[–] obvious-throwaway- [S] ago
What you are trying to say is that past militaries have included fags and women and that other militaries were afraid of them. What I am trying to say is that the fags and women in the military aren't what the opposing army fears, which is correct.
Since you are trying to nitpick, just send me a historical event where an opposing military said, "oh FUCK, that army there has a lot of women and fags, we better watch the fuck out!" fellow soldier, "yeah, but what about the men?" ... "oh, we have nothing to fear from the men, it's the women and fags that we are terrified of." This has never happened, ever. That was my point and you know it.
[–] Thrus2 ago
they have never worried about the specific makeup of the other military, they have worried about the training program and the standards that they held the soldier to. The sex or gender is not what will kill you it is the training, any military that compromises the training will not be taken as seriously as one that enforces it. To take a scene from the movie 300
I will agree that having separate standards for men vs women means that you have a weakness and a flaw in your training program. but if every soldier is held to the same standard what they do with a dick has little to no impact on the battlefield, and at war results are what create fear.