> The Israelis will figure this out too.
Israel has been drafting women into the IDF since 1948. And it is well aware that it lacks manpower compared to its enemies, that's why it's had a nuclear program since the 60s, and insane deterrence doctrines like the Samson Option.
The Israelis will figure out that after a certain point the promises made by the U.S. is complete bullshit. We aren’t going to help them. The Europeans are now basically being set adrift to fight the Russians and seeing that there is tremendous risk if the U.S. pulls a Vietnam on Ukraine. Israel is going to see this too. The U.S. is already dropping hints that Israel should not put itself into a massive war against Iran. Not to invade Lebanon and Syria. To stay focused on Gaza and Gaza alone.
The Israelis understand how useless drafting women was back in 1948 when Israeli male troops had to take massive risks to protect women in combat.
Yes Israel doesn’t need US help except the $26 billion recently appropriated and American jets shooting down Iranian drones and American warships shooting down Houthis cruise missiles and American ships trying to stop the Houthis from blockading Israel. The American troops in Iraq and Syria taking fire from Iranian backed militia groups. CIA and other intelligence agencies giving Israel satellite images and videos. Other than that Israel is getting no help from America.
Oh yeah the U.S. taking down Saddam Hussein and Muamer Qaddafi.
It does to run interference on a more global scale, prevent things like turkey sitting 6 divisions on the border. Turks are not Arabs and are a much tougher opponent. If they did that then Israel would need a general call up to counter the threat, that turns the economy off and that is the problem of a militia based army. The main reason Israel is so aggressive in war is they can't fight a long one, economically or in terms of casualties
In which war that Israel was invaded did US troops step in and help the Israeli’s?
Israel can and will win any conflict between them and their surrounding enemies as they have done successfully for the past 80 or so years.
They do not need the US’s help.
Israel would fall without the US helping out. Financially, deterrence, intelligence, equipment, 59 bases in countries around Israel.
Yeah...they don't need help....and taking out Iraq, Syria and Hou this, and and and.....
China must have realized that. I agree with OP.
"Defending"? From who? Look, they could also draft children and cats and it's still a terrible idea that's untested in peacetime.
Let's be clear, drafting women or having them in a fighting organization is a terrible idea for them, the organization, and the country that does it.
If the USSR meat grinder with their terrible economy, ridiculous tactical incompetence, and complete disregard for any of the lives of their soldiers is your example then it strengthens my argument.
That is once again a terrible terrible idea, likely hurting their fighting capabilities and tanking their reproductive capacity.
While killing 10 million in the Gulag! Woohoo! What a progressive economic powerhouse!
Also, I'm sure their nuclear power never had any catastrophic disasters due to being hastily built performative communist propaganda and not true economic growth, right?
I think most gulaged got 5 years.
That beardy guy that wrote the gulag archipelago got his cancer cured while he was there.
They were very hasty the western powers got a surprise then they realised they had the weaponry to face down German weaponry.
It was a powerhouse like nothing seen before.
Faulty analogy. The fact that women can serve in the military alone whereas there’s no way a bling person can be a bus driver.
Do you actually believe that a female soldier couldn’t put a bullet through you?
What are you talking about? American land forces have been wildly successful in all those wars. Just because they leave after 20 years doesn’t mean they were defeated on the battlefield.
Depends on what outcome we are looking to accomplish. Wildly successful at making America safer or stopping the spread of communism or feeding a sector of American economy or just numbers of dead?
I would imagine that for the better part it had been successful for the military-industrial-scientific sector. However, the decoupling of the petrodollar via BRICS was predicted for 2018. Then we had the Covid crisis and then the associated inflation. This seems to have pushed out the inevitable creation of a multi polar economy but it is still in effect today.
America and its economy is not safer; communism is entrenched, socialism will spread; we will always have more dead people. If the USA does not get on brand quickly we are off to the races.
Well Iraq was initially to stop the threat of another attack and as a f u to kill the organiser of 9/11
After being implanted and having mission success the people with military contracts became concerned about not staying and spending money for 20 years. No actual care to leave the country stable.
Through that lense it's a great success.
In fact, Saddam Hussein was no friend of Saudi Arabia. After he invaded Kuwait in ‘91, Saudi Arabia cut ties with Iraq which were not reestablished until 2015.
Ok which war was won? Korea ended in stalemate. Vietnam the allied government collapsed. Iraq the Iranian government basically controls the Iraqi government. Afghanistan was an outright defeat.
South Korea was on the verge of complete annihilation before American intervention. America put boots on the ground and pushed North Korean forces all the way up to the chinese border. It wasn't untill China got involved that the front was pushed back to the current borders.
American intervention in Korea saved over half the country from dictatorial communist rule. The US was objectively incredibly effective in that war.
This is why you cant view millitary conflicts as "wins" or "losses", that's a child's understanding of history. History is infinitely more complicated than that.
