Women now eligible for combat duty . ..

[High_Gravity]

Women have already been involved in combat on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 12 years.

Judging by the pathetic outcome of the two longest wars in U.S. history......I don't think that fact helps your case.......

Everytime I was at the range the women usually outscored the men, I wouldn't under estimate them female Soldiers shoot surprisingly well. Besides if not enough men volunteer for service anymore what are we supposed to do? we don't have enough male soldiers to protect our females anymore.

 

[Connery]

What I think is hilarious is that at several points in this thread I have illustrated where women have served in a capacity that spoke of combat, one receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor, yet the military has not been "feminized". Indeed, "women are serving and have been serving in uniform alongside their male counterparts in Afghanistan and did so in Iraq for much of the past decade, even as their theoretical fitness to serve was debated back home. Although officially in support roles, the distinction ultimately made little difference to the 152 female U.S. troops who have died while deployed in those two wars."

Women in combat? Pentagon says yes

Women have been accompanying combat patrols as interpreters, intelligence gatherer's, medical personnel and to interface with local women in ways men can't do in that culture.

What that means is that they've carried the same combat load as the men, done their share of shooting back, and have done everything the rifle squad does except wear the crossed rifles. There is literally no difference between a rifleman and anybody attached to the unit during combat operations. Everybody is a rifleman, and in Afghanistan, that means women accompanying patrols have been serving as riflemen anyhow.

Allowing them to be "officially" Infantry means very little in the real world. They're already there and doing that.

That is what I have been saying throughout this thread.

 

[Intense]

The key, in part, is applying special abilities where the Talents best serve. When reality turns a perceived safe scenario, and it's fight or die, it's best to both, be prepared, and have the skill to contribute effectively, no matter who you are. All it takes is a caravan making a wrong turn, a chopper making a crash landing, a Tet Offensive, . Shit Happens.

 

[High_Gravity]

What I think is hilarious is that at several points in this thread I have illustrated where women have served in a capacity that spoke of combat, one receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor, yet the military has not been "feminized". Indeed, "women are serving and have been serving in uniform alongside their male counterparts in Afghanistan and did so in Iraq for much of the past decade, even as their theoretical fitness to serve was debated back home. Although officially in support roles, the distinction ultimately made little difference to the 152 female U.S. troops who have died while deployed in those two wars."

Women in combat? Pentagon says yes

Women have been accompanying combat patrols as interpreters, intelligence gatherer's, medical personnel and to interface with local women in ways men can't do in that culture.

What that means is that they've carried the same combat load as the men, done their share of shooting back, and have done everything the rifle squad does except wear the crossed rifles. There is literally no difference between a rifleman and anybody attached to the unit during combat operations. Everybody is a rifleman, and in Afghanistan, that means women accompanying patrols have been serving as riflemen anyhow.

Allowing them to be "officially" Infantry means very little in the real world. They're already there and doing that.

Damn straight, when I was in Iraq the women were locked and loaded with full battle rattle same as we were.

 

[Sunni Man]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

 

[High_Gravity]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

Tampon pushers?

 

[Connery]

The genesis of this "change in policy" was a lawsuit filed by four service women Mary Jennings Hegar , Jennifer Hunt , Alexandra Zoe Bedell , Colleen Farrell and Service Women's Action Network against Panetta Case Number: 3:2012cv06005 Filed: November 27, 2012

"The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments. Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones. Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones. One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the “combat exclusion policy" categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Hegar, et al. v. Panetta | American Civil Liberties Union


This change has righted a very wrong policy position within the military.

 

[Connery]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

As long as they are not ignorant schmucks who would refuse to serve with their fellow soldiers based on sex or sexual orientation. That would place everyone in danger.

 

[Sunni Man]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

As long as they are not ignorant schmucks who would refuse to serve with their fellow soldiers based on sex or sexual orientation. That would place everyone in danger.

I did my bit US Army 70-71 defending freedom and enriching the military industrial complex.

So if some homo or dyke wants to go to some foreign land and die defending me.

Go for it..........

 

[Oldguy]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

As long as they are not ignorant schmucks who would refuse to serve with their fellow soldiers based on sex or sexual orientation. That would place everyone in danger.

I did my bit US Army 70-71 defending freedom and enriching the military industrial complex.

So if some homo or dyke wants to go to some foreign land and die defending me.

Go for it..........

pssssst....don't look now but....you DID serve with "homo's." Ya just didn't know it.

 

[Sunni Man]

pssssst....don't look now but....you DID serve with "homo's." Ya just didn't know it.

If there were any fudge packers in my platton it was a well kept secret.

Because if discovered; they wouldn't have survived past the next fire fight.

True story..........

 

[jtpr312]

Women have already been involved in combat on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 12 years.

Peripherally, NOT directly involved in Infantry or Spec Ops duties, which they are physcially incapable of doing. Woman cannot pass the same physical fitness tests, or keep to the same physcial fitness standards of the Infantrymen, which is why they will have to lower physical standards to allow woman to serve side by side with men in the Infantry MOS.

