It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


My ego is quite healthy, so no need.


See there you go telling me what I already know!




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 





No woman in her right mind would ever lower her frequency to join


Right... only men can do those jobs, right? they must be some lowly creatures huh?

Obviously, the whole feminist agenda is to have all the good stuff but diss out the bad stuff that comes with getting EQUALITY!!! like many like to scream.

"yeah so i want to go topless, need equal pay for doing less, want equal rights for not meeting the standards.. oh yeah but screw fighting and losing my life... that's mens work"



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


You obviously didn't know it and needed to be told.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by Logarock
 


Again, they have already proved themselves and hence the military ban removed.



BS
Like I said before, they let women get away with half a$$ PT scores all the time.
Trust me. I know.
Luckily the unit I was in, didn't allow females.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well, you and your unit now don't have a say in the matter.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
If a bunch of women are so butch as to want to get their guts blown out and their asses shot to # just to be like men, well i say go for it...but dont come crying PTSD and all kinds of traumas....because warfighting is not a humane occupation....
Go ahead get yer tits blown off for all i care....its your insanity do what you want.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
If a bunch of women are so butch as to want to get their guts blown out and their asses shot to # just to be like men, well i say go for it...but dont come crying PTSD and all kinds of traumas....because warfighting is not a humane occupation....
Go ahead get yer tits blown off for all i care....its your insanity do what you want.


I can assure you, most women do not strive to "be like men" - If we did the sale of razors would drop dramatically.
edit on 24-1-2013 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
It looks like they are doing some house cleaning too.




In a memo earlier this year, Army Secretary John McHugh laid out more stringent criteria for denying re-enlistment, including rules that would turn away soldiers who have gotten a letter of reprimand for a recent incident involving the use of drugs or alcohol, or some soldiers who were unable to qualify for a promotion list.





"It's all focused on allowing us ... to retain only those soldiers who have the right skills, the right attributes and who help us meet the requirements and are those soldiers which truly have the greatest potential," said Army Brig. Gen. Richard P. Mustion, the Army's director of military personnel management.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 



Originally posted by stirling
but dont come crying PTSD and all kinds of traumas....


You mean like the men do now?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


I think I remember you as being Cdn.
Our Cdn women have been in combat roles for years now, although not a lot sign up for the forces.
Good article. I hope the link went in proper

online.wsj.com...


In spring 2008, Canadian Infantry Corporal Katie Moman landed in Kandahar, Afghanistan, trained, equipped and ready to fight for one of the few Western armies that allow women in all front-line combat roles.




But as her six-month tour progressed, Cpl. Moman found her troubles had less to do with Afghan insurgents and more to do with what she says was her commanders' desire to keep her from them. The complaint—echoed by other Canadian women serving in combat—underscores one of several pitfalls America's neighbor to the north has encountered in its decadeslong experience with allowing women to enter front-line jobs.

Canadian officers say women warriors proved as effective as men in front-line combat roles in Ottawa's most recent big military engagement, in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2011. But Canada has struggled to fill combat jobs with women. And like Cpl. Moman, many of the women who volunteered for these jobs got the impression that their senior officers used them only sparingly in combat.



For the women who did sign up and ended up fighting in Afghanistan, many found the experience rewarding. As part of a two-person, heavy machine-gun team, Infantry Cpl. Katie Hodges regularly carried 80 pounds of equipment, including 220 rounds of ammunition, and sometimes went out on patrol for up to four days in a stretch. "It was great," Cpl. Hodges said.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


You may not want to bring that up.

Does Canada allow women in combat roles? Yes.
Has Canada standardized the training between the sexes? No.

Would you like to know what every male soldier I have spoken with about it thinks? The rules wouldn't let me post most of their responses even if I wanted too.

Let's just put it this way, they aren't upset that women are there, they are very upset that substandard soldiers are (those that pass the female testing, but would have failed the male testing).



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


Yeah, they should not lower the testing standards.

I heard someone on CNN this morning say that they would not be lowering the tests for the US females who wish to serve. That remains to be seen I guess.

I don't know why they would lower the testing standards, unless it's to make room for more women, as I don't think most would want to be on the front lines. We have a small population.

Some I'm sure would pass the rigorous training, for front line combat, but not a lot.

Pilots and snipers (distance - is there such a role?) for female roles make more sense to me than front line ground combat.

