Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

So, you mean 85% of the women on ATS, right?

First said, as a woman, I don't want to be in combat, or in a war in any way, shape, or form.

That said, other countries do have their women in combat positions.

Countries who currently allow women to serve in combat include Israel, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland. The United Kingdom allows women to serve in an Artillery capacity, but they are excluded from a dedicated infantry division.

www.squidoo.com...

I looked at wikipedia, it stated the same info.

Having never been in the military, I don't know if there are different levels of combat, but women are already in combat roles.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by JuniorBeauchamp

 

So, you mean 85% of the women on ATS, right?

I'm not touching that one.(wink)

Not surprising actually, especially with the role changes in culture. Stay at home dads and executive moms. Men losing Testosterone and women picking it up.

I am all for equal rights, but the door opening, ma'am saying, chair pulling neanderthal part of me shudders at watching women go to the front line. Contrary to some of the post here, women have made fearsome warriors in past history. Boudica ring a bell? Celtic women fought beside their men when necessary, and by all accounts some were more fierce then men. The cherokee were a matriarchal society. Women are more devious, more scheming then men. However physically most woman are not able to compete with men. Sure there are some, but when it comes down to it men are the hunter/gatherer sex.

If they want to go to the front lines, they need to undergo the exact same training, have the exact same requirement as men. NO special favors or exemptions. That means when they turn 18, they register for selective service same as men do. If this was to happen, how many women would stand up and fight to go to the front line knowing in 20 years their precious daughter might end up drafted?

Old men, children, and certainly women have fought in bloody wars. I wouldn't only say let a woman go into bloody battle but require it. There is no ego in tempting death that requires them to have the strength of a young man. Let all citizens serve their time in the military and let them go to the front lines when required.Let them fight, bleed and die for their country. So at least they will know what freedom means instead of an idealistic vision of fantasy.

Will women get a choice to be on the front lines when they sign up? And will they also have to sign up in case of the draft like all 18-25 yo males do?

Having served 4 years each in both the US Army and the US Navy, I think its great that we now have homosexuals and women treated like soldiers first, and whatever else they are second. Equality is a good thing.

In order to reach full equality, however, that means that any woman serving in a combat role had better be able to meet the same fitness standards as their male counterparts. I have no doubt that there are many women to whom combat appeals, and I am sure they can handle the rigorous physical standards.

I dont care if its a man or a woman next to me when it gets bad. But if a male soldier is expected to perform to a certain level, than a woman filling his slot should be able to do the same. There are strong women and weak women, just as there are strong and weak men. I want a strong soldier next to me, not a weak one who is there because of equality issues.

The current standards for women need to be revised up to the same level of males of equal age, at least for females in these newly availiable combat slots.

That is all.

I am in favor ONLY as long as they meet the same exact standards as male personnel. Of course, 95% of women cannot meet those standards but a rare few can ... and for those few I say "good luck".

There was once a time where Blacks & Puerto Ricans were not allowed to serve in combat. Puerto Ricans were never sent overseas until World War II. The Army referred to all Puerto Rican 65th Infantry as "the rum & coke regiment". Of course that all changed when The Borinqueneers were sent to Korea in 1950 ... afterwards the Army wished there were more of them.

My point being we cannot judge people based on assumptions.

The only picture that comes to my mind is the scene in the movie GI Jane, when the drill instructor tortures Demi Moore in front of all the men in the cages.

I see the point in what he was saying, but as a woman I feel its her choice to do as she pleases.

I just can't help but think this is going to put the men in a terrible position if rape/torture were to occur if they were captured.

I have no doubt some women are physically capable. The ranch women out here work as hard as men.

There's a good chance US troops will end up in Africa. Capture could be real bad. Human trafficking instantly comes to mind. Instead of using female captives for leverage, money could be made to fund their war.

Women could be intentionally targeted for their worth.

Back in the old days women fought/helped in battle but protecting women/children was a high priority. Not because women/children were considered weaker it's because they were assets. The enemy sees them that way too, spoils of war.

Posted earlier here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**