Newt comments on women in combat

[rightwinger]

Newt,..............the gift that keeps on giving

It has only just begun

 

[Jackson]

Newt,..............the gift that keeps on giving

It has only just begun

Can't you ever say anything that enhances a debate?

 

[Zoom]

Heavily edited sound bites.

Worthless.

You are kidding right?

 

[chikenwing]

Chickenhawk Newt = Chickenhawk Obama.

Same same

True,just Obama lies about it.

 

[rightwinger]

Newt,..............the gift that keeps on giving

It has only just begun

Can't you ever say anything that enhances a debate?

Newt Gingrich...

Defending women against crotch rot

 

[JoeB131]

Your ignorance on mormonism knows no bounds does it?

The only ignorant ones are the ones who actually think proven liar Joseph Smith is telling the truth...

 

[Toro]

You are working on the assumption that there are women who just can't wait to get into combat...

I find it amusing that given how Mormons think women can only get into heaven if bonded to a Mormon man are suddenly becoming rabid feminist right advocates. It's hilarious.

Mitt has no control over who goes to heaven. Newt (if president) might have some control over women in combat.

Your arguments are illogical.

I'm sorry, again, is there some big faction that say, "Man, I can't wait for chicks to come back in Body Bags."

Of course not. Fact is, women still can't serve in the combat arms branches in the army. A lot of them died in the Iraq War, because they were truck drivers and supply clerks and other soft targets for the insurgents to hit...

I was pointing out that Mr. Romney belongs to a whacky cult that sees women as second class citizens, and now he's going to argue that Gingrich (gasp) supports what the military's policy already is. Really?

But I understand the desperation of RINO's and Liberals, who really wanted Mittens for Christmas.

You're the ultimate über-RINO, and you sure seem desperate.

When we hear Romney saying those things, we'll assume that is what he believes. Until then, its just desperate conjecture on your part.

 

[JoeB131]

Women have as much right to be in combat as men. It's just that simple. Newt would treat women as second class citizens.

I wasn't aware that there was a "right" to be in combat. I thought it was about the needs of the military in order to win the war.

There are a whole lot of reasons people aren't allowed in the military. The military already limits the roles of females. And to keep the ones they have, they have to make a whole bunch of special accommedations (compare the APFT for women to the one for men. They don't need to do as many pushups or run as fast.)

The problem with liberals is that they see the military as just another benefits program.

And you see a woman as a none equal... Please, run off it... PLEASE.

I like the part where Newt says a women would be better than a man at sitting in a chair, because men want to run around... Oh and that was his reason for it, he didn’t say it's because a man would do a worse job than a women due to a woman’s superior mind (or some shit), no, it was because a woman can sit in a chair better than a man.

I'm going by what the Army says.

The Army says a woman cannot be MOS qualified for 11B. For all you who haven't served, that's your basic infantryman.

Or to a point, can a woman carry a man twice her weight off the battlefield if need be?

SO, really, nothing wrong with what Newt said other than being too honest. But I'll hear a bunch of you idiots who never wore a uniform a day in your life whine because he said it.

 

[JoeB131]

You're the ultimate über-RINO, and you sure seem desperate.

When we hear Romney saying those things, we'll assume that is what he believes. Until then, its just desperate conjecture on your part.

Since Romney won't tell us what he believes, that's good enough reason to not vote for him.

If the man has to lie about his religion because it's too crazy, then that's a good reason not to vote for him..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wasn't aware that there was a "right" to be in combat. I thought it was about the needs of the military in order to win the war.

There is a right to equal application of the laws, including those which govern combat. To pre-empt that right the state must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest as to why, and provide factual, objective evidence in support.

There is no evidence that women can’t exist in a trench or other harsh conditions for an extended period of time compared to men; indeed, women and men lived in similar harsh conditions for millennia prior to the advent of civilization and tragically millions of women live in such conditions today.

Gingrich’s comments are idiotic accordingly, and there continues to be no indication of his ‘brilliance.’

It's not a matter of right. Is that can they handle it? Would you want to count on a woman to carry you out of combat when you are wounded? Let's use some common sense. Men and women's anatomy are different. A small perecentage of women could handle it, but the majority could not.

It is a right in that women should be given the opportunity to try.

Let's make stringent of requirements the same for men and women. Can a women carry a man any distance if they are 200 lbs? I wouldn't want to be in combat next to a 98 lb. man either, but let's make the requirements of aptitude be the deciding factor, not the sex.

The above is an example of a compelling governmental interest to disallow either a woman or a man from combat, as long as it’s objectively determined and applied equally.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Aaahhh, HELL! They don't need no stinking wimmin in combat arms, they's gots GAYS! And gay guys have better upper body strength than women, too!

 

[Jackson]

Newt,..............the gift that keeps on giving

It has only just begun

Can't you ever say anything that enhances a debate?

