Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:40 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Women can now serve in combat roles Back to Topics
michaelphoenix2

All-Star Author
Tucson

Posts:887
Points:12,080
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 6:31:12 PM

Didn't see a topic about this yet but Panetta announced today that the military is lifting its ban on women serving in combat roles. As predicted democrat responses have been positive while republican responses have been lukewarm to negative.

Whats your opinion?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 3:21:35 PM


"Does this mean women should now be eligible for the draft?"

Perhaps it should but it doesn't automatically make it so.

That requires separate legislation.

[Edited by: xrdc at 2/1/2013 3:22:36 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Happyherman
Champion Author Calgary

Posts:23,166
Points:1,723,515
Joined:Apr 2002
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 2:53:33 PM

Are you folks living in the dark ages? Woman have been in combat roles in other countries for over twenty years and without any problems. As for carrying an M50, how does a female fireperson carry a 200 pound person out of a burning building? The times they are a changing folks.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Feb 1, 2013 2:42:03 PM

Does this mean women should now be eligible for the draft?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,838
Points:1,831,635
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 9:20:15 PM

My fear is that they will lower the standards to "allow more females" the opportunity to serve in combat/spec ops positions. As I already stated...an M-50 does not get any lighter because a female is carrying it.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 8:52:34 PM

gocatgo – you are lacking in reading and understanding ability. I am not against giving everyone the opportunity to apply for any job. But I do think those considered should be suitable for that job. To think otherwise would be backward thinking. I have pointed out that women are suited for defensive roles and so are children when necessity demands it as was the case from the viewpoint of NVA and VC women and children. Political viewpoint doesn’t matter to a woman or children when their homes are attacked, they will do their best to fight off those who attempt to destroy their homes and kill them.

It has been proven scientifically that women are psychology different from men and that the average woman is physically inferior to the average man. This puts her at a great disadvantage on the battlefield in an assault situation. It is sheer stupidity to recruit women for assault roles. It costs to train each soldier, less if only trained for defense. And women do not have the hormones or psychology for the role. Annie Oakley was a crack shot with a firearm but never used her skills to assault humans; she used them as an entertainer.

Go back to the sandbox in your dreams and play with your same-sex partner. Leave the serious stuff for adults who have to cope with the real world instead of what you conjure up in your imagination.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 4:39:36 PM

Not so nice- sarcasm based upon previous posters logic that women are ok because they had killed in Vietnam...

[Edited by: regulate_now at 1/29/2013 4:45:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 4:33:46 PM

"Why don't we lower the age then to join the military to 12, 15, 16 years old? Children have fought and shown the ability to kill in wars throughout history."

So removing the ban on women in combat equates to removing an age requirement for service? Nice!
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 3:26:49 PM


More from Captain Petronio (since the activists here probably won't read it)

"...what are the Marine Corps standards, particularly physical fitness standards, based on—performance and capability or equality? We abide by numerous discriminators, such as height and weight standards. As multiple Marine Corps Gazette articles have highlighted, Marines who can run first-class physical fitness tests and who have superior MOS proficiency are separated from the Service if they do not meet the Marine Corps’ height and weight standards. Further, tall Marines are restricted from flying specific platforms, and color blind Marines are faced with similar restrictions. We recognize differences in mental capabilities of Marines when we administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery and use the results to eliminate/open specific fields. These standards are designed to ensure safety, quality, and the opportunity to be placed in a field in which one can sustain and succeed."

< ... crickets ... >

-=-=
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 2:56:15 PM


"Why don't we lower the age then to join the military to 12, 15, 16 years old?"

No need to have them join the military...

Just allow children to carry "assault" rifles.

Hey, the VC did it!
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 2:03:14 PM

Gocat wrote, "American soldiers were killed in Vietnam by NVA and VC women" ...might I add killed by NVA and VC children too? Why don't we lower the age then to join the military to 12, 15, 16 years old? Children have fought and shown the ability to kill in wars throughout history. Men (people, nations) usually fight to preserve and to protect the things that they believe are threatened and that are near and dear to them... Most fight to protect mothers, wives, sisters, children- not to fight along side of them and to see them killed in battle...
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 1:48:13 PM

Black, you are no better at psychology than history. Your consistency is so noted. Sadly you do not understand that everyone should be given the opportunity to apply for any job. Your antiquated ideas fit so well with the backward thinking con movement. Btw more than a few American soldiers were killed in Vietnam by NVA and VC women. I'll remind you that Vietnamese people were much smaller than Americans.
Profile Pic
teacher_tim
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,359
Points:827,710
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:37:56 PM

During a snowstorm several years ago, my neighbor had a heart attack. Two female attendants arrived in the ambulance, so a couple of us had to pick her up and carry her through the snowdrifts to the ambulance, as the attendants were unable to do it. Not sure who would be there to help on a battlefield...
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 12:27:47 PM


It ain't rocket science...

