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: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 06:57 AM
I let a good friend of mine, retirde marine point man, read the 1st few pages of this thread.

He smirked a bit and I don't really know if he was serious or jokin, "did have a silly grin on his face"
His reply was was "Bahhhhh all soldiers know, you just lead women and children a lil less in battle, for they are less physically fit, and run slower"
Don't shoot the mesenger folks....war is terrible,the smell of death is not a smell anyone wants to know "and those that know it" can vouch for that.

Just posting his quote, his opinion was that of it would be compitition amongst the group/squad....rather than a single unit focused on one objetive...."I'd have to be able to say I killed more"enemies" than the woman in our squadron!"
Was his finnal sayings on the issue.

Myself I don't wish for any war...tough issue for me to give my opinion...I'd most likely so no, but not due to sexist reasoning, mostly my up bringing, taught to never hit a I'd be shooting at them...sorry couldn't do it..

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:00 AM
The United States should be encouraging all the other armies of the world to use women and homosexuals for combat, whilst refraining from doing so.

This should give us an advantage. Every little weakness that can encouraged should be encouraged - but not with our military.

The argument that 'other countries are doing it so we should' is not a good one. It is fail.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:12 AM
They ought to draft women and send them straight into combat... Mommas and daddies don't mind having their little boys grow up to be sent off and thrown into the meat grinder of war but they would see to it that there was no more of that kind of nonsense as soon as their darling little girls are coming home in aluminum boxes and they aren't allowed to have an open coffin funeral for them... Women are always saying "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" reverse that and let them put their money where there mouths are.... They have had a free ride long enough. Let them prove they are equal to a man by sharing some responsibility and die like a man. If it was an international law that women fight the wars of their country or the country is nuked the end result would be no more wars.
edit on 16-1-2011 by hypervigilant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:12 AM
i guess a net search on conscription might clear up wether or not its equal and lawfull
or the other way around .

you might have the old paradox of code/conduct and law sneaking up behind you,..

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:34 AM
In the UK women aren't allowed on the front line either. However a young woman a few years ago proved she has what it takes after successfully winning the green beret for the Royal Marines. As stated in the article below it is one of the hardest courses in the world. It took her 3 attempts but her determination got her through. She would not give up or surrender and if that doesn't make a good soldier I don't know what would!

First Woman wins Marines' green beret

It's a dated article but shows that there ARE a few exceptions to the rule of women not being good enough etc.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:34 AM
Sorry Double post
edit on 16-1-2011 by ScorpioRising because: Double post

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by crazydaisy

But if other women can and want to, why should they be denied?

It's the "can" part that should end it. Being an infantry soldier is more than shooting a rifle. Women are passed through basic training with reduced physical requirements. This is already a source of friction and lowered morale. An infantry squad has to carry X amount of gear to be an effective fighting unit. That load has to be spread out among the squad members. Women cannot carry as much, it's a fact despite all the moaning of the feminists and their allies. You put a woman in a squad and either the unit cannot carry as much and becomes less effective or the men are forced to carry more and the unit becomes less effective.

Beyond that the presence of a woman/women changes the whole social dynamic. Young testosterone driven men will compete against each other for the woman's attention and sexual favors. In combat they are less concerned about defeating the enemy and more concerned with protecting the woman. We can't help that, it's biological.

All these and more are why Israel tried and rejected women in combat (despite what you may have heard and what some here are saying).

In peacetime, or fighting small wars, we can afford to hobble the military's readiness and effectiveness but it is pure social engineering folly to degrade a military that might be needed to protect our country's very existence some day. We can't predict when that day will be but as our economy continues to slide down the toilet it may come sooner than we think.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 07:57 AM
Though women on not put into infantry units and career fields, we are however still in the front lines. There are many women who are MP's or get put on TCN duty, convoys, etc... and end up in the line of fire. We simply do not get the credit or noticed. I have also had many female commanders who were amazing. Being a women in the military I have to say I am getting tired of hearing how women are corrupting or breaking apart the military. If anything is tearing apart our military it is two BS wars and the lack of government support.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
If you want to see a breakdown of order and discipline among combat MOS's, put a woman in charge.

I'm not sexist, but the majority of the military is.

So, we should cater to the sexist? I don't think so. If they're sexist (or homophobic or racist) THEY need to get in line. They need to drop their prejudices and serve.

