It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:45 AM
a reply to: chadderson

Damned straight makes no sense at all.
edit on 3-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:48 AM
a reply to: woodsmom

Aye, we must all be ready to take a stand and define ourselves. However, letting go of our father's ideals is part of the reason society has sunk to this level.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM

originally posted by: chadderson
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.


I don't want or need someone to "step up" on my behalf. I can do just fine on my own behalf.

(post by chadderson removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:52 AM

edit on 3-12-2015 by alien because: Editted - as referenced post since removed

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:54 AM
Can you imagine the front line of female soldiers all on the same cycle? I feel bad for anyone on the receiving end.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

U.S. Army Expects To Meet Recruitment Goals Despite Slow Year Because Of Improved Economy

Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Snow, the Army’s top officer for recruiting, said that it can be difficult to attract new members when the economy is on the upswing. That’s because young people between the ages of 18 and 24 have access to more job opportunities, especially when the unemployment rate dips below 6 percent.

We don't have the draft, more war on the horizon - timing is everything

U.S. military opens combat positions to women

All U.S. military combat positions are being opened up to women, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.

The decision allows women to fill about 220,000 jobs that are now limited to men -- including infantry, armor, reconnaissance and some special operations units.

"This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat," Carter said at a news conference Thursday.

oh - yay...

edit on 12/3/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:55 AM
a reply to: Shamrock6

Good. It's about time!

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 11:56 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:06 PM
All combat jobs? While were at it, let them compete in the ring, on the gridiron and ball court, too. I mean if they can hump over the same course, carry as heavy a load as far as seals, rangers and special forces for days on end, why not?

Wait, maybe humping along with the men isn't a good idea.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:07 PM
a reply to: WP4YT

My thoughts exactly on the matter, getting all the little details ready before it begins.
edit on 3-12-2015 by threeeyesopen because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:07 PM
Male and female both fight to protect the children ofcourse, and ensure their safety and welfare so this means going after resources and land as well. I suppose there's a need for it or there will be any time soon.

I've come to the belief at some time in the past, males were the ones who started something, they made up their minds while females are more like in a dream and can't make up their own minds; they have to be convinced and lead. The male does the convincing and the female follows. The male does the hard labor and grows muscles while the female tends to lighter activities and gets a fragile figure.

Ofcourse this is never going to happen again, if it even was like that in the past, both male and female will exhibit human traits without gender, like muscular assertive women, skinny passive males, basically all combinations. Male and female can never be truly equal because either one has to make a decsision and do something first, then the other can, it's rare if both come to the same conclusion and then there wouldn't be a struggle for equality. Sure women can start something first, but then we males would have to protest and fight for our rights just like females do nowadays sometimes. It might all be fine and everyone appears to be consenting but I'm still thinking we're missing out on something great.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:14 PM
Good, those Yazidi soldiers probably just smirked a bit. Keep the PT standards as they are (i.e UNIFORM, not dumbed down) and it's game on for those who pass. Fair is fair, and remember fellas, your orifice can be made the warlord's whore whether your like it or not if caught, too, so spare folks the "risking getting raped by the enemy" horsecrap.

edit on 12.5.2015 by Kandinsky because: Snipped insults

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM

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?

The weakest among us? How dare you. And did you really type "would not have to bat a pretty eyelash." ? What year do you think this is?

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:24 PM
I will gladly serve my fellow Americans, and I would be honored if my sons chose to do the same. If the government tries to draft my daughters....

Yes, women should have the choice to serve their country, or their family, or their fellow Americans, or their ego- whatever it means to them. But they should also have the right to be exempt from the same. Not even going to bring up how the dynamics affect infantry units, as I think they are obvious. Sheltering our women has nothing to do with our own misogynistic needs, its just plain chivalry for most of us (just one more dynamic that will get in the way).

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:34 PM
Here's an older thread about this from 2011: - Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat...