Newt Gingrich...

Defending women against crotch rot

Another itelligent post. Sorry to be so rude, but you really deserve it.

 

[Leweman]

Well I was a medic in an infantry unit. We had no women in our company. We lived in the city and went without showering for roughly 21 day intervals unless it was with bottle water. Baby wipes were a staple. Those who came before me in the initial entry into Iraq, as far as I know, went nearly 3 months without showering. The reasoning behind this is that women would suffer infection, such as yeast infection because of their anatomy. Yes women are actually different than men believe it or not. They also suffer form wider hips which lead to stress fracture when carrying weight or rucking long distances. Another causality of biology I'm afraid. Enough of this bullshit that women and men are the same. It's just complete bat shit crazy to think that. Women provide so much that men can't provide why do some people think they need to provide the things that they just can't provide as well?

 

[Flopper]

Newt is carrying a lot baggage into the election and we are just starting to open it up.

“She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife.”
~Newt Gingrich, talking about his first wife after divorcing her.

 

[Katzndogz]

How DARE he say that women are better suited for some combat situations than men are!

 

[Katzndogz]

Well I was a medic in an infantry unit. We had no women in our company. We lived in the city and went without showering for roughly 21 day intervals unless it was with bottle water. Baby wipes were a staple. Those who came before me in the initial entry into Iraq, as far as I know, went nearly 3 months without showering. The reasoning behind this is that women would suffer infection, such as yeast infection because of their anatomy. Yes women are actually different than men believe it or not. They also suffer form wider hips which lead to stress fracture when carrying weight or rucking long distances. Another causality of biology I'm afraid. Enough of this bullshit that women and men are the same. It's just complete bat shit crazy to think that. Women provide so much that men can't provide why do some people think they need to provide the things that they just can't provide as well?

Do you really think liberal democrats will let the truth get in the way of what they wish were true?

 

[JoeB131]

I wasn't aware that there was a "right" to be in combat. I thought it was about the needs of the military in order to win the war.

There is a right to equal application of the laws, including those which govern combat. To pre-empt that right the state must demonstrate a compelling governmental interest as to why, and provide factual, objective evidence in support.

There is no evidence that women can’t exist in a trench or other harsh conditions for an extended period of time compared to men; indeed, women and men lived in similar harsh conditions for millennia prior to the advent of civilization and tragically millions of women live in such conditions today.

Gingrich’s comments are idiotic accordingly, and there continues to be no indication of his ‘brilliance.’

It's not a matter of right. Is that can they handle it? Would you want to count on a woman to carry you out of combat when you are wounded? Let's use some common sense. Men and women's anatomy are different. A small perecentage of women could handle it, but the majority could not.

It is a right in that women should be given the opportunity to try.

Let's make stringent of requirements the same for men and women. Can a women carry a man any distance if they are 200 lbs? I wouldn't want to be in combat next to a 98 lb. man either, but let's make the requirements of aptitude be the deciding factor, not the sex.

The above is an example of a compelling governmental interest to disallow either a woman or a man from combat, as long as it’s objectively determined and applied equally.

The thing is, though, that if you held women to the same APFT standards you hold men to, you'd wash most females out.

A man needs to do 42 Pushups. A woman a whopping 19.

They both need to be able to do 52 situps (this changed since I've been in.)

A man needs to be able to run the 2 miles in 15:54. A woman in 18:54.

In short, the Army has already determined to make military service less hard for women, and excludes them from combat MOS duties.

And that's just peacetime.

In wartime, I'm pretty sure the enemy is not going to get the PC manual. In the first Gulf War, the Iraqi military took two female service members captive. They were both raped. There were similar stories of rapes involving Jessica Lynch, who was the high-profile rescue person in the Iraq war.

But, no, no, let's pretend this is just another government job.

 

[JoeB131]

Newt is carrying a lot baggage into the election and we are just starting to open it up.

“She isn’t young enough or pretty enough to be the President’s wife.”
~Newt Gingrich, talking about his first wife after divorcing her.

And why is it relevent?

In this case, he was openly discussing an issue and bringing up valid- if politically incorrect - points.

We've got real problems in this country, and we aren't going to solve them by not talking about them.

But I guess we can go with "ooooooh Newt insulted feminists!"

 

[ginscpy]

Gingrich is correct.

Women lack the upper body strenght be effective combat soldiers.

In some respects - females are as good or even better than males.

For instance - in endurance swimming - due to their greater body fat.

That doenst translate to military combat however.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I spent my time in service. I'll grant that if a man had to carry the same ratio of weight-to-muscle mass as women are, many would collapse. Women have a higher fat to lean body mass ratio than men...biological fact. I've seen a 98 lb gal carry 80 lbs 12 miles. That means a 220 lb man would have to pack around 178 lbs the same distance to be equal to that woman. C'mon guys, whose up for that?