One small step for ...WOMEN!!!!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by JOKER96BRAVO, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. JOKER96BRAVO
    Offline

    JOKER96BRAVO Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,433
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +285
    Army Wants Women On Front Lines
    The Herald
    October 24, 2004

    The U.S. Army is trying to overturn a ban on using women soldiers in forward
    support units in war zones to ease its growing manpower crisis in Iraq and
    Afghanistan.

    While females still would be barred from combat formations likely to experience
    direct contact with an enemy, planners want to deploy them alongside fighting
    brigades as drivers and logisticians to free up scarce male forces.

    A shortage of trained American infantry in Iraq prompted the request for the Black
    Watch to be sent north to Iskandariya to free up American marines for the assault
    on Falluja.

    Although women serve as jet, transport, and helicopter pilots, they are excluded
    from ground combat. There are about 200,000 females in the U.S. Army - about
    17% of its total strength.

    About 8% of the 102,000 soldiers in the British Army are female, a proportion
    which has grown since roles available to them were expanded in 1998. Women
    represent 9.5% of officers and 6.8% of other ranks.

    UK servicewomen are also excluded from direct combat and submarine service.
    British governments have resisted changing the policy because they feared the
    political impact of large-scale female casualties.


    A Pentagon spokesman said yesterday: "The policy introduced in the U.S. in 1994
    which prevented the deployment of women soldiers close to the front line no
    longer has a basis in reality. There are no clearly-defined front lines any more.

    "A high proportion of the 250 or so supply convoys which criss- cross Iraq's roads
    every day come under attack. Many of the vehicles have females in their crews.
    Bases supposedly behind the lines also come under regular mortar and rocket
    attack.

    He added: "It makes no sense to have to use male soldiers for tasks which could
    be done easily by their female counterparts when we are short of troops trained
    to close with and destroy the enemy."

    The U.S. Army's high command hopes to be able to persuade Congress to lift
    restrictions in time for the deployment of the 3rd Infantry Division to Iraq next
    year.
     
  2. NATO AIR
    Offline

    NATO AIR Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    4,275
    Thanks Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    USS Abraham Lincoln
    Ratings:
    +282
    more women for the enjoyment of the guys :bs1: pc in action
     
  3. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    I think it's a bad idea. Seeing women on a battlefield has a negative affect on a guy's psychology. They'll give them preferential treatment and might try to save them when they're beyond help. They might be able to reprogram that in boot camp, but I doubt it. The only solution is to get rid of one of the two genders on the front lines, and that would be the girls. Sorry ladies, but it's a biological fact that, due to millenia of natural selection, guys are built for combat.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. JOKER96BRAVO
    Offline

    JOKER96BRAVO Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,433
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +285
    So we put em all in tanks!!!
     
  5. Trigg
    Offline

    Trigg Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2004
    Messages:
    774
    Thanks Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    midwest
    Ratings:
    +69
    If anyone here remembers Desert Storm then they will understand this post. The women on some ships in the Navy got pregnant so they didn't have to go into a war zone.

    Women are not a reliable force on the front, since some (not all) of female soldiers will choose to "accidentally" get pregnant.

    I should state that I am female so I don't get jumped on by other women in this post. I wouldn't want to be on the front line and I wouldn't want it for my daughter. Men get captured and put in jail, women get raped.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. JOKER96BRAVO
    Offline

    JOKER96BRAVO Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,433
    Thanks Received:
    285
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +285
    Great point
     
  7. Shattered
    Online

    Shattered Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Trust me - You *want* women on the front line...every 28 days. :D
     
  8. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    No, because there comes a time when a surrender or peace treaty is necessary, and if you've got some of those women on the front lines, they will neither offer nor accept either of these things. They will keep fighting until everyone on one side is dead.
     
  9. Shattered
    Online

    Shattered Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    In which case, it never becomes a problem again. :p
     
  10. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    definitely a BAD idea. Negatives outweigh the positives.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page