PDA

View Full Version : Women in combat?



Tom. P.
01-23-2013, 05:20 PM
Did I just hear that right on the news? That Leon :Panetta gave the ok for Women to be in combat? Im asking all on RTF if what I heard is true.I cant seem to find it online

Uncle Bill
01-23-2013, 06:23 PM
Try this URL: From: Newsmax.com <newsmax@reply.newsmax.com>
Subject: Breaking: Ban on Women in Combat Lifted Soon
To: "dabullnbill@yahoo.com" <dabullnbill@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 3:32 PM



http://news.newsmax.com/images/53310/trans.gif

charly_t
01-23-2013, 06:42 PM
Did I just hear that right on the news? That Leon :Panetta gave the ok for Women to be in combat? Im asking all on RTF if what I heard is true.I cant seem to find it online

That's correct. It's on the national news this evening.

luvalab
01-23-2013, 08:03 PM
It's true.

They've been in combat for years. Now they can get payment and credit for it, and be promoted to positions that require previous combat experience.

'Bout time.

Tom. P.
01-23-2013, 08:32 PM
I did find it online thanks!

Dave Flint
01-24-2013, 05:28 PM
Either women are suitable for assignment into combat units or not. If the answer is that they are, which seems to be the point of this new directive, I can see no reason for them not to be eligible for the draft & involuntary assignment to combat units just as men are.

Tell me why the hell your little girl should not be subject to any future draft & assignment to an Infantry unit than my son?

Marvin S
01-24-2013, 06:06 PM
More lawsuits, more talihooks, more BS when you're just trying to stay alive - & how they going to drag their wounded comrade/s to safety?

duk4me
01-24-2013, 06:14 PM
I have no problem with women serving in the same capacity as men. All I would ask is that there be a standardized test to measure the needs required to be an infantry person. If she can do the job why shouldn't she be allowed to.

I am not and have not served in the military so my statement is just an average citizens opinion.

luvalab
01-24-2013, 07:01 PM
I have no problem with women serving in the same capacity as men. All I would ask is that there be a standardized test to measure the needs required to be an infantry person. If she can do the job why shouldn't she be allowed to.

I am not and have not served in the military so my statement is just an average citizens opinion.

Ditto that for me, including the qualifications for having an opinion.

M&K's Retrievers
01-24-2013, 08:05 PM
The only problem I see is physical, specifically strength. Modesty, I guess, would not be a luxury for either sex.

Eric Johnson
01-24-2013, 08:38 PM
Several of the responses talk about strength standards or physical fitness. Please realize that the standards for physical fitness for males go down as they age. Chances are that many young women can meet higher fitness standards than can old men.

Dave Flint
01-24-2013, 08:57 PM
Several of the responses talk about strength standards or physical fitness. Please realize that the standards for physical fitness for males go down as they age. Chances are that many young women can meet higher fitness standards than can old men.

What's your point? Do you think it would make an Infantry squad better or worse to staff it w/ 50 yr old men? Would anyone argue that's a good idea?

The physical shortcomings of women are only the most obvious reason not to assign them to combat units. The burdens on a combat commander are significant enough w/out adding the complications that come from mixing young men & women together in such a surreal environment. It complicates sleeping arrangements, showers, hygiene, marriages, perceptions of fairness,........

What it doesn't do is increase Combat Effectiveness, but I guess it's naive to think that's what the Military is for. I guess it's really about ensuring that Women have the best opportunity for career advancement.

If women are eligible for combat duty, they need to be required to register for the draft.

charly_t
01-24-2013, 09:14 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the men would be distracted by trying to protect the ladies in actual combat.

duk4me
01-24-2013, 09:52 PM
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that the men would be distracted by trying to protect the ladies in actual combat.

LOL if someone is shootin at your ass you aint worried about the ass next to you. We aint that chivalrous anymore. She would be a soldier. This aint dr nurse 1960.

huntinman
01-24-2013, 10:00 PM
I'm just waiting for the videos from the Islamic terrorists when they have some female POW's. You think they were rough with Daniel Pearl, or those contractors they drug through the streets before hanging their burned bodies from a bridge? How about the reporter that was gang raped in Egypt in the middle of a public square in front of thousands of their fellow fanatics? If those lunatics get their hands on any of our female soldiers, it's not going to be good.

All that being said, I think many of the females can do the job fine... I just hate the thought of them getting caught by the bad guys.

duk4me
01-24-2013, 10:06 PM
I'm just waiting for the videos from the Islamic terrorists when they have some female POW's. You think they were rough with Daniel Pearl, or those contractors they drug through the streets before hanging their burned bodies from a bridge? How about the reporter that was gang raped in Egypt in the middle of a public square in front of thousands of their fellow fanatics? If those lunatics get their hands on any of our female soldiers, it's not going to be good.

All that being said, I think many of the females can do the job fine... I just hate the thought of them getting caught by the bad guys.

I agree but two things. First and I again say I have never been a soldier but from my understanding it isn't exactly easy on a male POW. Secondly it is voluntary. If a female soldier volunteers I feel sure they have been fully advised of the dangers inherent to their choice to be soldiers.

duk4me
01-24-2013, 10:09 PM
I agree but two things. First and I again say I have never been a soldier but from my understanding it isn't exactly easy on a male POW. Secondly it is voluntary. If a female soldier volunteers I feel sure they have been fully advised of the dangers inherent to their choice to be soldiers.

Third, thank God for the men and women that serve us so well in the past, present, and future.

Dave Flint
01-24-2013, 10:28 PM
LOL if someone is shootin at your ass you aint worried about the ass next to you. We aint that chivalrous anymore. She would be a soldier. This aint dr nurse 1960.

You guys do realize "GI Jane" was just a movie right?


You act like you have no idea how horny a 20 yr. old gets in the field. If they're not talking about sex, they're asleep. It's a ridiculous distraction to add to a Commanders already impossibly difficult job to have to try to keep men & women from sneaking off together and it only detracts from the effectiveness of the unit. 99.9% of the time a soldiers life in a combat theatre is unbelievably boring.

You just don't discard the entire history of human war fighting experience because of political correctness.
But hey, it's not like we're talking about life & death now is it? Oh wait....

sick lids
01-24-2013, 11:40 PM
Any WW2 history buffs. I seem to rember reading about one of the most feared Russian units on the front line, they took no prisoners, they never retreated and they were women!

Socks
01-25-2013, 01:19 AM
Several of the responses talk about strength standards or physical fitness. Please realize that the standards for physical fitness for males go down as they age. Chances are that many young women can meet higher fitness standards than can old men.