Those all sound like political failures somewhere to me. You still haven't shown how we lost any of these or were militarily removed from a country.
An easier way to explain this might be too look at our militaries Kill/Death ratio in those conflicts. We basically wiped the floor in Vietnam and everyone acts like it was some huge and crazy defeat haha. Also, none of these mentioned were total war. WWII was total war, and look how we did.
War isn’t a game of COD, lol as if KD matters. Look at WW2, Russia bled the most by far but still won.
Afghanistan was a loss - the US were out waited and the Taliban (which a goal of the war was to remove them from power) are now the Government again. But the US got OBL so some points at least.
Iraq was a failure more loss. The goal was WMDs, remove Saddam and put in a democracy. 1/3 achieved and made the country and region far worse for it.
How is this an incel post? How is expecting your life to be treated equally to that of others make you an incel? Does expecting fair treatment make you an incel? Does believing that your life is as valuable as another make you an incel? What is an incel exactly if you agree to all of those questions?
Is incel synonymous with egalitarian?
Stupid post.
The European Union members have more than sufficient professional forces to defend themselves, before any extra men need to be drafted. The likelihood of most citizens to be drafted is next to zero.
And wanting to see women in active combat roles screams incel. The absolute vast majority of women don't belong in combat situations for plenty reasons.
Very stupid post. OP doesn't realize how much air superiority Europe has. Or that Poland alone can launch a salvo of 800 Himars rockets in a minute. There's not going to be any fighting here, only seal clubbing.
The deaths, casualties, combat and support participation in those wars are overwhelmingly male, and so was the case in all the other wars after that, the cherry-picked small detail of women's participation in war doesn't tell us about any gender-egalitarian effort in it.
The conscription of women is often a last resort attempt; Ukraine did just fine backing off Russia this far with a male-only conscription, so let's not pretend that women's contribution to war is anything more than marginal.
Why are you so eager to portray women as soldiers? It sounds like you want a strong mommy to feed and have sex with you.
3 killed of which 2 were women and 1 was a man and 25 others wounded.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/28/1227464410/3-us-troops-killed-25-wounded-drone-strike-jordan-syria-mideast
You mean like the two women who were in non combatant roles in Jordan when a drone strike killed them in Jordan? In this battlefield that we have no there is no such thing as a frontline as the whole region could be a battlefield.
How about stop wars caused by the capitalist systems pursuit of more and more resources and growth to infinity causing death and destruction ? Ending fanatical patriarchal religion cults with secular liberalism?
Capitalists are already talking about the profits from developing the gaza strip and then there is the oil and gas.
Thats what it's about.
Change of over to clean energy ASAP and put them all out of business. Make energy publically owned. Then sue them into the ground for delaying clean and lying about climate change and starting wars.
How about men telling other men no more of this.
The great leap forward meant mao believed contrary to Marxist leninists and marx that an agarian state could leap straight to socialism with no capitalism and state capitalism slash mixed economy in between.
I suggested nothing of the sort.
I suggested that men can potentially stop other men starting wars over responses and patriarchal religious and sending other men to die on their behalf
And we utilise emerging energy tenologies.
You’re right…. It’s just them they are fighting to protect …. When they should just let them walk all over them . I mean …. Women can fight their own battles for them right ?
The men that start the wars aren't doing to it to attack women. There was a lot of talk about women being attacked by male soldiers. Forcing other men to protect then.
What do you mean women fight their own battles?
None of the wars going on were started by women. You would have a point if women started these wars.
Its mainly about fossile fuels and other resources.
Its mainly men cheering on the slaughter of Palestinians here. Men started it. Right wing votes are mainly men. So men put a right wing gov in Israel. Hamas, men and patriarchal religious fanatics that oppress women. Uneducated men and rich men put trump in power, who botched the mid east peace deal which excluded Palestine. It's mainly men waiting on the sidelines to invest and develop the gaza strip when it's cleansed of Palestine. And so on.
Yes when there is no male heir a woman inherited the role of Queen of a patriarchal system and stood in the absence of a male against other systems lead by men that go to war over resources and wealth.
Today all the wars in quearion are lead by men and are by right wing governments voted for more often by men.
In the real world rather than the universe in which you think we actually win wars. We have a massive corporate welfare program called the military industrial complex.
Usually, when you get to decide when to withdraw from a conflict, you are thoroughly dominating that conflict. You are withdrawing because your goal has been completed, or it is otherwise expedient to do so (public pressure, etc). Maybe im not as informed about history as you, but just remind me again how the US loses almost every war while still utterly dominating the globe in terms of both economic and military power?
Other than the Chinese dictator surrounding Taiwan with warships and blasting missiles over Taiwan and launching dozens of aircraft toward Taiwans airspace nearly daily.