If a woman can do the job, she should be allowed to serve. To me, that means EQUAL standards, not special standards for women.

Originally posted by jerico65There have been very, very few that could do that job, and they usually didn't last long and left injuried.

Well, just like a man, if they cannot do the job, they shouldn't be permitted to. But that shouldn't be based on whether or not they have a penis. That doesn't enter into the qualifications. A penis doesn't make a person any more capable of doing the job.
edit on 1/16/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
Keep in mind, the majority of women in the military are pregneant, trying to get pregneant or a single mother. Don't believe me? Sign the contract.
edit on 2011/1/15 by sbctinfantry because: (no reason given)

Are you saying that a majority of pregnant single moms are trying to abort and put themselves through boot camp hoping they will do so? Or, are you saying, that the women are being molested and assaulted in an attempt to impregnate them all to get rid of them, trying to abuse women in this macho boys club?'

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:41 AM

Originally posted by crazydaisy
Call me old fashion (I am female) - men have always been the ones to be in combat and women played their roles as a support system. Nurses, wives, Mothers (gotta keep the home fires burning) - I think it should remain as it is. As a women I cannot imagine being in combat along side men, I am practical enough to know I cannot in any way keep up with the physical or mental demands. My 2 cents and dinner if you were here.

Thank you, i agree, women have babies and children to take care of, and sending them off to war is a horrible mistake. They made it this way for reason, on the other hand if she has no babies, or a husband or boyfriend, then sure maybe. I just cannot picture women doing this at all, we are not equipped to fight. Plus, I am sure a lot of the wives wouldn't be so thrilled to find out that there are women in their husband's Unit. Too much sex? Enough said.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:51 AM

Originally posted by crazydaisy
reply to post by InvisibleAlbatross

If other women want to be in combat, fine - the rules of engagement should be the same for men and women in the service tho. I can't see where its going to make anything better for the military, male soldiers, women or children. Its a free country (so they say) so go ahead ladies give it try.

To me, not only should women decline but they should raise their sons not to join either. Get everyone to meditate daily for peace.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:24 AM
Based on my personal experiences in the military, as a grunt, I don't know too many women who could have humped my pack or weapon. Anyone who's ever carried 125lbs on their back and a 35lb weapon for 30 miles knows what I'm talking about.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 09:27 AM
Not wanting women to serve in combat is a very delicate subject. I am a former Marine, and I was also once married to a female Marine for 3 years. She once said it the best I believe: "The only women that want women to serve in combat are the ignorant ones who have never been farther then 30 miles away from their house, let alone in the military." Now, keep in mind that this is coming from one very tough cookie. She is also extremely smart. YES, there ARE women perfectly capable of being grunts and can perform the job no problem. The number of women who fall into this category are probably under 0.1 percent.

Who are these women? They are ones who should have been born males. They are the ones who played football with their older brothers as kids growing up. They are the ones who have never had nor never will have a manicure or pedicure. They are the ones who asked their fathers for a rifle on their 13th birthday. They will never watch the Kardashian reality show or American Idol, they'll be watching sports or an action packed movie. I can keep going on and on, but I think most people get the picture. Now you may be asking yourself why this type of women is the type necessary to serve in combat. Simple: When she sees someone in her platoon get blown to pieces or shot in the neck/head 3 feet away from her she will keep fighting, not drop her weapon and begin to scream, cry and go into a hysteria because she just witnessed something as traumatic as that.

I already foresee a lot of disagreement in what I've said. Women, try and put yourself in that situation. It's impossible, so I shouldn't even have asked. You have to have a certain mentality to go to combat. I mean hell not all MEN have the right mindset and they know it, so they don't even think about joining the military, or if they do they join and stay away from Combat MOS's. War is HELL. Nothing fun or pretty about it.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by EssenSieMich

I keep reading registering for the draft. Student loans and the draft should not be on the same plate and its up to PARENTS to ensure that their coutnry serves the needs of their children, I wouldn't be paying taxes unless they boomerang back into incredible social services, top notch education NONE OF IT TIED INTO MILITARY.

They also need to raise their children to not go to war period period period. We need to end all wars, and end all poverty, in this world.

Redistribute all things and disclose all information.