Ha! Please realize that women's physical fitness tests aren't as hard as the men's. For the short time I was in Air Force ROTC the women got to do push ups on their knees while us men had to do real push ups. The women also did a hang for time instead of pullups. I knew a guy that went through airborne training and he told me they had to do pull ups with full packs on. Ever meet any SEALS? Most of the one's I saw were friggin huge and could've broke me in half. Tank drivers, pilots? Sure, but not even a hair's chance of the blood and guts in infantry combat.

Socks
01-25-2013, 01:20 AM
Any WW2 history buffs. I seem to rember reading about one of the most feared Russian units on the front line, they took no prisoners, they never retreated and they were women!

One of their best snipers was a woman.

charly_t
01-25-2013, 02:49 AM
LOL if someone is shootin at your ass you aint worried about the ass next to you. We aint that chivalrous anymore. She would be a soldier. This aint dr nurse 1960.

I have a grandson in the Marines and I do believe he said the ladies were not subject to the same rough training as the guys ( his ex wife was a Marine also by the way ). I have news for you some of the guys' old fashioned upbringing will kick in in spite of the marine training and the shooting going on around them.
Plus some guys just have a stronger urge to protect women than some other guys have. It is what it is.
One way or another the ladies in combat will be a distraction.

BonMallari
01-25-2013, 04:41 AM
What's your point? Do you think it would make an Infantry squad better or worse to staff it w/ 50 yr old men? Would anyone argue that's a good idea?

The physical shortcomings of women are only the most obvious reason not to assign them to combat units. The burdens on a combat commander are significant enough w/out adding the complications that come from mixing young men & women together in such a surreal environment. It complicates sleeping arrangements, showers, hygiene, marriages, perceptions of fairness,........

What it doesn't do is increase Combat Effectiveness, but I guess it's naive to think that's what the Military is for. I guess it's really about ensuring that Women have the best opportunity for career advancement.

If women are eligible for combat duty, they need to be required to register for the draft.


Dave you bring up an excellent point...can you imagine a 40 yr old male gunnery sergeant vs a female counterpart of the same age...age 18-30 the women may hold their own, but their physical skills compared to men of the same age will not stand the test...Now a 40-50 yr old woman may be the meanest orneriest foe ever known to modern man, but in a combat situation she would be wiped out easily by her male counterparts

One only has to remember Jessica Lynch the PFC who was captured and raped by her captors, when you ad the fact that our women will be killed along with the fact they will be subject to sexual torture and humiliation by the enemy, you really have to ask yourself if political correctness is worth putting any female thru that kind of nightmare

road kill
01-25-2013, 06:54 AM
Call me politically incorrect.

NO women in combat.

And I HAVE been there.

huntinman
01-25-2013, 08:24 AM
Unintended pregnancies up in the military...

Unintended pregnancies on the rise in servicewomen | Reuters
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-pregnancies-servicewoman-idUSBRE90N1B820130124

Pete
01-25-2013, 09:17 AM
I have a grandson in the Marines and I do believe he said the ladies were not subject to the same rough training as the guys ( his ex wife was a Marine also by the way ). I have news for you some of the guys' old fashioned upbringing will kick in in spite of the marine training and the shooting going on around them.
Plus some guys just have a stronger urge to protect women than some other guys have. It is what it is.
One way or another the ladies in combat will be a distraction.

I'm with you Charly,,
and ,may be bull homo sexual woman can be effective on the battle field,, because I doubt most men are attracted to them, but men in general want to make sure the woman is OK and thus becomes a distraction,,,and in times when bullets aren't flying,,,young people would have mostly one thing on their mind,,,I know I did. Keep the gals away from the guys,,,save that stuff for leave. enough social engineering,,,,, Homing Pigeons fly faster when there is a gal waiting for him at the loft. My .02

duckheads
01-25-2013, 10:07 AM
I'm with you Charly,,
and ,may be bull homo sexual woman can be effective on the battle field,, because I doubt most men are attracted to them, but men in general want to make sure the woman is OK and thus becomes a distraction,,,and in times when bullets aren't flying,,,young people would have mostly one thing on their mind,,,I know I did. Keep the gals away from the guys,,,save that stuff for leave. enough social engineering,,,,, Homing Pigeons fly faster when there is a gal waiting for him at the loft. My .02

Unfortunately the above is what the progressives have turn our military into!

Eric Johnson
01-25-2013, 12:51 PM
I guess my point is to "wait and see".

Panetta's announcement did not say that women would be in combat units, only that the restriction against them serving in these units would be lifted. What he said was that the services will now have to explain why the restriction against women in this or that combat position exists. If the services can show that the cons outweigh the pros for any one "job", then the restriction will still be in place. From that standpoint, maybe women will still be precluded from being an 11B in an infantry company. If women are to be so restricted, it will be based on facts and careful consideration rather than "that's how we've always done it." It's entirely possible that some or all of the arguments in this thread will tip the balance.

Again, we'll just have to "wait and see."

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 12:56 PM
Several of the responses talk about strength standards or physical fitness. Please realize that the standards for physical fitness for males go down as they age. Chances are that many young women can meet higher fitness standards than can old men.

Well those standards should not decrease with age, sex race or anything.

luvmylabs23139
01-25-2013, 01:02 PM
If women are eligible for combat duty, they need to be required to register for the draft.

Yup that is fair. I'm suprised there hasn't been a lawsuit against the gov't for this. Isn't this sex discrimination at the highest by the federal gov't?

Dave Flint
01-25-2013, 01:54 PM
What he said was that the services will now have to explain why the restriction against women in this or that combat position exists. If the services can show that the cons outweigh the pros for any one "job", then the restriction will still be in place. ."

Given that the U.S. Military is widely considered to be the greatest in the history of the world, shouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those who are proposing adding smaller, slower & weaker soldiers to make the case for why we should make the change?

I left the Army in 1990 but even then I knew it was political suicide to notice that women were held to a much lower standard. Putting the Military on the defensive in this matter is a cynical, political ploy.

FOM
01-25-2013, 02:37 PM
As a woman who served and entered at a time when they were forcing women into combat service support roles to test the waters, I will tell you women do not need to be in combat roles...it's not just a physical ability issue, there are more issues than some politician sitting in Washington can even imagine. I'm all for women being given opportunities to excel and I'm sure there are women who can meet the physical requirements, but like I said before that's only a small piece of the puzzle...there is nothing wrong with limiting a women's role in combat....there are a million other things women can do to support our fighting men and I'm not referring to cooking and cleaning...and there are a very few combat roles that would be suitable for women and they should be harshly reviewed prior to letting the woman applicant fulfill that role...it should also not be a "just because you are a woman" you should be allowed, serious care needs to be taken. I do not agree with this decision, especially given my experience of the Army forcing women into roles they did not want just to check the block....it's a can of worms that should of never been open.

