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

page: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jalbrook
Don't women go through the same exact boot camp and basic training? If they are already rucking with 40+ lbs over rough terrain for that, why are they suddenly going to become unable to do so when overseas?!


No. Their physical requirements are not the same standard as the men's. And I'm sorry...but not one time did I ruck with "40 pounds" of stuff when I went through basic training. I had a rifle, a ruc-sack with a bivouac, poncho, socks and uniforms and a few canteens with water in them. When I was deployed, both times, I had a rucsac, a cls bag, an m249, 900 rounds that HAD to go with me in the event I ever would have had to abandon my vehicle, body armor that easily weighs forty pounds itself, and several other "sensitive items", including my .50 cal, which was lugged back and forth to the truck daily, night vision devices, thermals....even if I had carried 40 pounds at basic, 40 pounds is not 150-200 extra pounds in the heat of Iraq without the luxury of a truck to put it all in....which is what is being discussed...




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Jalbrook
 


Women often times go to the same basic training as their male counterparts. That being said 100% for women is around 60% for men on average, and minimum passing scores for females are dismal failures or the males.

That is for non-combat arms jobs. No females are required to meet any standards of the men in combat arms. Non-combat arms males not not required to meet the those standards either.

So no, women are not held to the standards of men in non-combat arms, and neither of them are held to the standard of the infantry.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jalbrook
Don't women go through the same exact boot camp and basic training? If they are already rucking with 40+ lbs over rough terrain for that, why are they suddenly going to become unable to do so when overseas?!


Basic Combat Training (BCT) is not to be confused with Advanced Individual Training.

All Soldiers (speaking about the Army only here) attend the same exact course for BCT if they are to go into a non-combat arms MOS. It is rudimentary in nature and, well, basic - it will not make you an infantryman.

However, one must understand that there is also One Station Unit Training which is conducted for several branches of combat arms that do have varied degrees of difficulty. This is when BCT and AIT are conducted while in the same unit with the same cadre rather than having the Soldiers move from BCT to AIT physically. This is primarily done for Infantry Training. At some point in AIT the Soldiers are separated into Light, Mechanized and Heavy weapons categories for special emphasis.

At Ft Benning some cycles are filled with Soldiers headed to Ranger Selection/Airborne School and therefore have higher standards of difficulty than BCT say Ft Jackson and other places.

One cannot compare graduation from BCT at Ft. Jackson with graduation from BCT at Ft. Benning - one is distinctly harder.

Neither can one compare the ability to succeed in BCT with the ability to pass Infantry AIT. The two separate levels of training require different abilities. Yes in Infantry AIT you will carry a combat load (80lbs and up) and do more physical things than BCT.

The attrition rate used to be fairly high; when I went to BCT (1985) 1/3 of the people in our Platoon failed AIT and were sent to non-combat MOS's, cooks, clerks etc. Our cycle were all slated for 3rd Ranger Bn though so it had a fairly high standard.

However, now they pretty much graduate everyone unless they are a total physical failure - i.e. a danger to themselves or others. This is the because of the feel good culture shift in society.

There are always places to shuffle the 25% who are carried through - Commander's Driver, PAC, S4 and such where they will be riding more than walking.
edit on 26/1/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


You did a much better job of explaining it than I did. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


www.lothene.org...

Women have always ended up in fights....either on a battlefield somewhere, or in their neighborhood. Many countries have female soldiers that are sent into battle. China and Israel are two I can think of immediately. If I had a choice between a woman or a man watching my back, it would definitely be a woman. A man more than likely will be thinking of sex. Just saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Any complaints about female soldiers is complete sexist BS.

Speaking as a biologist females of a species are often far more dangerous in conflict than the males. Consider if you will the female lioness, tigress, the black widow, and so on.

Now, speaking from a human perspective females in general are capable of far greater feats of endurance than most men. Women are also as a whole capable of fighting through more pain than most men can comprehend. Consider this from a modern military perspective. Greater supply of endurance, and an increased resistance to pain have at least as much influence on a modern battlefield as strength.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Gosh, I had no idea the brute strength required in utilizing one's finger to squeeze a trigger...

or drive a tank... or site a scope... or triangulate a target's location... or push a computer key...

... or are we talking about going into hand-to-hand combat Roman style with 5 lb iron swords and shields out in an open field somewhere ?




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



One problem is the choice is now removed... They will be drafted into a combat rolls if a draft ever comes.

I was discussing this earlier with my fam. None of us knew anything factual. My sister said what is being propositioned it's a separate law from the Draft. Do you have something to backup the idea this affects the draft as well?


Look at ALL the women you know

Okay. All the women I know. If that's what you're asking, that's what I will give.


and think about them being handed a gun and told to go kill,

Right. I am thinking it. I imagine both female and male going through the same military training.


think about what happens when they are captured

POW.

Why are men superior in this scenario?? Why are men able to tolerate physical and mental torture more than women? That's sexist. And the reason it's sexist is that it's unsubstantiated.


think about the need for them to carry a fallen comrade...

Minimum level of physical fitness! Why are you ignoring my posts? If they can't carry their comrade then they don't meet that requirement. Read my posts people!


I could go on. Yes some can, but as I said look around at ALL the women you know and asked the question of how any of them would fare if they didn't have a choice in the matter...

Really?

Lol!....

Okay I just looked around and I saw a bunch of men NOT fit for war....

Why is the average sample only applying to women in this context??

Yes most women and men on average are not fit. Especially if they didn't have a "choice in the matter". I don't see the point there.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Right. I am thinking it. I imagine both female and male going through the same military training.


I'm not talking about BMT, but are you thinking that they are equal in requirments too? It has never been that way yet, so are you suggesting that every women needs to do the same, as example 70 plus pushups for maximum score. Remember this score also counts towards promotion.