 

[jtpr312]

The genesis of this "change in policy" was a lawsuit filed by four service women Mary Jennings Hegar , Jennifer Hunt , Alexandra Zoe Bedell , Colleen Farrell and Service Women's Action Network against Panetta Case Number: 3:2012cv06005 Filed: November 27, 2012

"The four servicemembers have all done tours in Iraq or Afghanistan--some deploying multiple times--where they served in combat or led female troops who went on missions with combat infantrymen. Their careers and opportunities have been limited by a policy that does not grant them the same recognition for their service as their male counterparts. The combat exclusion policy also makes it harder for them to do their jobs.

Two of the plaintiffs were awarded the Purple Heart after being wounded in the course of their deployments. Two led Marine Corps Female Engagement Teams, in which women Marines lived with and went on missions with Marine Infantrymen in active combat zones. Two were awarded medals in recognition of their performance while in active engagement in combat zones. One earned a Distinguished Flying Cross with a Valor Device for extraordinary achievement and heroism while engaging in direct ground fire with the enemy, after being wounded when her helicopter was shot down over Afghanistan."

Women make up more than 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel, yet the “combat exclusion policy" categorically excludes them from more than 200,000 positions, as well as from entire career fields. Consequently, commanders are stymied in their ability to mobilize their troops effectively. In addition, servicewomen are:

• denied training and recognition for their service
• put at a disadvantage for promotions
• prevented from competing for positions for which they have demonstrated their suitability and from advancing in rank."

Hegar, et al. v. Panetta | American Civil Liberties Union


This change has righted a very wrong policy position within the military.

So what? it's not about these four ***** or their careers, nor is about any other women and their careers. This is, and should ALWAYS be, about what is best for the Mission of the US Military and for the safety of US Servicemen, and allowing woman into Infantry units and Spec Ops units is NOT what's best for the mission and it WILL put the lives of the men in these units in jeopardy because woman are NOT physically capable of doing the job as well as men and they WILL have to lower the physical standards to allow woman into these units degrading the entire strength of the unit and causing unneccessary injuries and deaths and comprimising the mission of the Infantry and Spec Ops. Here's a clue for you leftist morons, GI was a movie, it was Hollywood, not a woman on this planet could pass BUD's training and the woman who could successfully make it throught the SOI is such a tiny percentage as to not even make it worthwhile to add a single tampon to the TOE.

 

[Montrovant]

Women have already been involved in combat on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 12 years.

Peripherally, NOT directly involved in Infantry or Spec Ops duties, which they are physcially incapable of doing. Woman cannot pass the same physical fitness tests, or keep to the same physcial fitness standards of the Infantrymen, which is why they will have to lower physical standards to allow woman to serve side by side with men in the Infantry MOS.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like over-generalized bullshit.

Now, I would be willing to accept that it will be harder for women to pass those tests. Many more may be incapable of doing so than men; there are certainly differences in male and female physiology. That doesn't mean that there aren't any women who can pass the tests, who can perform their duties at the necessary levels.

I don't want to see lower standards in order to allow women. I would, however, like to see women who meet the standards allowed to serve in the same capacities.

 

[Politico]

Instant 200,000 new soldiers. And they didn't have to lift a finger. As long as everyone is equal cannon fodder I don't have a problem with it.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Instant 200,000 new soldiers. And they didn't have to lift a finger. As long as everyone is equal cannon fodder I don't have a problem with it.

Let women starting coming home in body bags.. Some raped and tortured. I promise you.. every liberal will start singing a different ******* tune. This is FUCKED UP SHIT.. The military is no place to try out progressive experimental policy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

so is that or isn't that belief?

let me ask you - in recent conflicts were you more likely to get shot at as an infantry unit or an mp unit doing convoy security?

And what the **** does that have to do with anything?
Meet your quota yet?

simply that women are already in some of the most dangerous jobs in the military - opening up a few more shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't matter in what capacity they serve. If they endanger the lives of other soldiers because of their short comings they shouldnt be there.....PERIOD.

 

[AmyNation]

Instant 200,000 new soldiers. And they didn't have to lift a finger. As long as everyone is equal cannon fodder I don't have a problem with it.

Let women starting coming home in body bags.. Some raped and tortured. I promise you.. every liberal will starting singing a different ******* tune. This is FUCKED UP SHIT.. The military is no place to try out progressive experimental policy.

Women already serve, and serve honorably in the military. The argument youre making is the same one that was made about allowing gay soldiers to be open about their orientation, and as we saw, that was a lot of hype and nothing that was predicted happened.

 

[J.E.D]

I guess if the fudge packers can now be in combat.......then the tampon pushers should be allowed also........

Tampon pushers?

That's what he likes his sexual partners to penetrate his ass with. When he has female sexual partners. Which isn't very often.

 

[Sunni Man]

Women already serve, and serve honorably in the military. The argument youre making is the same one that was made about allowing gay soldiers to be open about their orientation, and as we saw, that was a lot of hype and nothing that was predicted happened.

We haven't been in a "real" war since DADT was rescinded.

So the jury is still out about the combat effectiveness of homo soldiers........