Women in combat.....vote

[JustRalph]

For

Or

Against


** Public poll

[Robert Goren]

I have mixed feeling about it. As it stands now, American military women are already in combat. They might just as well make it official.

[TJDave]

For Or Against?


Considering that women are a majority I'd expect they will make the decision. Hell, they make the decisions anyways.

What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

[HUSKER55]

good point!:D :D

[delayjf]

I have mixed feeling about it. As it stands now, American military women are already in combat. They might just as well make it official.

We are making a stupid decision just so we can be consistantly stupid. The ONLY way this does not negitively affect our combat capability is if the standards are not lowered to get more women in the infantry - I have zero faith that will happen.

This is a BAD idea.

[Tom]

No.

[Ocala Mike]

I'm for it, with the proviso that they now have to register for the draft.

[Actor]

We are making a stupid decision just so we can be consistantly stupid. The ONLY way this does not negitively affect our combat capability is if the standards are not lowered to get more women in the infantry - I have zero faith that will happen.

This is a BAD idea.I'm uncertain of the actual numbers but the standards now are something like 4'10" height and 125 lbs weight. A lot of women can meet that.

I have no logical reason for opposing this, just the emotional one of not wanting my little girl in combat.

[elysiantraveller]

I'm uncertain of the actual numbers but the standards now are something like 4'10" height and 125 lbs weight. A lot of women can meet that.

I have no logical reason for opposing this, just the emotional one of not wanting my little girl in combat.

That's not the requirement for combat units. I'm inclined to agree with djf. If we don't lower standards then I'm fine with it I just don't see how that can be avoided. I'm all for equality but in some things women simply aren't equal if one can get through grunt training then by all means but not many...

My fiancé can easily outshoot some of my former service buddies. Doesn't mean she would make a good marine.

[Tom]

Are they prepared to drop a platoon of 100% women behind enemy lines in a war?

Will it be mandatory for all women troops, or will they allow choice?

[Greyfox]

Amazon warriors? Can you imagine how a Muslim army would treat them?

http://www.deviantart.com/download/135558079/watching____by_amazon_warriors.jpg

[classhandicapper]

I'm for liberal women being in combat. It's my version of selective breeding. :lol:

[HUSKER55]

hey greyfox, I wonder how many muslims would decide not to wait till they die

[Greyfox]

hey greyfox, I wonder how many muslims would decide not to wait till they die

I think they might throw a prayer mat down, bow towards Mecca, and think they had died and gone to heaven.

(p.s. If you recall one scene from Lawrence of Arabia, they don't necessarily limit their appetite to women. They say that Lawrence was never the same again after an experience with a Turkish soldier.)

[HUSKER55]

I did not remember that about Lawrence, but that would explain alot. Like, for example, why they make their women walk around in a glad trash bag.

on a side note, if those were going to be in my platoon I will enlist.

do you think I can get a waiver for a shunt, asthma and spinal fusion.

they say attitude is 75% of the battle. How did I do?:D

[Dave Schwartz]

In all seriousness, I would be interested in the reasoning behind people's voting.

[tbwinner]

I haven't been following TOO Much of the news on this other than seeing the Panetta decision.

I voted Yes, but my qualifier is that they'd meet the standards as already required of men. Like delayjf, I have my doubts on how that won't happen.

Reasoning? If they can meet the mental and physical requirements of war, then why not? Have we not come a long way to be equals? Why not here?

[thaskalos]

In all seriousness, I would be interested in the reasoning behind people's voting.

In a world where a man striking a woman is considered unthinkable...should he be SHOOTING at her?

Haven't I been seeing commercials lately, where some of our most upstanding citizens are speaking out against "violence towards women'?

The thought of women in battle -- and women taken hostages -- is utterly ridiculous to me. Have we run out of men?

[wisconsin]

In all seriousness, I would be interested in the reasoning behind people's voting.


Cobat zones require doing things we don't normally do, such as public relief of bladders or bowels.

[thaskalos]

Combat zones require doing things we don't normally do, such as public relief of bladders or bowels.

Granted, there might be a bright side...but still...:)

[Tom]

What is this nonsense about being equal?
Do men want to get pregnant now?
Have "cramps?"

Of course we are NOT equal - that is why God made TWO sexes....we are SUPPOSED to be different.

[thaskalos]

What is this nonsense about being equal?
Do men want to get pregnant now?
Have "cramps?"

Of course we are NOT equal - that is why God made TWO sexes....we are SUPPOSED to be different.

I will believe in women's equality when I see the women declare it during divorce proceedings.

[HUSKER55]

I would never lower the standards for training. If the fight goes hand to hand then all soldiers have the right to expect the one next to them to hold their own or better.

If a women can meet those standards then I say let them go and treat them the same as we treat all of our soldieres.

If anything, raise the bar say 5% and make everyone meet it.