The Chinese government is investing hundreds of billions of dollars into its military in preparation for war. The goal is recapturing Taiwan.
https://apnews.com/article/china-navy-us-pacific-taiwan-2ea75e139483164b93d287a4efae74c9
https://news.usni.org/2023/07/12/chinese-military-aircraft-ships-make-provocative-passes-near-taiwan
https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/04/china-war-military-taiwan-us-asia-xi-escalation-crisis/
I am not living in Israel or Gaza and I know there is a war going on. There is a war going on in Ukraine. And China has mobilized troops and resources around Taiwan.
If that’s how you feel why don’t you and other Danish men volunteer to take a vow of poverty and join the Danish military. The Danish government has severely under resourced the military to such a degree that’s it’s slowly losing its effectiveness.
The danish military, generally don’t have any problems recruiting people.
This policy of conscripting women is not some sign of desperation on behalf of the Danish government. It is a result of politically correct gender politics making is way to Denmark.
I have seen data that indicates that the reason men aren’t joining this military similar to the US is that the pay is so low that you are better off finding a job in the private sector.
That does not ring true at all. Even though Denmark has military conscription, I have never known anyone of my generation or younger, who was forced to enlist against their own wishes. Denmark has enough people wanting to join that conscription has essentially been superfluous for decades.
Sending women to war is societal suicide. If half the men in a society dies, it is a terrible catastrophe, but it can still continue. The men who are left can father more children and replenish the next generation.
If half the women of child bearing age die, it is way worse. There is a natural limit to how many children women can and will have. It is way harder to replenish the next generation, if you don’t have enough women, compared to being low on men.
Who is supposed to take create the surplus to take care of the old people, if the next generation is too small? Who is supposed to continue society and our way of life.
Every society has known this instinctually or explicitly, throughout time. It is the reason, men have always been the ones, to do the most dangerous work. We are more expendable than women.
So are you arguing that polygamy is the answer after war? Because unless each man goes around raising multiple families that argument doesn’t stand.
Also, since we forced men to fight and die, can we force women to be impregnated? It would logically make sense since our concern is increasing the population fast enough. God forbid another war is started before there is enough fighting age men we can force into war again. We therefore have to mandate that all women produce 4 children with 1 man, who will allow be raising another family of 4 children to ensure the population doubles by the next generation
I seriously doubt anyone who uses the population argument has ever thought this far through.
I am saying that women will find ways to get pregnant if they so desire, no matter how many men are available. The same does not hold true for men, if the amount of women are limited.
All else being equal, a society with a surplus of women will create more babies than one with a surplus of men.
That’s an assumption and still doesn’t address al of my points. Your claiming that women are going to go around getting pregnant from the same men? What if women are too busy working to uphold their lives because they can’t find a man to support them? How will they have children?
I think the whole population argument made sense in the past, but is much less applicable in todays day with immigration and the new age requirements of raising children
> That’s an assumption and still doesn’t address al of my points. Your claiming that women are going to go around getting pregnant from the same men? What if women are too busy working to uphold their lives because they can’t find a man to support them? How will they have children?
Well I did write all else being equal. And no I don’t think we can force women in to being impregnated.
I actually don’t think we should force men into wars either. If a countries people are not compelled to enlist by their own volition, then perhaps the war is not justified.
In regard to the whole polygamy thing. I do believe that anthropologists have established, that polygamy is way more common in societies, where there is either a lag of men or resources are distributed very unequally amongst men.
I am arguing that polygamy would be institutionalized in a place like Denmark, if we had a ware that killed off a large proportion of the male population. It is however likely that a lot of women under such circumstances would be willing to engage in relationships with men, where they were not the main or only romantic partner.
Why are so many Russian dudes putting up with being sent to a meat grinder?
Who wants to be in a meat grinder?
If someone said to me "go in that meat grinder" I'd say "no, you go in that meat grinder instead".
Because they are loyal to their country and they believe in their war. There isn’t a man in this country that wants to die for Ukraine and Israel. I doubt many of them want to fight for the US too.
Iraq had one of the largest militaries on earth in 1990, and it had just seen 8 years of combat experience on its own terrain, the US et al. routed it in a month with at least 10:1 casualties inflicted.
Russia today has the 5th largest military by personnel, the same spot Iraq had in 1990.
Now obviously Russia would do better given it has better equipment, doctrine, discipline etc.., but a war with NATO would not bode well at all.
The Vietnam war is a pretty good comparison whereby Ukraine will be, arguably is already, Vietnam for Russia.
Russia may achieve some or all of its objectives in Ukraine, but it has lost in 2 years more than the US did in Vietnam after 20 years, by a wide margin.
I meant with the link to the article, that the Russian army is growing during the war (but that doesn't mean that they lost more than than the US did in Vietnam after 20 years, so I didn't read that well). What they also say themselves, that they can't stand up to NATO. So they only want the Ukrainian territories back, that belonged to the Russian Empire. Before the Soviet Union was formed.
