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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillyTheCat
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!


Youre not sexist????? RIIIIIIIIIIGHT.

Statements such as that dont get much more sexist.




posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazeinc
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.


From the sounds of it, youll never get to use that phrase on anything other than your blow up doll. And unfortunately, blow up dolls have not been equipped with the capability to cook your food, so it sounds like a bowl of ramen noodles for you.

Mod Edit. Removed unnecessary text.

[edit on 27-10-2004 by dbates]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:48 PM
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.....


I disagree, as those are generalities.

If a particular woman can hit the same target, run the same laps, carry the same pack, etc., I see no reason for them not to be able to serve in any role that men do, if they so wish it. As for the distraction factor...if I'm being shot at, I don't care if Denise Richards is in the foxhole naked and playing with herself....I'm going to be concentrating on not being dead, thanks!


While we're on generalities, women have like 3 times the pain threshold that we do, so I'd bet on them being able to still keep shooting after being wounded....


[edit on 27-10-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
What is terrible is the reason that we are even talking about it. Our troops are stretched too thin. After the women are put on the front lines, and we need more troops, what then?



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Folks... remember the women's hockey finals between Canada and the United States in Salt Lake City two years ago?

Do you remember what these women looked like?

I'm 5'7 and not that muscular. Any one of these women could've easily beat me up.


If that's the kind of women the U.S. army has, I'm not worried.

And as skadi said, a petite 5'2 woman can shoot a mortar as well as a guy.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
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.


At this point it's not really happening, and the women there are often treated as second class citizens by the men they serve with -- AND by the men here at home.

Yes, really.

Here's a livejournal from one of the women soldiers:
www.livejournal.com...



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
I agree that in some instances woman can and are more powerful that men. But those are usually isolated instances. Like comparing a woman body builder to a male office worker, or the German Lacrosse team to the mens Yale Chess Club. You can always find certain degrees where woman are stronger than men. But randomly select 100 men and 100 women and the men will most vertainly be able to perform tasks that involve brute strength better than women. It has nothing to do with sexism. It's all biological.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
But wouldn't you agree, that if she can pass the same physical and mental tests as a male, that such an exception to the rule, should be allowed to serve in that capacity? Personally I do.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Yes, if they can pass the same physical test she should be allowed. But will the military run them each thru that test? I know that they go thru bootcamp, but the male boot camp is totally different that the womens.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
Yes, if they can pass the same physical test she should be allowed. But will the military run them each thru that test? I know that they go thru bootcamp, but the male boot camp is totally different that the womens.


Many Army bootcamps are unisex, or just men, but there are no women only bootcamps. There still are different requirements for physical fitness, regardless.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
So true, when I was in Basic Training, women got to do push ups on their knees.
I believe that the difference between men and women's strength is limited only to the upper body.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Many Army bootcamps are unisex, or just men, but there are no women only bootcamps. There still are different requirements for physical fitness, regardless.


Right, my point is that IF they can pass the same standards for men in combat (i.e. those wanting to serve in combat using the mens' not womens' requirements), I see no reason that they couldn't serve in that role if they CHOSE to do so...



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Sadly, this country will never stand to see women in combat. As a member of the military, I can not make up my mind on the matter. Part of me craves equal rights for them, but I'm not sure that equal rights extends to the equality of getting shredded by an IED or a RPG....



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Really? You'd let them make that choice on their own? I say at the very least, if they cannot drag a wonded person weighing up to 200 lbs for "x" amount of yards, then they should not be allowed to be in the front lines. Carrying back packs, artillery, and weapons aside...being able to pull your wounded off the battlefield should be the main physical test needed to pass in order to go up front IMO.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
Yes, if they can pass the same physical test she should be allowed. But will the military run them each thru that test? I know that they go thru bootcamp, but the male boot camp is totally different that the womens.


it is? Could have fooled me.


if my memory serves me right, we carried a total of 85 pounds of gear per person on a 21 mile march.

Oh yeah. We shot M-60s, chucked Grenades, used rgenade launchers, shot 50 cals, AT-4s, did live fire exercises, had to do push ups on top of fire ant ant-hills, got woken up by drunk ass drill seargants who threw furniture out the window which we had to retrieve and clean up again.....

I am amazed how ignorant alot of guys are as to what female soldiers get trained on. or ignorance of basic army function, jobs, ect.

Its not biology. Its juvinile male paranoia.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Fine, I completely recant everything! I now wholeheartedly agree and desire that women not only be allowed to be in the front lines, but they be reqired to serve in the front lines. In fact, I say take rotating shifts...6 months of men then 6 months of women and so forth and so on. If the women want up there, then send them there. I really don't care anymore. I am sick of being considered sexist for thinking that the front lines are best served by men alone. In the back of my mind I still think that men are better physically equipped for that kind of warfare, but I won't ever say it again here. Roar Women Roar!!!



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 02:49 PM
link   
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!! YAAAAAAY!!!!


This is insanity. No offense to women, nut they are not suited to be GI's. They don't have the physical strength that men do. It's just that simple.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL!!!! YAAAAAAY!!!!


This is insanity. No offense to women, nut they are not suited to be GI's. They don't have the physical strength that men do. It's just that simple.




Hey, way to make it to the thread late, dude.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
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.


This type of in the kitchen view with bare feet and pregnant is why nice, women become nunns so they dont have to be married to a judgemental male.



posted on Oct, 27 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Warpspeed
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.





So you mean to say I actually found a person who respects a woman for her mind , but that same person is still acting sexiest....hypocriscy is the Ignorance of the closed minded.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join