It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Women In Combat Roles: New Pentagon Push

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Has anybody ever bothered to ask the women in the military what they want?




posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by invent4u2
I believe in Israel it is mandatory that male and females serve a min. of 2 or 3 yrs. in the military. If this were the case here, I'd bet even money that there would be a huge backlash reverberating throughout the states. I may be wrong. Any other opinions?


I think the issue of mandatory military service in itself would be a hotly debated topic in this country, let alone including women into that. A draft is one thing in a time of a necessary war, but to force military service on all, regardless? Phew. That's rough.

Also, let me turn the topic theme around a bit, just for conversation's sake. Are there any positions in the military that women clearly do better at than men? (and please, don't be a turkey and mention something like.... on this one.)



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Also, let me turn the topic theme around a bit, just for conversation's sake. Are there any positions in the military that women clearly do better at than men? (and please, don't be a turkey and mention something like.... on this one.)


I read somewhere that submarine service would be ideal for an al female crew due to smaller general size, less life support requirements etc. Unless they simply could not meet the physical requirements for the job, there really would not be any limitations.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I disagree w/ everyone who thinks women can be a combat soldier as in artillery, infantry, tanker. The Russian tried this in WWII and had to back-off . The Israelis tried this and had to back-off. What they found is the women did not have the endurance and stamina to endure the stress of combat because they did not have testosterone. Even a man half the size of a BIG woman could handle wear and tear of combat better than a woman.

You would have to have a screw loose to include them in such roles . Been in combat arms, I know what I'm talking about. They would get good men killed. GI jane was amovie. The reality won't work.

Sorry.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
The Russian tried this in WWII and had to back-off . The Israelis tried this and had to back-off. What they found is the women did not have the endurance and stamina to endure the stress of combat because they did not have testosterone. ... GI jane was amovie. The reality won't work.

Sorry.


Interesting info. Didn't know this - would like refs? ...BUT

IMO - this whole question of women versus men is just more warmongering that distracts from the important questions. ...How do we DE-escalate hostilities in Iraq, and stop the war? ...How else can we resolve conflicts, besides war?



.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Well sofi, the issue here is that the pentagon is seeking congressional mandates to put women in the line of fire. I wouldn't exactly just brush it off as "warmongering." It is a real issue, for both women and men. So are yours. Unfortunately, your issues are discussed elsewhere on ATS, in other threads. Please can we keep it on topic?



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:16 AM
link   
I am against it because we don't need women doing the same dumb things men do...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   
No women, and no blacks, they have bad nightvision and use different blood, so definately no black women. No Jews, they can't be trusted, and definately no Musilums, they are the enemy! No gays, I'll let the Catholics fight, even though they care more about the Pope than America. No mexicans, they are lazy.

Only white heterosexuals Christian males should defend the US, because, they love America most. Me? Yes, I'm a white heterosexual Christian male, but I'm not going to Iraq, that's what we have an Army for!

[/end of satirical diatribe.]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Well sofi, your issues are discussed elsewhere on ATS, in other threads. Please can we keep it on topic?


Sorry - I didn't explain my thoughts very well. There are 2 main questions being discussed here: 1. Can women fight wars? 2. Should women fight wars? ...The fundamental underlying question implied by the first 2 is: 3. Should anyone fight wars? ...

...I see the question as part of the package - logically and philosophically - not a deviation from topic.

It's the old conundrum - Just because we can, does that mean we should? ...The separation and compartmentalization of "ethics" from "mechanics" is often entirely synthetic - and moreover, serves primarily as a device for manipulation.

As a female American, all these questions are important to me, and part of this issue by definition.


.

[edit on 11-12-2004 by soficrow]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Oky doky, sofi.

While your intellectual brilliance is certainly staggering, how bout this. Let me ask you a couple questions. As a woman, if you were in the military and received the same training as the men, do you agree or disagree that:

1) the pentagon should mandate that you face on the ground combat, with severe risk to your life; and

2) that you as a woman are every bit as capable as a man in in fullfilling that duty.

Those are the real questions I suppose this thread seeks to answer. Not whether war in itself is right or wrong. I mean really, it's a little late for that seeing as we are already there in it. And should this legislation pass, it may very well affect any women you know that are in the military, especially if they are already there.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
steroids and EPO might be a usefull upgrade for females in close combat or extreme endurance situations, they would have to follow and maintain the trainingroutine of real athletes to make it actually work, also the manly look wouldn't be attractive for many females (I hear it's quite popular in dykish circles in Barcelona to inject test however)

I the meantime females can make excellent pilots since the airplane provides the raw muscle. Also the all female sub would be interesting (again raw muscle provided by the machine, less spacerequirements as mentioned by previousd poster, allthough i some doubts about social tension/commandstructure in all female environment, but I would invite them to prove me wrong)

also, remote controllled UAV and robots and tanks are entering the battlefield, females would be excellent remote controllers int the war-room.