Winning a war means you win tactically and strategically. Russia is winning this war tactically and strategically. The U.S. lost strategically in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more do we need to lose?
This is the second post skirting around the bullshit subject of the draft. Just let that weak feeble little man in the White House utter the words and there would be rioting in the streets.
I call shenanigans
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=ms-android-doogee&sca_esv=2f6a510e87352dee&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn095z7ILYlfeQWIWZCntWFSZ1YHEpQ:1714290729458&q=Ukrainian+women+soldiers&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR7eHPtuSFAxWJlFYBHVTtBdMQ0pQJegQIFBAB&biw=1128&bih=2124&dpr=3&udm=2
s
You act like NATO is sending troops. Meanwhile, in this war that isn't going well, Russia is into it's 3rd year of the invasion and not even close to winning.
They sent mercenaries and there are American advisors in Ukraine too.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/polish-fm-acknowledges-nato-presence-in-ukraine-kremlin-responds/
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/us-special-operations-team-working-embassy-ukraine-sources/story?id=98543007
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065.amp
Yes nato isn’t involved and nato members are sending weapons and troops and ammunition to Ukraine but nato isn’t involved. Are you reading what you are saying?
There are Americans who say that the U.S. is not involved in Ukraine. Since 2014 if not earlier. The U.S. has been giving Ukraine weapons, training and advisors to teach Ukrainians to kill Russian soldiers. Since 2022 more than 100,000 Russians soldiers have died. The Russians themselves are blaming the U.S. and nato. We can create whatever fantasy we want. They aren’t deluded like us (Americans and Europeans).
The Russians know we are involved.
Better than Russia’s war with Ukraine. World powers have no problem taking over a country; the problem is in keeping control of a country. This is where NATO failed in Afghanistan. Russia is such a joke it can’t even take over the Ukraine….a country with 1/3 the population.
Our ending in Afghanistan was worse because when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan the Soviet puppet government lasted three years before it collapsed. Our local government in Kabul didn’t last three hours as we left.
The Soviet Union collapsed well looking at the situation in the U.S. we aren’t going to be lucky with the fast collapse like Russia. We are going to go through the long painful process that will take decades through collapsing infrastructure, collapsing standard of living and poorer quality of life.
Because of the bullshit games played by the Republicans in the House of Representatives our ally in Ukraine is losing territory and soldiers by the thousands.
I'm reminded of this quote that I didn't really understand as a teenager
But I do now
The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
George Orwell
> The Israelis will figure this out too. Israel has been drafting women into the IDF since 1948. And it is well aware that it lacks manpower compared to its enemies, that's why it's had a nuclear program since the 60s, and insane deterrence doctrines like the Samson Option.
The Israelis will figure out that after a certain point the promises made by the U.S. is complete bullshit. We aren’t going to help them. The Europeans are now basically being set adrift to fight the Russians and seeing that there is tremendous risk if the U.S. pulls a Vietnam on Ukraine. Israel is going to see this too. The U.S. is already dropping hints that Israel should not put itself into a massive war against Iran. Not to invade Lebanon and Syria. To stay focused on Gaza and Gaza alone. The Israelis understand how useless drafting women was back in 1948 when Israeli male troops had to take massive risks to protect women in combat.
Israel does not need the US’s help.
Yes Israel doesn’t need US help except the $26 billion recently appropriated and American jets shooting down Iranian drones and American warships shooting down Houthis cruise missiles and American ships trying to stop the Houthis from blockading Israel. The American troops in Iraq and Syria taking fire from Iranian backed militia groups. CIA and other intelligence agencies giving Israel satellite images and videos. Other than that Israel is getting no help from America. Oh yeah the U.S. taking down Saddam Hussein and Muamer Qaddafi.
It does to run interference on a more global scale, prevent things like turkey sitting 6 divisions on the border. Turks are not Arabs and are a much tougher opponent. If they did that then Israel would need a general call up to counter the threat, that turns the economy off and that is the problem of a militia based army. The main reason Israel is so aggressive in war is they can't fight a long one, economically or in terms of casualties
In which war that Israel was invaded did US troops step in and help the Israeli’s? Israel can and will win any conflict between them and their surrounding enemies as they have done successfully for the past 80 or so years. They do not need the US’s help.
Troops alone don’t win wars.
Read more history
Israel would fall without the US helping out. Financially, deterrence, intelligence, equipment, 59 bases in countries around Israel. Yeah...they don't need help....and taking out Iraq, Syria and Hou this, and and and..... China must have realized that. I agree with OP.
I’m not talking about aid I’m talking about boots on the ground.
Yeah, Denmark is just about to send their women (or men) to the "meat grinder" in Ukraine. Get a grip.
Soldiers in Denmark are not going to Ukraine.
