should women be alowd in the military?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
(im not sure if this is the right forum for the subject but its the best i could find)

well, should they? my opinion is that if they can do the training than why not, a lot of people think they would serve as a destraction on the battle field, that is probably true, but what about in non-combat related MOS's?

tell me your thoughts


[edit on 7-6-2005 by usmc42]




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I really don't see why not. Women have come a long way in terms of gaining respect from men and getting equal rights. I say it shouldn't matter if it's male or female but if they are qualified or not.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I'm a female, US Army Veteran. My job was Chaplain Assistant.
I was stationed at Fort Hood TX and Camp Zama Japan.
2nd Armored Division while at Fort Hood.

I would like to see the old WAC come back. (Woman's Army Corp).
I know that there were many physical things that I was supposed
to be doing, that I just couldn't do and I couldn't keep up with the
guys.

I was fine in the office. But when it came to doing things like
Jeep maintenance and carrying that big sack on my back ....
Well ... I couldn't get the nuts off the tires, I couldn't carry
a lot of what I was supposed to either.

I was 105 pounds at that time and I just didn't have the strength.

A Woman's Army Corp would have allowed me to serve my country,
do a good job, and not be a weak link in the combat related
areas. Honestly .. I was a weak link while at 2nd A.D. If my jeep
had gotten a flat, or if things had to be done on it .. I couldn't
have done it. I always asked the tanker guys to help me out
in the motor pool. During war .. they would have their own
things to take care of.

Edited to add - I used to sky dive. When I signed up the Army
recruiter said 'of course you can go airborne and sky dive when
ever you want'... HAHA! That was a lie. Airborne isn't skydiving
and I couldn't get into the airborne (this was back in '82). I
couldn't even get the airborne sack on my back let alone jump
with it. UGH! Recruiters!!
(I was just a dumb teenager!)

[edit on 6/7/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
I have always believed that no persons should be disqualified for any military position based purely on their sex, as long as said person is fully qualified and capable of fullfilling their duty, both physically and mentally, as prescribed by the Armed Forces. This also goes so far that if there are males who cannot meet these qualifications, they should be bounced out.

If you are strong, determined, faithful, motivated, and a hard-charger, it doesnt matter what the configuration of your gonads are.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc42
well, should they? my opinion is that if they can do the training than why not, a lot of people think they would serve as a destraction on the battle field, that is probably true, but what about in non-combat related MOS's?


At this point there is no question. There is no longer even a question, should women serve in combat.

The answer is: THEY ARE NOW AND THEY HAVE, at least since the Gulf War, technically. And that's not to say women havn't been in combat in other conflicts, b/c they have in one way or another, be it medical or in flight.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I went through Air Assault training. There were men who dropped out and women who made it. So.. the way I see it, if a woman can haul her load and do her job equal to that of her male counterparts, than GO FOR IT. Just DON'T lower the physical standards. That only gets people killed in the field.

I don't think most women are physically suited to those specific demands, tho. It's just a strength thing - as FlyersFan pointed out. But there are some who actually can.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
This is the 21st Century, not the 18th Century.

I do agree There should be no distinction between the genders!

I don't care who fixed my car as long as the work is done properly and competently - the same with everything else. (Also, Honey - if you chip your nail trying to get plug #8 out I don't want to hear it)

I also maintain that Women should not be excluded from combat. If she joined the Military - she joined the Military and the Military does become involved in combat. To me it is that simple. - Any one who is in the Military and starts Crying about being placed in combat because the recruiter said they wouldn't be anywhere near combat - should be Shot for two reasons;

1) Disobaying orders -
2) General Stupidity -

(Ya, I joined but they told me I wouldn't have to fight -> BANG - It's the Military - It's what they do)

If the idea of a fire fight, combat, or killing innocent people bothers you then, man or woman then go and join a commune or something. You don't belong in the military.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
So I will.

No.

The reasons why are obvious.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
So I will.

No.

The reasons why are obvious.


Is that a "NO" for women in combat?

or a

"No" for women in the military?



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Women play a vital role in the military. I served in the Army, and I know how much women do for their nation.
Having said that, The right job for the right person is necessary. While a woman may get through air assault (And many do!), I've seen very few that would compete with the M-60 and a box of ammo. I have, though, seen women demand to play as if they could, and slow the whole exercise down. Fortunately, people don't get killed by blanks in exercises.

Women in combat is more than simply a matter of strength and endurance. It is bad enough that people's husbands and sons get blown to Hell or captured, but it is more of a national trauma when women are blown to Hell or captured. I'm very glad that is the case, too. As far as I'm concerned, that means we still have a touch of civilization in us.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
"No" for women in the military.

I prefer my women alive. And in combat- I prefer to win.

Honest Injun


[edit on 7-6-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
"No" for women in the military.

I prefer my women alive. And in combat- I prefer to win.


I agree with the No women in combat policy and with what TC said....good points.

Chakotay, why do you say women should not be in the military?
Do you know what a burden this would put on the recruiting drive...which is already suffering as it is.

Many women do just fine in garrison jobs and even in the field (not combat related). They really are a vital part of the military.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SportyMB
Chakotay, why do you say women should not be in the military?
Do you know what a burden this would put on the recruiting drive...which is already suffering as it is.


First, I say this as a matter of honor: as respect to women. It is disrespectful to USE a human female for offensive cannon fodder. Their biological purpose is reproduction and that becomes impossible when one is dead. I say this as a husband and father.

Second: Name one female NFL or NL baseball player. I do not want a Dragon team that cannot run faster, carry more, and hit harder than the Enemy. And if you tell me you're talking about Quartermasters or MASH nurses stateside, I will still tell you the same thing: you never know where the front will be in three hours or three minutes in an age of airmobile terrorist warfare.

Third: screw the recruiting drive. Draft our backsides up to 54 and get it over with.

Fourth: if I handed you a rifle that worked two weeks a month and malfunctioned two weeks a month, that had less range and less ammo capacity than the Enemy's, and that could land you in the stockade if you touched it- would you want it?

The answer is NO and you know it.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Chakotay]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay



The answer is NO and you know it.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by Chakotay]


dont you think thats a little extreme?

[edit on 8-6-2005 by usmc42]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by usmc42
dont you think thats a little extreme?


Of course it is extreme. War is extreme. Speaking for myself, I would never, under any circumstances, accept a woman as a member of my flight crew- or ground support crew- and I am speaking as a helicopter commander- in combat. Is that prejudiced? You bet. Is it anti-female? No, just the opposite.

Now, should women fight to protect the homeland if the homeland is attacked? Absolutely. As homeland defense forces, domestic support operations, industrial workers. But not overseas in offensive combat. If we ever need their help under live fire, it will be because we have failed in our primary mission objective: to protect the women and children from harm.

Think of all the unemployed guys out there. There is a solution for that. It is called The Draft.



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   
We can discuss the pros and cons all day, while women in Iraq ARE in combat. There are NO front lines and rear lines anymore. The issue is moot.

Bottom line, EVERYONE who joins the military signs up first and foremost to kill and destroy property. It doesn't matter what a person's job description or sex is. They are ALL trained to KILL.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join