It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 12
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy


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....... I saw a lot of women get ahead


Why was it always some Blond with C cups from Command Post always getting BTZ promotions?

Saw this girl once driving a GOV, went thru the Burger King drive thru on base..her bag of food fell off the seat onto the floor so while she's driving she reaches down to get it....ends up swerving off the road and rolls the brand new truck into a ditch totaling it.

Her punishment......NOTTA. Rank may have it's benefits but breasts in the Air Force makes you GOD.




posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


I thought they already serve in combat roles?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
As several others have stated, women do currently serve on the front lines. They are MPs, in transportation units or even in interrogation units which get attached to combat units! Women are capable of serving in combat units.

In my opinion, the problems with women serving in combat arms roles stems from male and female interactions. In the most intense of situations, emotions which are more than that of follow soldiers are likely to form. These ties have the potential to put a mission in jeopardy.

This isn't like gay people openly serving in the military. Intimate relationships between male and female soldiers are likely to form and compromise the mission. It's natural for men to instinctively be protective of women.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Styki
 


He is right. It's the same reason you don't see many women on construction crews, recipe for disaster.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Styki

......In my opinion, the problems with women serving in combat arms roles stems from male and female interactions. .........


Back in the early 90's two Air Force Security Police were caught on a cold winter in England sitting in their military truck watching the perimeter....shifting each others gears.

Everyone on the facility was laughing about it. Guess they had to send each one to a different place...'to keep military discipline'.

Doesn't have to necessarily be female and male for interactions...But I get what you were saying. Women in military units get "queen' syndrome. All you have to do is watch 1 American girl in the military when she goes to Korea. She gets 'queen' syndrome knowing every male there will do whatever she asks and she can get any of those men. They usually get all of those men...from the Navy...from the Army...from the Air Force....

Next thing you know she's served more time with the 7th Fleet than with her own Air Force Squadron...he he he he.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry

Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat


www.cnn.com

A Pentagon commission on diversity is recommending the U.S. military end its ban on women serving in direct combat roles -- a restriction the group says is discriminatory and out of touch with the demands of modern warfare.


Wow. Trust the US DoD to HAVE to spend money on a survey to tell us what the word could have told them for nothing. Are they THAT incompetent????

Idiots.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
************Deeted for dupicate post***************
edit on 16/1/2011 by TailoredVagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


That is a major issue. It creates dissension amongst the ranks which leads to insubordination. I had to separate a female from a particular male because he would do the stupidest crap for her in hopes of a little play. In doing so, the male thought I was punishing him because he thought I had feelings for the girl. And round and round.

Like I said, hold the standards and policies equally to all and I would have no problem. If I have to lift 100lbs over my head to do my job, I sure damn hope that the female next to me had to do the same....probably not.

I watched crusty old chiefs turn into 12 year old boys at a squadron function because one of the more busty females took off her blouse (the outer 'jacket' portion for non-military persons here) and it was like an octopus with the higher up making up the tentacles surrounding the female. Never mind the fact she never did her job, sat and did school work on 10 hour shifts, got out of a lot of things for 'medical' reason, etc.

I will point out that the above can happen with any military personnel, but I was pretty much barred from ever reporting on her less I looked discriminatory towards female troops. The whole system is screwed up.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Firstly:Im a male.I don't care if some of you have been in combat and know how it all works.
When the war comes,and China and N.Korea goes to battle with 900 trillion people,women included you'll beg women to go to arms.What better whay to stop "machismo" than to let them get used to it,or bail.

But yes,there comes certain probl3ems with that as well.
Rape,Bullying and what not.Macho Men are really REALLY jerks and bungholes.
Think about it in the practical way people.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wasco2
 


Seriously, the Heritage Foundation...that is just another conservative think tank. It's goal is to spin numbers and opinion in favor of whoever is paying the bills.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
My friend Sergei fought in the second Chechen War. There was a girl in his unit. ( Russian men don't like having women in their ranks for the same reasons American men don't ).

So his unit was involved in the seizure of Grozny. After it was thought to be largely controlled, he was assigned to patrolling around a couple blocks in an armored personnel carrier with some men, and the woman, in his unit. Well, at one point, the were being fired upon, and out they poured on the street to confront the gunmen. Well, everyone except the woman. She was crying hysterically on the ground, and two men had to drag her out. She just layed on the ground in a fit, confusing everyone as they tried to defend themselves. Most of the men were actually laughing at the whole scene.