[delayjf]

Here was one Female Marines perspective on her recent tour in Iraq.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

In an experiment, the Marine Corps resently put two Female Marines into Infantry Officers training and neither one could make it through.

Once it become apparant that about 99% of women cannot meet the standards of Infantry training, then morons like Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer will push for a reduction in the standards to get them in.

[TJDave]

I will believe in women's equality when I see the women declare it during divorce proceedings.

Women aren't stupid. They will insist on the right to voluntarily serve in combat. Then they'll volunteer to let us do it.

[JustRalph]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/338613/wrong-women-warriors-heather-mac-donald

One take in the above article. Internal problems for sure.

We've had women taken hostage. It didn't go well. In fact a couple have been captured in the Middle East. What the animals will do to women and then broadcast online may make Panetta regret this decision

[ArlJim78]

I can only think of reasons not to have woman in combat, I'm failing to see any advantages. is this something women are really clamoring for?

[johnhannibalsmith]

... is this something women are really clamoring for?

Sounds like a little ripple in the wave pool known as the War on Women. Someone probably figured this needed to be front and center right now for some political reason.

[NJ Stinks]

I voted no for two reasons:

1. I want the toughest, strongest, etc. covering my back. Most likely that will not be a woman.

2. I wouldn't want to even have it in the back of my mind that I need to be protective of women in the unit - even if it may be totally unnecessary.


Now, I should add that I never served in the Armed Forces and its quite possible that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[newtothegame]

I say NO,
reasoning is men to think (when around women) with the wrong body parts. I know when I was in the service (80's), all we looked forward to was pulling into "ports". Hving a female on the battlefield would be a serious distraction for their male counterparts in the U.S. military in my opinion.
Next, we as a country, already look at the horrors of war with disdain. Could we stomache some of the things that would happen to females captured? Now I know there are some who say all is fair in love and war...but, if we had problems with children in Vietnam etc etc what would this bring???

[horses4courses]

I voted yes.
My main reason for doing so?
Times have changed.

The following article puts it better than I can:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/us/military-women/index.html

Is every woman who enters the military (over 200,000 of them) a suitable candidate for combat? Of course not. But there are those who are, and are as well trained and capable as their male counterparts. They deserve the chance to serve in combat, provided that they are deemed fit to do so.

This is not a decision that has been taken lightly by military officials.
The nature of modern warfare has evolved over the years, too, along with technology. A woman who wishes to engage in combat, has been trained to do so, and judged to have the necessary skills, should not be denied on the grounds that she is a woman. We are in the 21st century, and the military is changing with the times. Good for them.

[LottaKash]

I've been there....I say NO !!!

What does the 21st Century have to do with anything ?...Man and War haven't changed any since always....Just a higher tech, that's all....But in the trenches, unh, unh...

I am not sexist, but in war, there is a certain machismo that women just don't have, imo anyway...

[PaceAdvantage]

2. I wouldn't want to even have it in the back of my mind that I need to be protective of women in the unit - even if it may be totally unnecessary.This is one of the main reasons why I would be against it. The entire dynamic changes if there are women mixed with men in combat.

Men will do things they normally wouldn't do and that might potentially lead to to more casualties of both sexes.

[Dave Schwartz]

I voted "No" for the same reason as NJ and PA.

Dave

[elysiantraveller]

I'm not voting because I'm on the fence. If requirements for infantry units aren't lowered and females can hack it I see no problem with it. I don't think that would happen though.

I would defer to a guy like LS on this.

[Karmaexpress]

Women make better cops, why wouldn't they make better soldiers...??? :ThmbUp:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/06/16/why-women-make-better-cops-doctors-and-world-leaders/

[LottaKash]

Women make better cops, why wouldn't they make better soldiers...??? :ThmbUp:

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/06/16/why-women-make-better-cops-doctors-and-world-leaders/

Ya really think ?...

How many women Green Berets, Navy Seals, Army Rangers etc. do you think there are/would be....4-6 guys carrying 400-800 lbs logs for a good spell....Please tell me how 4/6 women would stack up vs. the guys....That is my point...

NBA,NFL, NHL all macho sports....They match up well too...heehee..Heck even tennis the girls only go 3sets max, while the men may have to go 5....See..

Cops sure enough I guess ... but that study only pointed out how women are less tolerant of immorality and such, and less crooked...So, how does that relate to combat....Being a cop isn't exactly hellfire and horror.....Dangerous, certainly, but combat is a whole nuther thing....I know of such things...

For me War is the "ulitimate in lawlessness", and women in this setting just don't belong....When all the bullets and such are all gone, and it comes down to who I would trust in a mano e mano situation, watching my back, I just couldn't and wouldn't trust any woman going one on one vs a superior opponent in that scene....And, that is my bottom line, who do you trust ?

[newtothegame]

Ya really think ?...

