Women in Combat.........it's Back

[SpexyAshleigh]

If a woman who wants to serve on the frontlines can meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet, then why not? Sure, those women will likely be few and far between, but why refuse a willing and ABLE person from serving their country?

 

[288gto]

If a woman who wants to serve on the frontlines can meet the same physical requirements that a man has to meet, then why not? Sure, those women will likely be few and far between, but why refuse a willing and ABLE person from serving their country?

when a woman of your nationality gets get caught and tortured, it destroys more the will and psychological condition of the men. the woman is always the weakest side of the man, man could fight for anything until it comes at the woman, that's why i don't think it's such a good idea, however woman can serve in army, but in my opinion not in battle's. they could be more useful helping the wounded soldiers, than fighting, it's same importance.

 

[squallumz]

politics sections already!

 

[JaanaRuutu]

Finland, Canada, and many other countries already allow women in combat and there's no huge issues with it. The only issue I foresee are some men being assholes or too stubborn to accept that women can fill that role now. Like with any job, the woman should have to actually be qualified for the position, so obviously i don't think the military is going to be like "Oh, you've got a pussy? Well then get on out there, woman!" but it's nice to know that a strong, hard-working female now has a chance to serve her country in a new way.

 

[288gto]

soon they will allow children in combat as well to feed the greed of the rich! like the assholes in africa are doing.
maybe we should better think of how to stop wars and not send more people in combats. i believe even those men in combats are too much.

 

[lurkingdirk]

It is interesting that war is where this conversation is happening most. Let's change it, for just a minute.

Let's say there is a woman who is incredibly good at football. Should she be allowed to play college football on a men's team? Sure, she meets the physical requirements. She can block as well as anyone, can run just as fast, and is not afraid of injury. She can play the game, there's no question. And, at the end of the game, when they've won, she'll run into the locker room with all the guys, get naked and shower. Everyone's okay with that, right? One naked woman in a shower with 50 naked, horny, college age men. That's a good idea, isn't it?

I know these are not exact parallels, but there is a lot of intimacy and dependency in the arena of war. Indiscriminately throwing women into the mix because they can pass the physical tests is not carefully considering all of the consequences. Do I think women should be disallowed? No. Do I think they should have the same rights and abilities as men? Yes. Do I think we, as flawed, human beings are capable of acting in such a way as to make this immediately possible? Not a fucking chance. If women are going to be on the front lines, time to do some better work/education on preparing the male part of the armed forces on how to deal with that.

 

[spacearrow99]

That's inevitable. This isn't about opportunity but outcome.

Gen. James Amos said, that some combat postions may remain closed to women. He wants females to mentor eachother, and he fills they will not succeed if one or two women are in combat units. I'm hoping for a simliar state from the Chief of Staff of the Army, Raymond T. Odierno. Many men cannot meet the phyiscal requirements of some combat positions.

 

[fkknuckle]

Depends on what type of mission.

 

[vodkazvictim]

It is interesting that war is where this conversation is happening most. Let's change it, for just a minute.

Let's say there is a woman who is incredibly good at football. Should she be allowed to play college football on a men's team? Sure, she meets the physical requirements. She can block as well as anyone, can run just as fast, and is not afraid of injury. She can play the game, there's no question. And, at the end of the game, when they've won, she'll run into the locker room with all the guys, get naked and shower. Everyone's okay with that, right? One naked woman in a shower with 50 naked, horny, college age men. That's a good idea, isn't it?

I know these are not exact parallels, but there is a lot of intimacy and dependency in the arena of war. Indiscriminately throwing women into the mix because they can pass the physical tests is not carefully considering all of the consequences. Do I think women should be disallowed? No. Do I think they should have the same rights and abilities as men? Yes. Do I think we, as flawed, human beings are capable of acting in such a way as to make this immediately possible? Not a fucking chance. If women are going to be on the front lines, time to do some better work/education on preparing the male part of the armed forces on how to deal with that.

Sounds a bit like you wanna abolish war.
What are you' some kinda hippy Communist?!

 

[spacearrow99]

Depends on what type of mission.

Missions change and available personnel must be able to perform their job's requirements. On my first deployment, I was assigned to a motorized infantry weapons company. Sometimes we had to hike over 10 miles with all of our gear, ammunition, and crew serviced weapons; inorder, to get to isolated places in Afghanistan. Javelins, 81mm mortars, 50 cals, and other weapons are extremely heavy equipment. The combat performance of women has been great in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the articles that I have seen on women in combat are comparing men and women from support jobs. How are women going to fair in the traditional ground combat roles: infantry, artillery, armor, recon and special forces? The Joints Chiefs of Staff apparently recommended the lifting of the ban of women in combat to Sec Def. I agree with Leon Panetta's decision to remove the ban.

I found this article on experiences of Canadian Female combat veterans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578262002928698208.html

 

[fkknuckle]

Missions change and available personnel must be able to perform their job's requirements. On my first deployment, I was assigned to a motorized infantry weapons company. Sometimes we had to hike over 10 miles with all of our gear, ammunition, and crew serviced weapons; inorder, to get to isolated places in Afghanistan. Javelins, 81mm mortars, 50 cals, and other weapons are extremely heavy equipment. The combat performance of women has been great in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the articles that I have seen on women in combat are comparing men and women from support jobs. How are women going to fair in the traditional ground combat roles: infantry, artillery, armor, recon and special forces? The Joints Chiefs of Staff apparently recommended the lifting of the ban of women in combat to Sec Def. I agree with Leon Panetta's decision to remove the ban.

I found this article on experiences of Canadian Female combat veterans.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578262002928698208.html

Like I said it depends on the mission. We ended up with a couple chicks in my command as rescue swimmer/gunners on our H-60s and they both performed quite well. One was a total bitch with a chip on her shoulder but the other is cool as hell and I still talk to every once in a while. As for chicks being SEALs or ODA or sniper um yah not gonna happen. No way in hell would they be able to hump to a LUP and recon a target for several days especially if aunt Flo is in town.