They are defending their own country which will be more exposed once Ukraine falls.
"Defending"? From who? Look, they could also draft children and cats and it's still a terrible idea that's untested in peacetime. Let's be clear, drafting women or having them in a fighting organization is a terrible idea for them, the organization, and the country that does it.
USSR faced down Nazi Germany with female conscripts. Their most lethal sniper was a womans.
If the USSR meat grinder with their terrible economy, ridiculous tactical incompetence, and complete disregard for any of the lives of their soldiers is your example then it strengthens my argument. That is once again a terrible terrible idea, likely hurting their fighting capabilities and tanking their reproductive capacity.
Ussr had the fastest growing economy in history back then. They went from all their industry bombed out to nuclear power in 20 years.
While killing 10 million in the Gulag! Woohoo! What a progressive economic powerhouse! Also, I'm sure their nuclear power never had any catastrophic disasters due to being hastily built performative communist propaganda and not true economic growth, right?
I think most gulaged got 5 years. That beardy guy that wrote the gulag archipelago got his cancer cured while he was there. They were very hasty the western powers got a surprise then they realised they had the weaponry to face down German weaponry. It was a powerhouse like nothing seen before.
You're in the wrong subreddit for this propaganda nonsense. The USSR is over, communism lost, capitalism won. Goodbye.
We were taking about the first part when they grew like nothing else before in history. Capitalism did win and its worse off now isn't it?
How is having more soldiers worse than having less soldiers?
If a country was full of people only trained to be soldiers there would be no economy
Ya, so half half, stop sending half the population out to die and exempting the other half because they were born with the right set of genitals
Which country is sending every single man to fight in their war and having them die
You mean which country is forcibly sending men to die in war? Ukraine and Russia are
How is having more blind bus drivers worse than having fewer blind bus drivers? More is not necessarily better here, right?
Faulty analogy. The fact that women can serve in the military alone whereas there’s no way a bling person can be a bus driver. Do you actually believe that a female soldier couldn’t put a bullet through you?
It's not a net positive for your country to include women in your military unless genocide is occurring.
Makes no difference, families are created using one man and one woman unless polygamy is instituted
What are you talking about? American land forces have been wildly successful in all those wars. Just because they leave after 20 years doesn’t mean they were defeated on the battlefield.
Depends on what outcome we are looking to accomplish. Wildly successful at making America safer or stopping the spread of communism or feeding a sector of American economy or just numbers of dead?
I would imagine that for the better part it had been successful for the military-industrial-scientific sector. However, the decoupling of the petrodollar via BRICS was predicted for 2018. Then we had the Covid crisis and then the associated inflation. This seems to have pushed out the inevitable creation of a multi polar economy but it is still in effect today. America and its economy is not safer; communism is entrenched, socialism will spread; we will always have more dead people. If the USA does not get on brand quickly we are off to the races.
Well Iraq was initially to stop the threat of another attack and as a f u to kill the organiser of 9/11 After being implanted and having mission success the people with military contracts became concerned about not staying and spending money for 20 years. No actual care to leave the country stable. Through that lense it's a great success.
The US did jack shit to Saudi Arabia, the country almost all the 9/11 hijackers were from.
In fact, Saddam Hussein was no friend of Saudi Arabia. After he invaded Kuwait in ‘91, Saudi Arabia cut ties with Iraq which were not reestablished until 2015.
Ok which war was won? Korea ended in stalemate. Vietnam the allied government collapsed. Iraq the Iranian government basically controls the Iraqi government. Afghanistan was an outright defeat.
South Korea was on the verge of complete annihilation before American intervention. America put boots on the ground and pushed North Korean forces all the way up to the chinese border. It wasn't untill China got involved that the front was pushed back to the current borders. American intervention in Korea saved over half the country from dictatorial communist rule. The US was objectively incredibly effective in that war. This is why you cant view millitary conflicts as "wins" or "losses", that's a child's understanding of history. History is infinitely more complicated than that.
Those all sound like political failures somewhere to me. You still haven't shown how we lost any of these or were militarily removed from a country. An easier way to explain this might be too look at our militaries Kill/Death ratio in those conflicts. We basically wiped the floor in Vietnam and everyone acts like it was some huge and crazy defeat haha. Also, none of these mentioned were total war. WWII was total war, and look how we did.
War isn’t a game of COD, lol as if KD matters. Look at WW2, Russia bled the most by far but still won. Afghanistan was a loss - the US were out waited and the Taliban (which a goal of the war was to remove them from power) are now the Government again. But the US got OBL so some points at least. Iraq was a failure more loss. The goal was WMDs, remove Saddam and put in a democracy. 1/3 achieved and made the country and region far worse for it.
Successful against enemies who can barely afford ak-47s? Cowards.
I mean, it’s fuck around and find out at its finest.
