Women in Combat
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will lift a long-standing ban on women serving in combat, according to senior defense officials. The ensuing administrative process could mean women will serve in front line combat roles, but not until 2016.
I’ve seen TV shows and movies where women of the future serve in a combat role. So heck, why not?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2215 hrs
Israel has women serving in combat roles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0502 hrs
Israel has women serving in combat roles.
Exactly wrong:
http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/
I served 26 years in the military, including a number of those years in combat. I worked with quite a few women toward the end of my service (retired 1993) and even the ones I thought had their crap all in one sock folded like a cheap suit when the situation got too physical, too intense or too tough psychologically. Go ahead and experiment with the military if you want, just don’t screw up my retirement!
P.S. It won’t work, and the people in the federal government who were never in the military shouldn’t pretend it will.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0833 hrs
I worked with quite a few women toward the end of my service (retired 1993) and even the ones I thought had their crap all in one sock folded like a cheap suit when the situation got too physical, too intense or too tough psychologically.
And no male soldier ever folded like a cheap suit under pressure?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0852 hrs
And no male soldier ever folded like a cheap suit under pressure?
Obviously you’ve never served in the military, and if you did I suspect you pushed a desk on some comfy airbase somewhere. Thanks for the typical liberal logic this morning.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0904 hrs
Obviously you’ve never served in the military, and if you did I suspect you pushed a desk on some comfy airbase somewhere. Thanks for the typical liberal logic this morning.
Why not answer the question? Those of us who did serve understand that not everyone reacts the same way to the same situation. What about the men who washed out of infantry/airborne/special forces/seal school? Did they fold like a “cheap suit”?
If you wouldn’t have stated that you retired in ‘93, one could have guessed with your comments. You are what is called the old guard. Your sexist views reflect poorly on those who did serve and those who continue to serve. To disqualify someone solely bases on their gender is discrimination no matter how you slice it.
Once the requirements are all the same for physical fitness, I don’t understand how you could oppose this.
I’m sure your retirement was welcomed and anticipated by those you served with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0939 hrs
And here’s a story a little more recent than that 2001 fluff piece you posted duke.
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146802589/foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines
This line applies to you, “...female soldiers around the world increasingly brave the same dangers as their male counterparts, they still face a unique set of risks from their own fellow soldiers.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0946 hrs
NPR articles; “old guard, and liberals who think those who fail BUD/S “fold like a cheap suit.”
It’s been tested and tried by military all over the world. Try as you may, you can’t get your round liberal opinion to fit in the square hole of reality.
I’m sure your retirement was welcomed and anticipated by those you served with.
Subtract 90 points for personal insults.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0953 hrs
Duke,
Personal insults from liberal activists is usually a sign you made a great argument that can’t be overcome on the merit.
Good Job on your victory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1015 hrs
Obviously you’ve never served in the military, and if you did I suspect you pushed a desk on some comfy airbase somewhere. Thanks for the typical liberal logic this morning.
What about this, Kevin? You know, the part where Duke was a huge dick that prompted the personal insult that’s just so typical of liberal activists.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1040 hrs
Try as you may, you can’t get your round liberal opinion to fit in the square hole of reality.
Says the guy who posted a link to WORLD NEWS DAILY from 2001. Get off your high horse. If I need links to Obama birth certificate stories, I know who to contact.
Subtract 90 points for personal insults.
Is that from you score of “liberal logic”, sexist remarks or “round liberal opinion”? Or how about linking the security of your retirement to opening jobs to women? I’m just trying to keep up with the pace you are setting.
Since you are afraid of reading websites that don’t fit your narative, I’ll go ahead and post some more links for you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518649.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/asia/australia-will-allow-women-to-serve-in-frontline-combat.html?_r=0
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1153315/1/.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8402845/First-woman-to-fly-Typhoon-enforces-no-fly-zone.html
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-14/world/pakistan.female.fighter.pilot_1_pakistan-air-force-fighter-jets-cadet?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2011/04/11/feature-02
http://www.southafrica.info/about/people/catherine-labuschagne.htm
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4089028,00.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1118 hrs
VA,
Duke’s comment was probing military experience and service. I’ll grant you it had a little bit of edge to it, but I dind’t consider it insulting. The comment does have merit to the issue of whether Joe had military experience on the issue. (If you have not been in a combat role, this issue is difficult for non-combat people to understand.)
The comment about how people that served with Duke are glad he’s gone had nothing to do with the issue and was a direct personal attack.
