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.


Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by snowen20

I don't doubt that there are seriously fit hardcore female fighters. Its just that in society they are our lifegivers and if you put them out there and at risk what are we losing? I'm afraid alot.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:05 AM

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

As long as standards are not lowered and the women are held to the same standard as men, then I don't care where they serve. They have to meet the standards, no ifs ands or buts.

But But but that's sexist!


posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:16 AM
reply to post by queenofsheba

I can agree to somewhat.
I honestly think we as a society should rethink the whole issue personally.
What I mean by that is that an approach should be made in a different way.
Actually take the time to study the situation from many angles before implementing such actions. We are talking about thousands of years of male dominated combat here. Just dropping a woman off in a hot zone with men is IMO a tactical ERROR. Not because the woman can't fight, but because the situation is off in many ways. If a woman is the only one who can drag my sorry hind end out of a burning building then hey,... more power to her, if she can do it while engaging multiple hostiles even better. But men instinctively want to protect females. I think it would cause mental problems, as minor as they may be at first I think they could be come compounded over time.

If I see a guy burnt up and still moaning I think "damn!, that could be me." When I see a little girl in the street without a face with her parents crying over her I puke. Because I have a daughter and I can see how it could be her.
If I see a female coworker with her intestines wrapped around her neck belching up blood and chunks of her organs while reaching out for me( a fellow Co Worker) I see instinctively someone more fragile and in need. Whether that's the case or not, that's what I see. I see my wife, I see my daughter, I see my sister I see something beautiful being destroyed and it hurts me more than when I see a man. Because men do the fighting. I know that's not politically correct and I know it's not factually correct either. But socially that's the way it is, and I am brainwashed by it.

I am not the only one either, and for this reasons I think the process of integrating females into combat with men should be taken very slow. Like I said start with an all female combat unit, maybe even a female spec ops for petes sake.
edit on 16-1-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by snowen20 because: Because the day I manage to spell correctly is the day I become a multi billion dollar air something.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:35 AM
I'm a former Infantryman who was injured in the line of duty in Iraq, sent back to the rear, and had to work with women on both fronts. I've had a female Brigade Commander (Acting) while I was in the rear.

The standards for women are low, and will remain low. Most women are pregnant, or in the process of being pregnant, and are perpetually in the rear. It is a free ticket, as they aren't held to any real PT standards, usually even below the meager standards the Army sets forth. They just file paperwork, whine when they have to do physical training, and even leave work earlier.

I've witnessed firsthand, a woman who "wanted" to be like a man, and earn an Expert Infantry Badge (EIB). She failed the roadmarch and actually cried, pulled out an unauthorized cell phone, called someone and had them pick her up. The MP's were called in order to bring her back and arrest her for bringing a military weapon into a Privately Owned Vehicle (POV). She had previously faked passing out, and even a seizure. This was her last resort to get out of training.

Out of an entire brigade, we had a grand total of ZERO females earn a EIB. The EIB is the most coveted of infantry awards, and if you can't earn one as an Infantryman, you might as well chapter yourself out of the army. I know for a fact that no woman earned one, because I was a grader and was housed in the main TOC, entering in scores.

Most of us were clueless as to why women were there in the first place. That is an example of them wanting to do what we do.

In Iraq, there were countless cases of women sleeping with men for money. There were cases of women getting pregnant to get sent back home, and there was even a General who had to redact a statement that he would chapter out (kick out dishonorably) any woman who was sent to the rear pregnant.

The point is, it's a large problem already getting women to do their jobs. Do a quick search, or ask anyone in the Army who is an Infantryman, what they think about the role of women in the military is.

You will get much of the same answer. People who are in non-combat MOS's are in a separate military than those who serve for hardened combat. A field artillery guy, MP, or tanker might think they're in combat, but they are not. I can hear the flames burning already.

To be abundantly clear, I have served with tankers who filled an Infantry role. Meaning they got out and cleared houses with us. I respect those men, and I am obviously not speaking about them. I am speaking about those that would assume there is no difference in pushing a button, or firing a round miles away or from a cockpit, than getting right in someones face and putting a bullet into it every single night.

