**numbmind used "*roll 1, Magic 8-Ball*"**
**numbmind rolls Don't count on it**They just might break into your house while you sleep, then they will rub their balls on your face

Can you please stop giving away my plans?

I'm going to wait right outside of Naits shitty LRT for you

**numbmind used "*roll 1, Magic 8-Ball*"**
**numbmind rolls Don't count on it**They just might break into your house while you sleep, then they will rub their balls on your face

Can you please stop giving away my plans?

OH

an anon's been thumbing down all your posts, not me.

But, y'know, I can do that too if you'd like.

>Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other

Tip top kek, m8. My money's on the one who's been waging it since the dawn of time.

>AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men,

Also wrong. The key here is testosterone, which women simply do not produce at the same level. For men, muscle is built faster and more effectively overall. At the end of the day, yes, women can do a lot of the same things men can, I'm not saying they can. But there are certain things determined by the circumstances of your birth, this is one of them.

>Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

You obviously have no firsthand experience with military life or modern warfare. Ask anyone who's actually been in, they'll tell you it's still extremely physical. There's a reason that scrappy dwarf chicks and skinny faggots don't hack it.

OH

an anon's been thumbing down all your posts, not me.

But, y'know, I can do that too if you'd like.

*Capable of training up to the same level as men in regards to what is required to perform mundane...

Just to be clear

The fact that there exist exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the rule cease to be.

In general, men are all-around better suited for war.

How is this even up for debate?

Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other, which the defense minister isn't anyway, based solely on their median physical strength, AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men, to perform mundane physical tasks associated with military service. Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

>Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other

Tip top kek, m8. My money's on the one who's been waging it since the dawn of time.

>AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men,

Also wrong. The key here is testosterone, which women simply do not produce at the same level. For men, muscle is built faster and more effectively overall. At the end of the day, yes, women can do a lot of the same things men can, I'm not saying they can. But there are certain things determined by the circumstances of your birth, this is one of them.

>Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

You obviously have no firsthand experience with military life or modern warfare. Ask anyone who's actually been in, they'll tell you it's still extremely physical. There's a reason that scrappy dwarf chicks and skinny faggots don't hack it.

OH

an anon's been thumbing down all your posts, not me.

But, y'know, I can do that too if you'd like.

*Capable of training up to the same level as men in regards to what is required to perform mundane...

Just to be clear

I mean, what's there to argue?

The male body and mind are literally built for this sort of thing, the female is not. A few decades of modern equality can't do away with thousands of years of biology.

The fact that there exist exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the rule cease to be.

In general, men are all-around better suited for war.

How is this even up for debate?

Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other, which the defense minister isn't anyway, based solely on their median physical strength, AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men, to perform mundane physical tasks associated with military service. Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

>Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other

Tip top kek, m8. My money's on the one who's been waging it since the dawn of time.

>AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men,

Also wrong. The key here is testosterone, which women simply do not produce at the same level. For men, muscle is built faster and more effectively overall. At the end of the day, yes, women can do a lot of the same things men can, I'm not saying they can. But there are certain things determined by the circumstances of your birth, this is one of them.

>Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

You obviously have no firsthand experience with military life or modern warfare. Ask anyone who's actually been in, they'll tell you it's still extremely physical. There's a reason that scrappy dwarf chicks and skinny faggots don't hack it.

OH

an anon's been thumbing down all your posts, not me.

But, y'know, I can do that too if you'd like.

*Capable of training up to the same level as men in regards to what is required to perform mundane...

Just to be clear

Danke

War always has been and always will be a male thing. Not saying women aren't capable of doing it, but given the choice once should opt for the sex that has literally been born and bred for it since the beginning of time.

I mean, what's there to argue?

The male body and mind are literally built for this sort of thing, the female is not. A few decades of modern equality can't do away with thousands of years of biology.

The fact that there exist exceptions to the rule doesn't mean the rule cease to be.

In general, men are all-around better suited for war.

How is this even up for debate?

Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other, which the defense minister isn't anyway, based solely on their median physical strength, AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men, to perform mundane physical tasks associated with military service. Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

>Because one gender isn't better suited to military leadership than the other

Tip top kek, m8. My money's on the one who's been waging it since the dawn of time.

>AND women are more than capable of training up to the same level as men,

Also wrong. The key here is testosterone, which women simply do not produce at the same level. For men, muscle is built faster and more effectively overall. At the end of the day, yes, women can do a lot of the same things men can, I'm not saying they can. But there are certain things determined by the circumstances of your birth, this is one of them.

>Furthermore, having a higher average of physical strength doesn't increase your ability to shoot a gun, drive a tank, or sit and wait for something to happen.

You obviously have no firsthand experience with military life or modern warfare. Ask anyone who's actually been in, they'll tell you it's still extremely physical. There's a reason that scrappy dwarf chicks and skinny faggots don't hack it.

OH

an anon's been thumbing down all your posts, not me.

But, y'know, I can do that too if you'd like.

*Capable of training up to the same level as men in regards to what is required to perform mundane...

Just to be clear