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: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthXninja
About it being a privilege, that's fine but it sounds like your're saying it's only a privilege for men. It's a privilege but women can't do it.... In my opinion, if they qualify with the same requirements as the men, then they proved they earned that privilege. I think they definitely shouldn't have to do less to qualify, but if they pass the same testing that the men did then how are they any less qualified?


But are they going to pass that same test as men, or is it going to be "tweaked" just a little? You know, just to help out and even the odds a bit?




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I was in the Army for a long time. Went thru Iraq in a MP unit with Females they can fight. a lot better than most of the men I've ever met. Also I think the main people against this on the male side are threatened by the women because they know they are better. we already know that women can fly better than a man. soon the U.S will learn that their women can fight better than a man.

Other country's all over the world have women serve in the Armed forces in Combat. Russia still does it. altho some of their women hardly count as women.. Isreal

en.wikipedia.org...

Read it you will find that only Sexist Nations bar women from Combat MOS's most fight.. and it doesn't become a problem. it only becomes a problem in the U.S because men are brought up to think their all that.. when most are not. the united states has become a sad country that used to lead the world.. key word there used.. as in past tense. now the united states is last in almost every thing. 1st in flight 48 in education lol..



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Captain Goddard arrived in Afghanistan in January 2006, and had been serving with Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry as a forward observation officer at the time of her death; her parent unit was the 1st Regiment Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.
reply to post by snowspirit
 


her job may of taken her to the front-line however she wasnt actualy a front-line soldier



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:48 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.

In its draft report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the military should gradually eliminate the ban in order to create a "level playing field for all qualified service members."
(visit the link for the full news article)

Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat
A woman should be washing dishes ,fixing her man some dinner,and rubbing her husbands feet,thats a womans job,she will just be in the way in war.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
When other nations have been doing it successfully for decades, it disproves the argument that women can't do it.


I still haven't found any info on how well women in the Canadian Infantry worked out. I did find something online (only one site) that said that the qualifications were adjusted for women.


Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Why are you assuming that women in charge will fail, leading to dead grunts? I am pretty sure that male commanders fail, leading to dead grunts. I see no reason why women would be more likely to fail.


I never said "in charge". I just said in the infantry. And I'm going on the idea that women will fail if they decided to allow them to be infantry under a different, more easy standard than men.


Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
Yes, follow orders or be punished; it's real simple. Soldiers are expected to follow orders.


Thanks for filling me in on something I've been doing for 28 years.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Actually I think this plays into a nice article about one Muslim Lady, Noor Inayat Khan who will be commemorated by at statue in London..

She was the daughter of an Indian Muslim father and American mother and became the first female radio operator sent into Nazi-occupied France in the Second World War..

While in France she ran a spy network and when captured endured 9 months at the hands of a Gestapo trying to elicit details of SOE operations, but even under torture techniques used by the Gestapo still refused to give any information, and sadly she was eventually executed by firing squad at Dachau


Linky

However with hand on heart, I really do not know if I could have been as courageous, tough, strong and determined as she obviously was, and most of all principled, as she stood side by side with a nation she despised to fight people she despised even more.. the Nazis.

And If I had to go into battle.. I would want someone like her by my side..

edit on 15/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
www.cbc.ca...

In May 2006, Canada experienced its first loss of a female soldier during a battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Capt. Nichola Goddard died in active combat on the front lines. (DND)


Active combat.


She wasn't infantry. She was a Forward Observer. Two different jobs.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvisibleAlbatross
reply to post by simples
 


Yes, several of the nations that have women in infantry have seen conflict.

Here is an example of a woman who could be in a combat role. She already did it and received the Silver Star.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester


Sgt Hester wasn't infantry. She was/is an MP. Two different jobs.

Not saying she isn't a hardass, because she is, but she isn't in the infantry.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by simples
 


I didn't know that. I thought she was actively fighting. My mistake.

What I think though, is that any tests for men and women should be the same test.
There should be no favoritism at all, and woman should take the pill that prevents "that time of the month" while on active duty.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
So, I guess that if the US allows women into the infantry, armor, arty, etc, I guess that means women can start signing up for the draft, too, right?

Only fair.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


what are you on about? i just said its two different jobs



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


you cant make a woman go on to the pill its against human rights, its there choice to have sex or not no matter what contract you sign



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
I didn't know that. I thought she was actively fighting. My mistake.


Nope, she was fighting, but she wasn't in the infantry. Being in the infantry is what the main argument about women in combat is all about.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by stealthXninja
About it being a privilege, that's fine but it sounds like your're saying it's only a privilege for men. It's a privilege but women can't do it.... In my opinion, if they qualify with the same requirements as the men, then they proved they earned that privilege. I think they definitely shouldn't have to do less to qualify, but if they pass the same testing that the men did then how are they any less qualified?


But are they going to pass that same test as men, or is it going to be "tweaked" just a little? You know, just to help out and even the odds a bit?


Well I don't think that it should be tweaked to be easier for women. Like I've said, it really irritates me when women claim equal rights only when it benefits them. My concern is that I think a person is a person. Being a man our woman, black or white shouldn't qualify or disqualify you for anything... There should be standards that any PERSON has to pass. If you pass, you earned the privilege, if you fail, you didn't... Man or woman...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
what are you on about? i just said its two different jobs


Yeah, about three minutes before I did. My bad.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
My point is that the current state of women in the military is largely reduced requirements and standards. For instance :

www.apft-standards.com...

That will show you the very large difference in standards between men and women in the Army. You can find much of the same in other branches.

Until that changes, how can a man be comfortable with a woman watching his back who was coddled through the training and standards?

So we are in agreement on that, but I think the vast majority of Americans don't realize that the standards are so vastly different and if I get hurt and can't walk, someone who has half the strength is supposed to carry me to safety and fight at the same time. Sorry, no thanks. We shoot baggage in our line of work, we don't coddle it.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
www.google.com...


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.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by snowspirit
 


you cant make a woman go on to the pill its against human rights, its there choice to have sex or not no matter what contract you sign


Good example of exactly why women shouldn't be in the infantry. You are a liability at least one week every month, and it is against your 'right's' to take a pill that would stop that. Instead we should all lower standards for a job you chose instead of worrying about whether you can do it or not.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by simples
reply to post by snowspirit
 


you cant make a woman go on to the pill its against human rights, its there choice to have sex or not no matter what contract you sign


If needed to fight on front lines with the men, it could be considered a matter of safety. Like a few have mentioned, if a woman has to have to deal with that mess, it would be very distracting, for everyone. I think most women would be for this pill. It isn't for anything to do with sex, that's not allowed. This particular pill takes away the possibility of the monthly mess.

I'm all for equality, but safety first if at war.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Why women should not be on the front line, by Major Judith Webb Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


heres the link, words from the horses mouth so to speak


www.dailymail.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join