Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

I will say it again to joe blow and The Lama ...Israel does it, why can't we?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Really? Because it wasn't Democrats that got us into the two wars we're in right now. In fact, it seems to be that Democrats are actually trying to get us out of them...

Your inference is fallacious, jbravo. Here's a post in another thread that lays out some of the facts:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=19

BTW, there was this guy named bin Laden: he wasn't a Republican -- just an FYI.

On topic: any woman that can meet the physical and mental requirements should be accepted in combat units, and I’ve known several who were quite capable of performing in such a role: but most were not. Unfortunately, at some point someone will begin to equate the low ratio of genuinely qualified women with a systemic bias against women and then finagle with and render invalid legitimate admission standards. In the end, that will damage and impair the over all effectiveness of such units. (BTW, people often forget a substantial number of young men do not qualify and are rejected at the recruiting office.)

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your inference is fallacious, jbravo. Here's a post in another thread that lays out some of the facts:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=19

BTW, there was this guy named bin Laden: he wasn't a Republican -- just an FYI.

Fair enough, both parties voted to go to war. Sidewinder's post was just as incorrect in trying to pin this all on a single party.

Bin Laden wasn't a Democrat either -- just an FYI.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Bin Laden wasn't a Democrat either -- just an FYI.

Never said he was. Nevertheless, bin Laden remains first and foremost the primary culprit in bringing about the war in Afghanistan, and playing the "political-blame-game" won't change that fundamental fact.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Never said he was. Nevertheless, bin Laden remains first and foremost the primary culprit in bringing about the war in Afghanistan, and playing the "political-blame-game" won't change that fundamental fact.

And I never said you did, yet you felt compelled to specifically state that he wasn't a Republican.

I don't agree that bin Laden / Al-Qaida and their actions are the primary movers in starting the war in Afghanistan and in part, fear of them part of the cause in Iraq.

I was refuting Sidewinder's comment about Democrats wanting to keep us in the war nation building and being dependant upon Republicans to get us out.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

And I never said you did, yet you felt compelled to specifically state that he wasn't a Republican.

I don't agree that bin Laden / Al-Qaida and their actions are the primary movers in starting the war in Afghanistan and in part, fear of them part of the cause in Iraq.

And by inference you were claiming it was only Republicans who were responsible for the war in Afghanistan; thus, negating bin Laden's role entirely. There would have been no reprisal war in Afghanistan if not for 9/11; it's a simple case of “cause and effect”.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Agreed! As long as women (or gays or really anyone) can perform the requirements of the job, I don't see any reason to exclude them.

I'd expand on the kicking ass to more than Muslim assholes, but any assholes - Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, White, Black, Yellow, what have you.

And those guys get that without having to pay extra!

I just picked on Muslims since they have such a low opinion of women and getting killed by a bunch of women would just add to the insult.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And by inference you were claiming it was only Republicans who were responsible for the war in Afghanistan; thus, negating bin Laden's role entirely. There would have been no reprisal war in Afghanistan if not for 9/11; it's a simple case of “cause and effect”.

I can play the "I never said that" card, but I won't. Yes, I was implying that Republicans were primary movers in both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least from the American side.

You can argue that 9/11 forced the US to go to war in Afghanistan, but we did have the option not to do that. There always a plethora of options that do not involve declaring war upon another country. Simple cause & effect is a dangerous slippery slope to go down - you can say 9/11 forced us to go into Afghanistan. Then you can continue up the chain that our actions caused the resentment against us in the Middle East that brought bin Laden to do what he did. The chain can continue on and on because people will always remember some slight against them.

Originally Posted by Laz

I just picked on Muslims since they have such a low opinion of women and getting killed by a bunch of women would just add to the insult.

Hah yeah, the irony there is delicious for the more extreme Muslims. I'm just saying though that just like most Christians aren't insane zealots, most Muslims are not insane zealots as well. As with Christianity, it's the extremists that make the religion as a whole look bad.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

I can play the "I never said that" card, but I won't. Yes, I was implying that Republicans were primary movers in both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least from the American side.

