U S women allowed in combat.

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
reply to post by bo12au
 


What happens when some terrorist group captures the first female soldier and release video of her being gang-raped repeatedly.


Women have been vulnerable to capture for a long time already, they're already driving in convoys and flying combat aircraft. A small number (and it will stay small because of requirements and interest) will now be in units which are better at shooting back.
edit on 16-2-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
If they can do damage to the big boys with hand to hand only and no weapons,then fine,I would rather this ignorance of humanity curse only one sex ,but if ,through some misguided belief ,some see it as a good thing then I hope you recall this conversation if they should implement a draft.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
We've had female combat medics with us for years. They deploy and patrol with us, usually carrying fairly heavy med bergens, weapons, body armour, water, ammo, nvd etc. They can carry the weight. I just don't know about the actual combat stuff. They regularly return fire during contacts but we don't take them in on the assault.

It's all about aggression. Time will tell I suppose. If it works out for the US no doubt we'll be doing the same over here in the UK.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Don't see anything issues with it other then sexual torture when captured, but if any women signing will know the dangers of combat.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
I am and I repeat I am not Military in any way. But I have ideas. This is my idea which I have said years ago.
War is HELL! There is no nice on the battlefield. You are their to serve your country. In old history war was for the men. The men made the wars, and they waged them. Then things changed and women were included in the military. Some might considere that this opens many issues. If the cobatants are all mail there was a reluctnce to destroy women, and children. Since the advant of women soldiers and modern warfare, this has eliminated this belief. But I believe their are some that still believe that by including women you change the situation of what is acceptable and what isn't in war. Women are very capable warriors, that's not the issue. I've never been in a war, wouldn't want to be. Those that serve male or female deserve the respect.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:23 AM
link   
They ARE respected but the standards for combat arms positions are high for a reason .The lowering of those standards in ANY WAY weakens the entire force.It is very hard for strong men much less women to do it.If they can maintain the same readiness standards at all times we had to fine ,but I just don't see a normal female doing that at all.
Class "A" conditioning should stay as it is.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RightlyCurious
I'm all for this. A worry is their weight to gear ratio. .


I was in the US Army for five years. Ages 19-24. I fully admit that I was weak link. I was only 108 pounds and I couldn't carry a fully loaded ruck sack.

After being in for five years I can say that I am against women being in the regular Army in combat positions. Too many of us at that young age go in and can't carry the equipment, etc etc.

Other positions .... like medical and clerical and chaplain assistant (that was mine) and things like that are fine. I know some will say that there should be a physical test to pass in order to be able to fill the other positions and that if a woman can't pass them then they shouldn't be in. But the thing is that there would be so few women who could pass the physical test that combat units would have a tiny number and that would make things difficult in the field. The women would stand out and have gender issues. I am very sure of that. (not to be indelicate but think of why the Navy doesn't want women on a submarine .... )

Anyways .. put me down for a 'no' on the vote for women allowed in combat units.

(for the record .. I was in the 2nd Armored Division out of Fort Hood Texas, and III Corp, and I was at US Army Garrison in Japan )

edit on 6/14/2013 by FlyersFan because: spelling



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





After being in for five years I can say that I am against women being in the regular Army in combat roles. Too many of us at that young age go in and can't carry the equipment, etc etc.


Im not for woman being in combat roles. Woman have wombs they bring life into the world. There role is live givers not life takers.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
All this is a result of females not being able to achieve rank because the"Good OL Boys" at the top won't establish an appropriate meritocracy for women in command outside of combat.

But they are so "What have you done for me lately" that it would be hard to get ahead.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Rape has been used as a weapon of war for 1000's of years, look at what a muslim cleric said about the syrian conflict.
Look at what UK and US troops have done in war zones recently.
Women have survived violence in conflict zones as civilians since time began, now they will face the same threats but as Soldiers rather than civilians.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
How wonderful! We are such an equal society now, that women and gays can also go and fight for the corporations and kill people in far off lands for their benefit!



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I would agree with that. I would think most males would some how become protective of their female counterparts in some way. But training would remove this tendancy. If you are fighting beside someone male or female that is equally trained there would be no need for that. Males being the more physically dominant have the advantage in war. But that's not to say that some women can not be as physicaly strong as males. I would think there is many women just as capable as males. This question is better left to those that train and make the regs.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 05:48 PM
link   
An update on the incident:
dailycaller.com...



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'm all for Women in Combat too. They wanted equal rights, they got em..

Equal time on getting raped.
Equal time on the doctors couch suffering from Post Dramatic Stress Syndrome
Equal time suffering from the horrors of the Medicines and vaccines they shoot service people up with
Equal time having to bulk up and get strong to keep up with the men, lest they slow the unit down and put everyone in danger.
Equal time living through the horrors of war itself, killing innocent women children and also maiming them and leaving them to suffer
Equal time with nightmares that will haunt them for the rest of their life - not to protect us from invaders or to protect democracy but simply for some idiots agenda and own financial gain.

Yeah Ladies.. you go girls. More power to ya.. er.. don't come crying to us men when you realize you gals made a Big mistake.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
There are expecting a war so great that even the women will have to fight like men. I was in the Army, to put women in Army Rangers and Navy Seals it a mistake. To fight in a defensive position is one thing, to drive an offense is another.

Also, what a great way for the elite to depopulate by sending ladies on the front line.



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
All women who want to cry may do so with me.Although drinking is a usual step.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
I'm all for Women in Combat too. They wanted equal rights, they got em..

Equal time on getting raped.
Equal time on the doctors couch suffering from Post Dramatic Stress Syndrome
Equal time suffering from the horrors of the Medicines and vaccines they shoot service people up with
Equal time having to bulk up and get strong to keep up with the men, lest they slow the unit down and put everyone in danger.
Equal time living through the horrors of war itself, killing innocent women children and also maiming them and leaving them to suffer
Equal time with nightmares that will haunt them for the rest of their life - not to protect us from invaders or to protect democracy but simply for some idiots agenda and own financial gain.

Yeah Ladies.. you go girls. More power to ya.. er.. don't come crying to us men when you realize you gals made a Big mistake.


They arent being forced into it, everybody who jins up has the choice to do so or not.
We're not children who have to go crying to big tough men when we make a mistake, most of us like men, can deal with it on our own.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Rapes are probably going to sky rocket. Deployment medical expenses are going to sky rocket. Last thing we need is this boyfriend girlfriend # on the front lines. We are only as strong as our weakest link and that link just got weaker.

The United States is getting weaker all around.
edit on 19-6-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
I doubt there will be rape in forward units,that would be a good way to get killed in combat, buy your own.
I would do it anyway.The pussification continues Ted is right again.



posted on Jun, 19 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I'm not sure I like this. The first thought that popped into my head was "rape", as in what would happen if one of these troops were to get captured by enemy groups.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join