Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

reply to post by Heisenberg59


My sister was a female prison guard in a male prison. The prisoners called her Scary Spice and were terrified of her. She was superb at hand-to-hand and can be incredibly sarcastic.

Hmmm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, the issues about being captured and raped, and the feminine hygiene problem, are legitimate concerns.

On the other hand, the vast majority of women in prison for murder and assault were PMS-ing.

You get a whole battalion of PMS-ing women out there, and you're going to see viciousness like you've never imagined possible.

As a woman, I guess I'd have to say that, if women are going to be sent on the front lines, they had better be equal to the men they're fighting with. They should also have implanted birth control (good for a few years), so there is no risk of conception if they're raped, and would also eliminate periods.

I also think it shouldn't be forced upon them, they should ask which women wish to be in the thick of it.

My step-daughter was in Iraq and involved in shooting. She did very well, but wasn't too happy about it.

My own daughter was in the Air Force, and she's very good a kick boxing. She's a bit of a badass, god help any man who tries to assault her.

Bottom line: If a woman wants to, and proves herself equal, then she should be allowed.

Originally posted by randomname
thru out history, only cowards and communists sent women into battle.

i thought the whole point was to protect your daughters and wives from war, not send them to it.

edit on 23-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Isnt this country great........

Lets take away the weapons from the people, and send women/mothers / sisters/ daughters to be shot in the front lines......

THE HELL AMERICA?

The priorities and moral fiber of this country are so ass backwards its astounding

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by randomname
thru out history, only cowards and communists sent women into battle.

i thought the whole point was to protect your daughters and wives from war, not send them to it.

edit on 23-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Isnt this country great........

Lets take away the weapons from the people, and send women/mothers / sisters/ daughters to be shot in the front lines......

THE HELL AMERICA?

I think you forget, we have a volunteer army, noone is forcing anyone to do anything... If a woman WANTS to and can meet the grade, why they hell not?

I wonder how long it will take the enemy to start emailing videos directly to the parents?

2nd.

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by randomname
thru out history, only cowards and communists sent women into battle.

i thought the whole point was to protect your daughters and wives from war, not send them to it.

edit on 23-1-2013 by randomname because: (no reason given)

Isnt this country great........

Lets take away the weapons from the people, and send women/mothers / sisters/ daughters to be shot in the front lines......

THE HELL AMERICA?

I think you forget, we have a volunteer army, noone is forcing anyone to do anything... If a woman WANTS to and can meet the grade, why they hell not?

Oh I dont forget........Ive done my time on the lines my friend.......im well aware, as well as aware of the implications and issues it can cause........

People want to tout this "equality" which is all well and good.......but women have no place on a battlefield where men will do terrible things to each other and worse , god forbid they capture a woman alive..............

There are many unintended consequences in sending women in the front lines...........

You guys can be PC all you want, but that doesnt change a damn thing

reply to post by Wertdagf


I was actually j/k.. its hard to pass up at a chance like that for a smart remark
I dont have a problem with it, Russian women actually did pretty well during WW2

I am interested in the timing of this. He is leaving his post and it is his last act. Is it because he disagrees with it and is being forced? Is it because he is "In the Know" to what is coming next because of it and disagrees? The timing is very interesting almost as interesting as the act itself.

As for Women on the front lines, I know that traditionally Women were not allowed on the front lines for this reason and that reason but if it is the choice of the individual why shouldn't they have the right to fight? Originally there were no black soldiers, then they had their own platoon in order to prove themselves. Then there were no Black Pilots, then they were given a squadron to prove themselves. In both instances they ended up doing a heck of a job and are now fully integrated as well as all the other races which is an awesome thing. Why not give those Women that wish to fight on the front lines the same opportunity and give them a platoon and let them show us just what they are capable of. Fair is fair. And when they show the Mens platoons up we will all know without a doubt that American Women can kick some ...

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this, but I agree with the men.

My heart bleeds, just thinking, of that first woman taken prisoner.

Women and men should have equal rights - but women - have no place on the front lines. Give her a sniper rifle and let her kill that way, if her blood lust and penis envy is that strong.

Sorry sisters, if that offends you.

Cirque

Congratulations!

This topic and thread has been chosen to be discussed by the ATS LIVE crew this Saturday night between 6-9pm pst (9-12 est), as part of this weeks exciting "Turbo Topics" segment.



We are running 256kbps through the ATS Player but we now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at Illustrial Website. You can also connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here to listen to the ATSLive Radio Show on ShoutCast


For more information and past shows, be sure to check out the ATSLive Show Threads Here.

