Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
The strength arguments seem odd to me.

This isn't a martial art tournament. They are given guns.

Obviously you need a certain amount of strength and endurance. But there is a point where it's enough and the efficacy of the gun takes over. Women can reach that point.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I have no idea if youve ever served, so I can't fault your logic.

What, in your mind, is the major difference between "combat" and "non-combat" jobs in the military?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
I have no idea if youve ever served, so I can't fault your logic.


I'm not claiming I am right. I did say it seemed 'odd'. So by all means explain the fault in my logic
No I have not served. I extrapolated that logic from both fitness and gun experience as a civilian.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I cannot fault your logic as I stated
I am just curious as to what you think seperates the two sides of the military. Combat and non-combat roles. (there are actually three sides, but non-combat is seperated into two groups).

Not trying to be a smartass, I would really like an opinion from someone "outside" the the establishment.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxatoria
 


"I'd imagine that regular pregnancy testing would be mandatory as no one wants a pregnant woman on the front line "

well that wouldnt really be equal now would it?

gee i know i served all this time and you gave me money....oops im pregnant , sorry i wont be attending this war for another 9 months. oops preganant again, wont be going this round either.

if were gonna send the stupid off to war, mine as well take their kids with em too. ^^



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


LMAO seen this happen numerous times.

Pregnancy tests are standard for all females prior to deployment. Combat MOS or not, pregnant women are not allowed in theatre.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
So when do they get their chance to sign up for Selective Service?


Bravo Jam! But we both know that won't happen. The military is infected with the PC movement and walks on egg shells when it comes to certain cases regarding females (I only use that term because that is the terminology folks).

It won't happen. This is to appease a small minority and that is all.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
What strikes me as amusing, is that women have been serving in combat, on the front lines, since at LEAST 2005, when they served right next to me, manning guns, patrolling the roads of Iraq...
edit on 24-1-2013 by LennayTheUndead because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I would wonder about the punishment they could withstand,how long they could take it and adverse weather like Korea.
That was fun.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I really don't think women or very many men that have been in any branch of the military since the Vietnam war as a Marine in an infantry unit has any idea how torturous it is both mentally and to go without food for days at a time, be under constant bombardment by heavy artillery for days or watch people around them die from relatively minor wounds or a tropical fever that hits you out of the blue and renders you completely helpless... Dying in a war may actually be a better deal than surviving one... The present rate of veterans taking their own lives is one every 80 minutes... I've been receiving medical treatment at VA facilities for 42 years and I've never seen the kinds of debilitating injuries I have been seeing in recent years... There is nothing you are going to see on TV or online like some of the guys are having to deal with.. Our weaponry has improved considerably as has those of the present enemy.. People would want to end all wars if they seeing horribly burned and scarred people, missing arms, legs and faces... Maybe if pretty girls were coming home in the same condition it would have more of an impact on people that support what is going on and change their minds about war altogether.. On second thought I think the PTB would use pictures of them as a means of angering everyone and have them demanding retribution by the killing women and children in the country they were in when they got all messed up....



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 

They are planning to use attrition a bit more directly now.I guess the poisoning through multiple vectors was just a failed policy.But I bet they thought they would have had our guns by now.
That has to be a nasty thorn in the side.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

I'm not claiming I am right. I did say it seemed 'odd'. So by all means explain the fault in my logic
No I have not served. I extrapolated that logic from both fitness and gun experience as a civilian.


Well you are wrong...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Expect many more moves to get the military filled with as many liberal minded people as possible....

The less likely they are to follow their oaths the better.....

Anyone who is stupid enough to think that this and the repeal of don't ask don't tell has anything to do with equality is a friggin moron...

Jaden



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 



Well you are wrong...


Next time you're so informative can you deliver it in smaller chunks for me.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

The strength arguments seem odd to me.

This isn't a martial art tournament. They are given guns.

Obviously you need a certain amount of strength and endurance. But there is a point where it's enough and the efficacy of the gun takes over. Women can reach that point.