Women Shouldn’t be in Infantry

“The Marine Corps tested females in front line combat units aka Infantry. The Marine Corps did not lower the standard and allowed females to participate and qualify for the infantry officers course. The Marine Corps passed to congress and higher that it would not be a good idea to implement women into the infantry. What does the Marine Corps know? They only have been fighting our nations wars, that's all. Well, to already cluster strike an idea that apparently everyone in the room already knows the results except those in DC, a female Marine gives her two cents. But hey, it’s only another Marine telling everyone, it’s a bad idea. Let’s do it anyway!!! Brilliant.”

--=-=

By Captain Katie Petronio

“…Who is driving this agenda? I am not personally hearing female Marines, enlisted or officer, pounding on the doors of Congress claiming that their inability to serve in the infantry violates their right to equality. Shockingly, this isn’t even a congressional agenda. This issue is being pushed by several groups, one of which is a small committee of civilians appointed by the Secretary of Defense called the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). Their mission is to advise the Department of Defense (DoD) on recommendations, as well as matters of policy, pertaining to the well-being of women in the Armed Services from recruiting to employment. Members are selected based on their prior military experience or experience with women’s workforce issues. I certainly applaud and appreciate DACOWITS’ mission; however, as it pertains to the issue of women in the infantry, it’s very surprising to see that none of the committee members are on active duty or have any recent combat or relevant operational experience relating to the issue they are attempting to change. I say this because, at the end of the day, it’s the active duty servicemember who will ultimately deal with the results of their initiatives, not those on the outside looking in. As of now, the Marine Corps hasn’t been directed to integrate, but perhaps the Corps is anticipating the inevitable—DoD pressuring the Corps to comply with DACOWITS’ agenda as the Army has already “rogered up” to full integration. Regardless of what the Army decides to do, it’s critical to emphasize that we are not the Army; our operational speed and tempo, along with our overall mission as the Nation’s amphibious force-in-readiness, are fundamentally different than that of our sister Service. By no means is this distinction intended as disrespectful to our incredible Army. My main point is simply to state that the Marine Corps and the Army are different; even if the Army ultimately does fully integrate all military occupational fields, that doesn’t mean the Corps should follow suit...”

Read it all...


[Edited by: xrdc at 1/29/2013 12:28:30 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 29, 2013 8:51:23 AM

sgm: "That's why a strict rule against allowing women is not as good as a strict line requiring certain performance standards of all people who wish to serve in a combat role, even if those standards effectively rule out many/most positions for most women. "



And just how long do you think it will take for the cry to lower physical standards for women in combat to go out because the current standards are "discriminatory"? The same issue has been played out over and over again regarding female firefighters, and invariably what happens is that physical standards keep being lowered with the goal of as many females passing the tests as males, regardless of whether or not those standards are any reflection of what they might actually have to do on the job. Or put another way, it's more important that there be equal numbers of females on the job than it is that they are capable of actually doing the job. It's just more of the left's dogma of equal result being the measure of "progress", not equal opportunity or equal ability.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/29/2013 8:53:40 AM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,411
Points:1,241,270
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:04:13 PM

I really thought my sarcasm would be seen for what it was. (sorry BGT and johnny)

No need to apologies. You just said what I expected to hear and I missed the sarcasm. You just got it out there before someone who would have been 100% serious.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 3:52:24 PM

"The feminist movement takes that stance though. They do not see men and women as being equally important with different roles. They seek to equate the two in every way. It is a ridiculous position to take and our military should not be subject to it."

That's an incorrect description. The feminist movement has long tried to allow people to try to do the things that they are capable of or interested in doing, without being prohibited from doing so by artificial boundaries. Strict gender roles can be quite limiting for people who don't fall into stereotypical place.

That's why a strict rule against allowing women is not as good as a strict line requiring certain performance standards of all people who wish to serve in a combat role, even if those standards effectively rule out many/most positions for most women.
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 1:54:04 PM

gocatgo - "Black, now it's psychological? There is no way to know for sure who can handle the pressure and who cannot."

You appear to be incapable of understanding. I did say some women could handle it and I did not speak of men.