How many women Green Berets, Navy Seals, Army Rangers etc. do you think there are/would be....4-6 guys carrying 400-800 lbs logs for a good spell....Please tell me how 4/6 women would stack up vs. the guys....That is my point...

NBA,NFL, NHL all macho sports....They match up well too...heehee..Heck even tennis the girls only go 3sets max, while the men may have to go 5....See..

Cops sure enough I guess ... but that study only pointed out how women are less tolerant of immorality and such, and less crooked...So, how does that relate to combat....Being a cop isn't exactly hellfire and horror.....Dangerous, certainly, but combat is a whole nuther thing....I know of such things...

For me War is the "ulitimate in lawlessness", and women in this setting just don't belong....When all the bullets and such are all gone, and it comes down to who I would trust in a mano e mano situation, watching my back, I just couldn't and wouldn't trust any woman going one on one vs a superior opponent in that scene....And, that is my bottom line, who do you trust ?
Lotta, I think thats an unfair analogy.....There is a big difference between special ops and what is being talked about here. Of course "combat" is inclusive of those elite units but, no one is saying it in referrence to just those elite combat units. So, to use them as a referrence point is a bit unfair. Hell, I knew plenty of guys that couldnt hack it in those elite units....:lol:

[JustRalph]

I don't doubt the ability of female soldiers. I am weary of the propaganda value of captured female soldiers. Especially in the Middle East

[LottaKash]

Lotta, I think thats an unfair analogy.....There is a big difference between special ops and what is being talked about here. Of course "combat" is inclusive of those elite units but, no one is saying it in referrence to just those elite combat units. So, to use them as a referrence point is a bit unfair. Hell, I knew plenty of guys that couldnt hack it in those elite units....:lol:

NTTG, maybe so about the elite forces or even pro athletes, but my point "is", combat is not like it is on TV or in the movies....Ya gotta see it up close and first hand.....Women just don't belong, to my way of thinking and experience, is all...

Remember the horror of the WTC attack day....Well "ultimate lawlessness" is worse on an order of magnitude, to an individual who has been, and not just saw it on the news...

Well then, given that, I just couldn't picture myself being in a platoon of all women and me being the only guy, which is conceivable with any change in the requirements, and marching off to kill some people, and these women were supposedly my confidants and protectors...

(Off duty of course, would be another story in that scenario, hee hee)....

[newtothegame]

NTTG, maybe so about the elite forces or even pro athletes, but my point "is", combat is not like it is on TV or in the movies....Ya gotta see it up close and first hand.....Women just don't belong, to my way of thinking and experience, is all...

Remember the horror of the WTC attack day....Well "ultimate lawlessness" is worse on an order of magnitude, to an individual who has been, and not just saw it on the news...

Well then, given that, I just couldn't picture myself being in a platoon of all women and me being the only guy, which is conceivable with any change in the requirements, and marching off to kill some people, and these women were supposedly my confidants and protectors...

(Off duty of course, would be another story in that scenario, hee hee)....
Lotta, I feel like you abot women serving in combat roles (see my post above), all I was saying is its kind of unfair to use the backdrop of elite forces as a guise when thats really not what is at issue in full context.
Thanks again !

[Johnny V]

The physical fitness standards for women are different and lower for all females in the military regardless of their military speciality. They always have been that way. A female in the infantry will not be expected or required to perform at the same level as a male grunt. How us that going to enhance our fighting capacity? What it is going to do is kill our young women in much higher proportions and in effect cause higher casualties among the male soldiers as well because of trying to save/help/protect them as they would all their comrades in arms regardless of gender.
Combat, more so as ground pounder, is difficult enough and disgusting for our young men, and we hate to see those that survive being scarred for life living with those memories. Why expose our young daughters to the horrors of combat? It makes no sense to me in doing so.

[horses4courses]

The physical fitness standards for women are different and lower for all females in the military regardless of their military speciality. They always have been that way. A female in the infantry will not be expected or required to perform at the same level as a male grunt. How us that going to enhance our fighting capacity? What it is going to do is kill our young women in much higher proportions and in effect cause higher casualties among the male soldiers as well because of trying to save/help/protect them as they would all their comrades in arms regardless of gender.
Combat, more so as ground pounder, is difficult enough and disgusting for our young men, and we hate to see those that survive being scarred for life living with those memories. Why expose our young daughters to the horrors of combat? It makes no sense to me in doing so.


The minimum standard of physical fitness and preparedness for men entering combat should be the same for women. If that's not going to be the case, then I would be against women fighting in combat. If they want equal treatment here, they need to be equally prepared.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't buy the male reaction of feeling the need to be overly protective of female soldiers. Once they are out there in combat, they should receive equal treatment. Don't we, as males, treat women equally in our own workplace environment? If not, we should be doing so.

