Orogun01

Blood Dragon armor vs. Sir Isaac armor. Which it's uglier?

ditto

And the point of discussion would be? I mean, we all know that there are people like that and from what I've seen we don't have much of it here (excluding our few lunatic residents)

And I began a new diet called "20 push ups for every time you get hungry" works wonders.

Monopoly's the game Wals, it's not like it's the first time something like this happens.

I don't know what you are talking about, I finished the game in 125 hours.

Would had enjoyed more if they put forth more examples of games with non-combat mechanics. Just of the top of my head: Shin Megami Tensei:Persona

Yes there is a lot more to it. Including running fast for long distances while carrying very heavy loads. Being able to run without stopping until told, then fighting without stopping until told. Infantry is a VERY physically demanding business. I knew a lot of Women Marines during my time in and many of them were excellent marines in that they could do their jobs well and with professionalisim, but not one, not a single one of them could have hacked it as a grunt. Just as an example, you are a Marine platoon commander. You have been ordered to double time (that means run to those of you who have never served) over six miles of rocky terrain to relieve another platoon that is pinned under heavy fire. A Marine Rifle Platoon is roughly forty Marines and keeping with the percentages if it was integrated five of those would be women. Every platoon has one heavy weapons team (in my day it was the M-60e3 don't know what they use now) and every squad (three in every platoon) has a SAW team. Everyone in the platoon from the commander down to the newest boot private carries their own gear, their own weapons with ammo for them, plus a spare battery for the radio or 1000 round belt of ammo for the M-60 or two 500 round drums for one of the SAWs. The women would be expected to do this too. Now they will have to carry all of this while running six miles over rocky ground then at the end of that they will be expected to engage the enemy in a firefight. Every male marine can make that run, they do it in training ALL the time. That is the Combat PFT I told you guys about. Every male Marine has to pass it twice a year. What would you do as the commander if your five women can't complete the run? What do you do if even one of them can't? Not only do you lose her but whatever assets she is carrying. You can't stop because there is a besiged platoon waiting for your aid. You guys see the problems here? I'm sorry but there are some things that women just can-not-do. Failing to realize that is just politcally correct foolishness. Don't take this the wrong way guys but 99% of you never served in the military. And unless I'm wrong, Gfted1 and I are the only ones on this board regularly who have ever served in combat. You just don't fully understand what you are talking about. I do not say that to be confrontational or nasty, it's just how it is. And if they meet all those qualifications, could they be allowed in combat?

Please, do go on.

No, but i'm saying that it shouldn't be used as an excuse to exclude a perfectly body able group out of voluntary service. Women are already deployed, there really is no reason for them not to have combat roles since there is no proof that they will in fact hinder combat capabilities. So we shouldn't give women the chance to join combat because they can bear children? Something easily solved by an honorable discharge or relegation to a non-combat duty (which may benefit from actual combat experience) The protective instinct you speak of it's quite natural and it's also true for men and men. Or will a soldier abandon a fallen comrade just because he is a man? If it was in fact true then it's something that should be investigated beforehand, a simple series of test groups could do that nicely. And what would the right mindset be?

DLC as an incentive to buy the game day one is a scam, DLC as a means to expand the game's live=

Maximum effectiveness it's hardly an argument, when most troops where requisitioning for a thousand and one things necessary for maximum effectiveness. Most notable; remember the US troops scraping metal to armor their vehicles. Very effective against IED, ain't it? Or let's recall the first issued M16s? There is no proof that allowing women may decrease combat readiness. Just a bunch of speculation about the "effect on the psychology of men" and whatnot. Fact of the matter is that there are women on our armed forces, that casualties do reach them and despite this they still have to deal with discrimination because of their sex. Not even based on proof. I'm sorry but if women have enough balls to run to the thick of combat, bullets fired, surrounded by mortar fire, and against order to save lives they can definitively handle the frontline.

This is why people shouldn't quote Wikipedia. The nature of Russia was a point of discussion with my geography teacher about 10 years ago. From what I gathered we ended up settling with the fact that Russia is Asian in some regards and European in others.

From Wikipedia: Personally I think that Peter the Great efforts to make Russia a part of Europe last to this day. But there are many differences between Russia and Europe, mostly geographical that puts them at odd.

So it's the infantry the measure for all troops? No, I was saying that as long as a woman is not allowed into infantry by anything less than the same standards, I have no issue with it. I wasn't talking about armed forces in general. Have you been actually following this thread because most people here don't seem to have an issue with women in many roles in the military. But infantry (and other combat roles apparently) often have very grueling physical requirements. This sets a standard of expectations for how physically capable they are, so you can take a look at any foot soldier's name and at the very least of a basic guarantee of the minimum capabilities of that soldier. But why should they be held to the same standard when we are two different creatures biologically? A compromise can be reached where their effectiveness in combat isn't compromised but they are not discriminated because of their sex.

Geographic barriers, Russia it's actually in Asia, Europe ideologically and if you want to compromise Eurasia.

Point it's that the company has to meet a quote to be making profit, not possible if money goes to relief effort. Just saying, Okay I concede on this, maybe it's the youthful optimism in my (or cynicism) but I thought of charity as a selfless act for the sake of it and not for profit. Although it was never uninterested since well, empathy, social mimicry and god knows what other adaptations we have developed over the years. But at some point people have to realize of the kind of disconnect between lavish fund raising parties and the realities of afflicted places. Which it's that feeding them for a day doesn't help the problem, becoming invested and developing their economy. But it's easier to profit from diamonds and then set a fund for the victims of Sierra Leone.

Still, the Ulaks are wicked awesome.

IIRC the whole argument began with questioning the effectiveness of service women. With colorful anecdotes of women not being held to the same physical standard as men and how they compromised the effectiveness of our armed troops. Not just as women's role on infantry.

I'm merely a little discontent with the economic realities of charity. If the supply price rise then the product price rises and the people who profit from it continue to do so. I simply don't see them investing as a company, money on a relief effort. As charities and private individuals, yes. My point is that there is a limit to how much they invest and its carefully delineated which defeat the whole concept of charity.

You are forgetting that the people who run the world are either morons or heartless ****s.

Multilateralism only goes so far. And how far is that? To the point where if you house it's sinking we are holding our own. Sorry to say but every country seems to follow rational self interests first and leave the charity to the actors and musicians.

Well if you interpret Darwin closely you get social eugenics, and you know to what that eventually leads to. There were plenty a person who though that this was a good idea bringing into race relations and many other aspects of society. You can't blame the content of a book that unintentionally becomes misinterpreted into a violent manifest. Fault lies with the interpreter not with the book.