Thanks to all those who are serving and have served....freedom is not free.

BonMallari
01-25-2013, 02:45 PM
As a woman who served and entered at a time when they were forcing women into combat service support roles to test the waters, I will tell you women do not need to be in combat roles...it's not just a physical ability issue, there are more issues than some politician sitting in Washington can even imagine. I'm all for women being given opportunities to excel and I'm sure there are women who can meet the physical requirements, but like I said before that's only a small piece of the puzzle...there is nothing wrong with limiting a women's role in combat....there are a million other things women can do to support our fighting men and I'm not referring to cooking and cleaning...and there are a very few combat roles that would be suitable for women and they should be harshly reviewed prior to letting the woman applicant fulfill that role...it should also not be a "just because you are a woman" you should be allowed, serious care needs to be taken. I do not agree with this decision, especially given my experience of the Army forcing women into roles they did not want just to check the block....it's a can of worms that should of never been open.

Thanks to all those who are serving and have served....freedom is not free.

Finally someone with some common sense and experience.....now can you go to the Pentagon and tell your former bosses to get their collective heads out of their rear ends and think about what they are about to do

Eric Johnson
01-25-2013, 02:51 PM
Given that the U.S. Military is widely considered to be the greatest in the history of the world, shouldn’t the burden of proof rest on those who are proposing adding smaller, slower & weaker soldiers to make the case for why we should make the change?

I guess I'm viewing this "women in combat" similar to the decisions on many physical attributes such as color blindness. Many serve who are color blind but not every position is open to such a person. Now the services have to support why women can't fill a particular position on a position by position basis rather than as a blanket rule.

FOM
01-25-2013, 03:01 PM
I guess I'm viewing this "women in combat" similar to the decisions on many physical attributes such as color blindness. Many serve who are color blind but not every position is open to such a person. Now the services have to support why women can't fill a particular position on a position by position basis rather than as a blanket rule.

I think I get what you are saying - now that the can of worms has been opened (i.e. women can be put in combat roles) we need to make sure the qualifications for being allowed to fill that position are equal regardless of gender...if a male has to do pull-ups, then the woman should have to...if the male has to do 12 miles with 50lbs in less than 4 hours, so should the female....right? Don't ease up the requirements just to say "look women in combat"....if that is what your are trying to say, then I totally agree with you.

Eric Johnson
01-25-2013, 03:30 PM
I think I get what you are saying - now that the can of worms has been opened (i.e. women can be put in combat roles) we need to make sure the qualifications for being allowed to fill that position are equal regardless of gender..

In a word, yes.

Tom. P.
01-25-2013, 03:31 PM
According to the news this morning it was a Woman Tammy Duckworth a US Rep.that swayed and influenced Leon Panetta.Im sure She knows what combat is all about having lost i believe one leg while serving.

Dave Flint
01-25-2013, 04:19 PM
According to the news this morning it was a Woman Tammy Duckworth a US Rep.that swayed and influenced Leon Panetta.Im sure She knows what combat is all about having lost i believe one leg while serving.

Ahh, the old "human shield" tactic. When you can't make your point using logic or facts, trot out an unnasailable sympathetic figure & force the opposition to appear to be attacking the wounded war hero.

Unfortunately, the left keeps over playing this tactic just as they have "the race card".

How about you just make an unteligent argument for why we should try this experiment in the face of thousands of years of history?

BonMallari
01-25-2013, 05:18 PM
According to the news this morning it was a Woman Tammy Duckworth a US Rep.that swayed and influenced Leon Panetta.Im sure She knows what combat is all about having lost i believe one leg while serving.


Rep Duckworth is a bonafide war hero but she was also a helicopter pilot, not an infantry soldier...its comparing apples to oranges...as Lainee alluded to there are many areas that women may serve and probably excel in the forward areas....IMO the infantry is not one of those areas

road kill
01-25-2013, 05:22 PM
According to the news this morning it was a Woman Tammy Duckworth a US Rep.that swayed and influenced Leon Panetta.Im sure She knows what combat is all about having lost i believe one leg while serving.


Rep Duckworth is a bonafide war hero but she was also a helicopter pilot, not an infantry soldier...its comparing apples to oranges...as Lainee alluded to there are many areas that women may serve and probably excel in the forward areas....IMO the infantry is not one of those areas

Is there even a remote chance that this one woman was WRONG????

BonMallari
01-25-2013, 05:37 PM
Is there even a remote chance that this one woman was WRONG????

maybe not so wrong but just expertise in the wrong area...I watched the news interview both Rep Duckworth and another fighter pilot....both were articulate representatives, but they are specialists and are the 1%...they are the " Top Gun" of the women in the military, not even questioning their skills or quals...

But look at the foot soldier,sweeping the streets of some unnamed town looking for unfriendlies...this is not some video game....let them serve in combat, lets just show some sense as to where we put them

luvalab
01-25-2013, 05:54 PM
I have no personal experience, so this may just be a blah blah blah moment, but...

Combat has changed, so say all; and there are now "combat positions" for which many young healthy women are highly qualified, and perhaps would be sought after. On the flip side, there are, so say all, many non-combat positions which women have been serving in well that, nonetheless, put soldiers in harm's way and require combat training and response.

so--really--what does this directive do but make women available to earn the pay grades and raises and promotions their male counterparts have available to them?

Analogy: I don't think anyone's talking about throwing gymnasts in with the Greco-Roman heavyweights... But if there are a few women that can run a marathon as well as or better than a typical strong male marathoner, and have a longer career out of it that then allows those few women to train and manage up and coming marathoners and marathon events with the experience of having run with the best of both sexes... What's the big deal? Isn't having more good people with real experience a good thing?

Provided the women are capable of the jobs--so what?

Susie Royer
01-25-2013, 08:23 PM
Provided the women are capable of the jobs--so what?

I agree...if they can meet the physical and mental demands go for it! However, if women are now allowed in combat it is JMO shouldn't they also be included if we have another draft? Curious how would you feel if your High School Daughter or Grand Daughter pulled that magic number and had to go off to war?

wheelhorse
01-25-2013, 08:44 PM
Curious how would you feel if your High School Daughter or Grand Daughter pulled that magic number and had to go off to war?

