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.

 

Army Wants Women On Front Lines

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:18 PM
link   




The Herald
October 24, 2004

The U.S. Army is trying to overturn a ban on using women soldiers in forward support units in war zones to ease its growing manpower crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While females still would be barred from combat formations likely to experience direct contact with an enemy, planners want to deploy them alongside fighting brigades as drivers and logisticians to free up scarce male forces.

A shortage of trained American infantry in Iraq prompted the request for the Black Watch to be sent north to Iskandariya to free up American marines for the assault on Falluja.

Although women serve as jet, transport, and helicopter pilots, they are excluded from ground combat. There are about 200,000 females in the U.S. Army - about 17% of its total strength.

Military.com


Wow. Troop levels are so low, they need women to help out the men. I'm all for women in combat, but it should because the Army thinks that they are capable and equal to men, not just because they need bodies.

But maybe something good will come out of this. They can use this opportunity to prove themselves. Similar to blacks who were initially refused
combat service, but later went on to win admiration and respect for their service.

EDIT: Added image.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by curme]




posted on Oct, 26 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
And next week they will want your children.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme




The Herald
October 24, 2004

The U.S. Army is trying to overturn a ban on using women soldiers in forward support units in war zones to ease its growing manpower crisis in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While females still would be barred from combat formations likely to experience direct contact with an enemy, planners want to deploy them alongside fighting brigades as drivers and logisticians to free up scarce male forces.

A shortage of trained American infantry in Iraq prompted the request for the Black Watch to be sent north to Iskandariya to free up American marines for the assault on Falluja.

Although women serve as jet, transport, and helicopter pilots, they are excluded from ground combat. There are about 200,000 females in the U.S. Army - about 17% of its total strength.

Military.com


Wow. Troop levels are so low, they need women to help out the men. I'm all for women in combat, but it should because the Army thinks that they are capable and equal to men, not just because they need bodies.

But maybe something good will come out of this. They can use this opportunity to prove themselves. Similar to blacks who were initially refused
combat service, but later went on to win admiration and respect for their service.

EDIT: Added image.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by curme]




OOOOOOHHHHHHHHH I see the big boy club didnt want them cause they thaught they werent worthy but now that their kahoonas are in a vice they want the girls to come in. I have always thought it sexist women couldnt fight if they want to......Girls do us proud and be careful. OKAY?


IBM

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Im not being sexist or anything but just stating the facts. A man makes a better soldier because of the physical strength and is more effective in combat. Men have better visual spatial skills than women, which is a must in combat. Women can sometimes be an unecessary distraction in warfare. Its good that the women are joining and I support them all, but the fact is that they will not be as efficient. Yes I know during WW2 the female Russian snipers helped a great deal and all.....



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
This is just plain WRONG. I highly hope they dont do this, I was against women in combat and I still am unless there is a real need. This is not one of them...bad idea Bush.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Im not being sexist or anything but just stating the facts. A man makes a better soldier because of the physical strength and is more effective in combat. Men have better visual spatial skills than women, which is a must in combat. Women can sometimes be an unecessary distraction in warfare. Its good that the women are joining and I support them all, but the fact is that they will not be as efficient. Yes I know during WW2 the female Russian snipers helped a great deal and all.....




This is bull puckey their are women that can bench and power lift more than most men, Kick boxers and boxers that do beat men and so on.
Women work harder to do these things because of this type of mentallity they are not the frail creatures we men were told to think of them as. They can thrown down with the best of them.....and before anyone says anything about being sexually abused as POW's I say to you this....ABU GARAB PRISON those POWs where men and molested by men and women.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
There are an awful lot of very important highly skilled and technical jobs more suited to women, but hand to hand combat on the front line on the ground is not one of them. This is insanity.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I say try it.

I've heard women have better hand / eye coordination than men. We have more endurance too...........thats why we have the babies. We tolerate pain better too. More endurance I believe has something to do with our faster heart beats per minute than men and greater oxygen exchange.

I do agree that men can be stronger than women, but women can train to be just as strong according to size.

Every time my husband and I play mortal combat he just can't understand why I'm so damn fast and kick his butt every single time. He has never won a game against me.

You know if we want to be equals we should be able to equally fight in the field.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:45 AM
link   
GOD............I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH EDSINGER!!!!

Sorry, I'm not sexist or anything like that, but a country that uses women in the frontline is morally bankrupt!



