Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

Why shouldn't women fight? Women can be suckers too. Let's face it, they're all suckers, fighting for the rich and powerful in this world, nothing more, nothing less. There's nothing noble about being a soldier. You're simply out there risking your life for a group of sick and depraved old men - the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world, the top .001%, in fact. They don't care if you live or die, and they don't have an ounce of patriotism or idealism in their bodies. They only want the money and power. These people are the sickest, most evil people on the planet, and they're more than willing to let good young men and women die so that they can retain their power.

Wake up, folks. War's a racket.

reply to post by Highground


Like I said I can see why there is a need for it, it's just a sucky thing. Look at the war on terror... I'd say, at least on this site, most people seem to be against it... Now imagine something big happened and they drafted you to go fight for something you don't believe in and feel america shouldn't have never been involved with in the first place... You'd be okay with fighting the war on terror?

Originally posted by redhorse
Women need to be able to meet the same physical requirements as the men. Sorry ladies that is going to rule out alot of us. A 50 lb rucksack is almost half of my body weight. I wouldn't be able to keep up, and plenty of other women couldn't either.

...its not about those that cant do the job... its about those who can...

Originally posted by redhorse
The possibility of rape if captured. Now this can happen for men, but there is an added probability for such actions against women.

...rape can happen to any female anywhere... a woman thats tough enough to meet the criteria for being in combat will find a way to handle it (or not), just like a male soldier would find a way to handle degradation and/or torture (or not)...

...if you're referring to the possibility of insemination, the same applies... whether you're a female soldier impregnated while being held prisoner or a male soldier given a std - its lifelong baggage that you either handle or you dont...

I say let women serve the traditional role of men if they are capable of doing so.

If you can get a battalion of capable women, that pass all the same tests as the men, let them serve in their own group.

Its the same deal with female fire fighters, You send in a woman with a 250 pound man, she can barely drag him out of the burning building if he gets injured. My point is - A woman can save another woman effortlessly.

Let women serve with other women, however they please.

But when it comes to dangerous roles to play in the field - I think it is a mistake to mix men and women together.

We are NOT built the same - So why should we expect the same results?

reply to post by stealthXninja


I'm currently serving.

Second line...

Originally posted by glome
reply to post by sbctinfantry

 

I served in the active army in a highly leveridged MOS which was male and female. I can say for a fact that women can excel in combat. Ask the Germans what they thought about Lidiya Gudovantseva, Red Army Sniper who took out 76 germans in WWII under extremely adverse conditions.

Furthermore, I served with a particularly hardcore female who trained vigorously and joined Delta Force. So I think people need to look at this objectively and use common sense. Why shouldn't women fight? They are Americans.

Well said.

I don't think all women can serve, the same way all men can't. I'm sure some women, are just not able to deal with combat situations etc but, there are, I'm sure, a lot of exceptional women in the military who work just as hard, train just as hard and can perform equally to their male counter parts.

reply to post by Highground


Well that was a bad example then. My point wasn't to argue that there is in no way ever a need for a draft... My point was that a draft is just crappy for anyone that gets picked... Especially if they aren't in favor of what they are being drafted for. There are a lot of people who are against the war on terror and I think it would suck for them to be forced to fight it... Anyway, this is getting a little off topic, take care.

Allowed? I say forced. Women should either stay out of the military or be forced to do everything everyone else has to do. Period. We are equals? Don't make me laugh.

How many other areas are women treated like its the 18th century when it suits them, but like modern "equals" when it likewise suits them. Like children we treat them. Until of course they demand otherwise in a given area. I call bs on all claims of equality. This thread proves my point.

As a tall, muscular, fit, female I must say I'm slightly offended to be perceived as "butch". I guess maybe I should go buy more shoes or something....

Oh I'm on a worrisome flipside of this all - the opposite of whether or not to "allow" - since I look like I'd be a good fighter - hell - I'll be one of the first females drafted!

Uh oh.

At least with the loss of health insurance I can say NO! to friends (and veritable strangers, even!) requests for "help" moving furniture and other physical chores.

I have to go hide from Military Recruiters now, and to reiterate - NO - I cannot carry your couch down 3 flights of stairs. I need to go shopping for shoes now, later

As far as being a "ground pounder",

No. Women SHOULD NOT BE INFANTRY.