The same as if it were my son.

luvalab
01-25-2013, 09:47 PM
I agree...if they can meet the physical and mental demands go for it! However, if women are now allowed in combat it is JMO shouldn't they also be included if we have another draft? Curious how would you feel if your High School Daughter or Grand Daughter pulled that magic number and had to go off to war?

Well, I don't have kids, so I can't say how how I think I would feel.

I do have feelings, though; kids going to war is a terrible, terrible thing, whether as part of a volunteer force or whether conscripted. I can't believe that as a matter of sentiment that a dead boy or a dead girl is more or less heartbreaking. Boy or girl, I can't imagine the grief.

I would hope that, should there be a situation that requires large numbers of troops, that the people in charge of these things will know whether it is expedient or inexpedient to extend the draft to women.

As a high school teacher, I can say with confidence that generationZ, or whatever we're on, has very few petite flowers! These young women are athletic, bold, patriotic, willing and more often than us old folks think able to do what the guys do physically. Not always for sure!--not even often--but, not rarely, either.

They are also extremely practical--I highly doubt they would condone a system that pretended they were physically capable of doing something they were not. But for those who are physically gifted, they are proud of their strength and ready to use it.

road kill
01-26-2013, 07:20 AM
I would just like to mention that getting fired on and seeing your friends get hit is not like TV or the lies you hear from the Whitehouse.
It is the worst thing you can imagine.

I am a bit surprised no other vets are weighing in on this.
It seems the expertise is coming from those who have not endured the experience.

luvalab
01-26-2013, 08:55 AM
...

I am a bit surprised no other vets are weighing in on this.
It seems the expertise is coming from those who have not endured the experience.

I've listened to a good number of vets on the radio, both pro and con--honestly, the pro seem cautiously optimistic, the con seem vehemently opposed, the numbers seem split 50/50. I would like to here RTF'ers as well.

(As for me, I think everyone's well aware that my primary qualification is having a keyboard, and no one has broken my fingers yet. Just so long as everyone's upfront about where their opinions are coming from, I don't see the harm, except taking up some sort of mythical etherspace. ;-) )

road kill
01-26-2013, 08:59 AM
I've listened to a good number of vets on the radio, both pro and con--honestly, the pro seem cautiously optimistic, the con seem vehemently opposed, the numbers seem split 50/50. I would like to here RTF'ers as well.

(As for me, I think everyone's well aware that my primary qualification is having a keyboard, and no one has broken my fingers yet. Just so long as everyone's upfront about where their opinions are coming from, I don't see the harm, except taking up some sort of mythical etherspace. ;-) )
My posts are just my opinions.
I could be wrong.

But having lived the experience, I stand before my Mom, Sister, Wife and Daughter.
To protect them from such horror.
That's the way my Dad raised me.

The United States Military is not a social test tube..............that's what our secular progressive universities are for!!!

No disrespect intended, quite the contrary..

luvalab
01-26-2013, 10:32 AM
My posts are just my opinions.
I could be wrong.

But having lived the experience, I stand before my Mom, Sister, Wife and Daughter.
To protect them from such horror.
That's the way my Dad raised me.
You are a good man, Stan, no doubt.

The United States Military is not a social test tube..............that's what our secular progressive universities are for!!!
Ah--but it is!!! Always has been. At least, that's what my secular progressive education taught me. :) Not that it's the purpose--it just can't help it, it seems.

No disrespect intended, quite the contrary..
None perceived.



I so totally disagree with most of what you have to say, but it's all good. The internet is a wonderful non-place.

Dustin D
01-26-2013, 10:39 AM
I am a bit surprised no other vets are weighing in on this.
It seems the expertise is coming from those who have not endured the experience.


It's b/c we know the truth of the matter will play out in the end.

Here I'll share some Vet Talk from another forum;


http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
She expresses my thoughts almost exactly. It's written by a female Marine Captain. There was another article written my a female Marine Lieutenant that went more in depth about specific biological differences. This idea that "It's about the person not the gender or persuasion." is asinine, women's bodies and physiology are not the same as a male's. Lets not forget about the additional logistics concerning women's products and the age old problem of having young men and women working and living in such close quarters especially once you factor in the conditions they will be serving in. There is a reason why males and females do not compete against each other on the olympics or collegiate sports. I can even see that with the female officer candidates that I train with. Heck take some Kinesiology classes and learn about the physical differences. Allowing and pushing for women in combat does absolutely nothing for the combat effectiveness of our service. It's just more political bullsh**.


Hitman is a 2x C.A.R. Infantry Marine Vet with tours in Afghan and Fallujah

Will it really matter?

I mean the Corps took on volunteers to go through the Infantry Officer Course just a few months ago! They all dropped/failed out. I mean these were 1st Class 300 PFT'ers that volunteered for the program and they couldn't make it.

The only way I see young women making it through Marine Corps SOI is if they drop the standard or you have just one tough ass chick. In that case would it be worth all the hoo-ha to have just that 1 in 500 bad ass chick in the platoon?

I don't know, maybe so. :dunno:

Something just doesn't seem right about allowing those very very select few young women be surrounded by hard charging, testosterone fueled, fire breathing young men. ... :confused: ...

The Army does Co-ed Basic Training in some states, I hear(From Current and Retired) that they are having the constant issues you'd expect. Recruits getting pregnant, dudes fighting over chicks, overly protective Ego's causing problems and on and on. It's just a mess.

In the simplest of forms, there were many times that many men failed to complete training due to physical limitations and they weren't just weak men either. Like Didley, I just don't see the average 18 yr old 115 lbs young woman being able to keep up physically with today's requirements. it seems like they are letting EGO's get in the way of efficiency and it might lead to a lot of women setting themselves up for failure.

I don't know what to think about it but for some reason I'm not 100% against it? :dunno:


The Sgt. Maj of the Marine Corps has spoken! He's an 03' too, Errah!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAy7eDS8JY0


Doc Ace is a Combat Medic

I'm sure there will be an "oooh, you're wrong Doc," response but this is what I've witnessed firsthand as a combat medic in the infantry. And no, not a stay in the truck medic, rather, Doc, 4th man in the stack, 4th man in the room kind of medic.