Keep in mind when referencing me, I was in the most dangerous place in Iraq during my tour. Sadr City, Iraq in 2006-2008. Special Forces rarely ventured into this city, Rangers seldom did, and everyone else was banned because it was so dangerous. My unit pulled Special Forces out while they were being overrun with their Ranger outer cordon, in a 700 man ambush, known as the Battle of Zarqa.

We killed over 300, captured many and counted the rest in body parts.

A woman could not hang with us, because the interpreters, female body searchers, MP's and other soldiers all failed miserably. Once the rounds starting incoming, be it 7.62, .50 cal, mortar or RPG, you would be hard pressed to get any of them out of the Stryker, much less in a fighting role.

edit on 2011/1/16 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:36 AM
reply to post by snowen20

You just confirmed my feeling and if there were other guys out there that had the balls to say, This is their job, bring it on. Baby girls and young women, thier purpose is to love and nurture and have babies. Sorry, it's what I believe. Having to kill someone would wreck my whole belief system and couldn't do it unless I had to save my kids or loved one and even that would be hard. Target practice reminds me everytime of the power I have over someone's life and the unfathonable guilt that goes with it and I refuse that. No one is getting me for killing something,. They don't get the points off me, sorry.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:47 AM
reply to post by sbctinfantry

Agreed, if women want to role with the hardship they need to be held to the same standards at all times... Period.
None of the getting pregnant to get on Rear D. No wearing freaking sneakers with your ACUs. Shave your head.
Stop whining about sexual harassment and move on. If a another guy grabs my ass he had better have a good reason. If I give him a "good Game tap, better believe women are getting them too and I don't wanna hear and BS about it.
No whining about road marches, you start one you finish it end of story or your get whats coming to you.
The list goes on.
But Agreed none the less.

Oh and just to make one last part really clear....No punishing men for something a woman did. Yeah I have seen that @$@$ first hand and its BS. WTF is that all about?
edit on 16-1-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:39 AM
It seems to me that a lot of people here are coming at this from the wrong angle.

It isn`t about people`s "rights". What has to remain paramount is: The good of the Service, whatever that Service is, Army, Navy, Air Force or whatever.

When I was in the RN and someone had to do something #ty what was quoted was "The exigency of the Service requires it." End of story.

So standards must not be lowered so as to pander to the present PC attitude which seems to permeate every walk of life. PC will pass away - just give it time, it is a fad.

Therefore I say by all means have female entrants into every area of Service life. BUT they have to meet the same standards as the male entrants. And then they should serve in all-female Regiments, Ships etc.

If we lose the high standard which presently pertains in the Armed Services, simply for PC reasons, then we have lost everything.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:02 AM
Men and women are different, and there's nothing wrong with that. 90% of dangerous stupidity I saw in the army, was done by women. Many women have no feel for the concept of danger, and they will grab the first special treatment you give them, and turn it in to a nice cushion to rest their ass on.
edit on 16-1-2011 by buddon because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:09 AM
I don't mind women serving in combat roles. In my country, Sweden, it's been allowed since 1989. These days, they can even join the Swedish Special Forces units. After some research, I've found that women can indeed join every unit within the Swedish Defense Forces, including elite units. And you know what? They do just as fine as the male soldiers. Additionally there's the benefit of it being easier for, for example Afghan women, to talk to female peacekeepers than male.

To me, saying they can't serve in combat roles - with the but that they have to be up to the physical and mental standards - is retarded.

Edit to add: Besides...female soldiers are HAWT!

edit on 16-1-2011 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by David_Reale because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:18 AM
its either equal or its not
if its not then its unlawfull / un constitutional
which makes the law on equality
hypocritical or them promoting it
or any other law in connection to it

i know i might sound totalitarian
but you cant have both ,
promoting some thing using a law
and braking another at the same time.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:27 AM
reply to post by David_Reale

Hawt soldiers distract me from my duty.

Also Im retarded for believing they should have to meet the same physical standards as the men. and let me tell you, the Us military standards are not hard to meet and they dont even have to get as high as the men.

