BREAKING: Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 23-1-2013 @ 11:59 PM by 200Plus
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?


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 12:10 AM by 200Plus
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.


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 12:11 AM by ~widowmaker~
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. ^^


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 12:16 AM by 200Plus
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.


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 12:59 AM by cavtrooper7
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.


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 01:19 AM by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Xtrozero



Well you are wrong...


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


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 01:28 AM by SplitInfinity
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


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 02:51 AM by hypervigilant
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.


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 03:02 AM by Lucid Lunacy
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.


reply posted on 24-1-2013 @ 03:32 AM by hypervigilant
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..
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^