslems intentions w/o actually converting, Drake?

Muslim or not has nothing to do with it, except MAYBE knowing prayer times. Otherwise, you are dealing with militants/businessmen. Cultural knowledge helps.

BUT, to accentuate my point, Sarah Chayes said you must live in Kandahar for ten years at a minimum if you expect to understand anything about the city. She is right. We've been trying for years, and still don't get it.

Again, you are confusing the nature of qualitative research design with... whatever the hell that is you folks are talking about.

[Syn7]

I reject the idea that military programming is necessary for coming to objective and wise conclusions. This much should be obvious.

Hypothetically speaking, cause with this example it has to be, what if you spend ten years studying Kandahar with all the resources you need w/o actually being there?

Do you understand the question?

Let's go back to opioid addiction. For this it's easier to show concept because it's a state, not a place. Can you understand opioid addiction by spending ten years immersed in that culture w/o actually using the drugs?

Of course you can.

I understand what you're saying. But in relation to making judgments on the military it doesn't fly. Do you need to feel something in order to know EXACTLY how it feels? Of course! You can be there and assess w/o actually being a part.

[Syn7]

Also, participant observation is not paramount in qualitative research. It's one of a handful of approaches to data collection. Including most of what I have mentioned already.

[RenDaHai]

Can you effectively and qualitatively understand heroin addiction as Well as one who has actually been an addict?

Well, you can understand aspects of it. You can understand the effects of it and the cause of it. The sensation will be beyond you. Although you can attempt to imagine it by thinking of something you are addicted to (and we all are addicted to something, be it a substance a pass-time or a person) and then magnifying that addiction by imagination. Its not perfect but its something.


Bouncing off what Syn said above I do not need to convert to Islam to form an opinion on it, or to evaluate its philosophies against others or to comment on the examples set by its followers.

[Syn7]

Bouncing off what Syn said above I do not need to convert to Islam to form an opinion on it, or to evaluate its philosophies against others or to comment on the examples set by its followers.

In fact, in that case, being Moslem would be a hindrance to objectivity.

The question is, does meaningful participation obfuscate objectivity?

I believe it does. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. And in some cases the benefits may outweigh the drawbacks. That being said, in the context of assessing the military, one does not need to be a soldier to make informed conclusions about policy.

[RenDaHai]

The question is, does meaningful participation obfuscate objectivity?


Well indeed, the "impartial" observer is a necessity in experiment. The 3rd person. The witness.

But in the end, whatever we argue about we will come down to Human decisions. And judging human decisions.

We can never judge another man. Because we can never know all the facets of his life. Even our blood brother, we cannot ever know what it is to be him, we can not see all the events of his past.

But we CAN judge the decisions he makes.

How? Because we are equipped with the same faculty for making decisions.

[Drake]

I reject the idea that military programming is necessary for coming to objective and wise conclusions. This much should be obvious.

Hypothetically speaking, cause with this example it has to be, what if you spend ten years studying Kandahar with all the resources you need w/o actually being there?

Do you understand the question?

Let's go back to opioid addiction. For this it's easier to show concept because it's a state, not a place. Can you understand opioid addiction by spending ten years immersed in that culture w/o actually using the drugs?

Of course you can.

I understand what you're saying. But in relation to making judgments on the military it doesn't fly. Do you need to feel something in order to know EXACTLY how it feels? Of course! You can be there and assess w/o actually being a part.

You could study Kandahar for a thousand years and still be clueless upon arrival, actually.

[Drake]

And you DO know dealing with Afghans actually is pretty light in terms of Islam. Sure, it's their religion, but there are much more meaningful and relevant connections to be made.

Classic armchair general correlation. A muslim in Iraq is nowhere in the same universe as a muslim in Afghanistan.

[Drake]

Well, you can understand aspects of it. You can understand the effects of it and the cause of it. The sensation will be beyond you. Although you can attempt to imagine it by thinking of something you are addicted to (and we all are addicted to something, be it a substance a pass-time or a person) and then magnifying that addiction by imagination. Its not perfect but its something.