Women in the infantry will prove to be faulty due to the compromisation of the mission if sh hits the fan. It is an instinctual response in men to protect the women when immediate danger is at hand. A mission will go south faster than a snowball headed for hell simply because there absolutely will be intersquad relations of the sexual kind, so and so is banging so and so in 3rd platoon and now Johnny wants to kill himself. Also, if she gets nailed by sniper fire and used as bait, much like they have done to RTOs and medics, you actually think that fire superiority will be some hard leg's first thought? Or rather would it become "oh man my ol lady is lying there bleeding out on the X," and wham bam we have yet another casualty and are risking even more Americans getting out mr and mrs smith off of the most dangerous place on the battlefield.

What about when we're humping it back 5 or 10 clicks after losing 4 guys and we're not only carrying a 70+ load but the extra weight of our battle bud's equipment/240/249 and full combat load on our backs? Do you honestly think she is humping 150% of her weight back the entire way through more hostile fire and terrain?

I don't see it as being a good thing.

What about a woman's monthly menstrual cycle and the clandestine living conditions of the infantryman? We went 10-20 days without proper running water and baby wipe baths. Yeast infections would be heavily prevalent. What most don't realize that lived on a FOB their entire tour and had 4 square meals/running water/privacy is that in the US Infantry there isn't that luxury. And definitely no room for censoring/hiding genitals/etc and worrying about it offending anyone else.

You'll never present an argument plausible enough for me to believe they should be there. I loved my fellow female solders and their sacrifices, but it'd do more harm than good and it terrifies me that young men may not come home because they were chasing a doe during the rut.

Doc


How many Joe's did you know getting married to the barracks whore that spent all of his money on Jody? It's inevitable. No matter what we advise or warn against, Joe Snuffy will sniff up the wrong skirts time in and time out. It's hard enough taking an 18 year old man and sticking him in an unforgiving and austere environment. Much less even more impossible giving him hope with only the men around him for moral support. Does anyone think an 18 year old who's never known a woman's touch and thrown into that kind of environment will honestly think with a clear head when it comes down to go time the day after the night that little miss muffett got a little lonely and jumped into his fart sack to cuddle and feel safe? A ball of raging hormones will try anything to get into those pants. Haven't we all tried the unthinkable to impress a woman although it was ill advised?!


I don't think the American public is as ready for this as many of them believe. As horrific as it is when a male servicemember is captured, tortured, burned/beheaded, etc., when it happens to a female and gets posted online, or captured female soldiers are stripped and gangraped in front of cameras, the public will not be able to stomach it. As referenced in the article from the female Marine officer, it seems that this agenda is being driven by outside forces who actually have no stake in this. With no huge numbers of women in the military clamoring for this, it's a solution to a non-existent problem.


There will always be exceptions but as has already been pointed out, most women cannot "pass muster" when it comes to fitness for combat.

I see this in martial arts all the time.

There are plenty of excellent women martial artists that can execute perfect kicks and punches and spar as well as any of the men.

But if it comes down to an actual physical confrontation between two equally skilled martial artists, one male and one female, the female is going to get her ass kicked!



.


Thanks Charlie,

I'm absolutely not a sexist man or chauvinist in any way whatsoever either, it's just human nature to err when hormones and the pursuit of a female can lead a man blindly. I'd hate for promotions and politics in units to get skewed due to APFT standards being unequal or misconduct leading to the eneffectiveness of cohesion as was stated previously.

War is a terrible thing. It isn't glamorous. There aren't guys riding off into the sunset. It is filthy, has a certain stench, body fluids and sweat. There's a slim chance in the infantry of any sort of acceptable hygiene for men especially on the assault/defense, and just think of, once again, a woman trying to maintain her level of acceptable hygene to not pave way for infections etc.

Another sad thing is when the female soldier got cold feet prior to deployment and went out and got pregnant which happened time and time again. What do you do when your SAW gunner or grenadier says oops guys I know I've been training with you the past year but I'm knocked up by the LT, no deployment for me? Too many holes there. We never listened to any sort of excuse. You were there, regardless of your situation.

Dustin D
01-26-2013, 10:43 AM
Something else to consider is that while women have been in combat, they have not been in the INFANTRY Line of Combat.

There's a BIG difference between being in a Combat Zone *rollseyes* and BEING IN COMBAT!

If these Army Soldiers in the video below were in REAL COMBAT, They'd all be DEAD!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9FyHmVE66k

Brian Cockfield
01-30-2013, 10:15 AM
This is much more complex than many people understand. This decision wasn't well thought out and isn't going to work out anything like the powers that be envision. I have been there and speak from experience.

Tom. P.
01-30-2013, 12:16 PM
This is much more complex than many people understand. This decision wasn't well thought out and isn't going to work out anything like the powers that be envision. I have been there and speak from experience.

Agree with that and respect Your opinion.Just like many other issues the gubment takes up.

Gerry Clinchy
01-30-2013, 01:30 PM
Chances are that many young women can meet higher fitness standards than can old men.
I still think a healthy 60 yr old man will generally be stronger than a healthy 60 yr old woman :-) And under the new policy you could end up with a unit made mostly of older women, just as easily as a unit made up of mostly older men; or equal #s of older men and older women. Seems like it would be a good idea to keep fitness levels balanced, regardless of gender.

Israel is most cited as the country using women in combat. This from Ameircan Thinker:


Many people use Israel, a modern, democratic state, as a positive point of comparison when they want to talk about guns, the universal draft, and women in service. Israel (which has strict gun laws, by the way, and does not ignore homosexuality in the ranks) does not have women in the combat infantry (http://www.your-krav-maga-expert.com/women-in-idf.html). Even today, when missile technology to some extent erases the line between the "battle front" and the "home front," women serve in units at the front, as do American women -- my stepdaughter is a psychologist in the U.S. Army, and during her two tours in Iraq, she visited "forward operating bases" (FOBs); believe me, she was at the front -- but they are not combat infantry.




The IDF's own website mentions "combat options (http://www.idfinfo.co.il/Service_Options_For_Women.php?cat=a7#p1)" for women, but if you read carefully, women are assigned to "command posts over advanced operational and attack systems, management and calculation of artillery fire, operation of communication devices, and conducting meteorologist case studies to improve artillery fire accuracy." Women are also dog handlers and intelligence officers, and they constitute the bulk of instructors in tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft, combat engineering, and field intelligence. There is no interest in putting Israeli women in direct combat with presumed Arab adversaries.


It is a deliberate decision made long ago. During the 1948/49 War of Independence, Israeli women were in combat because combat was everywhere in the country. Israeli women were captured and killed by Syrian forces. The result, said an IDF officer who was briefing an American military delegation in which I participated, "was that we didn't want that to happen to any Israeli woman ever again. We made a decision about what kind of country we are."


