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.

 

BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.


Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
When it comes down to the essence of it, its just another blow to the traditional FAMILY, our way of life and our moral standards.....
Sure let em die for the corporations...they will undoubtedly get educated soon enough......WAR IS A RACKET.....
Since when are real people interchangeable units?
It doesnt work that way.....but thats what the goverment wants to make us into.....



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.

I would be curious.... What nations have women proven themselves up to the task of combat over a sustained period? I'm not thinking about the push button mechanized warfare the U.S. has for it's troops today where it's a patrol by Humvee in many (not all) cases or helicopter in and out. I'm thinking about Vietnam, Korea or World War II and what combat for U.S. troops today will return to in a hurry if technology is negated somehow?

How have women fared on long distance force marches to fight upon arrival at the end point or fighting/in extremely primitive conditions for days or even weeks with no real support in any conventional sense?

Now in all fairness, there are quite a few men joining these days that I wonder how well they'd fare on under the same conditions. However, the idea that there is no physical difference between men and women in general terms and as a general rule sounds like one that may be proven wrong in a very brutal way for some who pass the PT requirements....but weren't at all ready for the physical rigors in situations where rest or support just aren't happening before breaking points are reached and gone right past?

To each their own....but a New Jersey Police Department shooting comes to mind as an example where pure physical size, weight and strength probably made quite a difference in how badly things went in these terms.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...


One cannot prove without being given the opportunity to do so.

**EDITED: since you thought I was playing word games with you. This is more fitting for your post.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
How would this effect women and the ability to get drafted? Has anyone thought about that aspect?

Would they draft women for the frontline if a major war broke out this time around?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


You choose to play word games. That's fine. I'm a combat veteran and (assuming) you're not. I don't need you to tell me that "hardy har har, these are considered combat MOS"....if you read my previous post, I acknowledged women have served "in combat"...I served with some who were just as effective soldiers as men. That being so, no woman has ever been the front line soldier. There were no women in the jungles of Vietnam. There were no women in the snow of Bastogne. There were no women crossing the berm on the push into Iraq. Semantics have no barring on what is fact or fiction.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by yourmaker
How would this effect women and the ability to get drafted? Has anyone thought about that aspect?

Would they draft women for the frontline if a major war broke out this time around?


They want equality? Then they should be eligible for the draft, and bound by law to register for the selective service. Correct? That's equal. Why is it okay to pick and choose what equality we want or don't want...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Yay, now more people can fight to keep the Empire going.

Another step for equality.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...


One cannot prove without being given the opportunity to do so.

**EDITED: since you thought I was playing word games with you. This is more fitting for your post.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


I wish I would have quoted your original post, containing several made up facts; probably gathered from wikipedia, before you had the opportunity to replace it with a sentence stating the obvious. They have had the opportunity to do so. And failed. That would be why their pt standards are not the same as a man's. I'm not saying there aren't women who could handle it. Everyone seems to think that is what those opposed to this are saying, when it simply isn't the case. Fantastic for those who could do it! I applaud them. I would have no problem with them meeting the SAME standard as everyone else, and being eligible to serve in the field. That being said, after 10 years in the Army, I can safely say that thus far I've encountered 3-4 female soldiers who could handle it (as a mechanized infantry soldier, not humping it with 150-200 extra pounds on their backs, miles at a time). In my current company, there are maybe 3 females who are capable of passing a pt test, using the FEMALE standard...they most certainly couldn't handle male pt testing, let alone meet the standards the infantry must meet...
edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.


Interesting. Please point out the incidents where females humped 120lbs of personal gear, LBE, protective devices, ammo, food, in adition to another 40+ pounds of unit materiel such as ammo for the MG or a motar baseplate into a combat zone and then engaged the enemy.

Sure, females have engaged the enemy on a few occasions, but those events are a bit different than the tasks required of a frontline grunt. One of our MP's on convoy watch needed a male to charge her M2 because she lacked the upper body strength to pull the bolt back on her own. It went down in one fight because she had a jam and everybody else was too busy to climb up on top of the truck and rack the bolt for her.

I've seen many pelvic stress fractures from forced marches and humps because the broader pelvic structure makes them more susceptible to fractures, especially under a load. Like it or not, the fact is that females are built differently and some tasks are not appropriate to them.
edit on 24-1-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:33 PM
link   


Despite a Congressional policy that bans women from participating in direct ground combat, the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have blurred the frontlines, thrusting servicewomen fully into combat roles. Additionally, commanders have rapidly realized the benefit of using servicewomen in missions that require close interaction with local Iraqi and Afghan populations. Both the Army and Marine Corps have evolved their use of women on the battlefield through the use of ad hoc Female Engagement Teams (FETs) and Lioness Teams, which are often tasked to work with combat arms units. Additionally, women are used daily in missions that entail high risk of direct fire, such as convoys with high exposure to Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs).