[Robert Goren]

You guys are talking like they aren't in combat already. They have been in combat at least since the beginning of the Iraqi War. We should not about whether they should allowed in combat roles, but whether we should take them out of those roles.

[ArlJim78]

men and women are not the same. every athletic sport is divided into mens and womens divisions for a reason. can some women cut it? sure but the standards will have to be relaxed officially or unofficially in order to get a sufficient number of women into those roles or else they will face lawsuits. it's all about equal rights and other such feelgood nonsense. the mission of the military is to be efficient and lethal and ready. all other considerations should be secondary.

[delayjf]

You guys are talking like they aren't in combat already. They have been in combat at least since the beginning of the Iraqi War. We should not about whether they should allowed in combat roles, but whether we should take them out of those roles.

Big difference between sitting on a Humvee in a convoy or working in a HQ which happens to come under attack and having to hoof it up and down the streets of Baghdad or worst in the Afgan mountains with a 60 pound pack on your back.

[Actor]

What happens after the war when a female POW is repatriated and she reports that she was raped twice a day during her captivity?

[horses4courses]

What happens after the war when a female POW is repatriated and she reports that she was raped twice a day during her captivity?

What about male POWs who have suffered similar atrocities?

[BlueShoe]

Vehemently opposed, in fact, believe that women's integration into the armed forces has already gone too far. Women cause far more than their share of morale and disipline problems, as well as lower combat efficiency, according to many senior NCO's and career officers willing to talk off of the record. Women on average have only half the upper body and two thirds the lower body strength of men, and no amount of social engineering is going to change that. They do not have the emotional toughness to endure the sustained sheer terror of prolonged combat. If our men have high rates of PTSD, what would it be for women retuning from a long tour of combat, through the roof?

Am well aware that some women have performed very well in short intense firefights, but that is not the same as actual long tours of combat. Am not questioning the patriotism, dedication to duty, or technical expertise of our female warriors, just their physical and emotional shortcomings for combat roles. Social engineering does not win battles. War is not an Equal Opportunity Employer, the winners are the bigest, strongest, toughest men with the best weapons and the superior training and disipline.

[Rookies]

This is yet another issue where America is finally catching up to other western democracies- like Canada. I would have thought that a proper maternity leave would have been highest on the agenda but...

I am somewhat in the middle on this one. A Canadian woman died in combat in Afghanistan in 2006- our first. There are legitimate strength and endurance physical differences between the sexes. Therefore, I do believe that those women serving in extended combat zones like Afghanistan need to be selected, carefully. There will be some who are appropriate, but the rules shouldn't be totally open.

[horses4courses]

http://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_17/1514861/160427-kristen-griest-army-455p_a99df066744529532104d9b849099b74.nbcnews-ux-320-320.jpg

Historic progress. :ThmbUp:
She went through the same training as any man,
and absolutely has the right to do the same job.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/veterans/captain-kristen-griest-become-first-female-army-infantry-officer-n563761

[delayjf]

She went thru the training, but had she been a male she would not have passed. She was repeatedly coached and allowed to repeat several training courses over and over until she passed. A man would have been washed out had he performed in the same manner.

The CJCS said they would question any training that women were unable to pass and that is exactly what happened here.

There is no "Right" to serve in the Military, just as their is no "Right" to play in the NFL or NBA.

Congratulations Obama, you've weakened a country today.

[Tom]

"Standards" are now sexist. :bang:

[Flysofree]

Can we all just "get along"? Or
Can we all go to the same bathroom? :D

[Tape Reader]

I vote for JustRalph coming back as "JustRalphella.” (Miss you.)

[horses4courses]

She went thru the training, but had she been a male she would not have passed. She was repeatedly coached and allowed to repeat several training courses over and over until she passed. A man would have been washed out had he performed in the same manner.

The CJCS said they would question any training that women were unable to pass and that is exactly what happened here.

There is no "Right" to serve in the Military, just as their is no "Right" to play in the NFL or NBA.

Congratulations Obama, you've weakened a country today.

Are you privy to military personnel files,
or were you a bug on the wall?

[shots]

Are they prepared to drop a platoon of 100% women behind enemy lines in a war?

Will it be mandatory for all women troops, or will they allow choice?

You nailed the questions that need to be answered.
Also , can they do that with children back home?

[delayjf]

Are you privy to military personnel files,
or were you a bug on the wall?

Yes,
My brother is special forces and knows several instructors who were involved with her training class. I have a first cousin (a Colonel in the Army)who works in the Pentagon who also verified how she made it thru Ranger school. The word is already out, tow the line on gays, transgender, and women etc. or your career is over.

The issue of women in combat has been studied by the US, Britain and others. None of the studies supported women in combat. The Sec of Defense ignored all of the research when he implemented this policy. But that's no surprise with this administration - isn't one of the tenets of Saul Alinsky is to demoralize the military?