If you can explain to me how that comment, that Duke’s fellow military soldiers are glad he’s retired, has to do with women in combat roles, then I may rethink my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1120 hrs
The comment about how people that served with Duke are glad he’s gone had nothing to do with the issue and was a direct personal attack.
So me stating that his retirement was welcomed and anticipated for a guy who wants to not allow any women in combat roles because of the
...quite a few women toward the end of my service (retired 1993) and even the ones I thought had their crap all in one sock folded like a cheap suit when the situation got too physical, too intense or too tough psychologically.
According to Duke, if quite a few can’t do it according to HIS standards, then none should. Doesn’t make sense. Nor does diminshing the role of people who don’t serve in combat roles like duke did as well,
and if you did I suspect you pushed a desk on some comfy airbase somewhere.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1149 hrs
Will the physical requirements be lowered so women can meet this mark ? Or will women be required to meet the specifications already in place ?
If we need to lower the bar in terms of physical abilities just to make this claim seams to me we are doing nothing but weakening the military not to mention the nation.King Obama will never stop it is clear he wants us to become a third world nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1153 hrs
So me stating that his retirement was welcomed and anticipated for a guy who wants to not allow any women in combat roles because of the
I think veterans deserve better than that comment.
I say “thank you for your service”.
I don’t have a beef that you challenged his military opinion on the issue. (Granted, I do agree with his opinion) Just thought that comment was not needed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1219 hrs
Duke- I served with women in a combat role, and I also was serving prior to the rule change when women were in combat situations anyway but just not in front line positions, and women preform just as well as men. Several women have won the medal of honor and I certainly would not say they “buckled under the pressure”. I flew with women who have combat kills and did not have cushy desk jobs.
Numerous other countries in the world do this and there is no drop in the quality of soldier. In fact, this gives a a larger pool of soldiers and does not arbitrarily eliminate good soldiers solely because they cannot pee in the snow.
Crusher- the rules are going to be the same as they are now, which is that the physical requirements are the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1238 hrs
Why are libs so hellbent on subjecting their mothers, sisters and daughters to the absolute horrors of warfare? There are few things on the planet that rival the utter brutality of military combat operations.
Most women can be taught to kill as well as most men and die on command just as easily as most men. What number of female combat casualties are sufficient to achieve gender equality in a liberal’s mind? We already have a well-documented history of the detrimental effects of warfare on several generations of our brothers and sons fortunate enough to return alive. What we have yet to figure out is how to deal with their mangled minds and bodies.
Just how morally debased do you have to be to willingly offer up the nurturers of your society to the barbarity of ground-level warfare just to satisfy a misguided pursuit of gender equality?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1240 hrs
This renders the concept of ‘ambush’ null and void.
Every dog within miles will know where the kill team is.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1258 hrs
Several women have won the medal of honor and I certainly would not say they “buckled under the pressure”.
One. In 1865. For medical service with the Union Army.
Which was certainly not an easy task. But neither was it for valor in combat, which the MOH later became.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1305 hrs
I think veterans deserve better than that comment.
So where was your outrage at his sexist remarks at female veterans?
I am proud of the service I gave to my country and am proud of most of the others that do the same. However, I am not proud of those veterans who feel the can diminish the service of their fellow soldiers as duke did.
The army has seven values that you are taught in basic training: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage. If duke was in the Army, he violated at least three of them: Loyalty, Respect and Honor.
Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers.
Respect: Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.
Honor: Live up to Army values.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1332 hrs
The army has seven values
In the Marines we were taught‘Mission over troop welfare’
and
‘Semper Fidelis’
I allow that this is because marines have a hard time counting and retaining information.
I liked most of the WMs I served with. Great gals, great people to work with, just like their male counterparts.
I might have an unusual perspective on this: I served in the infantry, for four years. Then lateral moved to data processing. So I saw both sides of the deal.
Women and the combat arms are not a good fit. There is the matter of upper body strength. Stamina. The squalid and crowded conditions that the infantry puts up with. And so on, and so forth.
Honoring women, liking women, does not mean I have discard unfortunate biological and cultural facts.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1340 hrs
To pass APFT, an 18 yr old man must do 42 pushups. A woman is like 12. Should we discriminate strength?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1348 hrs
How will you be honoring others in your unit if your body is not capable of humping 8o lbs of gear ? You put everyone at risk not to mention the objective of the task at hand. Unlike the Hildabeast you just cant pout and sniffle when under distress.