Over 250,000 women have served thus far in Iraq and Afghanistan (11% of the total troops deployed there). Women are fighting with distinction, earning some of the military’s highest awards, including the Silver Star. Countless women return home with invisible wounds, like PTSD and major depression, and related conditions like substance abuse, homelessness, and suicide. Women are more likely to suffer from Military Sexual Trauma (MST), compounding their risk of mental illness. Despite the changing roles of women in combat, many women still struggle to receive the same military awards and veterans’ benefits as their male peers. Congressional policy on banning women from direct ground combat must change in order to recognize women’s actual accomplishments on the battlefield.


servicewomen.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.


Interesting. Please point out the incidents where females humped 120lbs of personal gear, LBE, protective devices, ammo, food, in adition to another 40+ pounds of unit materiel such as ammo for the MG or a motar baseplate into a combat zone and then engaged the enemy.

Sure, females have engaged the enemy on a few occasions, but those events are a bit different than the tasks required of a frontline grunt. One of our MP's on convoy watch needed a male to charge her M2 because she lacked the upper body strength to pull the bolt back on her own. It went down in one fight because she had a jam and everybody else was too busy to climb up on top of the truck and rack the bolt for her.

I've seen many pelvic stress fractures from forced marches and humps because the broader pelvic structure makes them more susceptible to fractures, especially under a load. Like it or not, the fact is that females are built differently and some tasks are not appropriate to them.
edit on 24-1-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)


I've seen the exact same thing, in my truck. I was a TC, my gunner was on R&R, and we got a female (who couldn't drive without hitting every single pothole on Tampa, which I would later find out) gunner from another CLP. She climbed up in the turret, and while SPing informed me there was "something wrong" with our fifty. I got up and asked her what the problem was. She said she thought it was the "head space and timing"....WTF? I gave the charging handle a good tug and test fired. She couldn't rack it. Asked her how she gunned in her truck, she responds "I have a 240"...alright, Driver, you gun, gunner, you drive. 30 minutes of that and she was in the TC seat, I was gunning, monitoring our net, and telling her how to run the MTS in order to send sitreps back to our TOC. I'm not saying this to generalize anything. But I promise you, SHE didn't belong anywhere in THAT particular truck.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


That's all fine. I'm not disputing that women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and earned high honors doing so. That being said, no woman has truly served in "combat". They may have been thrust into mechanized infantry units, driving a truck or manning a gun, and engaging the enemy perhaps 10 times in a year. That again...is not what we are talking about.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Actually, no women have ever proven themselves in combat arms...


One cannot prove without being given the opportunity to do so.

**EDITED: since you thought I was playing word games with you. This is more fitting for your post.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)


No, it isn't. Why don't you restate what you had stated? You made your edit WHILE I was writing my reply. You didn't make your edit in order to "more fittingly reply" to my post.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 


But it is what I am talking about.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Their just to weak, and cause way more problems in the unit than they are worth. The last thing we need is a physically inferior fighter, they cannot even be called a weak link the more I think about it, they are simply physically inferior.

I mean, a 12 year old kid can blow your head off, but there is a lot more to combat than pulling a trigger and screaming get some.

I mean, what exactly do these women think combat is? More honorable? Makes you a bad ass?

What if I get hit, can this woman even move me? Drag me?
edit on 24-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 


But it is what I am talking about.


And if that is the case then you are wrong. No women have served in combat in any capacity other than drive this truck, man this gun....have you been deployed? Do you have any understanding of what I'm describing to you? No woman has ever "proven themselves" in combat. Women HAVE proven themselves as being able to sit in a gunner's turret for hours at a time, going days, or weeks without enemy contact. These scenarios (combat and mechanized combat, mind you a Convoy Logistics Patrol, which women HAVE participated in, are NOT patrols that go out looking to engage an enemy. They are merely security details.) These scenarios...are not one in the same. Women have proven themselves shooting back when shot at, rendering aid to a wounded soldier or TCN/LN, and driving a truck. They did not actively SEEK combat. There are NO women, with a Combat Infantry Badge. Spin it however you want....it doesn't change anything.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
This female combat medic's pack looks the same as the men's packs, or even larger.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
This female combat medic's pack looks the same as the men's packs, or even larger.

www.youtube.com...



And when other people have to carry the rest of her gear because that pack is all she can carry?

In the video, that is not a full medic pack, that is a half empty day pack.
edit on 24-1-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
This female combat medic's pack looks the same as the men's packs, or even larger.

www.youtube.com...



Interesting story for you. All "medics"...carry the same "combat pack". Again, have you served in any combat capacity in Iraq or Afghanistan? Because if you haven't, then you don't have a clue as to what you are saying...edited to add....it's called a CLS bag....3 out of every 4 deployed soldiers are issued one...just to be sure I watched your video. All it proves is I have the exact same CLS bag sitting here, in my home, as I type this.
edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join