BREAKING: Panetta opens Combat Roles to Women!!!!

I'd prefer that our men not have to go to war, but some of you want our women too as well. Id rather spare them as much as possible.

What's next? Should we be preparing to send children to war?

Kids make excellent cannon fodder.
 
From the AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

:clap:

Not fair. In combat, no way that I want a woman with PMS on the other side. We poor males will be at a distinct disadvantage.
 
Even my grandmother thinks women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat. Me, I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Now if you send the mother and the father of three children into combat, and they both die in combat, you have orphaned those three children. One (namely the woman) should be made to serve in a less dangerous role in the military.

the reason why women historically weren't required to serve in combat is threefold.
1) men are more easily reproducible than women - because one man can inseminate hundreds of women( and therefore the rate of replacement is 1: many) but the woman killed has to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
It is in society's best interest not to let women be killed
2) women as prisoners are much more vulnerable and therefore a weaker link
3) physically women are weaker and their anatomy and physiology is less reliable in combat where just physical strength is needed sometime more than anything else.

On #3. Women had a higher survival rate on the Oregon Trail than did men. Physical strength is not a premium in present combat. I do believe that women gave a good account of themselves in WW2 in the Soviet Army. Particularly such groups as the "Night Witchs".
 
Even my grandmother thinks women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat. Me, I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Now if you send the mother and the father of three children into combat, and they both die in combat, you have orphaned those three children. One (namely the woman) should be made to serve in a less dangerous role in the military.

the reason why women historically weren't required to serve in combat is threefold.
1) men are more easily reproducible than women - because one man can inseminate hundreds of women( and therefore the rate of replacement is 1: many) but the woman killed has to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
It is in society's best interest not to let women be killed
2) women as prisoners are much more vulnerable and therefore a weaker link
3) physically women are weaker and their anatomy and physiology is less reliable in combat where just physical strength is needed sometime more than anything else.

On #3. Women had a higher survival rate on the Oregon Trail than did men. Physical strength is not a premium in present combat. I do believe that women gave a good account of themselves in WW2 in the Soviet Army. Particularly such groups as the "Night Witchs".

you don't know anything about soviet army, so don't even try.
it was NOT voluntary, to start with, as was nothing in the soviet union.

SPORADIC physical strength is not a proof that as a whole women are equal in physical capacity with men. It is not political correct world, it is just pure anatomy and physiology.
But that is not even the most important part, therefore it is #3.
 
I wouldn't want my wife or daughter in combat situations. It's not that women couldn't handle combat. Face it, the only thing men do better than women is piss standing up. No, they're not thinking about the emotional attachments that will develop. It's a silly idea. They're using the military like a Skinner Box and people will die because of it.

Already, they're farming out combat to private enterprise. Soon, our military will be completely ineffective. It's sad to see.
 
These same DINGBAT leftist Feminazis applauded both Hillbilly Hill and Humamiliation for allowing their man to shit all over them, serial cheating and they're here cheering on women in combat roles???


LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bwhahahahaha You can't make this shit up!!!!
 
I would love to have one of these women explain something to e...

Why is it that they feel that women are so weak and needful of protection that they want and demand special laws to protect them from men... YET they also want and demand that women be put into the same combat units to be shot at and killed with men?
 
Even my grandmother thinks women shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat. Me, I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. Now if you send the mother and the father of three children into combat, and they both die in combat, you have orphaned those three children. One (namely the woman) should be made to serve in a less dangerous role in the military.

the reason why women historically weren't required to serve in combat is threefold.
1) men are more easily reproducible than women - because one man can inseminate hundreds of women( and therefore the rate of replacement is 1: many) but the woman killed has to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
It is in society's best interest not to let women be killed
2) women as prisoners are much more vulnerable and therefore a weaker link
3) physically women are weaker and their anatomy and physiology is less reliable in combat where just physical strength is needed sometime more than anything else.

