Women in Combat

[Jewish Lawyer]

I really don't know how I can support the US government anymore. What's the point? Women in combat really sucks. It is really the last straw. I just don't want my daughter or granddaughter dying for me in a war. If we aren't any better men that we can't keep our women out of harm's way, maybe it's time to hang it up as a country and start over!
World leadership? In what, being a bunch of pussies who are afraid to join the army and fight so we have to have women do it? Sure, a few women probably can fight, but why would anyone want them to do so?

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Since we have an all volunteer army, meaning women can choose to join a combat rating or not, about 99% of what you just posted amounts to useless twaddle. No one "has" to do anything. Not you, nor the women who CHOOSE to enlist and CHOOSE to serve. You don't have to agree with the women who choose to serve, all you have to do is thank them.

You're welcome.

[Jewish Lawyer]

Women being eligible for combat means a lawsuit is coming demanding them to be eligible for selective service registration, and it will prevail. That means when the assholes in charge start another pointless, treasury draining, murderous war, women will get drafted.
As long as we have vastly superior equipment and supplies, we may win, but who knows how much longer we can afford the nonsense our government creates, or how much longer the public can stand the killing.
I'll thank or not thank anyone I damn well please.

[thisguy23]

JL you are right about the draft, the only good I see from having girls on the front line is it might make some of them think twice about starting a war where the draft might be needed.

[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?

[Wakeup]

Those of you who think that women in combat is just now being allowed to happen, have never served in the military...

I've been in three prolonged engagements with women next to me...and I don't mean the marriage kind...if they can complete the training to the same standards as I can, I'm all in favor of letting them pull a trigger on someone too...

[acp5762]

Well call up any Police Dept. Recruiting Office and ask them how many women they have on the Force they'll tell ya there is a bunch. If they wanna fight in a combat Div in the Millitary my hats off to them.

[gimme_that]

This is a tender topic for me. Im an ex military medic who served mostly with an infantry battalion, and I served in combat as well. My job allowed me the benefit of seeing first hand two sides of the army.....the grunts and the pogues. I fully support woman in combat.........does it occur in some of the most extreme combat operations nope. Maybe with the military police units....but in too many other military specialties....no. I mainly saw ladies doing occasional ride alongs which were mainly just to body search women in Iraq (since as men due to Iraqee customs we werent allowed to.) They also guarded the gate to our bases in combat environments and did various miscellaneous duties on the base camp....like guarding burger king and going to USO shows most of the active guys leaving the basecamp and in harms way on the daily were too tired and stressed to attend.

In most of my experiences with women.....key word most......they always were treated far differently from their male counterparts. Lets start with the army physical fitness test. Woman standards are far less strigent times wise to pass and or....max out their score based on performance. Example...one guy runs a 13 minute two mile run which is about 90 percent; a woman completes hers in about 15 minutes and she is considered 100 percent passed.

Ive witnessed firsthand ladies getting pregnant right before a deployment so they wouldnt have to go overseas. When we trained with full gear and roadmarched ladies could not keep up with the rest of the group they were training with. In combat thats a liability when you are trying to move fast and efficiently over a large space. There were a few times when I would train in a field environment from anywhere from 3 to 14 days straight. Only women were allowed to leave that environment every 2 days due to preventative feminine body issues. Imagine training in a combat like envirinment and having someone say...timeout I gotta go home tonight, Ill be back for more training with your guys tomorrow.

Now I have seen and served with ladies who were fully capable of doing their job....but they were few and far between in my exploits when it came to combat operations. So much whine served with that cheese. They earned tue same combat patches and awards that we do....so I say let them earn them the right way. I would love to see ladies in the infantry......but unless you are ex military you wouldnt understand.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

In what, being a bunch of pussies who are afraid to join the army and fight so we have to have women do it? Sure, a few women probably can fight, but why would anyone want them to do so?

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."

[Col. Zodiak]

Non-hobby related topic, moved here.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Wakeuр

...if they can complete the training to the same standards as I can, I'm all in favor of letting them pull a trigger on someone too...

I agree wholeheartedly with Val's lesser half. Excellent post Wakeup!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I agree wholeheartedly with Val's lesser half. Excellent post WU!

You all are pandering. But, hey, if it works do it.

We don't need affirmative action in the military ....

.... any more than we need it in the White House. Equal means equal, to me.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You all are pandering. But, hey, if it works do it.

Pandering? I am not sure that is the proper legal definition for the word "pandering" (which varies from state to state). But I am the first to admit that I am not a lawyer and never aspired to be one.

Call it what you want! My point is: If a female (1) aspires to be on the frontline, (2) has the proper skills, (3) can pass the physical and (4) mental requirements for the job, suit 'em up and let 'em play.

If the above exceeds the minimum qualification for pandering in your state, I suppose I am a panderer! (At least in the eyes of your state.)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I don't know if that passes the legal definition of "pandering," (which varies from state to state). But you can call it what you want. If a female has the skills and can pass the physical and mental requirements for the job, suit 'em up and let 'em play.

If the above qualifies as a definition of pandering in your state, I suppose I am a panderer!

Who said anything about "legal definitions" ... that is the beauty and frustration at times of the English language we have words that sound alike, but are spelled differently, and words that are spelled the same with varying uses ... for instance: "pandering"

"To cater to the lower tastes and desires of others or exploit their weaknesses."

It is disingenuous to claim "if a female has the skills and can pass the physical and mental requirements for the job, suit 'em up and let 'em play" when an accommodation is made for females in the job .. which is not available to their male counterparts.

Like I said:

"We don't need affirmative action in the military ....

.... any more than we need it in the White House. Equal means equal, to me."

It is has nothing to do with the "state" in which anyone lives ... it's the U.S.A.

Equal training. Equal standards. Equal requirements. Equal service.

No special accommodations.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who said anything about "legal definitions" ... that is the beauty and frustration at times of the English language we have words that sound alike, but are spelled differently, and words that are spelled the same with varying uses ... for instance: "pandering"

Do you understand the definition of the word, facetious?

Yep, I thought you did!