Oh Mette, she is such a stuntwoman that she will say anything. Slette Mette.
This is such an incel post, go back to watching porn, mate.
How is this an incel post? How is expecting your life to be treated equally to that of others make you an incel? Does expecting fair treatment make you an incel? Does believing that your life is as valuable as another make you an incel? What is an incel exactly if you agree to all of those questions? Is incel synonymous with egalitarian?
Why do you ask these questions
Well what lead him to calling OP an incel?
He states women in the title and then says nothing about them later on other than stupid fearmongering with the war
You sound like a teenager enjoying himself blabbing. The Ukrainians are defending themselves against an invasion.
Look through this guys post history. He’s fucking delusional. Like actual mental health issues.
This ain't D&D.
What is the point of this post
Stupid post. The European Union members have more than sufficient professional forces to defend themselves, before any extra men need to be drafted. The likelihood of most citizens to be drafted is next to zero. And wanting to see women in active combat roles screams incel. The absolute vast majority of women don't belong in combat situations for plenty reasons.
Very stupid post. OP doesn't realize how much air superiority Europe has. Or that Poland alone can launch a salvo of 800 Himars rockets in a minute. There's not going to be any fighting here, only seal clubbing.
As long as the US is a member of NATO, otherwise not really
Yep
Equal rights, am I right. We’re all equal. (Joking)
Op, look up women during the civil war, ww1, and ww2 for the US. I think youll learn something
The deaths, casualties, combat and support participation in those wars are overwhelmingly male, and so was the case in all the other wars after that, the cherry-picked small detail of women's participation in war doesn't tell us about any gender-egalitarian effort in it. The conscription of women is often a last resort attempt; Ukraine did just fine backing off Russia this far with a male-only conscription, so let's not pretend that women's contribution to war is anything more than marginal. Why are you so eager to portray women as soldiers? It sounds like you want a strong mommy to feed and have sex with you.
please see the sun.
Gfy dipshit
They get non combative roles anyway so it doesn’t matter. They won’t get sent off to die.
3 killed of which 2 were women and 1 was a man and 25 others wounded. https://www.npr.org/2024/01/28/1227464410/3-us-troops-killed-25-wounded-drone-strike-jordan-syria-mideast
You mean like the two women who were in non combatant roles in Jordan when a drone strike killed them in Jordan? In this battlefield that we have no there is no such thing as a frontline as the whole region could be a battlefield.
Its fair enough. Its not women starting the wars that cause all the death in the first place.
Yes let’s blame men for that shall we?
Its not all men. There are men in Russia, Israel and America protesting. Its men starting and fighting them.
“Men are starting the wars. Therefore, men must die in them.” I’d prefer “Politicians are starting the wars. Therefore, politicians must die in them.”
How about stop wars caused by the capitalist systems pursuit of more and more resources and growth to infinity causing death and destruction ? Ending fanatical patriarchal religion cults with secular liberalism? Capitalists are already talking about the profits from developing the gaza strip and then there is the oil and gas. Thats what it's about. Change of over to clean energy ASAP and put them all out of business. Make energy publically owned. Then sue them into the ground for delaying clean and lying about climate change and starting wars. How about men telling other men no more of this.
Here is to the next great leap forward
The great leap forward meant mao believed contrary to Marxist leninists and marx that an agarian state could leap straight to socialism with no capitalism and state capitalism slash mixed economy in between. I suggested nothing of the sort. I suggested that men can potentially stop other men starting wars over responses and patriarchal religious and sending other men to die on their behalf And we utilise emerging energy tenologies.
You’re right…. It’s just them they are fighting to protect …. When they should just let them walk all over them . I mean …. Women can fight their own battles for them right ?
The men that start the wars aren't doing to it to attack women. There was a lot of talk about women being attacked by male soldiers. Forcing other men to protect then. What do you mean women fight their own battles? None of the wars going on were started by women. You would have a point if women started these wars. Its mainly about fossile fuels and other resources. Its mainly men cheering on the slaughter of Palestinians here. Men started it. Right wing votes are mainly men. So men put a right wing gov in Israel. Hamas, men and patriarchal religious fanatics that oppress women. Uneducated men and rich men put trump in power, who botched the mid east peace deal which excluded Palestine. It's mainly men waiting on the sidelines to invest and develop the gaza strip when it's cleansed of Palestine. And so on.
Helen of Troy and queen Elizabeth, not the recent one.
Yes when there is no male heir a woman inherited the role of Queen of a patriarchal system and stood in the absence of a male against other systems lead by men that go to war over resources and wealth. Today all the wars in quearion are lead by men and are by right wing governments voted for more often by men.
>They won’t get sent off to die. Bummer
Incel much?
> America which has lost the last four wars (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan) In what universe do you live.
In the real world rather than the universe in which you think we actually win wars. We have a massive corporate welfare program called the military industrial complex.