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I understand the notion that women are a distraction in a combat zone, in that if a woman gets hurt it is supposed to be a natural reaction for men to be more concerned than if it was a fellow man, taking necessary attention away from the problem at hand. But personally, if I was in combat with women and one took a bullet in the face, I wouldn't be any more concerned than if it was a fellow man. They choose to do this, if when the sh*t hits the fan and they cant handle it then they shouldnt have been there in the first place. The job is too important to let something like that get in the way of getting it done. The only real benefit I see is that women are lighter and easier to carry to a casevac.

If you want equality, you get 100% equality. If not, don't show up to the fight.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
This is bull puckey their are women that can bench and power lift more than most men, Kick boxers and boxers that do beat men and so on.
Women work harder to do these things because of this type of mentallity they are not the frail creatures we men were told to think of them as. They can thrown down with the best of them.....and before anyone says anything about being sexually abused as POW's I say to you this....ABU GARAB PRISON those POWs where men and molested by men and women.


Yeah but how many women? There are MEN who cant bench and powerlift more than most men as well. What's your point? Im not told to think of women in any way, there are plenty of rough cut women out there built like Ox's. Oh and have you ever seen Lyndie England? She looks like a prepubescent male runt. She talks like one too.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Just a thought, why don't we draft some of those female body builders that have biceps about the size of a small mammal.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Hard to say if it is right or wrong. They better not rush them to combat to make a point like they did with Lt Kara Hutgreen. When you have on body armor, a soldier is a soldier. They absolutly should not lower the standards for a female infantry soldier. If a male must carry 60 pound for 20 miles to pass the test then so should the female.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:37 AM
link   


Sorry, I'm not sexist or anything like that, but a country that uses women in the frontline is morally bankrupt!



I think a country which insists on trying to protect willing female combatants is morally old-fashioned.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I've yet to meet a servicewoman that hasnt been able to do anything the blokes can do (including combat training even though they were not meant to at the time) and some of them were better at it that the blokes.

I'm old fashioned at heart, and for some stupid reason the thought of a woman getting hurt bugs me more at a primal level..but good on the women.

And remember guys service women have been in combat in the west for years now officially or otherwise...the enemy makes no distinctions.

And other nations have thier female combat vets.

This is nothing new to the world or us.....Just our politicians, media and the wider general public.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:41 AM
link   
If a woman can compete with a man....then she should be able to fight with a man....heck...there are women cops, firefighters....etc...why not battle soldiers?...



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Men and women are definately equal but they do not have equal capabilities, nor are they the same.
And no even with training a woman wll not be as strong as a man of the same weight/height, unless he has had no training.
There are a lot of things women can do just as well if not better than men but physical strength and combat are not two of them. Reinforcing the zena image does none of us any good.
There is a reason that female powerlifters lift less than male counterparts in the same weight class.
Do any of you remember celebrity boxing? Specificall the China VS Joey buddafuco match?
Its a perfect example. China s one of the most physically strong, athletic women in the world joey is an (I'm being generous) average guy.
He kicked the ever lovin sh* out of her, Why?
Bercause men are naturally stronger even at the same size.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
It's no secret that on average, men are stronger than women. On the front lines men are usually carrying 60 plus pounds on their backs. It's important that fatigue doesn't become an issue. This is why it's generally taboo to have women in such combat positions. Becuase the rigors of war are handled by a mans physique better than a womans. Nothing sexist, just science. Sorry GI Jane



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Hey, women are the ones that want equal rights, sounds like we need to throw them on the front line and add them to the draft, until then STFU and make my dinner.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
Im not being sexist or anything but just stating the facts. A man makes a better soldier because of the physical strength and is more effective in combat. Men have better visual spatial skills than women, which is a must in combat. Women can sometimes be an unecessary distraction in warfare. Its good that the women are joining and I support them all, but the fact is that they will not be as efficient. Yes I know during WW2 the female Russian snipers helped a great deal and all.....


Hm............................you need a little updating.

Combat today doesnt have much to do with physical strength anymore. This is the 21st century. We are not weilding clubs, spears, and swords anymore. Firing a weapon, a missile, ect, takes no feat of strength.

And i have seen no evidence that men are somehow more suited to the rigors of combat. Ive seen women have to deal with tougher issues and deal well than amales ever would.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join