That being said, I think that women would make excellent pilots and possibly takers. good reflexes and attention to minute detail.

This is more garbage from the progressive left to dismember and destroy our military via morale.

First the "Gay thing"

Now, "Hey Bob, why ya lookin at my johnson like that? Bob, are you alright? Uh, Bob?
SMACK!!!!

Dammit Bob! Get out of my shower!"

Yeah. Great.

I'm pretty sure everyone knew who was gay before and everyone just kept it quiet. Now the freaky militant ones wont even be afraid to "show it" and god forbid they are rebuffed.

And now the women being grunts.

BIGOTRY! YOUR NOT INCLUSIVE! YOUR INTOLERANT!
Bad straight guy for not putting up with the BS!

Women in combat would be a good thing. Native women and girls would have a less chance of getting raped, and many crimes the military commit would probably get snitched on.

Plus, we can actually have sex scenes in military movies now.

I am curious as to how many people chiming in are actually in (or were in ) the military. I myself am in the Air Force and a WOMAN. I have never not got my way because of my ta ta's (I am lacking in that area) and I have never got BTZ (early promotion for non military or non Air Force). I do admit I have known women to use the womanly charms to get out of trouble and it nauseates me. I also have no interest in being in a combat position. I admit I could not handle the front line in a physical sense. I am only 5ft 105 lbs. However, I also know many women who could handle infantry and many men who are infantry who shouldn't be. So regardless of sex if a person can pass the schools, test, PT, etc than they should be allowed to do the job.

Originally posted by leelo
Though women on not put into infantry units and career fields, we are however still in the front lines. There are many women who are MP's or get put on TCN duty, convoys, etc... and end up in the line of fire. We simply do not get the credit or noticed. I have also had many female commanders who were amazing. Being a women in the military I have to say I am getting tired of hearing how women are corrupting or breaking apart the military. If anything is tearing apart our military it is two BS wars and the lack of government support.

Here is an example of female MPs in combat: Link

One of the women mentioned in the article was awarded the Silver Star for her actions in this fight.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9bcbc0e42425.jpg[/atsimg]
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester (23) of the Kentucky National Guard receiving the Silver Star in Iraq.

reply to post by sbctinfantry

NOTE: Some of the visualizations below may be graphic in order to illustrate a point. Do not read further if you are in the least bit squeamish.

This should not happen for at least one simple reason (if not others): having women on the battlefield DISTRACTS combatants. Instead of thinking about the gritty details of waging war on the battlefield, combatants are suddenly thinking of their wives, sisters, daughters, mothers and grandmothers.

Like it or not, none of us enter this world from a man's penis. Sorry for the graphic visual. It was used to blatantly illustrate the fact that we all enter this world from a woman. You can't argue that (unless you get into a debate about cloning which is a bit off topic). All of us come from women.

Whether you nurse or not, there is some special bond that mothers share with their children. You can't get away from this.

Putting women in direct combat as if there were no real biological difference? Bad idea. There is a reason that men are sent to war. Putting women into the equation throws off the entire system. Suddenly men are being more heroic than usual to save women. Women wouldn't be given the most dangerous jobs. ---Look, it's bad enough seeing your buddy get blown into red mist, but it's a completely new level of horror to see a girlfriend, a mother, a cutie you wanted to date get her intestines blasted across the side of a building in a third-world country.

That is the kind of thing that is really bad for morale. Watching women die elevates the level of drama, stress and concern. Men in combat fight for what they love. Aside from FREEEEEDOOOMMMM! Aside from that, it's the people we cherish, namely wives, girlfriends, daughters, mothers and grandmothers. Yeah, they love their brothers, sons, fathers and grandfathers too. There is just something different about witnessing females getting blown into mushy chunks of once-living flesh. Like it or not, men and women are different.

This is not like equalizing how much a man can earn versus a woman. This is not that. This is WAR. Bloody, messy, grotesque WAR where people endure psychological hardships as it is ---before adding in the psychological trauma of watching women get caught up into a meatgrinder.

My opinions, obviously. I do think they resonate with many in the military, though.

