Breaking - AP reporting US Secretary of Defense will open all combat roles to women

Just got an alert that SecDef Ash Carter is going to announce that he's opening all combat roles in the armed forces to women.

No details provided yet other than a tweet on the AP account. Will update as they provide more info on the implementation, timing, what else is announced, and so on.

mobile.twitter.com...

a reply to: Shamrock6

It's about time! I'm glad to see this finally happening.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The Yazidi female fighters come to mind here.....
Glad to hear it.

Women in the military combat support role have participated in a 2 way firing range for some time now, yet Combat MOS's were still never open to them. Stoooopid...

Once again, the Military shows it can adapt...albeit reluctantly and decades too late. There isn't room for PC policies in War.

It's going-down out there, regardless of Gender.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What a shame. Men fight wars to keep their women safe. Now we have uncle sam encouraging the weakest among us to attempt to play that role. Where is modern man's valor?

Maybe they should have to register for selective service now as well. Perhaps not call as many up during the draft due to having the womb and all, but...

They know WW3 is coming soon, and will need everyone they can get.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Shamrock6

What a shame. Men fight wars to keep their women safe. Now we have uncle sam encouraging the weakest among us to attempt to play that role. Where is modern man's valor?

Men fight wars to make rich men richer.
Not to keep their women in the kitchen.

a reply to: the owlbear

What a foolish thing to say. Men are sent to war to keep the rich men rich, but they do not choose to go for that reason. They choose to go to defend what they have.

a reply to: the owlbear

I agree with you 100%, women should also have to sign for the selective service. Should have been done a long time ago.

originally posted by: chadderson
Men fight wars to keep their women safe.

BS! Men fight wars for oil, land, ideologies. It's been a looooong time since a war has been fought to keep the women safe. Hello? It's 2016 calling...

Now we have uncle sam encouraging the weakest among us to attempt to play that role.

A gun is just as effective regardless whether the finger pulling the trigger is wearing nail polish or not.

Where is modern man's valor?

What do you mean? Men are still brave. But so are women.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: Shamrock6

What a shame. Men fight wars to keep their women safe. Now we have uncle sam encouraging the weakest among us to attempt to play that role. Where is modern man's valor?

Modern man? It's a mythical creature. People are probably right. If a woman can do it, let her. Besides there's no such thing as gender anymore. The terms 'men' and 'woman' are outdated now.

Lots of barriers are being broke down. I support more freedoms. I don't know if we should or shouldn't. It's not my decision.

The challenge isn't war anyway, it's change. So many things changing so fast. Whichever society adapts most readily is ahead of the pack.

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: the owlbear

What a foolish thing to say. Men are sent to war to keep the rich men rich, but they do not choose to go for that reason. They choose to go to defend what they have.

Maybe in dirty smelly countries...but this is America. War is business. There have only been 21 years without armed conflict with other nations out of 230+.

War is decided on by rich white guys here. And fought by the poor who have no other means of making a living.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It has been proven time after time that women cannot achieve what a man can on the battlefield.

Men do not fight for oil. They fight to defend what they have. The wars themselves are the products of a small number of people that want the oil, and have power over the population to create these wars. Man can join the war and defend what he has, or he can sit on his hands and watch the other side take it.

Neither side is fighting "for oil", the controllers of the population are the ones that create wars for oil.

Before corporations controlled our government, men had valor. They did not seek to control other men, but only to live their lives and be free among other men. Today's norm is the coward that sits behind a desk and orders other men to war. These cowards are no different than cancer within the body, forcing antibodies(valiant men) to step up and fight for the entire body and what it stands for.

a reply to: chadderson

There are many strong women in this country. With the dangers facing our families, if a woman chooses to fight, she should have that option. They are our families too. Though we love our protectors, we sometimes need to be that protector ourselves.

Sadly the poster who mentioned they may need all the bodies they can get is probably right. Hopefully it doesn't come down to it,ever, but if there's a fight on my door step, know I will be fighting it.

Valor is becoming scarcer every day it seems. We do live in a different world now unfortunately.

a reply to: woodsmom

You are right about valor being scarce. You as a woman should not have to fight. If valiant men were the norm, you would not have to bat a pretty eyelash at the war, because it would already be handled by those that stepped up on your behalf.

How's those pullups coming?

So stupid, let's just throw aside genetics, biology, and the role of hormones.

a reply to: chadderson

Ideally. However our ideals have been drastically altered. We live in a world completely changed from the one we grew up in. We all have to be able to take a stand to preserve what we believe in, regardless of gender.

doublepost

a reply to: ringdingdong

Lets throw aside genetics, biology, and hormones... hrmmm. Throw away the truth? No thank you.