You are absolutely wrong and having served (SOC) and seeing the double standard as it stands between women and men and knowing what's required to serve direct combat roles and as front line soldiers and sailors, I cn say unequivocably that women have NO place in combat... PERIOD...

Yeah we need slower weaker soldiers, that ALWAYS is what the military is striving for.... give me a friggin break...

Jaden



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Masterjaden
 


While I don't see this as an issue as far as roles for women in combat in the USAF or Navy...I can see this as a very real problem for the Marines and the front line Army attack divisions.

It is just a fact as I can't even imagine what the reaction to some Marines would be...and I know quite a few...to a woman being with them charging a shoreline. OUCH!

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

The strength arguments seem odd to me.

This isn't a martial art tournament. They are given guns.

Obviously you need a certain amount of strength and endurance. But there is a point where it's enough and the efficacy of the gun takes over. Women can reach that point.
When you are serving in an infantry unit you have a lot more to carry than just a gun.. Consider that in a fire fight you need ammunition and lots of it since you are firing weapons that fire a very high number of rounds a minute.. The average Marine Grunt in Vietnam carried over 2/3 there body weight on operations in jungle covered mountains walking, climbing, crawling from sunup to sunset, day in and day out... The longest operation I was on lasted 56 days and that was without a bath or shower and at times without food for days due to lack of resupply due to weather conditions ...We suffered the same type of injuries as professional football players and without the medical care football players get... Do you think a woman could be a lineman for the Dallas Cowboys? I was on light duty for 6 weeks because of injuries during training and for the last 3 months I was in Vietnam.. All total I spent a little over 19 months in the Corps, 10 of which were spent carrying a 25 lb radio on my back... While on light duty I was on a mountain top radio relay station which was a job that I think a woman could easily have done.. I only had to worry about being rocketed, mortared or being overran by sappers while doing that... It's nothing like the movies.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:55 AM
link   
What a tragedy and symptomatic of a population that cannot fathom that wrath is being poured out a nation that thinks "equality" is measured by the willingness of a population to slaughter it's women and children. What utter madness that we cannot see the occult leadership, who worship the ideal of adrogyny, are the agents of said wrath. As our women are masculinised, our men are feminised, as the terms husband, wife, mother and father are slowly removed from society and as 'gender roles' are being redefined for our children by the 'experts', we still reject that these are the fruit of reprobate minds - minds given up by God Himself to do the things which ought not to be done. It's wrath plain and simple, but a generation or two made the children of hell cannot fathom that God was removed from them for this very time. They are blind and deaf, following what their leaders and teachers tell them is good and evil. Instead, we now measure equality as the level of willingness to slaughter the most innocent and weak - women and children - because our leaders redefined what charity means. 'Political correctness' and 'equality' are terms coined by said occultists to do just one thing; to redefine good as evil and evil as good. Not from your Creator's definition, but from theirs. Choosing good brings life but choosing evil brings death. Zero good can come from evil no matter how much we WANT to believe that it can.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hypervigilant
 


My point included an expected level of fitness. I am not arguing against that. I am saying once that minimum has been met, all things are equal between the sexes. For the women that can't meet that minimum they shouldn't be in the front lines. I'm saying it should be an option because some women will be able to meet it.

Some here were stating men are stronger ergo women shouldn't be in the front line. My post was really just in response to that.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 
The only way that women could meet the minimum standards for physical fitness and readiness is if the lowered the standards... The guys that are doing the fighting don't have a camera crew following them and showing what all is going on so only the combatants know how much more physically demanding it is than anyone that hasn't been there would ever know... Women are already crazy enough without having been in combat... They actually think it's just a job, like flipping burgers and not nearly as bad as giving birth... War is truly hell in ways that anyone that hasn't been in it could ever imagine... A woman could be in a support MOS and fly a helicopter, drive a tank, man lines at a rear echelon base camp I suppose with ease but that isn't the same as being in the kind of combat that will win any wars... Warfare is nothing but a business and those making money want to keep making money so winning isn't an option anyway..






top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join