Dismantle all the banks and corporate pyramids and fire all the politiicans and run them as equal counsels of citizens, everyone rotating in groups, with watchdog groups as well.

No Wars. Say No To War. Say Yes To Education. It should be free like Finland, minus their mandatory 2 year military service. I would never allow any politician who is my servant near a single one of my kids.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
I've got a better idea - let's stop wars, end of.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by wasco2
Feminists are driving this because combat experience leads to faster promotions.

Nope, the NWO is driving this.
A passive Army makes for an easy pushover
when the SHTF. This is the same reason
why Gays are being allowed.

Our US Military is being turned into
a bunch of pansies for an NWO agenda.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:02 AM
When the Iraqi War was kicking off girls in our unit got orders to go to Iraq. They broke down and were balling, tears gushing from their eyes....I kid you not I broke out laughing. I told the Chief I want to go and I'll take their place.

They wouldn't let me. Those girls balled all day and weren't even useful to us for a week...while they were still here on US soil!

I'm sure they were very effective for military use over there...ha ha ha ha ha!!!! NOT!

You have NO idea of the International Incident that occurred in Saudi Arabia when our military let a girl drive over there. Gunfire between US-Saudi almost broke out. Some State Department/Generals must have personally stroked some Prince's gaff to keep the Saudi Religious Police from putting her in a prison and raping her until she died.

If they want to all means let 'em go. Balling. tears, and all.

Another time we were in the Gulf in a Combat Zone getting combat pay and the Oklahoma City bombing occurred. Some girl in the unit had a cousins's aunt's sister that was in the bombing and they sent her back home. Meanwhile we had no replacement for what she did in the combat zone and were royally screwed. If they sent a man, we would have been able to complete our mission.

I met this Navy E-7 at my divorce party when she came over and sat on my lap. She said "yer a good man and I need someone to help me with my debt". She had $47k in debt. The Navy kept trying to put her on ships out to sea but she kept jumping off the dang ship in the middle of the ocean because she didn't want to be there. She finally got knocked up so she could stay on shore. When they tried to ship her out to sea again she went in crazy debt and bounced checks daily. Apparently doing that will keep you from going out to sea.

Yeah....I think we should let woman do more combat roles. ha ha ha ha! Punish Congress for Affirmative Action and all their crazy crap...let women go instead.

Let them find out when you get Chapter 61 Disabled Retired from DOD....YOU DON'T GET PAID. Only place you can get "retired" from...but not get paid. There are 130,000 Americans that were Disabled Retired from our military and they don't get paid their retirement checks. Congress only pays Retirement AND Va Disability if you have 20+ years in. Cheapskates.

Let women start getting Disabled Retired en-mass, maybe with their balling and crying Congress will fund Chapter 61 Disabled Retiree's pay.
edit on 16-1-2011 by Pervius because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
reply to post by sbctinfantry

There is a double-edged sword in regards to females not only in combat, but also in the military.

I know when I served in the Air Force, I witnessed a lot of different things.

1: Men are horny. Men don't always think with their brains. I saw a lot of women get ahead with some creative flirting. To be fair, guys do some undercutting things to to get ahead. But older guys will fawn over a decent looking female and it undermines the authority and command structure.

2: We were to be all equal. All held to the same standards....EXCEPT, a woman was on a whole different standard when it came to physical readiness. Less push ups, less sit ups, longer time to complete a 1.5 mile run.

3: Everything else was stuff we see in the private sector.

Now I am all for a woman that can meet the same standards that all military personnel, regardless of the service they are in. I am not for two standards that could potentially place another in harms way or not be able to get out of harms way.

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:27 AM

Originally posted by jerico65

From the link:
"The newest move is being recommended by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago, and expected to send its report to Congress and President Barack Obama in the spring. The Army is doing its own internal study of the question as well."

'Bout the same time Obama was inaugurated, right? Same panel who pushed the "openly homo" thing, as well?

Sounds like it has more to do with perceptions of "glass ceilings" than enhancing operational effectiveness.

I have read through this whole thread and only one person really perceived what this is about. It wasn't you. This isn't about agenda. This is about there not being enough fodder for the cannons. Many MOS's are already very short on NCO's. People are still getting out even though the economy is bad.

It's about putting bodies in the zone and nothing else.
edit on 16-1-2011 by antonia because: RAWR

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in