Women now eligible for combat duty . ..

[sealadaigh]

Women aren't eligible for the draft because the law specifically excludes us. It would take an act of congress in order for women to be included.

as a vet who had a combat arms MOS in the '60s and '70s and who has never served in a unit with women, but have encountered them in combat support positions, i think panetta's decision was an excellent on e and can only make for a stronger and more representative military.

i do think, though, that until that act of congress is passed, they will never consider themselves equal and will never be considered equal.

 

[sealadaigh]

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..........

i served with a gay guy. people knew it. you're right, he didn't survive a fire fight.

he did receive a silver star and a purple heart for his efforts though. brave guy. he was a friend.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

They can't, which is why the standards will have to be lowered, this has already proven to be the case over and over again in the miitary, in police depts and in fire depts around the nation. I've been going to gyms for over 20yrs, co-ed ones, and have yet to see a woman whose physiology would allow her to do the things expect of an Infantryman to do on a regular basis and I'm talking about woman who compete in bodybuilding, gymnasts and marathon runners. There musculature is not suited for the rigors of the Infantry plain and simple.

If it turns out that women are physically incapable of performing the duties of the infantry, then they shouldn't make it through the training and that can be that. I don't happen to believe that is the case; while I readily admit there are basic differences between men and women, I think there is enough variety in physical abilities and limitations that at least some women will be able to qualify under current standards. I would certainly need more than your anonymous hearsay word that no women can do what would be required.

 

[Bill Angel]

There are always going to be issues that can't be resolved completely fairly when it comes to men and women in the military (men can't get pregnant!) but I've never been a fan of keeping willing women away from the front lines. They DO need to be just as qualified as their male counterparts, and it's possible that some sort of mandatory contraception might be necessary to avoid the possibilities of pregnant women getting killed in combat, or women using pregnancy as an out, but women are a huge potential resource that the military has mostly ignored for much of it's history. If they can be reasonably integrated, they certainly should be!

Mandatory contraception? What if she is a Catholic?
Also, it's conceivable that enemy male soldiers would rather fight to the death (i.e. die in combat) than surrender to a woman. It's a male chauvinist issue, especially I expect among enemy Moslem soldiers.
Also I think it's of interest that of these three nutcrackers created as depictions of modern American soldiers in combat attire, tbe middle one depicts a female soldier.

These Soldiers Would Just Love to “Crush Your Nuts"

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

that's true of any soldier.

Yep.

 

[WillowTree]

Women aren't eligible for the draft because the law specifically excludes us. It would take an act of congress in order for women to be included.

as a vet who had a combat arms MOS in the '60s and '70s and who has never served in a unit with women, but have encountered them in combat support positions, i think panetta's decision was an excellent on e and can only make for a stronger and more representative military.

i do think, though, that until that act of congress is passed, they will never consider themselves equal and will never be considered equal.

I will consider them equal when they can pass the same rigorous boot camp. I don't think it's biologically possible.

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's entire effort has been to destroy the military. This is just part of it. The first step is to destroy the respect that our military has had as a fighting force. Letting gays openly serve and putting women on the combat field is just part of that.

 

[Connery]

obama's entire effort has been to destroy the military. This is just part of it. The first step is to destroy the respect that our military has had as a fighting force. Letting gays openly serve and putting women on the combat field is just part of that.

This is pure baloney. Kindly show your sources for this statement. I am not an Obama apologist, however, when I see something as blatantly nonsensical as this I would like to discuss your position.

 

[Sunni Man]

When the physical fitness standards are the exact same for both male and female soldiers in basic training and advanced combat MOS training.

Then I would reconsider my stance of females in combat roles.........

 

[Katzndogz]

obama's entire effort has been to destroy the military. This is just part of it. The first step is to destroy the respect that our military has had as a fighting force. Letting gays openly serve and putting women on the combat field is just part of that.

This is pure baloney. Kindly show your sources for this statement. I am not an Obama apologist, however, when I see something as blatantly nonsensical as this I would like to discuss your position.

This is social engineering. It is one of the democrat's little experiments. It does NOTHING to improve the effectiveness of combat units or the military as a whole. The military is being feminized. What's worse it is being feminized where we are currently at war with a VERY masculine force that has no respect for women, considers that they live at the mercy of men, and kills homosexuals. To that enemy, we are going to present the weakest most ineffective military force we can scrape off the bottom of America.