How are you helping in the mission if others need to wait on you and tote your gear, the reality is people will get killed or call for a chopper to haul your ass out. Perhaps maybe 1 in a hundred could pull off the physical requirements, will she also be comfortable squatting in the weeds taking a dump alongside her new buddies.
The military is no place for a social experiment. At the very least we should have female reporters at MSNBC squat and dump alongside the male anchors put there findings in a report and submit it back to Leon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1419 hrs
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job—and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation”
And
“As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world—particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,” McCain said in a statement Wednesday.
Gabbard said she agreed with McCain that physical standards shouldn’t be compromised, but added, “If women are in an ability to meet those standards, they should be allowed to serve.”What other objections do you have to women fighting and dying for their country in the same way that men do? Because it’s obvious that women who can meet the physical standards, even though they may be few and far between, will and should be allowed to be in front-line combat roles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1503 hrs
Women are equal to men.
This is same logic that was used to exclude gays and blacks
Some men don’t qualify for physical areas of service, so it will be for some women.
Equal means equal.
Otherwise men get to decide other things for women, like what they do with their bodies.
Save the paternalism for your grand kids.
Women will do just fine , placed in area"s where the individual can succeed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1508 hrs
So the worry a women soldier in combat will be captured and raped by enemy forces is not a concern?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1521 hrs
Women are equal to men.
1. No one is denying this.
What I, at least, am saying is that the peculiar requirements of a combat arms team are no places for mixing the sexes.
I’m not sure how you can argue that women, with a vagina, and menstruation, and being able to make babies, are just men, but shorter and less hairy.
2. It’s coming, and I’m so glad I don’t have to be the first sergeant in a line company having to deal with it.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1522 hrs
So the worry a women soldier in combat
You, Kevin, are worrying about implementations of detail. You’re a guy.
These other people are worried about notions of equality, and fairness and aren’t so concerned about the people having to live with these kinds of problems.
Kinda funny, really.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1524 hrs
Brian,
I guess the first time we here a women soldier is captured and gang raped, it will certainly make me cringe.
Don’t any of these lefties read the accounts in the Congo where rape is an actual tool of war?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1528 hrs
Gotta protect those women from themselves, Kevin! No way they can be trusted to make decisions on their own, like whether to put themselves in harm’s way on behalf of their country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1534 hrs
VA,
You mean you would not cringe at the first woman combat soldier being captured and gang raped by enemy soldiers over and over again?
It would make me cringe.
At that point, I think public sentiment would be: what a dumb policy decision that was.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1540 hrs
More meat for the grinder.
Kill em’ all, Let God sort em out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1606 hrs
What makes you think that men aren’t sexually abused when they are captured?
I’m not sure how you can argue that women, with a vagina, and menstruation, and being able to make babies, are just men, but shorter and less hairy.
I actually injured myself facepalming to this nonsense. Women are not men, men are not women. No one is saying that. If, as stated above, a woman can meet the same physical requirements to serve in combat, you want to stop them because you are uncomfortable because they make babies? Are you serious? How are you able to control yourself around women in general then? You’re life must be torture.
Kinda funny, really.
Quite the opposite, sad really that you think men cannot exist around women because they have vaginas and give birth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1607 hrs
What makes you think that men aren’t sexually abused when they are captured?
Kev, you cringin or puckerin?
you think men cannot exist around women because they have vaginas and give birth.
Isn’t that the only reason men can exist around women?
By the way law, I like my women tall and hairy:)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1618 hrs
I guess the first time we here a women soldier is captured and gang raped, it will certainly make me cringe.
We live in a culture where - I am told - the majority of us approve of killing babies before they come to term.
In such a place, no, it’s not going to bother anyone. Well, you. Me. But we’re a minority.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 24, 2013 at 1632 hrs
Kevin,
Yes, I would cringe at that. I’d cringe at it if it happened to a man. I cringe when I hear about men and women dying in combat. I cringe when I hear about any woman getting gang raped.
Again, what does this have to do with keeping women from front-line combat roles, so long as they can complete the same, mandatory, physical requirements as men?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1655 hrs
What makes you think that men aren’t sexually abused when they are captured?
1.) Many of our Muslim enemies really, really, detest homosexuality, but will readily embrace sexual abuse of women.
2.) Our society does not make as big of a deal about abuse of men in this context. Women are a protected class. Men are responsible to protect the protected class since the dawn of time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1655 hrs
And if you see a gang rape in process by all means don’t try and stop the madness as you may be infringing on her sexual rights.
