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

reply to post by 200Plus


This is about recognition and dignity.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

This is about recognition and dignity.

Recognition for achieving less?

Dignity for having a lower standard?

They should fight to prove that they are up to the task set for in the mission requirements. As long as they have to do less to get more, they do not deserve the privilege and honor of a "turning blue" ceremony (let alone a specop position).

reply to post by beezzer

If women don't want to fight, then, um. . . don't join the military.

If you think people join the military because they want to fight you are seeing things using a very limited filter. I guess that after a major attack like 9|11 there are those that will join thinking that they will be doing something about it (sadly they get sent to Iraq and Afghanistan in place of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan) even better would be to go to Washington DC at "correct" the government. In any case your filter would also imply that a large part of the military is constituted by psychopaths, but if you look to the number of causalities due to suicide that exceed the combat casualties I thing you should reassess your view point...

reply to post by Panic2k11


The first thing any Military member has is the task to kill the enemy.

If you joined the Military not wanting to be placed into the position that you may kill someone, then you are an idiot.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

This is about recognition and dignity.

The women that go into combat units....be sure to respect and recognize whats already there and whats already been proven. Take the female ego thingy somewhere else. No ones been out there wating on your a## to step in or show them anything.

reply to post by Logarock


What's already there needs to be reassessed.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by Logarock

 

At the same time, I had a soldier that was a male. Everytime the shooting started I knew right where he would be. INSIDE a truck "on the radio". I couldn't fire him because he liked to play "one card monty", so I was stuck with him.

Standing shoulder to shoulder is a matter of training and discipline, regardless of situation or gender. But, until females can maintain the same levels as males they should never have the chance to be shoulder to shoulder in the first place.

We weeded all those sort out. At some point if they made it that far. and no you need more than training and discipline to get to the point to begin with. We were looking for the type not the product.

reply to post by macman


A lot of men can't either. It is not necessarily a sex thing.

Interesting you brought up Africa. I am not the only one who has noticed that.

reply to post by InTheLight


Let us look at CPL Jack and CPL Jill, both are going before a promotion boad to become a Sergeant. The morning of the board they take a Physical Fitness Test (their fitness level will earn them points toward promotion). They are both 22 years old and both of them have mirror like performance records. Their PT Test results are also mirror like. Let us see how equal this turns out.

Jack:
Push-ups: 64 (62 pts)
Sit-ups: 80 (100 pts)
2 Mile Run: 15:53 (FAIL)

Jill:
Push-ups:64 (100 pts)
Sit-ups: 80 (100 pts)
2 Mile Run: 15:53 (97 pts)

CPL jack is removed from the promotion standing list and is warned that another failure could result in discharge (he will also be required to attend additional fitness training after work). CPL Jill is promoted, hailed as a PT guru and earns an Army Physical Fitness Badge.

Yep sounds like dignity and recognition to me

reply to post by 200Plus


That attitude won't have many women watching your back.

If women can pass the same physical testing that the men have to in order to be a combat soldier, does that make them fit to kill others? To say that they will pose no additional danger to their fellow troops has been proven to be false. The American memory is short lived. In the beginning of operation Iraqi Freedom, there was a patrol that got lost. They ended up being surrounded and ambushed. Every man in that group died and that did not end the deaths. An american woman was captured, tortured, raped, and held prisoner. It took a very well planned rescue mission to get her back, there were more deaths to save this one woman. She was so traumatized by what she went through that she has no memory of anything after her capture. I am in no way suggesting that men are superior to women, in fact you could easily see how as a society we are willing to trade the lives of several men for the life of onw woman. Men and women have different physical attributes, different mentalities, and at times different priorities. I do not believe women belong on the front lines. Next i imagine they will require women to register with the selective services at their 18th birthday just like the men. Hey its all in the name of equality right? The probelm is equal does not have to mean the same as. That is my opinion. In the long run, none of the opinions here really matter. The decision has been made. Now it is up to the military leaders to figure out how to make it work. They are very good at what they do. I am interested to see how they implement it.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Pinke

 

Killing has happened since the dawn of time.

Agree.

Killing, happens at the most basic leveled organism, to animals to humans.

Agree, but normally for some kind of purposes.

The idea that it is not natural, has been due to society, not human instinct.

Disagree. Humans are social creatures. A lot of animals have violent ways to solve disputes that don't result in killing all the time. Yes, humans have organized themselves to kill for centuries, but it's part of having an intelligence. For example, zebra don't organize themselves to have a retaliating strike against the evil lions that keep omnoming them.

Humans on the other hand, if tigers are recognized as a constant threat or even other humans, we will kill. That doesn't mean humans are natural killing machines. Maybe we're talking from different perspectives, but I think fighting to the death at a whim isn't in our nature.

But, history, past and recent within the Military and LE has shown that for the most part, most women are not capable to do what the male counterpart can.

I don't think there will be a sudden massive influx of women special forces recruits. I don't particularly think it matters as much as persons seem to think though.

It's not a competition. Regardless of gender, the person is either a good soldier or not. /shrug

reply to post by InTheLight


Women will not not watch my back because I want them to be my equal?

I thought they wanted to be equal?

Wait, I misread the whole thing. They only wanted to be TREATED as equal. OK, now I get it.

Originally posted by Dustytoad

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

Until we leave it to the Brits?

But yes I agree. As a Former soldier I feel we should have women snipers at the very least.. They'd be killer hot, or just killer.. War is hell they say..

Yeah why not, they Russia had them in WW2, quite successful

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock

 

What's already there needs to be reassessed.

You have to ask? But I didnt say reassessed anyway.

reply to post by 200Plus


Good luck out there, you'll need it.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


I think we should spend money on weather control machines. The russian winter was far more successful than any group of snipers, male or female.

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by 200Plus

 

That attitude won't have many women watching your back.

The war is out there, out on the front. If you want to fight with men then get a husband or something.

reply to post by InTheLight


I'm retired. If Panetta thinks we should give Ranger Tabs to women for doing 40 push-ups, more power to him.

This will lead to one thing if it is enforced. Our fighting units will become substandard and unable to fight in protracted operations. The males will simply not want to pull the weight of the weaker soldiers. The Spec-ops community will have to ONCE AGAIN lower their standards to get recruits. The nation's defensive forces will eventually be unable/unwilling to provide for the national defense.

If this is an outcome that is worth making some people "feel good", I say good luck to you. You will need it far more than I will.

reply to post by Logarock


I'm just saying it like it is....and will be.