Of course the standards are going to have to be lowered. Otherwise, holding out promotions to women who serve in combat is a sham, a lie. They can't meet those standards. This is what happened in police forces across the country. When standards are lowered, you don't only get weak women, you get weak men too. You don't get a military so fierce it is respected. You get a military that is laughable. Which is the whole point to begin with. It is what the democrats intend to do.

Unfortunately, portraying weakness invites aggression.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

obama's entire effort has been to destroy the military. This is just part of it. The first step is to destroy the respect that our military has had as a fighting force. Letting gays openly serve and putting women on the combat field is just part of that.

this is pure baloney. Kindly show your sources for this statement. I am not an obama apologist, however, when i see something as blatantly nonsensical as this i would like to discuss your position.

this is social engineering. It is one of the democrat's little experiments. It does nothing to improve the effectiveness of combat units or the military as a whole. The military is being feminized. What's worse it is being feminized where we are currently at war with a very masculine force that has no respect for women, considers that they live at the mercy of men, and kills homosexuals. To that enemy, we are going to present the weakest most ineffective military force we can scrape off the bottom of america.

Of course the standards are going to have to be lowered. Otherwise, holding out promotions to women who serve in combat is a sham, a lie. They can't meet those standards. This is what happened in police forces across the country. When standards are lowered, you don't only get weak women, you get weak men too. You don't get a military so fierce it is respected. You get a military that is laughable. Which is the whole point to begin with. It is what the democrats intend to do.

Unfortunately, portraying weakness invites aggression.

qft!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It sounds like you hold women in high regard. I bet you get laid all the time.

Sounds like your parents wanted a girl Josie.
Oh....and I've been married for twenty three years. Get back to me when you're at least that old. Maybe you'll have enough life experience by then to speak with intelligence on such a simple subject.

Yeah, you seem real intelligent, gramps.

Sounds like any women in your life have had to endure torture. They have my sympathy.

Sympathy....the only thing Josie can offer a women.
Well that and a life of poverty re roofing houses for a living.

 

[Katzndogz]

When LAPD started letting women serve as patrol cops a friend of mine, a woman and a superior court judge who was the wisest person I ever knew said that the lowered standards would let in both women and weak men. The result would be an increase in excessive force cases. No longer would a big burly cop make some criminal think twice before taking them on. Instead women and small, weak, men would be facing off against some 6'2" ex con who just left the prison gym. You can legislate a lot of things, but not fear. The first instinct would be to use a weapon rather than brute force. What has happened is that excessive force complaints have proliferated AND attacks on police officers have proliferated.

Our combat units aren't facing some street thug. They are facing real fighters in a battlefield. A perception of a a strong fighting unit with no chance of success might end a battle sooner than a perception of a weak unit filled with women and gays.

This isn't happening in a vacuum. The rules of engagement have already been changed to deny reinforcements to units under attack. Our military is already constrained in fighting with American rules to maximize American casualties. This is very carefully constructed with the goal of American defeat.

 

[Connery]

obama's entire effort has been to destroy the military. This is just part of it. The first step is to destroy the respect that our military has had as a fighting force. Letting gays openly serve and putting women on the combat field is just part of that.

This is pure baloney. Kindly show your sources for this statement. I am not an Obama apologist, however, when I see something as blatantly nonsensical as this I would like to discuss your position.

This is social engineering. It is one of the democrat's little experiments. It does NOTHING to improve the effectiveness of combat units or the military as a whole. The military is being feminized. What's worse it is being feminized where we are currently at war with a VERY masculine force that has no respect for women, considers that they live at the mercy of men, and kills homosexuals. To that enemy, we are going to present the weakest most ineffective military force we can scrape off the bottom of America.

Of course the standards are going to have to be lowered. Otherwise, holding out promotions to women who serve in combat is a sham, a lie. They can't meet those standards. This is what happened in police forces across the country. When standards are lowered, you don't only get weak women, you get weak men too. You don't get a military so fierce it is respected. You get a military that is laughable. Which is the whole point to begin with. It is what the democrats intend to do.

Unfortunately, portraying weakness invites aggression.

Again nothing of substance.......