You can argue that 9/11 forced the US to go to war in Afghanistan, but we did have the option not to do that. There always a plethora of options that do not involve declaring war upon another country. Simple cause & effect is a dangerous slippery slope to go down - you can say 9/11 forced us to go into Afghanistan. Then you can continue up the chain that our actions caused the resentment against us in the Middle East that brought bin Laden to do what he did. The chain can continue on and on because people will always remember some slight against them.


Hah yeah, the irony there is delicious for the more extreme Muslims. I'm just saying though that just like most Christians aren't insane zealots, most Muslims are not insane zealots as well. As with Christianity, it's the extremists that make the religion as a whole look bad.

And Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, so your point is . . . ? The simple fact remains: bin Laden – what ever his motives – declared war on the U.S., and he orchestrated and launched an attack against the U.S. homeland on 9/11. You further ignore bin Laden and al Qaeda’s earlier role in murdering hundreds of innocent people in U.S embassies in Africa, and you ignore how his organization successfully killed U.S. sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole. What does it take for people like you to recognize an enemy dead set on killing and maiming U.S. citizens? How many times do you give such people a pass and allow them to keep attacking, killing and maiming at will? And if you want to take “motives” back to the Dark Ages, it’s quite easy to establish who struck whom first: Mohammedans were the "Johnny-Come-Latelies" who made jihad against existing Christian and Jewish societies.

[jbravo_123]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, so your point is . . . ? The simple fact remains: bin Laden – what ever his motives – declared war on the U.S., and he orchestrated and launched an attack against the U.S. homeland on 9/11. You further ignore bin Laden and al Qaeda’s earlier role in murdering hundreds of innocent people in U.S embassies in Africa, and you ignore how his organization successfully killed U.S. sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole. What does it take for people like you to recognize an enemy dead set on killing and maiming U.S. citizens? How many times do you give such people a pass and allow them to keep attacking, killing and maiming at will?

When have I said anything condoning what bin Laden / Al-Qaeda did?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And if you want to take “motives” back to the Dark Ages, it’s quite easy to establish who struck whom first: Mohammedans were the "Johnny-Come-Latelies" who made jihad against existing Christian and Jewish societies.

Really? Because human history really started in the Dark Ages? Humanity has been waging war on itself well before any of the modern day established religions.

[TheDaliLama]

Originally Posted by WTF

I will say it again to joe blow and The Lama ...Israel does it, why can't we?

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.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

When have I said anything condoning what bin Laden / Al-Qaeda did?

Perhaps you should look at this earlier remark by you:

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Yes, I was implying that Republicans were primary movers in both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, at least from the American side.

You can argue that 9/11 forced the US to go to war in Afghanistan, but we did have the option not to do that. There always a plethora of options that do not involve declaring war upon another country.

Doing nothing had demonstrably failed!

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Really? Because human history really started in the Dark Ages? Humanity has been waging war on itself well before any of the modern day established religions.

Perhaps you should look at these earlier remarks by you:

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Simple cause & effect is a dangerous slippery slope to go down - you can say 9/11 forced us to go into Afghanistan. Then you can continue up the chain that our actions caused the resentment against us in the Middle East that brought bin Laden to do what he did. The chain can continue on and on because people will always remember some slight against them.

Hah yeah, the irony there is delicious for the more extreme Muslims. I'm just saying though that just like most Christians aren't insane zealots, most Muslims are not insane zealots as well. As with Christianity, it's the extremists that make the religion as a whole look bad.

[Laz]

Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Hah yeah, the irony there is delicious for the more extreme Muslims. I'm just saying though that just like most Christians aren't insane zealots, most Muslims are not insane zealots as well. As with Christianity, it's the extremists that make the religion as a whole look bad.

I agree with this for the most part. However, for the number of people that fall into the extreme category that there are, there has to be a significant amount of support in the general population. Because of that I am pretty disgusted with the group as a whole.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

I never thought I'd live to see out of the closet gays and women serving on the front lines. Obama is deliberately destroying our ability to defend the country. It's sickening.

Clueless

What, pray tell, do you think is "sickening"? There are pleanty of women I would trust with my back before a lot of flaiming idiot macho Li'l Abners. Same with gays. I want someone out there I can trust their honor, their judgement, and their skills. I don't care what their gender or sexual orientation. Why do you?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I don't care what their gender or sexual orientation. Why do you?

That's simple, Rush told him to!

Next question!