We want to protect the children by outlawing firearms but yet we offer no protection to helpless infants not able to protect themselves. Hell the government will even pick up the tab whenever your in need of a good uterus sucking.
Sell your gun stock invest in Kirby and Hoover.
We are screwed as a nation, only bright side is socialism never works it just takes some people longer to realize they are being scammed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1703 hrs
1.) Many of our Muslim enemies really, really, detest homosexuality, but will readily embrace sexual abuse of women.
Strike the word “Muslim” from that sentence and your statement is still true.
Also, I agree with your second statement. But tradition isn’t, and shouldn’t, remain in perpetuity. And no, change for the sake of change isn’t good. But change that allows a person, regardless of gender, who meets the physical requirements to serve in the military and die for his or her country with honor is good change, in my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1709 hrs
VA,
Muslims are notoriously against homosexuality. Is it a problem for me to say that?
The problem with letting go of “tradition” in number 2, it relieves men from that responsibility. I’m opposed making men escape even more responsibility than what liberalism has already done to men, as a whole, in last 50 years. Men don’t need to be fathers to their children, don’t need to marry their shack up honey, don’t need to support their children financially because government will do it, and now don’t need to protect women from enemies….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1716 hrs
Seems to me the argument needs to be: Will this make the combat troops better?
If this policy makes the combat troops better, in terms of their performance, prove it first and then accept it.
If it doesn’t improve performance or keeps it the same, then what’s the point?
It does bother me though that Obama who has no military experience, Panetta who was a desk jockey officer in the army and Chiefs of staff who have to parrot what those two say to keep their jobs, are making the decision.
This is an issue that needs to be decided in Congress, where they can hold open meetings and we can see both sides of the issue. Then the American public who pays attention to these things can debate the issue and tell their congresscritters what they think.
This should not be a decision made behind closed doors without any hearings.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1736 hrs
Kind of funny, a bunch of men arguing about whether women should be allowed in combat roles, don’t ya think?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1805 hrs
Alright Kevin, with that moralistic, non-sequitor rant, this conversation is over.
And you put “Muslim” in your sentence because you hate Muslims and want to associate them with the evil fringes of their religion as often as possible. Don’t pretend otherwise.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1806 hrs
Historically, war rape was perpetrated against those captured or defeated not as a sexual act but as an act of emasculation and humiliation. By that measure, I suppose we also should not subject our male soldiers to combat roles.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 24, 2013 at 1812 hrs
And you put “Muslim” in your sentence because you hate Muslims and want to associate them with the evil fringes of their religion as often as possible. Don’t pretend otherwis
Are you saying rampant abuse of women in Muslim countries is not a big human rights problem?
We should not subject the women of this country to that danger.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1822 hrs
I find it odd that nobody has brought up the fact that these women might be more apt to get raped by their own comrades. Have we questioned the need to have wars at all? When we are the conquerors, I assume that we do not do those things to our enemies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1822 hrs
Exactly right MF
http://m.guardiannews.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/24/women-war-zone-combat-military-sexual-violence
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1826 hrs
Moveforward, FU
I find it odd that nobody has brought up the fact that these women might be more apt to get raped by their own comrades
.
I may have to poke my eyes out, but I agree with your concern.
I don’t agree with the need to completely disarm and let foreign evil overrun this country, but I do agree that abuse of women in combat by our own military could be a problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1835 hrs
While America self destructs from within, Al Qedia says, “Mission Accomplished!”
Bin Laden’s plan is working thanks to liberals who like to think they are themselves Americans.
RIP USA!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1924 hrs
Well, at least that 12 mile roadmarch in three hours, with 90 pounds of lightweight equipment standard can go away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1948 hrs
I did not see one female pass Jump School the first time around, due to the pull-up standard at the time. A cursory check of Military.com would lead one to believe that those are no longer graded. So yes, if you lower the standards, there is no reason that women can’t hold the same job title that a man can. And that’s what really counts….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1955 hrs
Re: #23 by Crusher
The military is no place for a social experiment.
So the integration of the services was not fruitful? Striking down of DADT?
I am a combat veteran. I served, at one point, under one of the first female grads from West Point. I had women in my unit while deployed in a combat theater who did everything just as ably as their male counterparts.
#17 by Merlin
Why are libs so hellbent on subjecting their mothers, sisters and daughters to the absolute horrors of warfare?