This is from the complaint which compelled the military to change it's policy, "servicewomen who have engaged in ground combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have routinely been denied combat credit for purposes of promotion. For men, ground combat experience is a substantial factor in promotion to leadership positions. In contrast, a woman's combat experience is not recognized as such, because she is only "attached" but not "assigned" to ground combat units, or she commands teams that serve "in support of' but are not "part of' ground combat units. For some servicewomen, such as Staff Sergeant Jennifer Hunt, their combat service conducting missions with infantry troops had no formal designation at all. For others, such as Captain Alexandra Zoe Bedell and First Lieutenant Colleen Farrell, their combat service leading FETs took place entirely outside of their official career specialties. Because of the combat exclusion policy, the combat service of these and many other women cannot be given official recognition..."
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/embargoed_aclu_lawsuit.pdf

These combat jobs have already been performed by women. This is nothing new. Give credit where credit is due, exclusion based on sex is simply wrong.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's all about promotion. Nothing about an effective fighting unit.

 

[ogibillm]

It's all about promotion. Nothing about an effective fighting unit.

that requires explanation

 

[Connery]

It's all about promotion. Nothing about an effective fighting unit.

It is about that which has been done and needs to be addressed. This is no different than Blacks and the historic treatment therein. These women will give of themselves, sacrifice, bleed and die just like a man they should have the recognition that goes along with it.

 

[Oldguy]

The rules of engagement have already been changed to deny reinforcements to units under attack. Our military is already constrained in fighting with American rules to maximize American casualties. This is very carefully constructed with the goal of American defeat.

What? You're insane.

 

[Katzndogz]

The rules of engagement have already been changed to deny reinforcements to units under attack. Our military is already constrained in fighting with American rules to maximize American casualties. This is very carefully constructed with the goal of American defeat.

What? You're insane.

You just don't know.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...s-restraint-putting-troops-lives-at-risk.html

Soldiers in Helmand claim that the policy of "courageous restraint" is forcing them to fight with "one hand tied behind our backs".
The doctrine was introduced by Gen Stanley McChrystal, the former American commander, to reduce the number of civilian casualties, which are mainly caused by aircraft bombs or artillery missiles.
However, with their own casualties mounting, troops say there is an urgent need for a change and for more flexibility in using lethal force to defend themselves.
Gen David Petraeus, who has taken over from Mr McChrystal after he was sacked last month by Barack Obama for insubordination, is said to be reviewing the policy as a result of the increase in casualties. June was the bloodiest month since fighting began in 2001.
A senior Non-Commissioned Officer, on his third tour of Afghanistan, said the rules of engagement had "gone too far one way" in favour of the insurgents.

US intelligence specialist: Petraeus put US lives at risk with PC war doctrine ? RT

Lieutenant Colonel John L. Cook was once a top counter-insurgency specialist trusted with the most sensitive missions, but his latest book, Afghanistan: The Perfect Failure, has turned him into the bête noir of the US military establishment.
Cook began his intelligence career in Vietnam, and his last assignment was four years in Afghanistan, where he oversaw the creation of the new local police force, until retiring in August this year.
While there he says he witnessed a new “politically correct” way of fighting that was meant to put a premium on the lives of local civilians, but instead paralyzed US soldiers and goaded the Taliban into ever more brazen operations.

Ask Dakota Meyer about what the changes in the rules of engagement meant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/16/us/dakota-meyer-marine-is-awarded-medal-of-honor.html?_r=0

After the corporal freed Captain Swenson, the captain joined him in the fighting while an Army platoon nearby declined to help. On the last trip they recovered the remains of three Marines and a Navy corpsman. By then, according to the Marine Corps’ account of the fight, Corporal Meyer had killed eight Taliban fighters and stood up to several dozen more. (A fifth American later died of wounds suffered in the ravine.)

Two years on, the ambush in Ganjigal has been examined, reexamined and presented in many different ways, often as an institutional failure and an example of the limits and dangers of the counterinsurgency theory that was pressed upon the troops by Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Pentagon. The betrayal by the villagers, the confused lines of command, the withheld artillery fire, the inaction of an Army platoon that might have helped the trapped men — have all been documented as a dark parable of the American grunt's experience of the latest Afghan war.

And I'm insane? Really? You should thank me for finally telling you what's really going on.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I dont get it. Libs in general hate the military and all it stands for.
Now they want women to have a roll in combat operations.....why do liberals hate women?