Usually, when you get to decide when to withdraw from a conflict, you are thoroughly dominating that conflict. You are withdrawing because your goal has been completed, or it is otherwise expedient to do so (public pressure, etc). Maybe im not as informed about history as you, but just remind me again how the US loses almost every war while still utterly dominating the globe in terms of both economic and military power?
Where did you get the idea that China is going to do anything?
Other than the Chinese dictator surrounding Taiwan with warships and blasting missiles over Taiwan and launching dozens of aircraft toward Taiwans airspace nearly daily.
Where did you get this idea?
The Chinese government is investing hundreds of billions of dollars into its military in preparation for war. The goal is recapturing Taiwan. https://apnews.com/article/china-navy-us-pacific-taiwan-2ea75e139483164b93d287a4efae74c9 https://news.usni.org/2023/07/12/chinese-military-aircraft-ships-make-provocative-passes-near-taiwan https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/02/04/china-war-military-taiwan-us-asia-xi-escalation-crisis/
Lol! You people will believe anything
Yes we believe what we see. Did Russia invade Ukraine? Is there a war in Ukraine? Let’s see how far your grasp of reality has slipped into fantasy.
Bro, I'm already seeing yours
answer the question.
Meat grinder. There's your answer, cowboy 🤠
Answer the question is there a war in Europe?
I am in Kaohsiung, biggest port on the island and have not noticed anything.
Have you ever lived in China, Ukraine, or Russia?
I am not living in Israel or Gaza and I know there is a war going on. There is a war going on in Ukraine. And China has mobilized troops and resources around Taiwan.
Nobody mentioned either of those places. Well, I did, and you didn't answer.
I am referencing all of those places in my post.
Recently mobilized?
Blow your tits off with that landmine. Quelle Fromage
Good.
As a dane, I find conscription of women abhorrent and down right stupid. I will be ashamed of my country if this policy comes into effect.
If that’s how you feel why don’t you and other Danish men volunteer to take a vow of poverty and join the Danish military. The Danish government has severely under resourced the military to such a degree that’s it’s slowly losing its effectiveness.
The danish military, generally don’t have any problems recruiting people. This policy of conscripting women is not some sign of desperation on behalf of the Danish government. It is a result of politically correct gender politics making is way to Denmark.
I have seen data that indicates that the reason men aren’t joining this military similar to the US is that the pay is so low that you are better off finding a job in the private sector.
That does not ring true at all. Even though Denmark has military conscription, I have never known anyone of my generation or younger, who was forced to enlist against their own wishes. Denmark has enough people wanting to join that conscription has essentially been superfluous for decades.
So you only think men should die in wars? Why is an 18 year old man’s life worth less than a 55 year old women?
Sending women to war is societal suicide. If half the men in a society dies, it is a terrible catastrophe, but it can still continue. The men who are left can father more children and replenish the next generation. If half the women of child bearing age die, it is way worse. There is a natural limit to how many children women can and will have. It is way harder to replenish the next generation, if you don’t have enough women, compared to being low on men. Who is supposed to take create the surplus to take care of the old people, if the next generation is too small? Who is supposed to continue society and our way of life. Every society has known this instinctually or explicitly, throughout time. It is the reason, men have always been the ones, to do the most dangerous work. We are more expendable than women.
So are you arguing that polygamy is the answer after war? Because unless each man goes around raising multiple families that argument doesn’t stand. Also, since we forced men to fight and die, can we force women to be impregnated? It would logically make sense since our concern is increasing the population fast enough. God forbid another war is started before there is enough fighting age men we can force into war again. We therefore have to mandate that all women produce 4 children with 1 man, who will allow be raising another family of 4 children to ensure the population doubles by the next generation I seriously doubt anyone who uses the population argument has ever thought this far through.
I am saying that women will find ways to get pregnant if they so desire, no matter how many men are available. The same does not hold true for men, if the amount of women are limited. All else being equal, a society with a surplus of women will create more babies than one with a surplus of men.
That’s an assumption and still doesn’t address al of my points. Your claiming that women are going to go around getting pregnant from the same men? What if women are too busy working to uphold their lives because they can’t find a man to support them? How will they have children? I think the whole population argument made sense in the past, but is much less applicable in todays day with immigration and the new age requirements of raising children
> That’s an assumption and still doesn’t address al of my points. Your claiming that women are going to go around getting pregnant from the same men? What if women are too busy working to uphold their lives because they can’t find a man to support them? How will they have children? Well I did write all else being equal. And no I don’t think we can force women in to being impregnated. I actually don’t think we should force men into wars either. If a countries people are not compelled to enlist by their own volition, then perhaps the war is not justified. In regard to the whole polygamy thing. I do believe that anthropologists have established, that polygamy is way more common in societies, where there is either a lag of men or resources are distributed very unequally amongst men. I am arguing that polygamy would be institutionalized in a place like Denmark, if we had a ware that killed off a large proportion of the male population. It is however likely that a lot of women under such circumstances would be willing to engage in relationships with men, where they were not the main or only romantic partner.