Because it is about time that women are able to advance to the very top positions in the military, the ones where you have to punch your ticket by serving in a combat unit. If a servicemember is FULLY qualified to perform a mission, there is NO reason they cannot be given that mission. That is not a liberal position, it is one of fulfilling our nations most basic truth, that anyone can advance as far as their abilities and drive will take them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 2314 hrs
With few exceptions, women already serve in combat roles and almost 200 women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, with almost 1000 injured.
So, it is a fallacy that women do not serve in combat. Further we have combat female pilots, flying jets, bombers and attack helicopters. So, we are only talking about the very elite and toughest positions in the military, like the Green Berets, the SEALS and other elite troops.
Here is a shock to liberals: women, on average, not as strong as men. Most female firefighters applicants who had to pass the same physical test as males to get into the fire service could not, so to let them, they lowered the standards.
In the Marines, they have different standards for physical fitness for females and males, so even the Marines recognize this fact.
So, if they don’t dumb down the physical requirements, the women are not afraid to poop and pee in front of men while out on patrol and aren’t afraid to die, then let them in.
But I they have to change the standards, then there is no way they should be allowed in.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 0106 hrs
Here is a shock to liberals: women, on average, not as strong as men. Most female firefighters applicants who had to pass the same physical test as males to get into the fire service could not, so to let them, they lowered the standards.
In the Marines, they have different standards for physical fitness for females and males, so even the Marines recognize this fact.Here is a shock to YOU. The armed forces have different fitness requirements for men and women. Not just the Marines. EVERY BRANCH. It isn’t a shock to those who serve. Do you think that liberals don’t serve in the military? Is your mind so clouded that this makes sense to you?
Look at comment #24, which links a very good article which I will do again,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html?hpt=hp_t2The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed the idea. So the argument that no one with military service assisted with this is out.
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job—and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation”
I am surprised by the conservatives who preach self reliance and independence when they won’t let women make their own choices. It’s a mixture of patronizing and condescending coddling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1113 hrs
Chalk up one conservative who has no problem with this, especially with the emphasis that lstw has quoted. Once I heard that, I was fine with it. They (Women) are adults and I trust that they have weighed all the risks - including the hearthrobbing tale woven by Kevin - and if they are ok with it, who am I to say No?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1236 hrs
Jason,
So ALL women going into the military could potentially be in combat roles?
Or will they have a choice not to be in a combat role?
I assume “Yes”, women will have choice.
In the interest of equality, will men get the same “choice”?
In other words, can I join the army and choose to be a paper pusher behind the scenes, vs. that pesky combat role?
So if we want it to be truly “equal”, shouldn’t women be chosen for front line infantry on same frequency as men?
If draft is ever needed, now my wife and daughter can be drafted?
Or are we not quite that “equal”....yet.
Conservatives are dumb for supporting this, you open up this can of worms.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1252 hrs
Check out the link some interesting tidbits.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/MilMed.shtml
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1312 hrs
In other words, can I join the army and choose to be a paper pusher behind the scenes, vs. that pesky combat role?
Not every joe or jane off the street can enlist in the military. First you take the ASVAB which is the military’s aptitude test. Depending on how you score, certain jobs, or MOS, are available to you. The higher the score, more opportunities; the lower the score, the less. And you can score low enough to not be “smart” enough. After that is background and health checks and other stuff.
Some MOS’ have inherent combat exposure. Infantry is the obvious example. Others, like more administrative or mechanical have less. The problem here though is that with todays combat, yes infantry will experience combat, but so could mechanics or administrative based on the current enemy tactics.
Basic training covers that, basic training. Everyone is taught how to fire their weapon and basic combat techniques.
At least that is what it was like for me when I was in the Army. It is not like the movie Full Metal Jacket when the drill instructor read their assignments at the end of basic. But that was the marines and I cannot speak accurately of that.
Either scrap selective service completely or have women be required for it as well. Since our military is voluntary based currently, I am leaning towards the former.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1323 hrs
In other words, can I join the army and choose to be a paper pusher behind the scenes, vs. that pesky combat role?
You might be able to. But you’d have to lose a couple hundred pounds first to pass the physical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1329 hrs
You might be able to. But you’d have to lose a couple hundred pounds first to pass the physical
lol—-I’d be severely emaciated, and probably dead, if I lost 200 lbs.
So you don’t support complete “equality”? Women being required to register for selective service and drafted when instituted.
I know quite a few women that would be VERY upset at your radical feminism in this context.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1341 hrs
When I joined the Army, I failed the color vision test. My choices were admin and infantry….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1411 hrs
So you don’t support complete “equality”? Women being required to register for selective service and drafted when instituted.
