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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Uh...I do not agree with Women serving in infantry units especially in the Marines as well as front line Army units. The issue is two fold as the average woman...NOT ALL...cannot handle the strength and edurance that is needed to haul heavy ammo and equipment over distances of terrain as well as the Men who are in the Units having great issues over women in such units as this conflict will compromise the actions and mental stability of the male soldiers without a doubt.

If anyone does not believe this then go ask a Marine how they feel about this and as you eventually notice that Marine is shaking as he talks...you will understand just how much of an issue this is.

Still...YOU are seeing this as a Religious Issue and I am here to tell you that just because a person is Femal does not mean they are Feminine.

People are born with different states and combinations of Sexuality. All of us are at first Femal in the Womb and then a Hormone here or there and BANG...you get a Male or Female or Both or Double XX Chromosone or Double YY Chromosone or a Gay Man or Woman and there are many different Genetic levels of disposition as far as a persons Physical and Mental Sexuality.

People are born in many different combinations of Sexuality and Sexual and Physical dispositions. It has nothing to do with sinning or going against GOD as if there is a GOD...that GOD is resposible for how everyone is born as well as their desires, tendencies and physical and mental abilities.

One of the most vicious and dangerous people on Earth is a Mother who is protecting her young. I have NO DOUBT that this Mother will not give it a second thought flying an Aircraft that is about to drop Bombs on those that would threaten her Children or Family. Such a Woman would hold her own on a Naval Ship as well.

But when it comes to the sheer Physical demands of a Grunt on the Front Line...as well as what effect a woman being there would have on the other Men...this just is not a good idea.

Split Infinity




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:35 AM
link   
I`m assuming that this means that if they ever reinstate the draft (selective service) that women will be required to register and be eligible to be drafted and sent into combat.
The government must be planning on having a BIG war if they feel the need to make both men and women eligible to be drafted.
I don`t trust that the government is doing this in the interest of gender equality, they are up to no good,they have something up their sleeve that they are telling us about.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Does America need greater numbers to draw from in the coming WW3?

America is only 5% of the worlds population isnt it?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Ohhh look more Americans for the Taliban to shoot at……

I think it's just that simple too. They have one hell of a problem. The men who've been fighting this war since it's start in 2001/2002 are tired, strung out and worn out. Many of the guys have 5, 6 and more combat tours. This compared to 12 months +1 to get through Vietnam and THAT war left a large % of those who went .....damaged.. when they got back. This has gone SO MUCH further to an individual level of each man involved.

Yet...the wars go on. They show no sign of stopping. There's trouble in Syria, Across North Africa, South and East Asia and more. Obama talks tough like he's got a fresh and robust force standing ready in garrison to deploy on a moments notice and kick butt. What he has right now is a force near the breaking point through no fault of their own.

So .. SUDDENLY and without much logic given beyond "Well, why not?!", we have the prohibitions against openly gay people serving and now Females in combat. More bodies for the grinder ....just as we're about to see a good number of the experience core of the U.S. Combat forces about too damn tired to continue and rotate out by choice or medical.

Indeed... Panetta and Obama have to refill the ranks soon enough. Now how many MEN think they're going to get one MOS and ..err..oopsy! It's infantry for you! ....won't that be fun for females to start learning the experience of?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I think its a bad move, for more reasons than the obvious. I was an Abrams crewman for 8 years with the US military. I've been to two war zones. Rather than explaining what I mean, I'll give an example. Lets say that I am on a tank crew (4 people, loader, driver, gunner, Tank commander.) Lets say that my tank crew gets a female driver assigned to it. The other three guys (especially if they have been deployed from their wives/girlfriends for a while) will be thinking more of nailing the driver than they will about the mission or any situational awareness, which is dangerous IMO.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
First thing that came to my mind was, how long till we hear about the first front line baby? Sure women have been fighting wars as long as men have, but there is a difference between sending people to fight and fighting a war on your front lawn.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
There are those that can and those that can't.

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



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   
When they issue the orders to use US Troops to confiscate citizens guns en mass then the state of martial law will make it a quasi combat zone (going around kicking in doors like in Iraq and Afghanistan). And with more civilian guns in this country than people - they will need every "willing" man and woman in uniform to carry it out.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by goou111
 


Well, if women want it, then they can have it.
So long as they can pass the SAME physical requirements as the men, at current levels.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
I support this decision 100%. Equality for everyone.