My point is that women think differently than men and that they are psychologically different than men. Women can handle defense much better than offense which is why Russian women kicked the butts of Nazis.

Psychologically women are not as aggressive as men and they take fewer risks than men. As females mature to adulthood different parts of their brains get more use and development than males. And although both males and females create testosterone, males create a whole lot more than females and that hormone alone influences risk taking a lot.

And there are other hormones that affect maturing, thinking, and psychological differences between men and women. The bottom line is that the average man makes a much better troop than the average woman; you cannot expect the average woman soldier to be the equivalent of the average male soldier psychologically or physically even though you may occasionally find an exception.

Males are better a some tasks and women better at other tasks. If you really want to appreciate the difference take a squad of average women soldiers on an assault and compare to taking a squad of average men soldiers on an assault. But be aware that you will probably die with the squad of women.

[Edited by: BlackGumTree at 1/28/2013 1:57:35 PM EST]
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 12:33:25 PM

xdrc: "If it doesn't improve our ability for killing and surviving, it should not be pursued."



Exactly. We owe it to our troops to give them the best chance not to die for their country, by maximizing their chances of making the guy on the other side die for his. Women in the front lines doesn't help achieve that objective. As such it's a disservice to everyone risking their lives in combat to be used by the Commander In Chief as political pawns.


mudtoe

[Edited by: mudtoe at 1/28/2013 12:34:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 11:54:22 AM


"But if you cannot tell the difference between men and women, just stay with your same sex partner. Leave opposite sex partners to those that can tell the differences and cope with them."

Awesome.

I really thought my sarcasm would be seen for what it was. (sorry BGT and johnny)

The feminist movement takes that stance though. They do not see men and women as being equally important with different roles. They seek to equate the two in every way. It is a ridiculous position to take and our military should not be subject to it.

If it doesn't improve our ability for killing and surviving, it should not be pursued.

==-
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 11:49:36 AM

Black, now it's psychological? There is no way to know for sure who can handle the pressure and who cannot. I knew 2 men in Vietnam that broke. One shot the end of his foot off and was sent home. The other was a close friend that always was a nervous wreck. He drank to cover up his problem. He lasted 6 months and was sent home because of a bleeding ulcer. When I saw him before he went home he was white as a sheet. The true test is how well you handle pressure, some have what it takes and some don't. I think you are looking for excuses to not give women a fair shake. The psychological excuse was used against blacks in combat and leadership for years, the excuse is an old biased one.

During WWII Russian women were used in combat and they kicked the Nazi's butts.

America should always be the land of opportunity (for all).
Profile Pic
PopcornPirate
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:5,531
Points:1,522,065
Joined:Nov 2006
Message Posted: Jan 28, 2013 10:07:37 AM

I have no problem with women serving in combat. ONLY if they can meet the Physical & Mental standard set for the specific job.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,411
Points:1,241,270
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:08:55 PM

Pregnancy not only prevents women from flying, I was an air craft mechanic in the 82nd airborne. I was in a Cobra unit. That unit was classified as a front line combat unit, no women. The lift unit had two female mechanics doing the same job I did. One became pregnant and the other was reassigned to office duty for reasons I was not told of. The one that became pregnant could not come into contact with the POL products commonly used because they could be bad for the unborn child. So I had be farmed out to help out at the lift unit and still keep my birds up.

When I went to Iraqi in 1991 I was in a lift unit. We had women in that unit. We had a problem with the female solders getting pregnant. As a result they were rotated back to Italy and men had to be sent in to replace them.

Having said that I will say I did work with one female mechanic that was one of the most knowledgeable about her aircraft and worked as hard as the rest of us. She was in the very small minority of the women that I met in the aviation maintenance field.

As I have said if they can do the complete job and meat the same standards fine, otherwise do something else.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:32:11 PM

When I was in training to become an AF pilot, it took almost 3 years and around 10 million to train one pilot... Each pregnancy takes a female pilot out of their unit for flying (i.e. combat capability) for nearly 2 years when you add the pregnancy, the post medical, and then the retraining (requalifying) time... I do not have the current cost but the time would be the same... You cannot fly in AF aircraft when you are pregnant- you can't take the oxygen differential, the atmosphere, nor the G-forces, can't use the ejection seats, etc., etc... Not medically and not by the regs... it’s a bit different than being an airline pilot... and some women pilots may take exception to this but they also chose to not have children so that IS their decision... Spell checker acting up??? All t's keep changing to f's...???