If our next adversary is part of the global jihad, don't look to the Geneva Convention for protection of female soldiers. In case the point isn't sharp enough, read Lauren Wolf at CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/05/opinion/wolfe-syria-rape/?hpt=hp_c2).

But it isn't only about the potential for capture; it is about the society the army defends. Read Robert Kaplan's Surrender or Starve (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33685.Surrender_or_Starve) to understand what happened to Eritrean society when everyone was a soldier and the line between the military and civil society, between men and women, was erased. Eritrea is an extreme example, but it is a mistake to think that erasing the distinction between protector and protected, society and its army, its men and its women wouldn't have repercussions for American society as well as for the American military.


In a weekend interview, President Obama said that if he had a son, he would think "long and hard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-if-i-had-son-id-have-think-long-and-hard-i-let-him-play-football_697976.html)" about letting him play football. Fair enough, given what we know. The President has two daughters.

Jason Glavich
01-30-2013, 01:56 PM
It's true.

They've been in combat for years. Now they can get payment and credit for it, and be promoted to positions that require previous combat experience.

'Bout time.

They have never been denied credit or payment. In the warzone gets the same pay no matter who you are, in the wire or out. Being in theatre and front lines are 2 different things.

Jason Glavich
01-30-2013, 01:59 PM
I have no personal experience, so this may just be a blah blah blah moment, but...

Combat has changed, so say all; and there are now "combat positions" for which many young healthy women are highly qualified, and perhaps would be sought after. On the flip side, there are, so say all, many non-combat positions which women have been serving in well that, nonetheless, put soldiers in harm's way and require combat training and response.

so--really--what does this directive do but make women available to earn the pay grades and raises and promotions their male counterparts have available to them?

Analogy: I don't think anyone's talking about throwing gymnasts in with the Greco-Roman heavyweights... But if there are a few women that can run a marathon as well as or better than a typical strong male marathoner, and have a longer career out of it that then allows those few women to train and manage up and coming marathoners and marathon events with the experience of having run with the best of both sexes... What's the big deal? Isn't having more good people with real experience a good thing?

Provided the women are capable of the jobs--so what?

Males and females span all ranks. 2nd if we all want to be equal then the physical requirements should be the same but they are not, less push ups, less pulls ups, longer time to run the same distance, etc. The Military is not equal on physical requirements.

duk4me
01-30-2013, 03:28 PM
I still think a healthy 60 yr old man will generally be stronger than a healthy 60 yr old woman :-) And under the new policy you could end up with a unit made mostly of older women, just as easily as a unit made up of mostly older men; or equal #s of older men and older women. Seems like it would be a good idea to keep fitness levels balanced, regardless of gender.

Israel is most cited as the country using women in combat. This from Ameircan Thinker:

Gerry I must disagree. If this were true why in living rooms across the US when a women cuts her eyes at her husband he lowers his head and says yes dear?

huntinman
01-30-2013, 03:41 PM
Gerry I must disagree. If this were true why in living rooms across the US when a women cuts her eyes at her husband he lowers his head and says yes dear?

rolling pins?

charly_t
01-30-2013, 04:12 PM
rolling pins?

Solid wooden rolling pins ! vbg

But, Aunt Edna always said if a women hit a man first ( read husband ) she had put herself on his level. Therefore if she got hit back it was "fair". Paraphrased version .......... :-)

We are now talking about intruders in a woman's home in this part of my post. 'Give intruders both barrels' or the best you have. If you got more than one intruder you need more fire power. That's why we want those
"guns" with a larger capacity for shells. I like a hand gun for some things but nothing beats a shotgun for stopping power up close. I'm partial to number 4 shot for armadillos. For snakes I use smaller shot most of the time. Haven't shot a human, ever, so I'm not sure what works best on them. More shot in the shell is sometimes better than larger shot. However it would seem like up close any size shot would do. Just my way of looking at it.

huntinman
01-30-2013, 05:32 PM
Solid wooden rolling pins ! vbg

But, Aunt Edna always said if a women hit a man first ( read husband ) she had put herself on his level. Therefore if she got hit back it was "fair". Paraphrased version .......... :-)

We are now talking about intruders in a woman's home in this part of my post. 'Give intruders both barrels' or the best you have. If you got more than one intruder you need more fire power. That's why we want those
"guns" with a larger capacity for shells. I like a hand gun for some things but nothing beats a shotgun for stopping power up close. I'm partial to number 4 shot for armadillos. For snakes I use smaller shot most of the time. Haven't shot a human, ever, so I'm not sure what works best on them. More shot in the shell is sometimes better than larger shot. However it would seem like up close any size shot would do. Just my way of looking at it.

You are my kind of woman Charly!

road kill
01-30-2013, 05:41 PM
You want to use Israel for a model?

I'm good with that, but let's model all of her values and ethics, shall we?
EX: How many Israelis are on entitilements?
What is the crime rate?
Illiteracy rates?
How many are unemployed?

And so on.................


I find it telling, all of us who have actually been in a fight say NO women, and those in favor..........well..........


Also, wasn't that long ago the progressives were screaming "NO WAR!!!"

Now.......they want to send women..............I would like to quote Andrew Dice Clay here, but that wouldn't fly!!!

luvalab
01-30-2013, 06:42 PM
Males and females span all ranks. 2nd if we all want to be equal then the physical requirements should be the same but they are not, less push ups, less pulls ups, longer time to run the same distance, etc. The Military is not equal on physical requirements.

Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...

road kill
01-30-2013, 07:37 PM
Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...
I like silly mustaches and......wait........never mind!

Brian Cockfield
01-31-2013, 02:59 AM
Equal is equal, and same is same. I am on-board with equal and same both in this instance. Seriously. 15 years ago I broke my ankle in a tumble down rickety stairs, and I told the petite flower EMT that started to take me off the ledge that she needed to let Bubba take the lead on that maneuver! I am also practical. If it's combat and it's inexpedient or disruptive to have a woman in particular ranks, well, if anything should be expedient it is war. Big whoop if the women who are otherwise qualified aren't practical for any reason.

But why have a policy that automatically says nope, never, don't try, ever--there may be 1 woman in 500 or 1000 that is ready, willing, and fully able to be trained to go if called... And so what? In the long run, that may only be twenty or fifty or a hundred women... But that's 20 or 50 or 100 people that might serve well and long and move up the ranks to be that one in several million that can truly lead in combat and beyond. If the woman can do it, if she as a woman fits into that mission, if maybe she has a special talent for that type of combat--well, why not?