I don’t know how you came to this conclusion based on what I said. I said either scrap the selective service completely or change the rselective service to be any able body citizen older than the age of 18.
I believe it would be easier to scrap it because to initiate the draft I believe you need an act of congress and that won’t happen. They can’t get a majority on Coke vs Pepsi if they wanted to. (it’s coke btw)
I support either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1427 hrs
Liberal,
What if selective service could not be done away with and/or a draft was needed for a war….
Would you be comfortable in “equality”, to its fullest logical extent,...drafting wives and daughters?
that is what the argument is, “men and women equal”, taken all the way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1518 hrs
So ALL women going into the military could potentially be in combat roles?
If this stays as quoted (which I referred to when I first posted…)
“If members of our military can meet the qualifications for a job—and let me be clear, I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job—if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve, regardless of creed or color or gender or sexual orientation”
If women can meet the guidelines, then I don’t have a problem with women being selected at the same frequency as men.
I’m not sure what you’re driving at… I’m certain that during the history of our armed forces there have been many, many, many men that were a risk to their fellow soldiers out on the front lines - due to physical limitations and/or mental limitations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1542 hrs
Would you be comfortable in “equality”, to its fullest logical extent,...drafting wives and daughters?
Yes, since husbands and sons can get drafted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1610 hrs
Yes, since husbands and sons can get drafted
My wife and daughters think you are crazy.
Many women do noy subscribe to your radical worldview.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1650 hrs
Many women do noy subscribe to your radical worldview.
It’s a new world. Tell ‘em to man up, and become one of the boys.
Just like the men, too, need to endure the cramped, squalid conditions of a rifle squad in a FOB: sleeping like dogs in a single room, defecating in a pit in the courtyard, weeks at a time without bathing, humping 120 pounds of gear over steep mountains for days at a time.
I have a way to shortcut all this hoo-haw and noise. We do this:We put 500 women into a rifle battalion. Four companies, plus headquarters, colonel down to private, all women.
We train these gals for a deployment to Afghanistan. They go, they deploy, do their thing, and come back.
If done honestly, if after-action reports are allowed to be accurate, we’ll know for sure, one way or the other, if women in the combat arms, the way Americans do it, is a good idea or not.
Gathering data - it’s a little old-fashioned, but miles better than yelling insults at each other.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on January 25, 2013 at 1746 hrs
to liberal, once again, you just sound like brain dead doofus.
Who appoints the Chiefs of Staff? Maybe you didn’t know this, but it is the president and that means they share the president’s philosophies and if they don’t and are vocal about, they lose their cushy jobs and the power that comes with it.
And women get to have choices in the military? Show me in the military, where anyone gets to choose what they want to do. They may request a certain job, but it has to go through the chain of command and their request can be shot down for almost any reason.
And, of course, liberal, all branches of the military have different physical fitness standards for women, but I didn’t want to use up all that space just to be redundant..Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0357 hrs
Brian Dunbar—“What I, at least, am saying is that the peculiar requirements of a combat arms team are no places for mixing the sexes.”
I suggest you get with the program.
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146802589/foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines
It’s really simple, everyone. If an Americans woman CHOOSES to enter the military, and meets the baseline requirements for combat positions that they CHOOSE to pursue, and willingly accepts the dangers serving in the heat of battle entails, including being tortured and raped, then I salute her for her service to our country.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0654 hrs
greencarman,
It’s really simple, everyone. If an Americans woman CHOOSES to enter the military, and meets the baseline requirements for combat positions that they CHOOSE to pursue, and willingly accepts the dangers serving in the heat of battle entails, including being tortured and raped, then I salute her for her service to our country.
This does not meet the “equality” argument.
Men do not get this choice in the military many times.
If we are truly arguing “equality”, women would NOT be allowed this choice after enlisting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0954 hrs
When you watch the Super Bowl, ask yourself if you’d rather go into battle with the players or the cheerleaders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1304 hrs
A woman and man enlist on their own volition to the military. They equally have an opportunity to serve in a combat role. Depending if they meet the standards, one, both, or neither will serve in that capacity.
How does a woman’s choice to serve in the military and willingness to put herself in harm’s way via more direct combat roles interfere with YOUR freedom or YOUR choice, Mr. Schuenemann?
You say you favor “choice” and “equality”, Mr. Schuenemann, but you constantly move the goalposts in your favor when the situation suits your fancy.