Bouncing off what Syn said above I do not need to convert to Islam to form an opinion on it, or to evaluate its philosophies against others or to comment on the examples set by its followers.


Most junkies will agree that nonjunkies haven't a clue. And to think you do is stupid.

An addiction to Fritos is NOT even remotely comparable to heroin addiction. Not even a teensy weensy bit.

[Syn7]

Most junkies will agree that nonjunkies haven't a clue. And to think you do is stupid.

An addiction to Fritos is NOT even remotely comparable to heroin addiction. Not even a teensy weensy bit.

You are wrong about that. Obviously they wouldn't have the actual experience, but they can still relate. I know so. I've seen it up close, lots. The truth of it is that they have both and need both.


And the Kandahar thing is a perspective thing. If your from a town ten miles away, no sweat. If you are from a completely alien culture, you will have a lot to learn.


None of that changes what I said before though.

[Syn7]

And you DO know dealing with Afghans actually is pretty light in terms of Islam. Sure, it's their religion, but there are much more meaningful and relevant connections to be made.

Classic armchair general correlation. A muslim in Iraq is nowhere in the same universe as a muslim in Afghanistan.

I never said otherwise.

Afghanistan was a relatively westernized place until they got caught up in all the proxy bull****. Let's not forget who helped the Taliban get into power in the first place. If anything you guys are cleaning up your own mess and laying economic foundation.

[RenDaHai]

Most junkies will agree that nonjunkies haven't a clue. And to think you do is stupid.

An addiction to Fritos is NOT even remotely comparable to heroin addiction. Not even a teensy weensy bit.

They are still human beings. Their experience cannot go past the limits of human endurance. There ARE people who HAVE recovered.

Is their addiction stronger than the addiction of a mother to her baby?

Is the withdrawal sickness worse than our most deadly diseases?

I realise we cannot know the sensation. But we can relate to it in some terms. And bottom line they made decisions in their life which led to it. These decisions are things we can understand and relate to.

Experience IS immensely useful. But so is observation. If you were running a rehab centre for junkies would you employ ONLY ex-junkies? Would you employ ONLY ex-junkies to write the law on drugs? Would you employ only ex-junkies to find a treatment? Clearly, no.

In the U.S ARMY is experience the only factor for promotion? Should it be?

[Drake]

You are wrong about that. Obviously they wouldn't have the actual experience, but they can still relate. I know so. I've seen it up close, lots. The truth of it is that they have both and need both.


And the Kandahar thing is a perspective thing. If your from a town ten miles away, no sweat. If you are from a completely alien culture, you will have a lot to learn.


None of that changes what I said before though.

Kandahar has eaten many an out of owner alive. Ask anyone from, say, Zharay.

[Drake]

They are still human beings. Their experience cannot go past the limits of human endurance. There ARE people who HAVE recovered.

Is their addiction stronger than the addiction of a mother to her baby?

Is the withdrawal sickness worse than our most deadly diseases?

I realise we cannot know the sensation. But we can relate to it in some terms. And bottom line they made decisions in their life which led to it. These decisions are things we can understand and relate to.

Experience IS immensely useful. But so is observation. If you were running a rehab centre for junkies would you employ ONLY ex-junkies? Would you employ ONLY ex-junkies to write the law on drugs? Would you employ only ex-junkies to find a treatment? Clearly, no.

In the U.S ARMY is experience the only factor for promotion? Should it be?


Nobody said worse or stronger. I said different and impossible to understand.

And promotion in the Army is based off of a number of factors. Education, awards, experience in the Army, experience in the current rank, physical fitness, military education, marksmanship, recommendation of superiors, depth of knowledge, and a structured board. That's just for NCOs.


Are you operating from an actual standpoint of exploration, or am I just responding to confirmation bias? It's a fair question.

[RenDaHai]

Nobody said worse or stronger. I said different and impossible to understand.