The US has a much higher population. Maybe they won't need to lower any testing standards to fill the quota.
The US should also realize though, that their allies have already been using women for a couple of decades.

I hope they don't lower the standards. That's not fair to either gender.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well, you and your unit now don't have a say in the matter.


I was in 2nd Ranger Battalion.
They still don't let women in that unit.

And I'm sure they never will....
Know why?
Because they can't make the cut.
Unless of course they lower the # out of the standards



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by snowspirit
 


You may not want to bring that up.

Does Canada allow women in combat roles? Yes.
Has Canada standardized the training between the sexes? No.

Would you like to know what every male soldier I have spoken with about it thinks? The rules wouldn't let me post most of their responses even if I wanted too.

Let's just put it this way, they aren't upset that women are there, they are very upset that substandard soldiers are (those that pass the female testing, but would have failed the male testing).


That's exactly what I'm talking about.
But the women on here think they somehow "know" better.

When I'm sure none of them can make the cut. (the real cut that is)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by snowspirit
 


It is unfortunate, but inevitable, once it becomes politicized (as this is).

Take the CDN Forces for example. The Forces did not want to lower the standards, and in fact, they kept the standards the same for the first trials.

But....then came along one Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence), who, after watching dozens of women fail, blamed the Military on the basis of biased trials and forced a segregated standard be applied. She wanted full integration with a minimum of 15% female combat forces...a number that CDN Forces has never achieved, even with segregated standards.

Apparently, making good photo ops was more important than qualifying good soldiers.

People forget that the people that ultimately run the military are not soldiers.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
reply to post by peck420
 


Yeah, they should not lower the testing standards.

I heard someone on CNN this morning say that they would not be lowering the tests for the US females who wish to serve. That remains to be seen I guess.

I don't know why they would lower the testing standards, unless it's to make room for more women, as I don't think most would want to be on the front lines. We have a small population.

Some I'm sure would pass the rigorous training, for front line combat, but not a lot.

Pilots and snipers (distance - is there such a role?) for female roles make more sense to me than front line ground combat.

The US has a much higher population. Maybe they won't need to lower any testing standards to fill the quota.
The US should also realize though, that their allies have already been using women for a couple of decades.

I hope they don't lower the standards. That's not fair to either gender.





Problem with a woman being a sniper.... is that if they are on a long range mission either as the scout or the shooter... and they have their menstrual cycle.... Well, she would get sniffed out rather quickly by enemy dogs.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by resoe26
Problem with a woman being a sniper.... is that if they are on a long range mission either as the scout or the shooter... and they have their menstrual cycle.... Well, she would get sniffed out rather quickly by enemy dogs.


Where a women is in her menstrual cycle would be irrelevant.

Although men and women produce approx the same amount of odour producing compounds, women produce approx 10 times the amount of sulphur containing compounds that men do.

The sulphur containing compounds are easier to track. They stay in the air longer and are more discernible from background scents (humans being one of the few species that excrete it at measurable levels).
edit on 24-1-2013 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by InTheLight
reply to post by resoe26
 


Well, you and your unit now don't have a say in the matter.


Actually they do...it's called PT testing. And if women are allowed in combat units based off of their (unequal) pt standards, then that is a problem. If you want equality, fine. If that's the case however, equality means one standard, across the board. My pt test: 39 Pushups in 2 minutes (to meet the minimum standard), 45 situps in 2 minutes (to meet the minimum standard), 2 Miles in 17:00, to meet the minimum standard. This is not even beginning to tread an infantry unit's standards. Guess what a woman's requirements are? 17 pushups, 45 situps, 20:30 to complete a two mile run. Again...we aren't talking infantry standards. If they want to serve in combat arms, they should be required to meet the same standard when it comes to physical testing. I get that some women can do it. That's fantastic. As a matter of fact, I served with a few who undoubtedly could, I saw them do it. That being said, we were operating patrols in trucks. We weren't rucking miles and miles so we could raid a village or extract a prisoner or capture someone. It's fine that they think they (in droves) could handle it. The fact is they couldn't. That would be why they have their own standard, which is vastly easier than the male standard, for PT testing. I didn't hear women demanding to be signed up for the selective service...what? Equal enough to voluntarily do it? On your own terms? Not equal enough to be told you have to? Stupid.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join