In many a war there has always been the one woman in the battle somewhere that made a difference (or wound up dead, like most of the men). Why not let her avoid the silly fake mustache and taping down the boobs?

I hardly think theinfantry is going to be suddenly over-run...
The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.

Jason Glavich
01-31-2013, 08:28 AM
It is interesting here are a few articles about the Marines trying this before it was ven handed down.
http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corps/first-women-drop-out-of-marine-officer-infantry-training-1.193228
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-marine-infantry-officers-course-washed-out-in-days-2013-1

And then here is the Commandant saying the jobs may stay closed because he will not lower the requirements.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/marine-corps-women-combat/1873753/

Jason Glavich
01-31-2013, 08:29 AM
The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.

They have done numerous studies on how a male reacts to a fellow male being shot or injured, and how different it is when a male witnesses a female being shot or injured, it changes the focus and how they react.

road kill
01-31-2013, 08:35 AM
They have done numerous studies on how a male reacts to a fellow male being shot or injured, and how different it is when a male witnesses a female being shot or injured, it changes the focus and how they react.
How about if a female is taken hostage and used as a shield?????

You leftys that want women in war that you hate

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/stevenpatterson/man_head_spinning_lg_nwm.gif
do know we have a different view of women here in our culture than is held under Sharia law, right???

huntinman
01-31-2013, 08:40 AM
How about if a female is taken hostage and used as a shield?????

You leftys that want women in war that you hate

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/stevenpatterson/man_head_spinning_lg_nwm.gif
we have a different view of women here in our culture than is held under Sharia law, right???


I'm not sure shield is the proper term for what most of those savages would do with a female POW...

smillerdvm
01-31-2013, 08:42 AM
The reason for saying "nope" is that this is real life. It's combat where lives are at stake. If the progressives want to conduct a social experiment, try it in the NFL or Olympic sports. There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another. There's a reason why. (and these are games) Combat is a much different animal. Mark my words, for those of you who think this is acceptable, this is not going to turn out well.

How right you are.
If we ask young men to go into harms way and put their life on the line, we should ensure them the best possible chance of survival.

This isnt some namby pamby little league scenario where we wont keep score in order to avoid hurting Johnny or Mary's feelings.
This is life or death and they do keep score..... in body counts. There are situations where the average Johnnys superior strength to the average Mary could extricate a comrade in arms from a life threatening situation.

If we want to have a stupid ridiculous social experiment and pretend that Johnny and Mary are the same, outside of the fact that one sits down to pee while the other stands up, then lets not extend that ridiculous experiment to life or death situations.
That premise is ridiculous, lets not prove the social experimenters wrong with the blood of our soldiers

GoldenSail
01-31-2013, 10:58 AM
My understanding is that women have been in combat for quite some time now, but they haven't been getting paid for it like the men because of the restriction. They also say the battlefield is more fluid these days making it important that all people be trained and ready for combat.

Everyone here seems to focus on the supposed weaknesses they see, but no one has bothered to mention the strength that women can bring.


Direct Combat
The Army and DoD definitions of “direct combat” offer another instance of contradictory interpretation.
The Army policy includes “a substantial risk of capture” as being definitional while the DoD does not.
The DoD defines direct combat as taking “place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing
with the enemy” while the Army policy omits the phrase “well forward on the battlefield” but adds that
combat occurs “while repelling the enemy’s assault by fire, close combat, or counterattack.” It is
unclear exactly what “repelling the enemy” might include. Further, the nature of combat missions
aren’t spatially discernible, as the phrases “well forward” and “closing the enemy” might suggest. The
confusing language in the two policies reveals the difficulty of establishing a definitive line between
combat and non‐combat particularly in actual practice.

The Increasing Presence of Women in Combat Roles
The changing nature of warfare as well as military necessity has increasingly placed women in combat
roles. Despite the ambiguities in policy, military commanders are assigning women where they need
them. The time is long overdue for policy to catch up with practice.

The Battlefield Environment
The absence of a clear line between enemy and friendly territory produces a situation where both
women and men are always exposed to the possibility of combat, necessitating every soldier to be
combat‐ready.
- In late 2003 the Army revised its basic training protocol to prepare soldiers to irregular warfare.
It was decided that all servicemembers would undergo combat training, including more
weapons training, learning to protect against bombs and grenades and learning to fight in urban
areas where enemies where indistinguishable from civilians. Recognizing that “women were
working alongside war fighters, taking hostile fire – even in the role of designated support
forces,” no gender distinction was made on who would receive combat training.13
- Beginning in 2005, the U.S. Army began placing women in Forward Support Companies (FSCs),
which provide maintenance and support services to direct ground combat battalions, including
infantry, armor and Special Forces. The Army recognizes this assignment will place women in
combat situations, yet maintains that it is in compliance with the 1994 DoD policy.
- In May of 2005, an amendment was proposed which would remove all women from FSCs –
which would have closed 21,925 positions currently open to servicewomen.14 The amendment
was opposed, suggesting an increasing level of recognition of the need for women in
occupations and units regardless of their proximity to combat.
- Women also participate in raids and ride on convoys where the exposure to Improvised
Explosive Devices (IEDs) is constant.

Lioness Teams
Beginning in 2003, the U.S. Army established all‐female (Lioness) teams specifically to accompany allmale
Marine combat units into insurgent‐infested areas of Ramadi, Iraq.
- Lioness teams originated from the military’s need for servicewomen to be present during home
raids, at checkpoints, or any place where “Iraqi women’s honor” could be threatened by the
presence of and/or contact with male troops.
- Women soldiers were primarily used in these instances to search Iraqi women for weapons or
explosives. They also served as a “calming presence” for the women and children.
- Lioness teams routinely engaged in combat by nature of their missions and should be
recognized and awarded as having done so. Mission success is clearly dependent on women
filling these combat roles.

Female Engagement Teams (FETs)
FETs are crucial to the U.S. military’s counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan and are attached to
either infantry units for combat missions or, in the case of Marine FETs, to male maneuver units.
- In July of 2009 the Marine Corps officially began training FETs; there are now several teams run
intermittently in southern Afghanistan and as of November 2009, all international and Afghan
security forces were directed to establish FETs of their own.15
- In March 2010, the Marines trained forty women for the first full‐time Female Engagement
Teams, deployed to Helmand province in April 2010.- The FET women practice “reflexive fire” as well as getting in and out of armored personnel
carriers while under fire. The tasks of their mission ‐ “calming,” interacting and building
relationships with Afghan women ‐ require that they go outside the wire, into hot zones.
- FETs are attached to combat units, not assigned. This bureaucratic sidestep allows the military
access to servicewomen’s labor in combat situations without having to acknowledge them as
combatants.