And promotion in the Army is based off of a number of factors. Education, awards, experience in the Army, experience in the current rank, physical fitness, military education, marksmanship, recommendation of superiors, depth of knowledge, and a structured board. That's just for NCOs.


Are you operating from an actual standpoint of exploration, or am I just responding to confirmation bias? It's a fair question.

No man, I'm genuinely interested in this issue and I'm happy to accept I'm wrong on points, but it will take a strong argument because I have strong convictions. But I love that kind of argument because it makes me more certain of things.


It is an interesting topic and its great if we can explore it without getting emotional which we all seem to be doing so far.


So to go further, what about NCOs and Commissioned officers? Will a Sergeant with 20 years experience readily take orders from a CO who has just graduated? I know they are fulfilling different roles, but this applies somewhat to our topic...


Also, you say impossible to understand, and while that is true, perception will always be impossible to understand. I can't even understand the way you perceive a colour because I am not you, let alone a drug addiction. But never the less humans have physical limits and this sensation cannot exceed them. And so we know whatever they feel it is within these limits. So we are still able to offer theories on the topic.

Theoretical wisdom vs Practical wisdom again, you need both.

[Syn7]

Nobody said worse or stronger. I said different and impossible to understand.

Not true. Again, I've spent A TON of time being up close and personal with addicts in recovery and on the street. What you are saying is a gross over generalization of the facts. Yes there are many people who are closed off, hurt and think "**** you, you don't understand me and what I go through.". You talk to these people a few years after they have cleaned up and they will roll their eyes at all that, for the most part. Some ego's NEED to believe they are unique and thus have value in a time of their life when they are beaten down and hurting. You don't know what you're talking about. So yes, there is that one element of personal experience missing, but it doesn't limit understanding the way you say.

Also many are caught up in the 12 step cult. The whole foundation of 12 steps is that you are A: not in control of your destiny and B: you need 12 step program to get clean.

Both untrue. Now I don't grudge somebody AA or NA if that makes their lives better. But there are more efficient ways to deal with it that don't have all the trappings and gilt. A support system is important, but it doesn't have to be a room full of junkies. Just people willing to put in the time and do their best to understand what they are going through with a touch of tough love. In years to come, AA/NA will be looked at as archaic and draconian.

[Syn7]

You kept asking if one can effectively and qualitatively understand something w/o the experience as if it holds any weight in the context of assessing the military. As long as you have the resources to answer all the questions you need to answer, you're good. If you want to write a report about what it is like to be stoned, then you should prolly get stoned. If you want to do an assessment on car accidents, you don't actually need to get in the car and ram yourself into a wall. We have analogues and survivor accounts for that and it is MORE than enough. Driving into a tree yourself won't help your numbers.

I love how you address all the stuff I don't really care about then clam up on the ones I do care about. I bet it's not even a conscious effort on your part. You just are who you are.


You know Kandahar was better off before your people trained the Taliban. Shiiit, they would have been better off as a Russian satellite.

[mawali]

You know Kandahar was better off before your people trained the Taliban. Shiiit, they would have been better off as a Russian satellite.

Better yet, if they had been left alone in their own universe.
Blowback is a bioootch. The US should have left well alone.

[Drake]

You kept asking if one can effectively and qualitatively understand something w/o the experience as if it holds any weight in the context of assessing the military. As long as you have the resources to answer all the questions you need to answer, you're good. If you want to write a report about what it is like to be stoned, then you should prolly get stoned. If you want to do an assessment on car accidents, you don't actually need to get in the car and ram yourself into a wall. We have analogues and survivor accounts for that and it is MORE than enough. Driving into a tree yourself won't help your numbers.

I love how you address all the stuff I don't really care about then clam up on the ones I do care about. I bet it's not even a conscious effort on your part. You just are who you are.


You know Kandahar was better off before your people trained the Taliban. Shiiit, they would have been better off as a Russian satellite.

Technically, Kandahar always sucked. It got much worse due to the Russians, not the Taliban. You are read up on Kandahar, or are you simply reciting something you think is true?