In the end, it's not that women are deficient or can't do the job. It's not that AT ALL. Hell, women would probably add a new level of atrocity to war if fully allowed to unleash themselves. It's about the psychological weakness of MEN not being to properly handle watching women die. Maybe it's one of the last vestiges of chivalry in modern man. Watching women get blown to bits, shot through the head, dismembered and dragged through the streets of the next sesspool... It's something that awakens a rage in men. Leave the dirty, gritty HELL OF WAR to men. It's better that way. It's better for men that they aren't killed by (or have to kill) women. Again, we all enter this world via a woman, which equates them to CREATORS OF LIFE. Let men be stupid and have to take lives. Let women bring them into the world. It's much more graceful, and perhaps women should not share in the insanity of brutal battlefield warfare.

Please, this isn't sexist. I'm just stating that men can't handle the sight of women being ripped to shreds very well. For that alone, spare them that. Let them fight FOR their wives, girlfriends, daughters. Don't let them fight WITH them, as they may lose sight of what they are fighting for.

The enemy's about to stop using ak's and move to the tranq dart's.
They sure love having an ample supply of sex slaves.
My opinion,women should never be allowed to fight in a war.

You cant even use the theory that men dont have the balls to kill a woman of the oppossing army.
I know i would not have that problem. And i have never even had a combat job.
Last reason bieng, you have to admit the women of the unit would be all that's on your mind while your suppose to be fully alert.

Women should not be allowed to serve in combat. If they are NOT qualified to handle those HEAVY equipment, they should not go out there in the "playing field". I just don't see how women can fight along men. It's just not supposed to go that far. Men and women are NOT equal physiologically as far as strength and aggressiveness to "get the job done". I don't think evolution, too, meant for women to play a more violent role during wartime. Women are supposed to be designed for nurturing children of the "fallen" combat soldiers and healing the men emotionally after the war.

reply to post by GhostLancer


Excellent points.

One of the reasons men go to war is to keep the women safe from the horrors of it - it is one of the primary selling points.

"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" - where are womenfolk are.

If women start showing up in combat, what is the point of joining the military? I mean, don't men fight so the women don't have to?

It throws everything through the loop.

In its draft report, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission said the military should gradually eliminate the ban in order to create a "level playing field for all qualified service members."

(visit the link for the full news article)





Level playing field? Well I think someone ought to consider the unhappy fact regarding the number of females in combat. I'm talking about our lesbian sisters. God bless them. I hate to be the one to suggest that there is gonna be a contradiction in here somewhere but try this out. We allow women in direct combat roles but not if they're homosexuals. Ahhhhh yes. What the Military Leadership Diversity Commission gives, the Military takes away.

Regarding gays in the military let me say that I'd much prefer my daughter serving alongside gay men than straight ones. OK conservatives do you understand why or do I have to explain it to you?

Man this get's more interesting by the day.

Earlier someone posted a link to an article titled "A Female Officer's Perspective on Women in Combat". I was struck by the line:

The world has changed, and the face of battle has only gotten uglier. Right now, America’s enemies do not believe in standing in nice orderly rows, wearing starched and crisp uniforms, and sending volleys of fire only at the designated combatants, who have also clearly distinguished themselves from the hapless non-combatant civilians around the scene of battle. America’s enemies do not wear uniforms. Now, the only difference between a combatant and a non-combatant is whether or not he or she is pointing a weapon at you with an intent to use it.

I remember as a child in history class being taught that this is how the American's defeated the British; by using unconventional tactics & dropping that time's ideas of 'civilized' warfare. Funny how it's viewed now that we're the imperialist power frustrated at our inability to quell the rebellion as it were.

Back to the topic at hand. If a woman can meet the same physical requirements as the men of her unit, she's shown proficient skill at her assigned task & she's ok with getting shot at and possibly killed then why not allow her to fight? As long as those in charge of setting the rules don't make the mistake of equating equal rights with lowering the bar then I have no problem with it. I'd imagine relatively few women would meet the physical requirements, & those who do would more than likely win the respect of the men they're assigned to fight along side. Guess I feel the same way about gay's in the military too. He may not be straight but if his bullets fly true I'll take him.

Originally posted by ethancoop

Back to the topic at hand. If a woman can meet the same physical requirements as the men of her unit, she's shown proficient skill at her assigned task & she's ok with getting shot at and possibly killed then why not allow her to fight?

Can you name one traditionally male job which didn't lower the physical requirements for women?

The Police?

Firefighters?

If those two services changed the requirements for women, then we can expect the military to do that too when it comes to women in combat.