Push ups, Sit ups, two mile run.... come on now... come on... Im not saying I got a 300+ score on my first PT test but seeing as how I am physically fit now, 300+ on a PT test would be a breeze.

At least the US marines Pretend to have a hard core PT test, I think they have pull ups also. Dont get me started on the US air force, seriously. I walked by some females doing PT once and they were on their knees doing pushups.. ON THEIR KNEES..... If that doesnt show you the issue what does?

Simply put, you can either do it or you cant. What more can be said?

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Well, if you read my post again, I made it abundantly clear that women should be held to the same standards as men. Which, at least in the Swedish military, they are. If they aren't, that's a problem with the force they're serving in, not the women.

And, you know what? If a soldier doesn't have the mental discipline to stay focused on the job, just because there's some uniformed babes around, perhaps they're not fit to be in the service at all.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:34 AM
reply to post by David_Reale

Your probably right about that fit for duty stuff.
Pretending not be attracted to the opposite sex is utter foolishness. But alas I am only a man, and I like women. HEHEHE.... I likey a lot.

So any way,,, Most guys, I know who were in the field for months and months find even dirty chicks,,,,,,,,,,,,Hot. And chicks are better than @$#%%.. If you dont know what I just said I cant say it any clearer on ATS.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:36 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Well, they don't have to pretend they don't like them. They just have to have an ability to focus on the job. If they can't focus on the job, what the hell are they doing in the military in the first place? I'd like to point to your own signature. The mission comes first...always.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:51 AM
reply to post by David_Reale

Thats true it does, but you can still perform your mission and be distracted at the same time.

I guess I should be clear here. What I mean is I dont want any more distractions than are necessary. This of course os really a ridiculous situation. I was joking about their attractiveness. Where I find women to be a distraction is in one of my previous posts.

Claiming that a person has a code of ethics and must live by those to the greatest degree and then when they fall from them by one iota they should be dismissed from duty for failure to focus is insanity.

If you burst into flames right now and Im trying to put you out thats my mission, however I have a large German Shepherd biting my ass....Opps my bad I was distracted.

So I guess they can hop in the shower with us too right? I mean why not, we are hard core soldiers right? We put the mission first, we override our human desires and what not. We are humans dude, seriously. You can wave all that warrior ethos stuff in my face all day long, and I can still do my duty. I can do it even if I see a hot chick whatever. But the point is as humans. ...AS HUMANS.... it is a distraction... Swedish folk aren't Human, they are super human more evolved or something. lol

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:52 AM
reply to post by David_Reale

Anyway, I see your point, but I doubt I can say the kind of stuff I say around guy with a female around without getting accused of sexual harassment or whatever. Also I think people are not taking a lot of things into account which I feel are inappropriate to discuss on ATS though, I could probably do it.
I don't know, My issue isn't so much attractiveness and whatever that's me just playing a game. My real issue is simply and most importantly 100% equal standards.
Thats it plain and simple. If you can do your job as I do and to the same standards I'm required to meet then cool. Otherwise GTFO. Thats it .

I once had to do this night time road march front loading this girls rucksack cause she had a blister on her foot and rode back on a LMTV. She wasn't even supposed to be with us she was with some maintenance group.; Anyway yeah a blister, really? What a load of horse crap!.

edit on 16-1-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2011 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:56 AM
reply to post by sbctinfantry

I don't wish to be sexist. My head tells me this is correct and equal. There are tough women out there who could make good combat troops.

My heart tells me it is completely wrong. Sorry I am going with my heart and say a loud "No".

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:06 AM
reply to post by snowen20

Well, it seems we agree then. As long as you are physically and mentally fit for the job.

On a sidenote about women showering with men...that's what we did when I did my military service. There wasn't really any problems, either.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:14 AM
reply to post by David_Reale

Hmmm.. Where was this again? I uhh... Im just curious thats all ..honest. lol
Perhaps I was serving in the wrong place.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:42 AM
I will admit my ignorance here and say that I actually didn't know women couldn't serve in combat.

I suppose, I never thought about it....

I can't decide whether this is a good thing or a bad thing to be honest.

top topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in