[Edited by: regulate_now at 1/25/2013 9:38:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 7:33:50 PM

xrdc - "You can't prove women are different than men."

I sure can. If you can't, then you have a real problem.

Randomly pick two male soldiers and I can list differences between the two. And that can be down even if a lot of physical attributes are close.

Women can be trained to do many of the tasks men do at an acceptable level. However, while growing up, female brains develop differently than male brains. There are variations between two of the same sex, but that does not invalidate generalizations. The differences in brain development affect judgements the individuals make. For the most part training cannot change the basic differences between the way males think and females think. There are different roles each sex is better at because of the way they think.

But if you cannot tell the difference between men and women, just stay with your same sex partner. Leave opposite sex partners to those that can tell the differences and cope with them.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,411
Points:1,241,270
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 6:14:49 PM

""""""There are certain things women require that men do not..."

Yeah, right.

Like what? You can't prove women are different than men.""""""Here is one example.
In 1986 my unit was sent to Ft. Erwin C.A. that’s the high Mohave Desert where the Army had, and probably still has a training center where war games are conducted. This is about as close to actual combat as you can get without killing people. We spent 4 weeks in the field moving and setting up as we engaged the “enemy” The sanitation facilities were limited to say the least.

Every two day my unit had to use one of our UH-1H aircraft to ferry female solders to the main base for showers. They had personal hygiene issues that could not be met under the field conditions we were living under. The male solders were not allowed on main base at all except of emergencies. If a male solder was sent to main base they were listed as killed or captured and we had to follow the appropriate rules for replacement.
.
This is a subject no one wants to talk about but it’s very real.

I also don’t want to hear any whining if the only female solder has to share a G.P. tinny with a male solder. When you use one of those things you end up getting real familiar with your tent mate.

[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 1/25/2013 6:15:24 PM EST]
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 3:48:50 PM


"There are certain things women require that men do not..."

Yeah, right.

Like what? You can't prove women are different than men.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,838
Points:1,831,635
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 3:11:17 PM

"Afs, "obscure locations" has nothing to do with serving in combat. It's all about being qualified. You are or you are Not qualified."

Actually it does and it has to do with logistical things that I already mentioned. When someone is serving in their homeland with things readily available it makes a difference. There are certain things women require that men do not...
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 2:23:25 PM

It's long overdue.

While most women will never volunteer for combat, that is no excuse to ban those who qualify, and want to serve.

I have known a few women over the years that can whip just about any man they meet.

Of course, some of them were MOMs :o)

Being of Celtic origin, I am a big fan of women in combat. Look up Queen Boudica some time. Her army almost ran the Romans out of Britain. But then, no wimpy little men told her she couldn't just to save their own egos.

[Edited by: YDraigGoch at 1/25/2013 2:26:45 PM EST]
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,411
Points:1,241,270
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:17:42 PM

“””””Anyone want to bet that the physical requirements will be lowered once it's obvious that few women can meet the standards required of men today?””””

The standards are already different. To get into some of the special schools in the Army you have to achive a score totaling 300 points on the PT test.

Here are the requirements for a perfect score for a male and female soldier at age 22-26
.

Men
Push ups 75
Sit ups 80
Two mile run 13:00 minutes.

Women
Push ups 46
Sit ups 80
Two mile run 15:36 minutes

For the combat arms MOSs the standard either need to be reduced for the men or raised for the women. That is if you think this is about the idea that women are completely equal to men.

One more thing, these scores affect your promotion points and advancement. So if women say they are completely equal to men the men and women need to be on the same score sheet.



[Edited by: johnnyg1200 at 1/25/2013 12:22:02 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:15:28 PM

<<Of course, Guitar_Man, since 30% of military women are raped while serving - you know, by their own troops - then we should really be protecting women by not allowing them in the military at all.
[/sarc]>>

NickHammer, you say that with sarcasm, but it seems as though some would actually agree with that.
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:31:30 AM

The military will suffer and they will experience a lot of pain. BUT they are professional enough that they will make it work. They always do. They may not like it but they will salute smartly and say yes sir because that is what they do...
Profile Pic
NickHammer
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:19,606
Points:3,169,120
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:26:21 AM

>>My opinion after serving in combat and in garrison over 27 years is that I have no problem with it as long as they meet the standards for that job!<<

Exactly - as long as they meet the standards.

>>Women captured in Iraq were brutally raped repeatedly. Yes, men captured are tortured but, as Americans, there's just some things you protect women from and that would be one of them.<<

[sarc]
Yes, these poor women. We must protect them from themselves. For they simply do not understand the dangers that they might encounter. That's why we men have to make these decisions for them.

