Women in Combat

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by gary5912

just my 2 cents I would rather they stay in the MASH unit, I think having a women take care of my wounds would be alot better than some hairy leg GAY that Obama let out of the closet

.... a corpsman sewed up my head and face, did a job as good, if not better, than a plastic surgeon, and "frankly my dear" I never asked about his sexual preferences ...

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Sooner or later, you just want to be able to stay alive till the next morning.

Jackie, those were excellent observations about life in the Jungle.

"Live To Fight Another Day"

That pretty much sums up the "Ground Pounder's" modified version of MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.... a corpsman sewed up my head and face, did a job as good, if not better, than a plastic surgeon, and "frankly my dear" I never asked about his sexual preferences ...

Yet another excellent observation!

[LexusLover]

Things could improve though ... just saying ....

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.... a corpsman sewed up my head and face, did a job as good, if not better, than a plastic surgeon, and "frankly my dear" I never asked about his sexual preferences ...

No shit if you are wounded you are happy to see anyone who would help.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

No shit if you are wounded you are happy to see anyone who would help.

Well, I have to admit. Not "anyone who would help" ..

..... and I was clearly not "happy"!

I do remember fighting to stay conscious during the assessment, clean up, and procedure. I actually thought I had lost an eye, but it was full of blood.

Out on that topic. That's all I have to say.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, I agree here as well. I think as long as requirements are not lowered then anyone who can meet those requirements regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation (or pretty much any other factor you can think of) should be allowed to serve in their fullest capacity.

Originally Posted by pyramider

Equal rights means equal pay, responsibilities, etc. Let women be drafted, they want to be equal. There can be no situational equality.

No disagreement here.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.... a corpsman sewed up my head and face, did a job as good, if not better, than a plastic surgeon, and "frankly my dear" I never asked about his sexual preferences ...

Yeah, when black Americans were allowed into the military, I'm pretty certain almost all the same arguments were made that we're hearing today about gays & women. And you know, it's going to be disruptive in the beginning. People will have to learn to deal with it just like they dealt with it back then and our military will be better for it. This is part of having a free and equal society is about.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Yeah, when black Americans were allowed into the military, I'm pretty certain almost all the same arguments were made that we're hearing today about gays & women. And you know, it's going to be disruptive in the beginning. ......

This is part of having a free and equal society is about.

Apples and oranges.

1st, Black Americans served in the military in the civil war, before women voted.
2nd, Black Americans were never given "preferential, affirmative action" exceptions.
3rd, Black Americans were segregated into separate combat units past WWII.
4th, there was no factual basis to conclude they were inferior fighters in combat.
5th, there was no basis that white soldiers would preferentially favor them in combat.

[i'va biggen]

If a gay corpsman shows up to help the wounded sex is not on their mind.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Apples and oranges.

1st, Black Americans served in the military in the civil war, before women voted.
2nd, Black Americans were never given "preferential, affirmative action" exceptions.
3rd, Black Americans were segregated into separate combat units past WWII.
4th, there was no factual basis to conclude they were inferior fighters in combat.
5th, there was no basis that white soldiers would preferentially favor them in combat.

Just for clarification, are you saying this in regards to gays or for women or for both?

The arguments for morale and disruption to the unit's cohesion back then are the same as today and the military got over it.

Preferential treatment is because soldiers don't view them as equals, which they need to learn how to do.

Regardless, if a person meets the requirements that all soldiers are required to meet (which deals with the inferior fighter argument), then I don't see a problem with them serving.

[CuteOldGuy]

I'll be honest. I don't where I stand on this issue. While I agree that if a woman can do the job, she should not be arbitrarily prohibited. However, the experience of other countries isn't so much that women can't do the job, but that men have more difficulty doing what is necessary when women are present. Men have the idea, rightly or wrongly, that they need to protect women. And if you get an attractive woman in the unit, it will be even more difficult.

Not saying that is right, but that is how it is.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'll be honest. I don't where I stand on this issue.

Absolutely SHOCKING! StupidOldLyingFart is once again sitting on the fence!

[CuteOldGuy]

Gee, BTLD. It really bothers you when someone wants to think something through, doesn't it? It threatens your narrow little world.

BTW, I'm not sitting on any fence. Keep up with that lie, though. It suits you.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Gee, BTLD. It really bothers you when someone wants to think something through, doesn't it? It threatens your narrow little world.

BTW, I'm not sitting on any fence. Keep up with that lie, though. It suits you.

Hey StupidOldLyingFart, for once in your worthless life, grow some balls!

Making a decision is not hard work, it just takes huevos to get there!

"Whimp!" (mispelling intended)

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I'll be honest. I don't where I stand on this issue. While I agree that if a woman can do the job, she should not be arbitrarily prohibited. However, the experience of other countries isn't so much that women can't do the job, but that men have more difficulty doing what is necessary when women are present. Men have the idea, rightly or wrongly, that they need to protect women. And if you get an attractive woman in the unit, it will be even more difficult.

Not saying that is right, but that is how it is.

Yeah, on the part where men have the idea they need to protect women, I think something like that is something I have confidence in our military to adapt to. When black Americans were integrated into combat units, I'm sure there were many soldiers who were uncomfortable serving with them and I'm certain their performance had to have been affected by it. However, given time, the soldiers learned that black Americans were patriots just like themselves and today it's not an issue anymore.

So do I think this will cause problems? Sure. However, I believe that over time, it will be one that will be adapted to as men become more used to serving with women.

For what it's worth, I think it's fine (and admirable) for you to want to learn more before voicing your opinion on what you think abotu the issue.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

When black Americans were integrated into combat units, I'm sure there were many soldiers who were uncomfortable serving with them and I'm certain their performance had to have been affected by it. However, given time, the soldiers learned that black Americans were patriots just like themselves and today it's not an issue anymore.

So do I think this will cause problems? Sure. However, I believe that over time, it will be one that will be adapted to as men become more used to serving with women.

Our military is not a "training" or "proving" ground for social equality. It has one focus and that is hurting those who would hurt us faster and more efficiently than they can hurt us ... and do it in a manner and to a degree that discourages them, and others, from attempting that endeavor again.

We haven't been doing that in 60+ years, and we aren't doing that. Adding females to the mix on an "affirmative action" basis to allow for males to "adjust" to the idea over time is not productive in that goal, although it may be politically and socially correct.

Our judiciary has accepted exemptions for the "requirement" that there be equal opportunity and have recognized that in some service oriented functions in government that there "exemptions" from the Constitutional requirement of "equality" based on gender. There can be legitimate reasons for unequal treatment in given situations.

My concern is twofold: one watering down the standards to "accomodate" females; and two (which is of greater concern to me) the "atmosphere" that is generated in ANY situation in which a female is injected and male "competiveness" for her "attention" kicks in and creates a "hostile" conflict between the males vying for her "approval"...

.. just look at the shit on this board. If you've never experienced it ... you have NEVER been in a bar at happy hour on Fridays! ... or you are lying.

Who remembers ... "tail hook" ... ?

And it wasn't long ago from Iraq that a lawsuit against Haliburton? was filed in Federal court to vindicate a female who was assaulted!

And as for this board ... and the hobby....

........ you said race wasn't an "issue" ... really? NBA policy!

Conflicts with race have been resolved in this country, you say?

.."today it's not an issue anymore"..... may be in your mind!

Passing a law or regs doesn't eliminate disparate treatment.

If a guy in the unit is sexually harrassing a female, do you know who goes, as in transferred out of the remote possibility of future contact? So now we are going to break up fighting units to "accommodate" the female who was being "sexually harrassed" ... and go take a look at the EEOC on "what is sexual harrassment"!