Why are men superior in this scenario?? Why are men able to tolerate physical and mental torture more than women? That's sexist. And the reason it's sexist is that it's unsubstantiated.


Wow, go right for the "sexist" thing...lol when people start using that it means they are losing the debate..., but ya it is a sexist thing, not me, but the captures. They will treat me much better than a woman. I know it is not fair, but that is how the world turns in most parts of the world. they might kill me (most likely not) but they would not rape me to death (high probability for females)...

The point is you want everything to be the same and what happens is they don't get promoted since they can not compete with the males to get max scores needed for promotion.

Men and women are not the same....both have different strengths and weaknesses, but it seems you and others want to ignore this.

I would agree with you if it was a wavier and not totally removed. The wavier would be if a women met all standards that men must meet and understand she is going to have a higher risk factor if captured then we should let her fight on the front lines. When you remove ALL restrictions it really opens Pandora's box.

edit on 27-1-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtrozeroThey will treat me much better than a woman. I know it is not fair, but that is how the world turns in most parts of the world. they might kill me (most likely not) but they would not rape me to death (high probability for females)...


The one part of the world this is not true is in the Islamic nations - your likely hood of being raped is just as high if you are a male as a female.

They run a platoon through the back door right off the bat just to take away your dignity....



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 

Because the system would abuse it and kill too many people in it's execution,based on all I understand and seeing it operate.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by CranialSponge
Gosh, I had no idea the brute strength required in utilizing one's finger to squeeze a trigger...

or drive a tank... or site a scope... or triangulate a target's location... or push a computer key...

... or are we talking about going into hand-to-hand combat Roman style with 5 lb iron swords and shields out in an open field somewhere ?



This post proves you are misinformed on this subject. There is nothing more than brute strength, required to squeeze a trigger. Most women however, aren't good marksman. That and there is a hell of a lot more to being a forward combat operations soldier than squeezing a trigger. Driving a tank? Not what is being discussed. Sighting a scope? Not what is being discussed. Triangulating targets? Not what is being discussed...women do those things already.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by shantyknight
reply to post by Evanzsayz
 


www.lothene.org...

Women have always ended up in fights....either on a battlefield somewhere, or in their neighborhood. Many countries have female soldiers that are sent into battle. China and Israel are two I can think of immediately. If I had a choice between a woman or a man watching my back, it would definitely be a woman. A man more than likely will be thinking of sex. Just saying.


You've never served a day in your life overseas in a combat zone...I've gathered this much from this post...



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 



It's a play to get more public support for the wars. The wars are never going to end.


I think this is the bigger picture that this thread is missing...WIth the US $ / economy in its final death throes, civil unrest, a depression maybe on the not too distant horizon; The US empires looting of other lands resources (all in the name of wiping out terrorist of course) they will need all the cannon fodder they can get their hands on



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

They run a platoon through the back door right off the bat just to take away your dignity....


I disagree...I been in those countries for a few years....first I'm not 12 year old boy, and second they would only try that on Thursday. Women on the other hand would totally enrage them since "how dare a woman stand up to them"



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Golf66

They run a platoon through the back door right off the bat just to take away your dignity....


I disagree...I been in those countries for a few years....first I'm not 12 year old boy, and second they would only try that on Thursday. Women on the other hand would totally enrage them since "how dare a woman stand up to them"


You are free to disagree all you wish - however, as a former SERE instructor and R2I instructor for both US Special Forces and the British SAS my data and training materials based on case studies tell me different.

I spent 24 years in the US Army – the majority of that in Special Operations. I did some time in MI as well. My area of Specialty is N. Africa, and the Horn; however, like all of us I spent more than 5 tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all back to back of course.

If you are an infidel it is not a taboo thing for them to "use" you any way they see fit. Read up some on the way Muhammad and his armies handled the issue.... A lot of it was as you say pedophilia gone wild; however, a good portion of the ass rape going on was for no other purpose than to "break" the men before they were questioned.

A broken man with his dignity stripped...will tell you anything you want to hear.

Me – I’ll sick to good ole sleep deprivation and mind rape…



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 


Wrong. 6 years Army. Service connected disability. 68J Helicopter Missile Systems



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
There's more danger of them being raped by their own people (who are hardwired to protect women) than by the enemy. Don't cry PTSD? Seems that means they have to be stronger than men, then, but yet the big demand is that women be held to equal standard, so can't have it both ways. Lot of hatred/hostility towards women here. Lots of comments that sound like the posters are eagerly waiting/hoping for women to fail and suffer injury now that They Have What They Want. Yet men would be too distracted in battle if the women were in trouble because they'd want to rescue them. I wouldn't give every woman OR every man around me a gun but the draft is a big net so none of us has any control over the outcome of that being put in place. Ultimately I can't see why women would want to fight alongside men. Plenty of people worried a woman can't drag a man off the field, but what woman would feel secure knowing the soldiers she's depending on don't want her there and think she's a liability that they're babysitting? Sex would be a problem, the drive to protect women would be a problem, but these sound like the mens' problems to me. Seems like the focus would be more on not getting killed than on screwing around. It's life or death, but the pants can't stay zipped? Admit you just don't want them in The Club. I'd have more respect for that honesty than all this who shot john nonsense.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by shantyknight
reply to post by LennayTheUndead
 


Wrong. 6 years Army. Service connected disability. 68J Helicopter Missile Systems



And how much time was spent in Iraq or Afghanistan, boots on the ground and not in the air with a helicopter crew...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Someone just told me that in Israel they tried putting men and women in the same combat units, but they had to end that (even though they are still in combat.) Seems once the guys heard women screaming they kind of went nuts. Was a bad idea.





top topics
 
10
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join