That means females will have to do a minimum of 42 pushup-ups in two minutes like the guys instead of 19 for females, right?

It means females will have 15:56 to run two miles now like the guys and not 21:20 for females, right?

Yea, equality for everyone.
edit on 23-1-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)




TRUE!
I remember in airborne school how all the girls couldn't keep up with the runs or in any PT we did. But they still passed. But the men were booted for barely not making the runs or PT tests.

No equality there whatsoever.

I'm glad at Ranger though, no women allowed.
No way those women can pass it.
GI janes are movie fiction.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Perhaps the military needs to "revamp" the entire physical fitness system. Rather than have a test based on gender and age, they should have the test based on MOS (job).

clerk < MP < mechanic < grunt < spec-op

Make a system with a minimum requirement for mission accomplishment and have that as the baseline for entry.

Nobody is expected to survive at minimum BTW, but the system should be based on what the job requires. It should not a healthy/fit/peak female or healthy/fit/peak male. It should simply be healthy/fit/peak soldier.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
Perhaps the military needs to "revamp" the entire physical fitness system. Rather than have a test based on gender and age, they should have the test based on MOS (job).

clerk < MP < mechanic < grunt < spec-op

Make a system with a minimum requirement for mission accomplishment and have that as the baseline for entry.

Nobody is expected to survive at minimum BTW, but the system should be based on what the job requires. It should not a healthy/fit/peak female or healthy/fit/peak male. It should simply be healthy/fit/peak soldier.


I disagree with the last portion.
There should be no difference between physical requirements between men and women, as a whole.
I think that all Military personnel should be held to a higher physical standard, regardless of MOS/Job.
All are first set to fire a rifle and kill the enemy.
Second is the MOS/Job they are trained for.
It has become backwards, sadly. That is why there are SO many Pvt Pyle and Dirt-bag Airman.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Let's see how this plays out after the first female combat soldier becomes the nations first female POW to be tortured and raped by the Taliban or Al Qaeda forces.

Remember when Jessica Lynch was captured in Iraq? She had it easy during her brief stint as a POW in an Iraqi Hospital. That was a different war compared to what we are now facing and what lies ahead in future combat theaters throughout Africa.
edit on 24-1-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 200Plus
Perhaps the military needs to "revamp" the entire physical fitness system. Rather than have a test based on gender and age, they should have the test based on MOS (job).

clerk < MP < mechanic < grunt < spec-op

Make a system with a minimum requirement for mission accomplishment and have that as the baseline for entry.

Nobody is expected to survive at minimum BTW, but the system should be based on what the job requires. It should not a healthy/fit/peak female or healthy/fit/peak male. It should simply be healthy/fit/peak soldier.


Pretty much does.
I remember seeing mechanized infantry soldiers (just tank drivers mostly, no "light" infantry)... they were all usually fat guys. Looked like that had not passed a pt test in ages.

Also had a buddy in an artillery unit, he was weak at PT tests. guy could never pass the runs. Any "light" infantry unit that is Airborne or higher, you won't see any females. Ill put money on it.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


Perhaps you misunderstood my quote, I am all in favor of equality for women, however this is not an area that they need equal representation and the PTB have not thought this out. I agree it will be a bad decision and cause more harm than good.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by goou111
 


Well, if women want it, then they can have it.
So long as they can pass the SAME physical requirements as the men, at current levels.




110 pound woman carrying an 80 pound ruck ......

Good article on Ruck packing and what is usually required depending on climate and conditions. Don't forget to add heavy water..
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Yeah.

I fumed every time I watched as females, in the military and LE, got the booster step, less pullups, longer times and everything.

But, it was funny and scary to watch the 4'2 200lb female officer in training try to get over a 5' wall. She could have been my backup in any situation.
It was funny to watch her flail around like a fish out of water, but scary thinking if I need help, she won't be there.

I am all for equality. Equality of rights, Equality to carry as much as I have to, Equality to kill and so on.

This will go over like a lead fart in an elevator packed with Nuns.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


TPTB should put their thinking caps on and redesign the ruck and uniforms so as to redistribute the weight over the entire body.

Oops, spoke too soon.

www.stripes.com...
edit on 24-1-2013 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


Sorry, but 80lbs is 80lbs anyway you position it.
Regardless how it is distributed, it still is 80lbs to be carried, and still hampers small framed people.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   
edit on 24-1-2013 by macman because: Double Post





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join