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

reply to post by NavyDoc


You don't know that...let's wait and see what happens.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You don't know that...let's wait and see what happens.

He probably does know that. I know that. I've SEEN it happen....Jesus.

It took me a few hours to realize.

It doesn't matter what every soldier knows, it only matter what a few women think.

It amazes me how people can have so much knowledge about something they have never been a part of.

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

I wish I would have quoted your original post, containing several made up facts; probably gathered from wikipedia,

Um okay. Here is exactly what I posted before.

In the United States Army the following branches are considered Combat Arms:

Infantry
Armor (including Armored Cavalry)
Field Artillery
Air Defense Artillery
Army Aviation (e.g., Attack Helicopter and Air Cavalry units)
Special Forces
Engineers (only Combat Engineers, e.g. Land Mine Clearance and Route Clearance

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,

So before you get heated towards me you should read my posts. Because that's exactly what I have been saying.

reply to post by 200Plus


I didn't claim to know, I said let's wait and see what happens. You all said yourself women have never proven themselves on the frontlines because they've never been there, so how then can you make those claims? This is the most ridiculous discussion I've been on in a long time.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You don't know that...let's wait and see what happens.

We'll certainly see what happens, as the social experimenting in the Armed Services isn't optional at this point. It's all being done ..during shooting wars..whether anyone likes it or not.

What will be something to consider (and it's far too late now) is how this shakes out down the road. Traditionally, in times of MAJOR war (real war...like, where the U.S. is actually under threat...not the last 40 years) being female or gay was a way out of forced conscription through the draft.

Has anyone else realized....these new changes are basically removing all excuses or exceptions to being drafted for combat infantry? It doesn't matter what you are now and even felons can get waivers or be issued them...depending on circumstances. Actual diagnosed mental illness or major medical issues that make it impossible to serve in a reliable way are about the only things left now aren't they?

I wonder if the daughters of the future will be happy or pissed to be in the draft pool for call up 100% equal, whether they like it or not ....whether they believe they're capable or not? If the wars people fear are actually coming? We may find the answer to that one a lot sooner than folks think ..... and it could be a whole DIFFERENT reason they are removing all barriers formerly good for exception to front line foot soldiering.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

This is the most ridiculous discussion I've been on in a long time.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

You don't know that...let's wait and see what happens.

The trouble is, putting people in positions they are not capable of in the armed forces, "seeing what happens" involves people getting killed.

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)

There may be some kidergarden bloodlust types, but I have never met one yet. ALL of my family, relatives, cousins, friends, and associates consider anything like that primitive, jungle boy, dog eat dog, mysteriously bizarre, why we're on a hell planet and absolutely refuse to ever participate in that.

I used to love playing wow years ago. I know why now after rewatching the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit now. My father read that out to me in when I was 3. And then in school, then I read them. Those are my favorite stories and WOW has enough of that in it to attract.

But, here is the experience of a woman playing it. My son and I used to dance with and emote to the enemies. Before the bloodelves and good looking negatives came out I played horde because in the battle ground I got to look at handsome humans and night elves and flirt with them. We had lots of fun. My son too.

Then I used to tell people, this game needs to be improved. Number 1. All the leaders on both sides are corrupt so the secret leveling in the game should be that the people wake up and join together and gain diplomacy. They should be able to communicate with each ohter in higher levels of diplomacy and learn each other's language. It should be combination quests and SIMS with building your own home in the towns where you can even have boyfriends and friends, even date the enemy in neutral towns.

That would be a super fun game.

In the end the higher levels that would be leading a world of peace would be ET.

Oh and I used to pretend that, my character was a higher level federation officer on assignment infilitrating the world, that she killed no one, ever, nor any animals, and that in reality she beamed everybody up for checkups and healing counseling.

It must have got real hard trying to find a ' few good men'. Maybe their not bringing the population numbers down as quickly as they would like, so they add the women to the "I work for Oil" mix.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Wrabbit, I understand your concerns about the draft, but I'd like to think even if females were drafted they wouldn't be allowed into combat arms mos's unless they met ALL the requirements, even during the draft.

Very few women could qualify for these mos's at there current standards and I do not think the standards should be lowered for females, in peacetime or wartime, the standards are there for very good reasons.

As far as how future women getting drafted would be, I'd imagine they'd feel the same as men getting drafted against their will, they'd hate it, but when shtf, they would do whatever they had to do to come home in one piece, women have just as much of a survival instinct as men I'd guess.

Women are not emotionally or mentally stable to be in combat situations. You can argue it all you want and say your a badass woman you can handle anything thrown at you but your delusional. Why do you think they never allowed women to be in the front lines...for the very reason i just stated. Tell me guys when SHTF and your in an intense gun battle who do you want watching your back a man or a woman? Actually I didn't even have to ask that I already know the answer...

Originally posted by LennayTheUndead

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...

actually they have

Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko was the most successful woman sniper of World War Two.Pavlichenko actually became one of two thousand female snipers in the Red Army,
Pavlichenko's officially confirmed kills amounted to a total of three hundred and nine, this amazing figure also included thirty-six German snipers ( one of whom had himself notched over five hundred kills after she retrieved his detailed log book after killing him ) and many high ranking German Officers.During this time she had a battlefield promotion to the rank of Lieutenant
In June 1942, she was wounded for the fourth time when a mortar round exploded close to her position.In 1943 she was awarded The Gold Star Of The Hero Of The Soviet Union and was awarded the higher rank of Major but never returned to fight the Germans, instead she was employed, probably for the better, using her skills to train new recruits at a sniper school, this she did until the end of the war.

www.vincelewis.net...

reply to post by Tardacus


Do you honestly believe that a few scattered examples of female warriors makes this right?