90% of what I know about Kandahar today I learned by being there. Everything else is background noise for the most part.

[Syn7]

Technically, Kandahar always sucked. It got much worse due to the Russians, not the Taliban. You are read up on Kandahar, or are you simply reciting something you think is true?

90% of what I know about Kandahar today I learned by being there. Everything else is background noise for the most part.

I'm not saying the Russians are great. But you know the Taliban was at least in part equipped and trained by US tax dollars and now those same tax dollars are used to clean up that mess.


I refuse to engage on a what is and what isn't about Kandahar. But I am happy to engage on examples that I am more familiar with containing the same core argument. Which is why I stuck with the "heroin" example.

I don't doubt that being in Kandahar was an interesting education.

You can stick and move all you want. But you haven't made your case. My argument is and always was counter to your original statements.

[Drake]

I'm not saying the Russians are great. But you know the Taliban was at least in part equipped and trained by US tax dollars and now those same tax dollars are used to clean up that mess.


I refuse to engage on a what is and what isn't about Kandahar. But I am happy to engage on examples that I am more familiar with containing the same core argument. Which is why I stuck with the "heroin" example.

I don't doubt that being in Kandahar was an interesting education.

You can stick and move all you want. But you haven't made your case. My argument is and always was counter to your original statements.

Wait... you are an addiction counselor? Or, are you simply analyzing the issue through your viewpoint? That's a HUGE research no-no. Do any other researchers, or hell, any psychologists fall in line with your view of it? If not, you may have a nasty case of the bias.

[Drake]

So to go further, what about NCOs and Commissioned officers? Will a Sergeant with 20 years experience readily take orders from a CO who has just graduated?

First off, you won't find a CO who doesn't already have several years under his or her belt. Secondly, even in the impossible event that a 2LT was given company command, the 1SG would be obligated, by law and by creed, to support that officer. If he didn't, then he would be in jail, likely after being put through a lot of grief first.

NCOs help their officers. That's just the way it is.

[Syn7]

I use both my personal observations and available research. Within reason, of course. By no means am I claiming to be a medical professional. I am familiar with research methods, Drake, including quantitative research. R & D is what I do.


I know for a fact that many people understand heroin addiction, but have never been wired themselves. You wanna drop in I can introduce them to you. Simple as that. I am not going to scour journals and the net to find evidence for you. I've said what I think. I have been quite clear about what and why. If you have any question, by all means feel free to ask. But your grasping at straws now.

It's like the Lance Armstrong thing. You were so sure and so was I. When I ended up being verifiably right, you got emotional. I'm not always right, of course. But about the heroin thing, I know I am. Not that I ever expected to sway you. I doubt you will ever admit fault to me w/o having to.

[RenDaHai]

First off, you won't find a CO who doesn't already have several years under his or her belt. Secondly, even in the impossible event that a 2LT was given company command, the 1SG would be obligated, by law and by creed, to support that officer. If he didn't, then he would be in jail, likely after being put through a lot of grief first.

NCOs help their officers. That's just the way it is.


Look, I'm not trying to argue the specifics of the situation, I am just trying to relate to your experience in the hope that it will help you see my point more clearly.

The point I am trying to make is that there must be times when there are people with somewhat less experience put in charge of people with somewhat more experience, and yet that still works.

'NCOs help their officers. That's just the way it is'..... But why is it that way? It must be that way because it works, because it makes sense somehow. Right?

[Drake]

Look, I'm not trying to argue the specifics of the situation, I am just trying to relate to your experience in the hope that it will help you see my point more clearly.

The point I am trying to make is that there must be times when there are people with somewhat less experience put in charge of people with somewhat more experience, and yet that still works.

'NCOs help their officers. That's just the way it is'..... But why is it that way? It must be that way because it works, because it makes sense somehow. Right?

It works, it makes sense, and long ago you could very quickly make that insubordinate NCO very dead. All modern military has its roots in a very savage but efficient old way of doing things.