Of course, Guitar_Man, since 30% of military women are raped while serving - you know, by their own troops - then we should really be protecting women by not allowing them in the military at all.
[/sarc]
Profile Pic
regulate_now
Champion Author Indiana

Posts:6,626
Points:1,009,050
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:25:25 AM

Same day news- unwanted and unplanned pregnancies are on the rise in the military. With combat opened to all, you can't let this affect combat readiness/combat capability. Can of worms... from this 25 year retired LtCol that's seen combat and led men...
Profile Pic
BlackGumTree
Champion Author Virginia

Posts:18,444
Points:1,459,940
Joined:Dec 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:18:58 AM

Some women are able to do the job physically. But there is also the question of whether or not women can do the job psychologically. Again there will be some women who are able to do the job psychologically.

Take the small number of women who can do the job physically and from that group remove the ones who cannot do the job psychologically and you will end up with very few women if any.

Women can learn how to handle weapons. But women think differently than men. This includes not only how they handle tasks but also how they handle killing other people.

Like I said before: some women can perform the physical aspects, but these are few. The same can be said of the psychological aspects, but this number is also few and not the same women that can handle the physical aspects. And then there is the stress levels.

Teach women how to handle weapons. Do not ask them to carry heavy loads long distances or ask them to assault an enemy. Put them in defensive positions and let them think of saving fellow soldier lives instead of taking enemy soldier lives. Women will perform much better in this type of position.

Soldiers do not get to choose the positions they are assigned to but do need to be assigned to the positions they can handle best. Think about it.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,036
Points:3,135,410
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:17:11 AM

Afs, "obscure locations" has nothing to do with serving in combat. It's all about being qualified. You are or you are Not qualified.

sav, "they should volunteer and be given a choice". Absolutely Not. Every soldier should be treated the same.

I have known women that could pass any test a man could pass. This is all about having the same opportunities. Regardless of your MOS anyone could wind up in combat. For my fellow army vets regardless of your MOS we were all 11 Bravos (basic infantryman). It happened to me in Vietnam on several occasions.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,264
Points:3,728,525
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:08:37 AM

Kansas, CRS only after 68?

My better half would say it started the day I retired.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,838
Points:1,831,635
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:03:24 AM

"By the end of it the men were carrying the rucks and rifles for more than half of the female soldiers. These women do not belong in a front line combat unit."

But for the ones that do complete it? Just saying...and it looks like they are taking the same approach...but as a combat vet if they are capable and meet the physical requirements I have zero problem with it. I just do not want to see us jeopardize our safety/security by lowering requirements to meet the females and instead make the females raise their ability to meet the requirement.
Profile Pic
mudtoe
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:13,834
Points:1,875,805
Joined:May 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:57:32 AM

Anyone want to bet that the physical requirements will be lowered once it's obvious that few women can meet the standards required of men today?


mudtoe
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:19,838
Points:1,831,635
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:54:47 AM

greene: "My humble opinion is if they can pass a standard test, not modified for gender, then they can do whatever they want.

I have worked with women who could put men to shame and others that put women in shame."

And that I agree with...I have served with many women that were more "manly" than some of the men I have served with. Like I said in an early post, the current fitness standards for all services already show that the military believes that men and women are not equal...
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,085
Points:2,983,170
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:33:23 AM

They are still planning to keep restrictions on positions that limit them to people who can meet the requirements, as should be.

The lifting of the ban seemed inevitable in light of the exposure women in various "non-combat" position were receiving. If there is some woman capable of doing the job, really capable, there should be no blanket ban.

How related is this to the lifting of don't ask, don't tell? It's harder to use the excuse of sexual temptation, since there are already people (gay men) who could be attracted to one another in combat.

The issue of sexual assault in the military has been around for a long time. Remember Tailhook?
Profile Pic
Michiganian
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:6,217
Points:1,226,525
Joined:Jun 2004
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:17:32 AM

"Marine Green Berets"

Why do you think the person who posted the above statement is on ignore at my end?
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:10:12 AM


Be Careful What You Wish For
(Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff served 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps)

"Many women will find out in the long haul that combat entails unprecedented physical stress. As it is now, many women have greater duress on their bodies than men with the physical requirements and are discharged at higher rates from the duress on knees, hips, ankles, and joints. That reality will only be exacerbated in combat. Will physical performance standards be adjusted (that is, made less stringent) to accommodate women?"