I think if a woman meets the standards she should be let in. It's like that with anything. We shouldn't judge on race/gender/etc. If someone proves they can do it then let them. It's common sense.

Only thing makes me feel unsettled is woman getting pregnant while on active duty? Or how do they take showers? Where they sleep? I know hte Swedish military actually allows their woman to shower with their men. They also allow their woman to do all activities in the military.

There're at least 16 'industrialized nations' allowing woman in combat: - Women in combat: More than a dozen nations already doing it...

Here're some of the countries which allow woman full or limited access to combat:
(men still constitute the majority of the fighting force)
1. Canada
2. Romania
3. France
4. Germany
5. Denmark
6. Israel
7. The Netherlands
8. New Zealand
9. Poland
10. Sweden
11. Norway
12. Sri Lanka
13. Turkey
14. Australia
edit on 12/3/2015 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:39 PM
Military is not a Democracy. Wtf you little whiners think makes no difference.
It's bad enough that new soldier quality has gone down the drain. Go back to the kitchen and make sandwiches.

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:48 PM

originally posted by: the owlbear
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...

Won't EVER happen and here's why...

There are some real penalties that occur when a man between the ages of 18-26 does not register for Selective Service. Some of those penalties include being unable to obtain a drivers license or work for government agencies in certain states. People whom failed to register before the age of 26 are also not able to take out student loans or obtain federal jobs.

So, with that in mind, if Selective Service ever became a real law, that females would need to abide by, I can guarantee that half the women in the country, between the ages of 18-26, at the time the law changes, would be rendered ineligible for the above noted items and other benefits in short order, due to ignorance of the totality of situation and/or bad advice from parents that won't know or understand the current status of the law.

Women have never needed to register and there is over 100 years worth of "word of mouth" supporting that idea. MANY women would be completely blindsided years later, after they realized that they needed to register, after the law changed, but did not.

men who fail to register with Selective Service are not eligible for programs and benefits that Congress, 41 states and territories, and the District of Columbia have linked to registration for the draft. That would include student loans and grants for college, most government jobs, and job training. Also, immigrants who fail to register when they are at least 18 but not yet 26, may be denied citizenship.

Following is a list of the 40 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia that have such legislation in effect, as of Oct. 25, 2013, according to the SSS website: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Virgin Islands, District of Columbia.

Here is an old topic posted on MetaFilter about the consequences of not applying for Selective Service Registration:

I worked as a non-trad's advocate in a case similar to yours--graduated from high school early, poor home life, and in addition to this, he was in the foster care system. I believe, and still believe it was a very typical case of a boy who was falling through the cracks, and would in no way have known where to look for his registration forms or that he had to, or what the consequences were. At the time I worked with him, he was an awesome 30-year-old guy with a family and a great job looking to go back to school to go into a different field and discovered this the way you did--applying for aid. He provided documentation of his foster care status, letters from his former high school documenting his at-risk status at the time including statements from his former principal that as a boy he wasn't getting proper school or mentorship support and that she believed he could have easily not been told about registration, documentation of his early high school graduation, and notarized statements from his grandmother who was a care provider from time to time that she knew that neither she nor his parents nor the system never talked to him about it. He followed the financial aid procedure to the letter, turned in the documentation, and was asked, at his meeting with the FA officer, "have you ever been to the post office to mail a letter?" Of course, he said yes, and then she said "well, then I have to deny you as there are plenty of hanging notices in the post office that you have to register." And that was that, I talked with her at length on his behalf, and she said that the risks, from her perspective as an agent of the federal government, were too high to accept, probably, ANY ONE's case, regardless of the individual's case.
edit on 3-12-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:24 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 01:25 PM
a reply to: reldra

In the physical sense, most certainly. Please do not take my words as a belittlement to the mind and heart of a woman. This is 2015, are you offended at the fact that my maleness generates an innate adoration/admiration of the female?
edit on 3-12-2015 by chadderson because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in