On #3. Women had a higher survival rate on the Oregon Trail than did men. Physical strength is not a premium in present combat. I do believe that women gave a good account of themselves in WW2 in the Soviet Army. Particularly such groups as the "Night Witchs".

were they the ones with the Mustaches and hairy bodies?....
 
Historically speaking, female warriors can fight on par, some all women groups were feared.

But this was in a time when any wound could be fatal, not in the time you lifted you buddy and ran with him to get medical attention.


So, will the physical standards of women be raised to that of mens? if not, this is just pc bullshit that is going to get people killed.
 
the reason why women historically weren't required to serve in combat is threefold.
1) men are more easily reproducible than women - because one man can inseminate hundreds of women( and therefore the rate of replacement is 1: many) but the woman killed has to be replaced in a 1:1 ratio.
It is in society's best interest not to let women be killed
2) women as prisoners are much more vulnerable and therefore a weaker link
3) physically women are weaker and their anatomy and physiology is less reliable in combat where just physical strength is needed sometime more than anything else.

On #3. Women had a higher survival rate on the Oregon Trail than did men. Physical strength is not a premium in present combat. I do believe that women gave a good account of themselves in WW2 in the Soviet Army. Particularly such groups as the "Night Witchs".

were they the ones with the Mustaches and hairy bodies?....

female snipers
 
I wouldn't want my wife or daughter in combat situations. It's not that women couldn't handle combat. Face it, the only thing men do better than women is piss standing up. No, they're not thinking about the emotional attachments that will develop. It's a silly idea. They're using the military like a Skinner Box and people will die because of it.

Already, they're farming out combat to private enterprise. Soon, our military will be completely ineffective. It's sad to see.

I worked in CI with the Army. We had several female agents who were MORE than qualified to serve in that position. However, Counter Intelligence operations are HUGELY different from active combat operations.

When I served as a young 11B in Vietnam, I wouldn't wish that on anyone - let alone, women. I did, and saw things that NO ONE should ever be subjected to.

You are right, though. Currently, and from the beginning of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, contractors have played a bigger and bigger role. Hell, it's getting to the point now where there are nearly as many contractors in hot zones as there are troops.

Why?

Young men no longer feel the need to "serve" in the numbers they used to. Retention rates are down and these guys are being replaced with illegals, gays and women. SOMEONE has got to go to do the fighting......

So, while this "fundamental transformation" takes place in the military, the guys who previously fought, have decided to "get paid" by the private Armies....
 
Obama has already neutered and castrated the military.

With this new PC move he just wants to finish the job.
 
Young men no longer feel the need to "serve" in the numbers they used to. Retention rates are down and these guys are being replaced with illegals, gays and women. SOMEONE has got to go to do the fighting......
.


That is very true. But I am always amazed how these idiots ( a.k.a. feminists) are jumping with joy they have "achieved" something when in reality they should have fought tooth and nail against.
It's pure surrealism.

The real feminists( European) fought for females to be unloaded from too many burdens - for the recognition of household work as work, for maternity leaves and daycare if the woman works, for protection of a pregnant woman in the workplace, for ability to choose a part-time option for the woman and not to be fired etc.

American feminists seem to be obsessed about everything what is against the family and natural role of women - to the degree that I am sometimes tempted to think that those idiots were payed for by evil corporations :lol:
 
Young men no longer feel the need to "serve" in the numbers they used to. Retention rates are down and these guys are being replaced with illegals, gays and women. SOMEONE has got to go to do the fighting......
.


That is very true. But I am always amazed how these idiots ( a.k.a. feminists) are jumping with joy they have "achieved" something when in reality they should have fought tooth and nail against.
It's pure surrealism.

The real feminists( European) fought for females to be unloaded from too many burdens - for the recognition of household work as work, for maternity leaves and daycare if the woman works, for protection of a pregnant woman in the workplace, for ability to choose a part-time option for the woman and not to be fired etc.

American feminists seem to be obsessed about everything what is against the family and natural role of women - to the degree that I am sometimes tempted to think that those idiots were payed for by evil corporations :lol:


Agreed 100%. Bravo!
 

Forum List

Back
Top