"And then there’s the emotional duress that troops in combat endure. I’ve seen many women in the Marines who chose not to reenlist due to the extreme emotional hardships of service. It isn't an easy culture to handle."

"It goes beyond physical limitations—the object of military culture is to defeat the enemy and kill anything that is a threat. There is a constant mode of aggression; I’ve seen too many women who enlisted and completed training, but soon learned they simply couldn’t face that dark reality on a daily basis."

"Moreover, the military cannot ensure women’s safety as it is. A recent documentary, "The Invisible War,” notes that over 15,000 women were sexually assaulted in 2011 alone. The odds of being sexually assaulted by a fellow service member are higher than being killed by the enemy. It seems unlikely that the proponents of this policy, in their zeal for “equality” at all costs, have considered these realities."

More...

=-=-
Profile Pic
101Speedster
Champion Author Ventura

Posts:31,641
Points:2,861,230
Joined:May 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 8:45:08 AM

As long as the standards are kept the same.
Profile Pic
Cliffisher
Champion Author Wisconsin

Posts:30,264
Points:3,728,525
Joined:Sep 2003
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 8:35:03 AM

"Marine Green Berets"

Correction
Those Green Things are Army dudes.

Marine Recon!
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 8:10:34 AM

Well from a personal perspective I'd think the enemies of the US aught to be very afraid....I think I'd rather face a couple dozen heavily armed Special Forces like the Navy Seals, AF Delta Force, Marine Green Berets or Army Rangers than face three irate women on PMS.

[Edited by: KansasGunman at 1/25/2013 8:14:11 AM EST]
Profile Pic
xrdc
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:6,990
Points:668,275
Joined:Apr 2008
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 8:09:42 AM


Does it make it a better fighting force?

Are we likely to kill more of the enemy by making this change?

Are we less likely to be killed by the enemy by making this change?

If it's a step to a superior fighting force, then why wouldn't we do it?

If it weakens us then why would we?

=-=-
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,306
Points:3,831,180
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 7:41:02 AM

"FYI...it is very difficult to compare the IDF to our military. They do not deploy to obscure locations."

On the other hand, a far greater percentage of Israeli military are put into combat situations that US military. Remember, their country is basically under physical attack all the time.
If the US was bordered on all sides by enemies sworn to eliminate them they wouldn't be deploying all over the world, either.

Reading some of the posts on here, I am reminded of similar posts made when DADT was being lifted and gays were going to be allowed to serve openly.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:21,931
Points:322,565
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 8:49:16 PM

How America's top general came to endorse women in combat


For Gen. Martin Dempsey, Thursday's move to open combat units in the U.S. military to women had its roots nearly a decade ago, on the streets of Baghdad.

Dempsey took command of the Army's 1st Armored Division in June 2003, when Iraqi insurgents were starting to target American troops with sniper fire, grenades and roadside bombs. As he prepared for a trip outside his headquarters, he took a moment to introduce himself to the crew of his Humvee.

"I slapped the turret gunner on the leg and I said, 'Who are you?' And she leaned down and said, I'm Amanda.' And I said, 'Ah, OK,' " Dempsey told reporters at the Pentagon.

"So, female turret-gunner protecting division commander. It's from that point on that I realized something had changed, and it was time to do something about it."

Thursday, Dempsey -- now chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff -- sat alongside Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as both men signed a directive that will open front-line posts to the roughly 200,000 women now serving in the active-duty military.

Panetta said the move is a bow to reality on the battlefield, where women in what are technically non-combat units already find themselves fighting alongside their male comrades.



Profile Pic
greentre
Champion Author Pensacola

Posts:1,286
Points:414,805
Joined:Oct 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 7:05:39 PM

My humble opinion is if they can pass a standard test, not modified for gender, then they can do whatever they want.

I have worked with women who could put men to shame and others that put women in shame.
Profile Pic
johnnyg1200
Champion Author St. Louis

Posts:8,411
Points:1,241,270
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 6:50:16 PM

When I went through PLDC part of the course included a fifteen mile march with full gear. By the end of it the men were carrying the rucks and rifles for more than half of the female soldiers. These women do not belong in a front line combat unit. The ones that can do the job and the entire job by meeting or exceeding the same standard set for the men should be allowed to try. But they should not be upset when one of the men strips down to his shorts and takes a bath in a bucket of water and she should not expect special consideration because she isn’t “comfortable” if she has to do the same. Privacy is not existent in the field.

Woman also have a personal hygiene issue that should not be permitted to affect the combat readiness of a unit.
Post a reply Back to Topics