Report: Women should be allowed to serve in combat

major bean wrote: .......since the men have been castrated.

Nope since then MEN made a choice and asked for by the women. We were not scared to give them a shot and they took it and ran with it. We have female aviators flying the FA18 Hornets. I am here to tell ya, if a women can land a Hornet onboard a carrier, they can do anything. Problem is, some men are scared the women will show them, its alot easier working along side of them.

Martin Ent Inc wrote: + can you imagine a complete squad of women with guns with PMS :VeryScared:

Imagine what the Iraqi Republican Guard would have done to them if they captured them.

major bean wrote: .......since the men have been castrated.

It's the Navy...

What a bunch of pussies.

Local_Historian wrote: Instinct my ass - you were all TAUGHT - falsely - that girls are necessarily weaker and need protecting. It's a lie. And it's an American thing - like SC said, women fight along side men in other countries and there is no overwhelming desire on the part of their male counterparts to throw themselves in harm's way of a bullet.

Women have been proven to be able to endure more physical pain than men, to have less potential for PTSD.

But I see this is just more macho bulsh*t - male chest beating about how women must be protected at all costs. Yet you men fail regularly to protect the women in your communities from all kinds of at home violence - why should we expect you to protect us in times of war? Bottom line, I don't. In fact, If it came to a chaos state here in the U.S., I would see a necessity to protect myself FROM some men.

Fair enough. Do you believe women born December 31st, 1959 and later should now register for the draft?

Also, do you believe both men and women should be held to the same physical fitness and height/weight standards by the military?

navycpo7 wrote:

major bean wrote: .......since the men have been castrated.

Nope since then MEN made a choice and asked for by the women. We were not scared to give them a shot and they took it and ran with it. We have female aviators flying the FA18 Hornets. I am here to tell ya, if a women can land a Hornet onboard a carrier, they can do anything. Problem is, some men are scared the women will show them, its alot easier working along side of them.

So you can see women living harmoniously among infantrymen or artillerymen in the squalor of a foxhole for weeks at a time? Or do you put the women in the foxholes and remote FOBs and then criticize the commander who doesn't have the logisitical ability, due to operational tempo and security, to carry these women back to shower facilities on a regular basis? At the risk of offending my Air Force and Navy brothers and sisters....I would say that life on a ship, in a submarine, in an airplane or on an air base is radically different than life in a foxhole or on a remote outpost or forward operating base. I would dare to say that the quality of life is substandard for the sort of personal hygiene a woman must maintain to stay healthy.

The trouble I see is that many are drawing too many conclusions from the two most recent wars. The US has a history of drawing lots of conclusions from and preparing for the last war fought and subsequently being ill prepared for the next war (look up two ill fated operations Kaserine Pass (WWII) and Task Force Smith (Korea)). This approach has caused us some serious problems resulting in the loss of life and treasure. What if the next war is a high intensity confict in places like Korea, Iran or China? We need to look at the full spectrum of wars the US has fought over the past 200 years or so. Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam...those wars had many, many men living in unhygienic conditions for months at a time. Commanders had no choice but to live with their men in those wet, muddy, icy and either cold or hot hootches. As with DADT I wish the politicians would slow down and think about the impact of this stuff before forcing bad policy on an already taxed fighting force.

You can call me a chest thumping macho man if you want....but I'm not convince folks have thought this through in their great rush to make everything "equal". If you think women rushing to the front line fox holes and the horrors of war so they can be "equal" is a good idea...then I respectfully disagree.

lionshead2010 wrote:

Local_Historian wrote: Instinct my ass - you were all TAUGHT - falsely - that girls are necessarily weaker and need protecting. It's a lie. And it's an American thing - like SC said, women fight along side men in other countries and there is no overwhelming desire on the part of their male counterparts to throw themselves in harm's way of a bullet.

Women have been proven to be able to endure more physical pain than men, to have less potential for PTSD.

But I see this is just more macho bulsh*t - male chest beating about how women must be protected at all costs. Yet you men fail regularly to protect the women in your communities from all kinds of at home violence - why should we expect you to protect us in times of war? Bottom line, I don't. In fact, If it came to a chaos state here in the U.S., I would see a necessity to protect myself FROM some men.

Fair enough. Do you believe women born December 31st, 1959 and later should now register for the draft?

Also, do you believe both men and women should be held to the same physical fitness and height/weight standards by the military?

1) No, if we have to draft women for the military we should just turn over the keys.
2) Yes, for those who volunteer.

1) From what I understand, women are given different physical fitness and weight standards because a woman's physiology is different than a man's. Women have more body fat to protect their internal organs. And women's pelvic bones are spread farther out than a man's...so when a woman walks or runs, instead of lifting her leg and moving it straight forward like a man does, she actually lifts her leg and it swings a little out to the side.

That being said, there are women who can outrun, out-jump, and are better at push-ups than a man. There are also women who never have a problem meeting weight and/or physical fitness standards, just as there are men who never have a problem meeting physical fitness and weight standards.

2) There really is no "draft" anymore. It is called selective service, and yes, I believe a woman when she reaches age 18 should be required to register for selective service. If a draft is enacted, then is the time to decide who is eligible or who is ineligible, based on many factors.

3) There are some women who would do fine in a front-line combat situation. There are some men who will not do fine in a front-line combat situation. I do not believe the reason for serving on the front-line should be based on height, weight, gender, religious affiliation, or skin color. It should be based on ability.

I think it should be based on HEAD SHOTS.