Hope you'll listen in to the show!
Johnny

Originally posted by Heisenberg59

Now that's not to say that I think women shouldn't be given the same educational or leadership opportunities that a male is given, yes women should vote and drive and everything else, but the fact is ladies, you are simply not built to carry 100lb blocks on a daily basis. Both women AND men need to understand that we are equal, but in completely different ways.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yet they do it every day and I can guarantee you that I'd be just as happy having a woman drag my shot up ass out of a bad situation as I would a man and I can guarantee you they would fight just as hard to save a fellow soldier no doubt in my mind about that.

That being said I also agree that we don't have to be 100% equal in every way but I don't ink this is out of line at all these women have trained as hard and sometimes harder and they deserve the right to fight if they so desire.

reply to post by Heisenberg59


Sure , Why Not ? I Got No Problem with Women Shedding Blood for their Country . Please don't Cry when a Round Hits your Pretty Little Face though , it's just a Part of Combat in War . Good Luck Girlies , I'll being seeing you Soon on the Six O'Clock News in DaleGlennVilleJohnsonTownship America Really Soon.........

I'm all for equality and such, but in actual war a woman is a liability for several reasons.

They're not as strong. You think that the average woman can pass the same physical as the average male? Not something lowered for them like the tee off spot on a golf course, but the same strength/running speed tests?

They're not wired to be fighters. Even the the toughest broad in the UFC doesn't fight men of equal weight for the reason I stated above about strength and they're not nearly as physically aggressive.

Most importantly, the gender promote dissention in tight units. If your until was her and you, you're fine. The moment a unit is more than 2 and there is a woman involved, there will be pettiness and dissention as they are gender driven to form cliques. They will look to bond to a few and disdain the many. Don't believe me? Look @ your office work space. How many different "groups" are there? How well do those "groups" get along with one another---meaning really and not just the required banality of the office?

So roll the 3 of what I stated up, you want that next to you? You want that on your six? You want that to potentially have to drag you out of a fire fight? Pass.

I'll tell you this, we always weeded out 3 types from our ranks: racists, then women and lastly homosexuals. They all promote dissention to some extent. Racists always seek out other racists, forming only a bond with the racists. Women for what I've listed. Homosexuals, in my experience the were the least to promote dissention and typically most capable of the as total warriors, but once dissention was created by them it was equal to the racists and the women.

Pass on all three. I don't need to be worrying about you while engaging threats.

Derek

reply to post by Viesczy


An opinion rarely shared in this pc world.

I agree.

Can I point out that when the enemy is close enough for hand-to-hand combat something has gone horribly wrong somewhere? It almost never comes down to that these days. Not unless you're street fighting a la Stalingrad.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg


Any American Servicewoman could Easely Defeat an Enemy of the United States in Hand To Hand Combat Any Time , Right ? ..........



i297.photobucket.com...

As a woman, I have no desire to fight in any war. Nor do I think I'd make a good soldier.

And how do men, who are naturally protective, going to feel about women in combat? Will it cause distractions?

If a woman can pass the physical requirements, and she has the temperament to do so, then who am I to stand in her way?

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

Any American Servicewoman could Easely Defeat an Enemy of the United States in Hand To Hand Combat Any Time , Right ? ..........

i297.photobucket.com...

reaching much? what part of this post did this person say anything even CLOSE to what you just eluded to?

Here's the thing, woman have some abilities that men do not. Talk to most cops about women on the force and they'll tell you that they're good and that they have the ability to eo things men cannot, mainly when it comes to dealing with people. In a combat situation, though, this doesn't do a whole lot of good.

And what about emotions? I've seen some of the most impressive and hardened women I knew in the service just suddenly break down because they couldn't manage the stress. This isn't to say women can't handle the stress, but it has to be a factor.

And I brought this point up earlier, but one of the huge issues that I have seen discussed with this is feminine hygiene. When out on patrol and that certain monthly thing happens, it can cause an issue. It could potentially be a liability. Not to mention, going back to emotions, but women can go a little awry when like this.

There are many issues and fine points that need to be thought about and considered before jumping in to something like this. They did a huge campaign to prepare for the repeal of DADT but will they have a slow build up, test runs, and proper planning and tweaking when trying to implement the idea or will they just dump the women in to grunt battalions and hope for the best?

Originally posted by Heisenberg59

Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

www.foxnews.com

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation's wars.

Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama's defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I think what we need is an army of man hating lesbians with perpetual PMS to turn loose on enemy armies.