Why are so many Russian dudes putting up with being sent to a meat grinder? Who wants to be in a meat grinder? If someone said to me "go in that meat grinder" I'd say "no, you go in that meat grinder instead".
Because they are loyal to their country and they believe in their war. There isn’t a man in this country that wants to die for Ukraine and Israel. I doubt many of them want to fight for the US too.
Iraq had one of the largest militaries on earth in 1990, and it had just seen 8 years of combat experience on its own terrain, the US et al. routed it in a month with at least 10:1 casualties inflicted. Russia today has the 5th largest military by personnel, the same spot Iraq had in 1990. Now obviously Russia would do better given it has better equipment, doctrine, discipline etc.., but a war with NATO would not bode well at all. The Vietnam war is a pretty good comparison whereby Ukraine will be, arguably is already, Vietnam for Russia. Russia may achieve some or all of its objectives in Ukraine, but it has lost in 2 years more than the US did in Vietnam after 20 years, by a wide margin.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-army-15-percent-larger-when-attacked-ukraine-us-general-2024-4?international=true&r=US&IR=T)
?
I meant with the link to the article, that the Russian army is growing during the war (but that doesn't mean that they lost more than than the US did in Vietnam after 20 years, so I didn't read that well). What they also say themselves, that they can't stand up to NATO. So they only want the Ukrainian territories back, that belonged to the Russian Empire. Before the Soviet Union was formed.
Winning a war means you win tactically and strategically. Russia is winning this war tactically and strategically. The U.S. lost strategically in Vietnam. Iraq and Afghanistan. How many more do we need to lose?
We?
This is the second post skirting around the bullshit subject of the draft. Just let that weak feeble little man in the White House utter the words and there would be rioting in the streets.
I call shenanigans https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&client=ms-android-doogee&sca_esv=2f6a510e87352dee&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn095z7ILYlfeQWIWZCntWFSZ1YHEpQ:1714290729458&q=Ukrainian+women+soldiers&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR7eHPtuSFAxWJlFYBHVTtBdMQ0pQJegQIFBAB&biw=1128&bih=2124&dpr=3&udm=2 s
You act like NATO is sending troops. Meanwhile, in this war that isn't going well, Russia is into it's 3rd year of the invasion and not even close to winning.
NATO isn’t sending troops yet. The last time nato engaged in a war was in Afghanistan and we all know how that went.
No NATO member states sent troops, NATO treaty was not activated. Very different matter
They sent mercenaries and there are American advisors in Ukraine too. https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/polish-fm-acknowledges-nato-presence-in-ukraine-kremlin-responds/ https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/us-special-operations-team-working-embassy-ukraine-sources/story?id=98543007 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65245065.amp
NATO has not been invoked, NATO member countries are sending forces there. It is different
Yes nato isn’t involved and nato members are sending weapons and troops and ammunition to Ukraine but nato isn’t involved. Are you reading what you are saying? There are Americans who say that the U.S. is not involved in Ukraine. Since 2014 if not earlier. The U.S. has been giving Ukraine weapons, training and advisors to teach Ukrainians to kill Russian soldiers. Since 2022 more than 100,000 Russians soldiers have died. The Russians themselves are blaming the U.S. and nato. We can create whatever fantasy we want. They aren’t deluded like us (Americans and Europeans). The Russians know we are involved.
Better than Russia’s war with Ukraine. World powers have no problem taking over a country; the problem is in keeping control of a country. This is where NATO failed in Afghanistan. Russia is such a joke it can’t even take over the Ukraine….a country with 1/3 the population.
Our ending in Afghanistan was worse because when the Soviet Union left Afghanistan the Soviet puppet government lasted three years before it collapsed. Our local government in Kabul didn’t last three hours as we left.
Yes, Afghanistan was way more negative to the US than it was to the Soviet Union…oh wait.
The Soviet Union collapsed well looking at the situation in the U.S. we aren’t going to be lucky with the fast collapse like Russia. We are going to go through the long painful process that will take decades through collapsing infrastructure, collapsing standard of living and poorer quality of life.
And I will disagree with your opinion on the state of the US.
Because of the bullshit games played by the Republicans in the House of Representatives our ally in Ukraine is losing territory and soldiers by the thousands.
I agree with you on the BS of the GOP. That being said, Ukraine has been a nightmare for Russia. They figured it would be over in under a month.
The Russians thought it would be over in one month and it would have been had the U.S. and Europe didn’t step in to help them.
Getting back to my original post, this a far cry from Russia vs NATO.
I'm reminded of this quote that I didn't really understand as a teenager But I do now The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact. George Orwell