Women on Submarines
The number of talented women earning degrees in engineering and science prompted the U.S. Navy to
lift the ban barring women from serving on submarines. For the first time, women are in the chain of
command of a strategic first‐strike nuclear defense asset, attesting to their competency in positions
essential to national security.
- Allowing women on submarines is an issue that had been considered and rejected several times
since 1993. In February 2010 Defense Secretary Robert Gates notified Congress that the Navy
intended to allow women officers on submarines.
- 24 women officers are being integrated on guide‐missile attack (SSGNs) and ballistic‐missile
(SSBNs) submarines. Allowing women to serve on submarines will provide them the opportunity
for both forward deployed strike and strategic deterrent operational experience.
Link (http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/97-WIC-fact-sheet.pdf).

I have read other responses on other forums and unlike this one there are men and women in the military who support the move. One woman in particular who was physically fit and could out-do many of the young men in her unit. And I daresay, a physically fit woman who volunteers to fight for her country is going to be far more useful than an out of shape young man who is unwillingly drafted.

It is also interesting to me that the similar arguments were made against racial integration and then don't ask don't tell.

Thankfully, we don't live in this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

And check out this 111 lb woman. I think women can do more than people give credit for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNThxHc4YE

At the end of the day anyone who is willing to fight for our country, male, female, black, white, gay or straight has my respect! It's a tough job and I wouldn't want to do it.

huntinman
01-31-2013, 11:04 AM
My understanding is that women have been in combat for quite some time now, but they haven't been getting paid for it like the men because of the restriction. They also say the battlefield is more fluid these days making it important that all people be trained and ready for combat.

Everyone here seems to focus on the supposed weaknesses they see, but no one has bothered to mention the strength that women can bring.


Link (http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/97-WIC-fact-sheet.pdf).

I have read other responses on other forums and unlike this one there are men and women in the military who support the move. One woman in particular who was physically fit and could out-do many of the young men in her unit. And I daresay, a physically fit woman who volunteers to fight for her country is going to be far more useful than an out of shape young man who is unwillingly drafted.

It is also interesting to me that the similar arguments were made against racial integration and then don't ask don't tell.

Thankfully, we don't live in this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

And check out this 111 lb woman. I think women can do more than people give credit for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNThxHc4YE

At the end of the day anyone who is willing to fight for our country, male, female, black, white, gay or straight has my respect! It's a tough job and I wouldn't want to do it.

There is no draft...

GoldenSail
01-31-2013, 11:59 AM
I know there is no draft but it doesn't change the fact that young men are required to register with selective service and can be called upon at any time if the country feels like it needs them.

Becky Mills
01-31-2013, 12:43 PM
There isn't a single professional sport or Olympic event where males and females are competing against one another.

Brian, you're my hero and I agree with you about women in combat because you've been there and done that, but there is one little bitty mistake in your statement. In horse racing and the equestrian events men and women compete against each other.

Brian Cockfield
01-31-2013, 11:05 PM
Thanks Becky. My mistake; I wasn't aware about horse racing. I mean no disrespect to any women with my posts. Women do an outstanding job in the roles they are currently filling in our military. There are plenty of jobs to go around for everyone.

sick lids
02-01-2013, 12:03 AM
Hell hath no fury like a scorned woman. Women commit some of the most horrendous acts and walk away like nothing happened as if its routine,

Becky Mills
02-01-2013, 09:17 AM
Brian, I know you didn't. I was just picking at you and I agree with every thing you've said.

Socks
02-01-2013, 10:50 AM
My understanding is that women have been in combat for quite some time now, but they haven't been getting paid for it like the men because of the restriction. They also say the battlefield is more fluid these days making it important that all people be trained and ready for combat.

Everyone here seems to focus on the supposed weaknesses they see, but no one has bothered to mention the strength that women can bring.


Link (http://servicewomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/97-WIC-fact-sheet.pdf).

I have read other responses on other forums and unlike this one there are men and women in the military who support the move. One woman in particular who was physically fit and could out-do many of the young men in her unit. And I daresay, a physically fit woman who volunteers to fight for her country is going to be far more useful than an out of shape young man who is unwillingly drafted.

It is also interesting to me that the similar arguments were made against racial integration and then don't ask don't tell.

Thankfully, we don't live in this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

And check out this 111 lb woman. I think women can do more than people give credit for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tNThxHc4YE

At the end of the day anyone who is willing to fight for our country, male, female, black, white, gay or straight has my respect! It's a tough job and I wouldn't want to do it.

As to the women attached to the infantry. They're "attached". It's different than being the person who goes and looks for a fight and that fight isn't fair and it's dirty, messy, and bloody. As for more training for a firefight for a fluid front line? Well duh, a woman can pull a trigger too, but don't ever think that it's just about pulling triggers. I read an account of Vietnam firefight where our guys ran low on ammo and were surrounded, started sharpening their entrenching tools to be basically used as battle axes for hand to hand combat because the NVA were massing to try to overrun them. Don't think it can't happen in this day and age? I saw an interview with a Marine officer and his second in command went into a building in Iraq and were attacked by bad guys. The two marines got serperated in the fight. The second in command's pistol jambed and he went toe to toe with bad guy with his knife. He won by sticking said knife into the bad guy during the struggle by overpowering the bad guy.

As to the woman lifting a lot of weight? So what I used to be able to bench 350lbs 2 times when I was 197lbs with a lot less prep time and less pysching myself up. Not too many women can lift that and it's impressive. Now walk up to any infantryman and ask him if he had to be drug back to safety who he'd rather try that. Me or her? I think they'd choose me even now that I'm old and fat.

road kill
02-01-2013, 03:58 PM
Evidently there is already controversey concerning women in combat positions.
Some of them are demanding body armour configured to fit their lady parts.

And so it goes.............

Gerry Clinchy
02-01-2013, 08:26 PM
Katelyn might make a good sniper ...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/01/friday-fun-13yearold-girl-rocks-the-range-n1503406

Socks
02-02-2013, 07:12 PM
Katelyn might make a good sniper ...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/02/01/friday-fun-13yearold-girl-rocks-the-range-n1503406

Maybe at a base of some sort, but not part of a scout/sniper team that goes behind enemy lines.

road kill
02-02-2013, 07:18 PM
Maybe at a base of some sort, but not part of a scout/sniper team that goes behind enemy lines.

They know not what awaits them.................