Women in Combat

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Do you understand the definition of the word, facetious?

Yep, I thought you did!

Do you understand the concept of "avoidance" as it relates psychologically to the "technique" of someone's behavior when they get "called out" on their inappropriate behavior and they attempt to claim that they were just being "facetious"?

Yep, I thought you did.

As I said, you and yours are pandering to the ladies.

You do realize that the next step is "quotas"! Yep, I thought you did.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

As I said, you and yours are pandering to the ladies.

And I suppose that makes LL our resident "Pandering" Policeman.

Yep, I thought it did!

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by austxjr

Would that be pussies like the Israelis?

A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit "superior skills" in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from "a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity."

Really?


http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/





Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.





Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?
It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.

There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.

But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”

Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

And I suppose that makes LL our resident "Pandering" Policeman.

Too much of it on the Board for one person.

It's almost like some of you think you are gonna get a discount ...

.... locker room mentality driven by excessive testosterone.

[Fast Gunn]

Personally, I think we should instead be looking for ways to end war altogether.

But it doesn't seem to be going that way until man annihilates himself and his neighbor in a ghoulish mushroom cloud.

. . . Allowing women in combat is merely adding more cannon fodder to the mix.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Really?


http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/





Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.





Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?
It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.

Finally, even Israeli citizens don’t relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don’t want women in combat.

There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.

But to use the “Israeli experience” as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it’s disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of “the will of the people.”

Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn’t have many sympathetic ears

Amen my brother. I wish the people promoting women in combat consider there own daughters getting their asses shot at, wounded, and raped by the enemy, held in cages for years, and left emotionally scarred for left just so they could claim another "emancipation".

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by Big_Sarge

As a former Army recruiter, you would be surprised how many women actually wanted to do something in the combat arms type jobs. Many female Soldiers, joined up as MP's (military police) so that they could see some action, as MP's did a lot of convoy security. There are countries out there that have had females on the front lines and they don't have an issue with it.

I'm going to assume that you had an issue with them repealling DADT as well?

Yes, I was deeply offended by the elimination of DADT. Just one more move towards the US committing suicide. I'm sure as a recruiter you didn't feel you could plug just anyone into a military role and keep the military the best in the world, did you?
A lethal military needs real men committed to the mission, not a bunch of BS politicians who think the military is a social justice platform for their liberal pet causes they like to shove down everyone's throat.
Let's face it, America is on a downhill slide. Why don't we train many more women to be mechanics, firefighters, plumbers, engineers, heavy equipment operators, factory workers, etc., and the men who get displaced, let's teach them childcare and nursing. That's the fucked up fantasy way of thinking liberals use, that we are all equal, all interchangeable, and the only difference is a penis or a vagina.
When you displace enough men with women, what are the men going to do to feel useful? Strap on a pussy and charged women to fuck them with a strap on dick?

[JD Barleycorn]

I would now like Aust to acknowledge that Israel women don't serve in front line units on purpose. The only times that countries have put women in front line units is when they are losing or desperate; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Israel, Yugoslavia, Poland, North Vietnam to name a few. Most of the time it didn't work out.

[i'va biggen]

If a woman can cut it and wants the right to pull a trigger you pussys get out of her way.Don't know what the diff of her dying driving a truck or as a medic or infantry.

[Laz]

I am concerned with the military making physical requirement decisions based on the assumption we will have superior technology in all combat. There will be times when the troops are outnumbered and do not have an advantage. Physical ability will determine whether you live or die. If the requirements are maintained the few women that can pass them should be allowed but it will be few and far between for units such as the infantry.

[WTF]

I'm sure there are a bunch of pussy ass men that shouldn't be on the front lines. And....

If all our sailors are as dumb as JD, we should have a boat bigger than a pearow in the Navy!

[joe bloe]

Ninety nine percent of women are not physically or psychologically suitable for combat. Completely disrupting the entire system to accomodate a tiny percentage of women is a stupid idea. It's not going to improve our national defense; it's going to weaken us.

Next the liberals will insist on allowing paraplegics in combat roles, in the interest of fairness.

[JD Barleycorn]

You can talk about my ships and we can talk about your penis. Mine is massive and hugeish. While yours is.......well even dingys have their uses.

[WTF]

You wanna talk about my penis sailor?

No damn wonder sailors have the reputation they do!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Ninety nine percent of women are not physically or psychologically suitable for combat. Completely disrupting the entire system to accomodate a tiny percentage of women is a stupid idea. It's not going to improve our national defense; it's going to weaken us.

Next the liberals will insist on allowing paraplegics in combat roles, in the interest of fairness.

I would imagine that most of the females who volunteer for the Armed Forces would love to kick the ass of a Bloeviator that didn't even have the balls to 'man up' for 30 days on an anonymous hooker board after losing an election.
Those female soldiers would probably have a field day kicking Pitiful Joe the Bloehard (The Nutless Wonder) around!