I was a soldier and I will always be an Infantryman.

Women have historically been kept from combat roles for two reasons.

1) Women lack the physical strength required for protracted combat missions. Again, there are some that can match a man in strength and some that can beat a man in a fight. The military does not deal with "ones" it deals in averages. As you move from soldier to specialized infantry to special operations, those averages become more difficult for a "normal" person to maintain.

2) Men are hard-wired to be protectors. Again we are dealing with averages not "ones". As an infrantryman I was trained to watch out for my battle buddy while completing my mission. The introduction of women into these squads will lead to nine guys looking out for the female during a mission.

So, as a society we have to train our women to be stronger and our men to not protect women. Is this really the society we want to create?

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Tardacus

 

Do you honestly believe that a few scattered examples of female warriors makes this right?

I was a soldier and I will always be an Infantryman.

Women have historically been kept from combat roles for two reasons.

1) Women lack the physical strength required for protracted combat missions. Again, there are some that can match a man in strength and some that can beat a man in a fight. The military does not deal with "ones" it deals in averages. As you move from soldier to specialized infantry to special operations, those averages become more difficult for a "normal" person to maintain.

2) Men are hard-wired to be protectors. Again we are dealing with averages not "ones". As an infrantryman I was trained to watch out for my battle buddy while completing my mission. The introduction of women into these squads will lead to nine guys looking out for the female during a mission.

So, as a society we have to train our women to be stronger and our men to not protect women. Is this really the society we want to create?

I`m just saying that of the over 800,000 russian women who served in combat in world war 2 some of them were more competent soldiers than most of the men.Not all men who are in the military are competent soldiers and neither will all the women be either.
It`s foolish to say that none of the women who join the military can ever be competent combat soldiers.
If the 9 guys are looking out for the woman and not looking out for their buddies well than they are the ones who are incompetent soldiers and not doing their jobs.
Just as all male soldiers won`t be a carlos hathcock neither will all female soldiers be a Lyudmila Mikhailivna Pavlichenko but that`s no reason to deny them the right to fight for their country.

reply to post by Tardacus


I think we agree more than we know.

I have never said that women cannot be good at anything, I have only said they should be held to the same standards as any other combat soldier.

You are right, not all men are capable as I too have pointed out many times in this thread.

To see the sacrifice and the dedication women have given to the nation we only have to look at the nurses. They served in some of the most dangerous areas and did so without weapons. I DO NOT mean that as "women should be nurses", I mean that women have all the heart it takes to put their lives on the line for others. I would never argue against that.

EA -it's hard to change millions of years of evolutionary devlopmet. Sad, but true.

I simply do not want the military to lower standards AGAIN to make a small group happy.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Tardacus

 

I think we agree more than we know.

I have never said that women cannot be good at anything, I have only said they should be held to the same standards as any other combat soldier.

You are right, not all men are capable as I too have pointed out many times in this thread.

To see the sacrifice and the dedication women have given to the nation we only have to look as the nurses. They served in some of the most dangerous areas and did so without weapons. I DO NOT mean that as women should be nurses, I mean that women have all the heart it takes to put their lives on the line for others. I would never argue against that.

EA -it's hard to change millions of years of evolutionary devlopmet. Sad, but true.

I simply do not want the military to lower standards AGAIN to make a small group happy.

edit on 24-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

i agree the standards should not be lowered

reply to post by Tardacus


Few if any men will ever match Hathcock. The man remained on top of a burning troop carrier to save fellow marines (while his flesh melted off). He is what a being a hero used to mean (I findthe word over used today).

Few women will ever match Margaret Cochran Corbin ( rev war vet), she also is what being a hero should mean.

It's not a battle over gender roles. It's simply a battle over the upholding of the standards.

Throughout time there have been men and women who fought and died for their beliefs. Both genders have answered their nations call to arms. No sane person could argue against that fact. However, the system in place in the US military sets a lower requirement for females based on scientific study. That system will allow soldiers (females) to succeed where others (males) would fail, with both doing the same thing. Until the standards are equal, the accomplishment is not equal.

reply to post by Pinke


You're living in fantasy land. I wouldn't even know where to begin....

No your average MMA female CANNOT overpower a typical man... Maybe a lethargic couch potato man, but not a physically fit man.

Men ARE hard wired to kill. They don't need training. It is ingrained in them. They killed before they had guns, before they had swords and spears and knifes and stones and sticks.

They killed because we are PREDATORS, that's what having eyes in the front of our heads and stereoscopic vision means.

Women are born to be nurturers and caretakers, men to be hunters and killers.

That's the facts no matter HOW much psychobabble bull# you quote from fairy boy psychiatrists that snort too much coke and wack to pics of their moms and I HAVE a psychology degree from Columbia and still know how much of it is bunk bull#.

You go on living in your fantasy world where women can keep up with men, it's just NOT the case.

The day that women make it into force recon, Seals, green berets etc... without the standards being lowered or changed or them taking hormone therapy to convert them into man/woman hybrids is the day I'll cut off my balls and eat them.

Jaden