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

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:43 PM
link   
these women are ready for combat


I say sign them up
edit on 23-1-2013 by goou111 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Define tough? Why put female soldiers through testing and not men. Do you really think all male soldiers are tough?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Thanks to recent events in civil rights now women and homosexuals are open to be drafted and made to catch bullets with their faces.

Progress. Everyone gets a chance (or mandate) to die for the state.


No one is safe now...I hope everyone enjoys their new found freedoms...lol



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight

Define tough? Why put female soldiers through testing and not men. Do you really think all male soldiers are tough?


As a man I had to meet certain physical requirements to join...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I'm not talking only physical tough.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
But thats a nice 1 on 1 fight, 30 horny enemies and a nice looking female soldier =
no matter how much she tries and fights (unless its a gay army)


Ah, but you do not know the enemy very well...They rank women below little boys and goats, so you are somewhat safe.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


And we women rate the enemy below that scale. LOL



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
I'm not talking only physical tough.


Ok women make great figher pilots, but it is A LOT about being physical as a grunt.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
And we women rate the enemy below that scale. LOL


Actually I wasn't joking in the least, but I'm with you...



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


Not if we're fighting in the air.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
So when do they get their chance to sign up for Selective Service?

Won't be long before we have a female as Secretary of Defense.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
Not if we're fighting in the air.


True, you can handle more Gs and have quicker reflexes, but strap an 80 pound pack to your back, 40 pounds in armor, and 15 pounds of gun and you are in trouble quickly. I'm not saying that there are not some women who can't do this, but when the draft comes, guess what....



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Won't be long before we have a female as Secretary of Defense.


Hell we don't have one for Secretary of State yet.... BUT some of the S of Ds in the past were NOT military in the lease, so I'll take a female as S of D anyday.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
I dont agree with the practice.
I am not sexist in anyway, and love females, so please can we 'can' any comments for that. But there are valid reasons why women hinder front line combat.

1. Men react differently to the sounds of females or children screaming for help, often doing things outside their training that would compromise their squad.
2, Women react differently to the sounds of children screaming ignoring their training and compromising their squad!
3. Rape is a very powerful weapon of war, as is the pregnancy afterwards.
4. You need to be subconciously able to crawl in some tight places, sometimes in very tall grass with very dangerous insects and so forth. You cant shreik when a large spider walks over your face.
5. You need to be able to lift enough to keep going for long periods of time. Its a genetic/phsyical aspect that women are not as strong as men.

I trained for 2yrs with women, while some of them were very able to carry out the tasks, there were certain parts of day to day life in the bush, sticks, etc that they couldnt handle and in a 'quiet' warlike footing when your relying on stealth, they would have compromised the squad through no fault of their conscious motor functions.

While I am all for equality, women do have a very great and very required part of warfare, however I think it is not on the front line.


PS Please dont accuse me of being sexist or attack me, i believe my points are valid so debate my points.
edit on 23-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)
edit on 23-1-2013 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by snowspirit
 


Define tough? Why put female soldiers through testing and not men. Do you really think all male soldiers are tough?


I don't think I can define tough. I was only thinking of the physical side of combat when I was thinking of the testing they would be put through. Heavy lifting type training.

As far as being mentally tough, many women are tougher than people realize.
That's kind of where I was going when I was thinking of gender roles being fuzzy. My wording isn't clear (even to me). Hard to put that thought/feeling into words.

There are both men and women, that are tough, and those of both genders that are not.
We've just been conditioned over years to think of "manly" as tough, and "feminine" as the weaker (gentler) sex.

There are feminine women though, that are very tough, strong.
Also "manly" looking men that will run and hide from a spider


The truest "testing" will be when the combat actually happens. For both genders.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
As a grunt I would have no issue accepting women into combat arms. AS EQUALS

A standard physical requirement for mission requirements.

Not a standard for MEN and a standard for WOMEN.

I see the issue as a woman can be far weaker than a man and be considered strong "for a woman". Put that BS away. Either a woman can do the job day in and day out like a man or she cannot. Not TWO standards, ONE standard.

If you allow a "lowering of the bar" to accept women, you in fact weaken the military. We need to stop with the PC crap and apply a little common sense.

DO NOT lower a standard for men, DO NOT allow a lower standard for women. Either a soldier can do the job as required or they cannot. It is simple, but we cloud the issue with "but I want to be like them".

ETA - we need to look past the sterotypes of the genders. Women react differently to children (no they do not, individuals do), bugs and spiders (I have seen men scream and run and cry when chased by rubber spider). Physically men and women are different (as a whole), in every other way we ar the same (in general).
edit on 23-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   
It's a play to get more public support for the wars. The wars are never going to end.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
I don't think that fathers will be as tolerant about sacrificing a daughter for God and Country as mothers are about giving up a son... Gold Star Mothers for some reason are recognized as martyrs, fathers don't receive Gold Stars... Some of the deadliest snipers of the 2nd World War were Russian women.. They really are considered equal there....



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 

Well I'm a guy and was in top shape when I was younger. I think I hurt a tendon in december so my right arm isn't working right. But in 2 minutes I was able to do 32 push ups.

Granted I would have done a lot more with a good arm and if I was in good shape. I'm 35 years old. I am not physically active although I am still in ok shape and am below average weight.

But I'm a guy and didn't reach 42 push ups. I'm willing to wager some females could reach 42. And given that technology is so pervasive these days, females don't need to be able to do 42. In fact, while I'm not the best athlete, if I HAD to I could tug around a m-16 right now.

I don't think many woman will do extreme physical roles, but the fact that some may be able to meet the standards means that this ruling will allow them to meet their potential.

Point is some woman can do it and physical ability is not the only factor.
edit on 23-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


I do not mean to be rude or offensive so please do not take it that way.

This is the problem.

Technology means women don't have to be as strong. It means a LOWER standard. Why do males need to be able to do 42 if technology is so great? Should we lower the standard for them too?

Combat is a fluid environment. It is an ever shifting maelstrom of noise, sight, smell, even taste. The infantry (and other combat arms) must be able to withstand this environment WITHOUT technology.

I have no doubt that some women can handle the job, just as I know for a fact that some men can't. However, to pretend that women and men are physically equal is naive at best. Turning a blind eye to this truth for the sake of political correctness should be criminal when the flexible coffins start coming home.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join