“Would you be comfortable in “equality”, to its fullest logical extent,...drafting wives and daughters? That is what the argument is, “men and women equal”, taken all the way.”This statement has NOTHING to do with the issue before us and therefore is irrelevant to the conservation. We are talking about individuals who enlist in the armed forces on their own behalf—not a draft!—who understand the risks of combat.
The merits of whether women should be drafted is a SEPARATE topic completely on its own.
We are talking about women who seek an equal opportunity to serve in direct combat. Whether that opportunity is afforded to them depends on them meeting the standards for that role they desire. The military decides those standards by which they will be judged, not you or me or any civilian, Mr. Schuenemann. If those standards are “equal” for all prospective candidates, or there is a standard for men and a standard for women, then that is for generals and admirals to figure out, not you or me or any civilian.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1309 hrs
GCM, I realize comprehension is not your strength. Kevin’s point is that men can be drafted for combat and you are proposing a choice for women. This pseudo-equality you champion would require equivalent ‘opportunity’ for men and women.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1334 hrs
A woman and man enlist on their own volition to the military. They equally have an opportunity to serve in a combat role.
Really? After enlisitng, men can choose NOT to serve in a combat role?
I guess discipline in the military must be gone if anyone can do whatever they want, as you portray it.
Be honest, men do not have the same choice, as the combat role for women is neatly laid out here for women.
I don’t see it as equality, but special priviledge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1334 hrs
Smeety—“Kevin’s point is that men can be drafted for combat and you are proposing a choice for women.”
I did not make this point, YOU did.
This thread has nothing to do with whether there should be a draft for women,
or whether women should have a choice to be drafted,
or whether men and women equally should be drafted,
or whether I favor or oppose women having the choice to be drafted,
or whether I favor or oppose women being drafted,
or whether I favor or oppose men being drafted.
It’s a classic diversionary tactic by our resident “defender of freedom and choice”.
Mr. Schuenemann—“Really? After enlisitng, men can choose NOT to serve in a combat role? I guess discipline in the military must be gone if anyone can do whatever they want, as you portray it.”Men and women choose to enter the military during peacetime.
All are trained in the art of war. Men and women in the armed forces understand fully that they may be involved in combat. It’s just that women want the same opportunity to enter direct combat roles previously denied to them. That is the “equality” issue here. If women meet the standards for the position they seek, outstanding. They have earned the privilege. No one is suggesting that women be automatically thrusted into a position without achieving it on their own merits.One more time, Mr. Schuenemann. A man and woman enlist in the army. All are trained to serve in combat. What type of combat role, i.e. special forces, they pursue is dependent upon if they meet the qualifications as specified by the military.
Again, how does a woman’s choice to serve in the military and willingness to put herself in harm’s way via more direct combat roles interfere with YOUR freedom or YOUR choice, Mr. Schuenemann?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1443 hrs
No. That was Kevin’s point. You just lack comprehension.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1455 hrs
No, I got his point, it’s just that the point is irrelevant and immaterial to the gist of the conversation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1522 hrs
greencarman,
The argument is “equality”.
The problem is: you don’t want to take “equality” to its fullest extent.
You want special treatment for women.
Once signed up for military,
Women only get combat duty, ONLY if they wwant.
Men will get combat duty, if they want it or not.
That is not “equality”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 1617 hrs
Kevin,
I am not sure if you are being intentionally obtuse, or just don’t understand how job assignments work in the military. So let me assume it is the latter and spell it out for you.
When any individual enlists, they are administered the ASVAB, a test to determine what, if any, military specialties they qualify for. They then choose from this list and, if a slot is available, they sign a contract that specifies the opportunity to train in that specialty. Provided they successfully complete that training they are then assigned to a unit that has a slot open for a person with that training. In the Army and the Corps, certain Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) were closed to women because they involved direct combat roles, infantry, armor, and artillery are often cited examples. After the implementation of the new policy, these branches will no longer be closed to women. However, they will still need to successfully complete the training to standards which, according to the brass, will not be diluted from their present level. There is the possibility that the individual branches will still exclude certain postings to women, Special Forces, Ranger training, Delta Force, Seal Training, Force Recon.
If you think that opening up the general areas of infantry, artillery and armor to women is a bad idea, then argue that point. The draft has nothing to do with anything at this point; yes males have to register with Selective Service by age 18 or be ineligible for certain benefits, primarily educational loans and grants, but NOBODY is being drafted, nor are they being forced into combat arms assignments involuntarily. Combat duty is something that both sexes are ALREADY being assigned to, as such duty is simply being deployed to an active theater of conflict.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 0035 hrs
Thank you, edalovrich.