[edit on 11-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Well here picture this :

When I was in the military the average pack was 100 lbs , big or small soldiers carried 100 lbs of equipment ,food ,water , bedding, ammo,ammo, and more ammo, not just for you , for the machine gun, the mortar, laws, grenade launchers and hand-grenades. plus I was the m60 man had to carry my m16 + the spare barrel and tripod about 110-120lbs.

Combat isn't only carrying a heavy weight . It's grueling conditions for days unending. Stay up and alert for 72 hours while humping a pack over ruff terrain. Can do! In a pouring rain . Can do! While bugs are eating you alive. Can do! No water . no food. Have to do! For weeks off and on . Have to do. no bath for two weeks, part of your life. covered w/ 16 layers of dust and camouflage paint. have to do. march all day/guard all nite. have to do.

kill/be killed;poisonous insects;poisonous snakes;friendly fire; conflicting orders;no mail; no relief...20hr days ...etc



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
....You make me wanna enlist!


[edit on 11-12-2004 by Countermeasures]



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I have no doubt that women in general are just as capable, if not more so than men of combat, and even more so, I think they would use better judgement.

However, as I have already said, women should not, must not engage in the same boneheaded activities that men do. It should be either or, either women stay out of the mess, or men step aside and let the women handle things from now on...



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
well unless you tell me your a woman who has done this .

I will find your words empty of worth.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Actually ,I have never seen a woman that is better at following orders or had better judgment than a man, in the military, or on the job.

We just put up with them because we need them to reproduce and to break the monotony.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If females were sent into combat, they'd need to be chemically re-engineered for their own safety. I know I'm generalizing, there are probably women reading this who think they'd have no problem going into battle, and that may be true. But I'm skeptical that basic training could prepare a female for combat as well as it prepares a male, given that the female has likely had a lifetime of socialization and development far different from the male. Not only different socialization and psychological development, but the chemistry is so different--and people sometimes don't realize how much we are a product of our physiology. These traits would put the average female at a disadvantage right away, no matter how much military training is received. Also, men and women do relate to eachother differently then they do to their own genders...the continuity of the group would be compromised, not to mention the romantic feelings that would develop. It seems that unequal alliances like that would not work well in a setting where you're all supposed to work as a team.

I'm afraid that an average woman on the battlefield would, on some level, relate to the enemy combatants in a motherly way....for example, before pulling the trigger to blow some 20 year old guy's head off, she might consider the fact that he's somebody's son, a mother's son, and she may consider the tragic effect that his loss is going to have on his family. She might imagine him as a little boy, smiling and laughing, bringing his mom a flower, etc, etc. Well I guess I should just speak for myself, that's how I would see it, anyway. I'd be shot dead long before I had the chance to pull the trigger. And if I did kill an enemy combatant, no matter the circumstances, it would cause me unbearable pain. I wish men didn't have to go into combat either, I wish we would get to a point where we can resolve these things in different ways.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   
It's political suicide, so I can't honestly see it happening. All it would take would be one picture. One picture of dead girls on a battlefield. Blown up, shot, tortured, raped. One picture, and the American people would turn on everybody. Democrat, Republican, Military, civilian. Anybody who had anything to do with greenlighting it any way.

I'll say this again. As certainly as the wigs and tories and the Bull Moose party and countless scores of other political parties have come and gone, greenlighting women in combat will most certainly mean the virtual death of any current party that allows it.

I don't care how conservative somebody is, or how loyal to the Republican party they might be. NOBODY will send their daughters off to war like this. Nobody.

Futhermore, this is a litmus test issue. It indicates whether or not somebody lives in dreamland or not. More unsavory types around here might support it, but it's because they love war, and not so much because they love America or the people in it.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Well, again I might remind you all that this is what the pentagon is looking at doing. Right there, right now, as we type. The way bode states it, from actually having done it, combat is clearly not for the weak. Several women have answered, saying no way. If you people feel so strongly about this, shouldn't you try to do something? Like contact your congressman? Who knows, maybe a good earful from people like you will have an impact.



posted on Dec, 11 2004 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
It's political suicide, so I can't honestly see it happening.


Any more than a draft? Because the military is so short of soldiers, that is why they want to include women. Would a dead female soldier be worse than a dead male drafted soldier?




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join