How is this fair for the rest of the men? They deserve to be fighting alongside other men who are going to protect them and help them out, not someone curling into a ball and crying.

Why can't women serve in the Seals, Rangers, Recon, etc???? Because they are not as capable... and if they are not as capable, then why should they be fighting alongside with the normal combat units? It is putting the mens lives at risk.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Sure, start requiring equal standards for males and females and I'd have no problem with it. Make them pass a male APFT, and have them go through the same infantry school as the rest of the guys, and they can participate if they'd like.

However, the female body is anatomically different from a male's in terms of structure relating to function. Women were not meant (physiologically) to thrive in high-stress, high-physically enduring environments. Some can do it, yes. I know a few women that would make excellent infantrymen (lol). However, the standards should remain the same if this becomes the case.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In response to the title, I do not believe women should be allowed to fight on the battlefield, especially not co-ed platoons. If you had co-ed platoons, there would be men falling for women and vice-versa, and they would protect them more so than anyone else. Don't see a problem with this? Well, if their significant other dies in combat, what is to stop the one that is left behind from going Rambo with zero regard for his or her own safety or the safety of the men, and in this case women, that are then forced to cover him?

It is, of course, a worst case scenario, but it is a very possible and real scenario. This is not like the DADT debate. This is a very real threat to the stability of the armed forces.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
I'm normally all for this type of stuff (gender equality, racial equality, gay rights), but i just can't support fully. This could also open the door for women to have to register for the selective services, and even further, a draft for both genders in case of a war with Iran/China/NK/Russia, or anything like that.

Maybe some of the more "hard" women i.e. rosie the riveter type. But there are some women, like one i care about, who i just can't imagine in combat. She's just too soft and too sweet, couldn't be mean if she tried, and something like this, this violence, could severely wound her emotionally. I won't let that happen.

The bottom line is that while some women should be able to serve, allowing some could open the door the abuses and exploitations of that by TPTB.
edit on 16-1-2011 by mossme89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


yeah, but if they can pass the more stringent physical demands of a foot soldier I think they should be allowed to do so.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I can see three problems with women serving in such a capacity, two can be addressed (to a point), and one cannot.

1. Sorry folks, nobody is comfortable with this but menstruation is a problem in such circumstances. Stop that (and there are ways to do it) no problem.

2. Women need to be able to meet the same physical requirements as the men. Sorry ladies that is going to rule out alot of us. A 50 lb rucksack is almost half of my body weight. I wouldn't be able to keep up, and plenty of other women couldn't either.

3. The possibility of rape if captured. Now this can happen for men, but there is an added probability for such actions against women.

In my opinion women should be allowed the option. As long as they are willing to put up with 1., meet the requirements for 2., and accept the possibility and risk of 3.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


I know what you mean. I would hate to see mine get drafted as well. But I also wouldn't want to be drafted either for that matter. I don't think anyone is emotionally stable enough to be forced to kill for something they don't believe in and possibly know nothing about. Not everyone keeps up with current events. I can see why a draft might be needed but it's kind of wrong in my opinion. If they don't have enough willing volunteer troops to handle THEIR business, then they need to rethink what they are getting themselves into. Even if that means doing some ass kissing.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mossme89
 


How is that different from some men? I know some men that I wouldn't trust my life with, but are eligible to get drafted anyway... If you preach for equality, you've got to be ready to go all the way with it. That's one of the things with any variety of equal rights... You only want the good things, but never any of the potentially negatives that come with it.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthXninja
 


So, I guess World War II would have been rectified with some ass kissing and turning the other cheek? Interesting...



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Highground
reply to post by mossme89
 


How is that different from some men? I know some men that I wouldn't trust my life with, but are eligible to get drafted anyway... If you preach for equality, you've got to be ready to go all the way with it. That's one of the things with any variety of equal rights... You only want the good things, but never any of the potentially negatives that come with it.


I know what you mean, and maybe it's a flaw of mine, but i'm protective over the one i care about, and wouldn't want her serve to unwillingly. But i can totally see where you're coming from and it's an interesting point, i just can't imagine my loved one on a battlefield ...atleast not without me



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join