“Once signed up for military,
Women only get combat duty, ONLY if they wwant.
Men will get combat duty, if they want it or not.”
Mr. Schuenemann, please read for meaning! I never made this statement, nor implied it. Geez, quit putting words in people’s mouths.Men and women who join the armed forces all get training to prepare them for combat. No one is exempt. Men and women who desire to further their role in combat duty must meet specific standards set forth by the military. That is the equality part in the equation.
Come on, Mr. Schuenemann, answer the question…how does a woman’s choice to serve in the military and willingness to put herself in harm’s way via more direct combat roles interfere with YOUR freedom or YOUR choice, Mr. Schuenemann?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 0131 hrs
GCM,
I really appreciate your ability to really dig in on a poorly thought-out point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 1004 hrs
Men and women who desire to further their role in combat duty must meet specific standards set forth by the military.
Really? All men in combat roles desire that role? Men can just “opt out” of assigned and ordered combat roles after enlistment?
...interfere with YOUR freedom or YOUR choice, Mr. Schuenemann?
I didn’t say it did. I’m concerned about the “equality” argument taken to its full extent. Selective service registration for our wives and daughter, or draft for wives and daughter.
I find “equality” in that context disturbing and disgusting.
Women in combat roles now, prepares the way for “equality” to be taken to its full, foolish, extent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 1013 hrs
Ok Kevin,
I will now have to assume that you are intentionally being obtuse, since you have continued to harp on the draft issue.
Under the current Selective Service authorizing legislation, women are exepmpted specifically because, IF a draft were to be reinstituted, it would be for the express purpose of providing combat troops in the time of war. Since women were at that time, prohibited from combat arms assignments, they were exempted from the having to register for the draft.
Now that they are eligible for combat arms assignments, I suspect that the exemption from having to register for the SSS will be challenged the legislation will have to be rewritten to require that all individuals 16-26 will have to register.
That being said, I will also suspect that, IF the draft is ever reinsiututed, (and let’s remember, there IS NO draft at this time and there hasn’t been for 40 year, the all-volunteer force has been more than adequate for all deployment needs since the end of the Vietnam-era), that there will more than likely be a stipulation that all women will be categorized similar to 1-A-O,which will make the, eligible for service in non-combat arms assignments. This will protect the sensitivities of those who think they need protecting from being sent into harms way, and increases the number of men who would be available for combat arm assignments, since these same men would not be needed to fill combat-support, and combat-service support roles.
You still have not answered the basic question of this entire post, what are you feelings on the making it possible for women to VOLUNTEER for combat arms assignments?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 1124 hrs
Typo above, all individuals age 18 to 26, not 16-26
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 1125 hrs
“I really appreciate your ability to really dig in on a poorly thought-out point.”
It wasn’t my point, it was Mr. Schuenemann’s perspective. And you backed him up. The joke is on both of you.
Again, thanks edalovrich for the insight.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 27, 2013 at 2248 hrs
Part of having a discussion is addressing someone else’s point. Especially those that disqualify your uninformed diatribes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 0550 hrs
When greencarman starts focusing on me, rather than the issue, that is a 100% sign I made a good point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 0804 hrs
When Mr. Schuenemann continues to avoid answering straightforward questions and repeatedly goes off on tangents to suit his worldview despite evidence to the contrary, that is a 100% sign that he has made significant errors in logic and judgement.
And, Smeety, please, you only wish to have the mental capacity to understand my “diatribes”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 2127 hrs
Sigmund Freud couldn’t understand your diatribes, Fryboy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 2136 hrs
When Mr. Schuenemann continues to avoid answering straightforward questions and repeatedly goes off on tangents to suit his worldview despite evidence to the contrary…
I’ll bite.
What “evidence” would be?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2013 at 0744 hrs
Evidence? BWAHAHAHA…
I’m sure he can find an article with which he agrees….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2013 at 1807 hrs
“I’m sure he can find an article with which he agrees….”
Just like Owen and the other posters here who have a position and provide a link or summarize a source to support their contention. Try it sometime. It’s part of engaging in debate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 2033 hrs
Greencarman,
You are losing focus:
What “evidence” would be?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 2046 hrs
evidence? guess not…
<yawn>
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 1847 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 37
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 01:41 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).