Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Started by Turks, January 24, 2013, 04:17:26 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kramarat

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 25, 2013, 06:30:00 AM
I agree that the Russians and the Israelis were and are in a state where it is all or nothing.  If women in our military are given a pass so that we can be politically correct I totally agree that this is a bad idea.  I think political correctness needs to be purged from our military completely.  When I read about the rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan I think it is outrageous and if our soldiers cannot fight back when ever they feel threatened then we should not be there at all.  I read one story where they were under fire and could not fire back until the mayor of the town was contacted and gave permission. 

I talked to one soldier that said his group used to go to a place where they knew they would be safe and just hung out there instead of going on the patrols where they were being used as bait.   They would call in some contact but did not allow themselves to be sacrificial lambs. You would think that a lesson would have been learned in Viet Nam where the grunts often were asked to do things where there was no real military motive.  We could not bomb if they crossed the border and we often left the North alone.  I know that off the record some things that were not allowed happened but we were not allowed to fight a war with a real intent on total victory.  My view of course.

People don't understand that the military is a top down dictatorship. There are no gay and women's rights. Rights come under the UCMJ, and there aren't a lot of them for the individual.

Obama, being foreign raised and never a member of the military, can't comprehend that it's not his job, (as commander in chief), to micromanage the day to day mix and distribution of troops, based on his personal worldview.

raptor5618

As I recall Johnson tried to do the same thing.  That worked out great didn't it.
"An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity."

Turks

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 25, 2013, 07:21:16 AM
As I recall Johnson tried to do the same thing.  That worked out great didn't it.

Not much of anything LBJ did worked out well.....

Solar

Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

BakedInMN

I want to know how far the administration is willing to go to make sure women have equal rights in the military. Even with the announcement by Leon Panetta, women can still "opt-out" of combat by not volunteering for service. Men do not have that option. They are required to sign up for Selective Service and can be conscripted against their will. Until women are required to sign up for Selective Service, there are no equal rights. Equal rights, equal risk, equal reward.


The administration can tout "equal rights", but if they say they will add women to Selective Service, there will be a lot of unhappy voters. If they say they aren't adding women to Selective Service, then it truly isn't "equal".


A friend of mine started a White House petition to see what the administrations position is on women and Selective Service. The petition can be found here: http://wh.gov/yGER . If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated.


Just for the record I am a twenty + year vet with two combat tours. I think physical standards/requirements should not be adjusted for women to qualify for combat positions. If they can qualify under the current standards, then they should be able to fill that position.


My opinion is based strictly on physical requirements, and not the social, mental, moral or philosophical scenarios. The subject of women becoming POWs, men sacrificing themselves in some gallant or chivalrous act, etc. are completely different topics.

Solar

Quote from: BakedInMN on January 25, 2013, 03:00:23 PM
I want to know how far the administration is willing to go to make sure women have equal rights in the military. Even with the announcement by Leon Panetta, women can still "opt-out" of combat by not volunteering for service. Men do not have that option. They are required to sign up for Selective Service and can be conscripted against their will. Until women are required to sign up for Selective Service, there are no equal rights. Equal rights, equal risk, equal reward.


The administration can tout "equal rights", but if they say they will add women to Selective Service, there will be a lot of unhappy voters. If they say they aren't adding women to Selective Service, then it truly isn't "equal".


A friend of mine started a White House petition to see what the administrations position is on women and Selective Service. The petition can be found here: http://wh.gov/yGER . If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated.


Just for the record I am a twenty + year vet with two combat tours. I think physical standards/requirements should not be adjusted for women to qualify for combat positions. If they can qualify under the current standards, then they should be able to fill that position.


My opinion is based strictly on physical requirements, and not the social, mental, moral or philosophical scenarios. The subject of women becoming POWs, men sacrificing themselves in some gallant or chivalrous act, etc. are completely different topics.
You make an excellent point Baked, but then, we all knew it was never about rights, rather the destruction of values and the Military.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

kramarat

Quote from: BakedInMN on January 25, 2013, 03:00:23 PM
I want to know how far the administration is willing to go to make sure women have equal rights in the military. Even with the announcement by Leon Panetta, women can still "opt-out" of combat by not volunteering for service. Men do not have that option. They are required to sign up for Selective Service and can be conscripted against their will. Until women are required to sign up for Selective Service, there are no equal rights. Equal rights, equal risk, equal reward.


The administration can tout "equal rights", but if they say they will add women to Selective Service, there will be a lot of unhappy voters. If they say they aren't adding women to Selective Service, then it truly isn't "equal".


A friend of mine started a White House petition to see what the administrations position is on women and Selective Service. The petition can be found here: http://wh.gov/yGER . If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated.


Just for the record I am a twenty + year vet with two combat tours. I think physical standards/requirements should not be adjusted for women to qualify for combat positions. If they can qualify under the current standards, then they should be able to fill that position.


My opinion is based strictly on physical requirements, and not the social, mental, moral or philosophical scenarios. The subject of women becoming POWs, men sacrificing themselves in some gallant or chivalrous act, etc. are completely different topics.

Welcome aboard. Great points, but I disagree that your final paragraph involves different topics.

There really is only one topic, and that is maintaining the ability to beat the enemy in the most efficient, safest, (for us), manner possible.

Anything that takes away from that objective is not worthy of implementation.

mdgiles

Quote from: raptor5618 on January 25, 2013, 06:30:00 AM
I talked to one soldier that said his group used to go to a place where they knew they would be safe and just hung out there instead of going on the patrols where they were being used as bait.   They would call in some contact but did not allow themselves to be sacrificial lambs. You would think that a lesson would have been learned in Viet Nam where the grunts often were asked to do things where there was no real military motive.  We could not bomb if they crossed the border and we often left the North alone.  I know that off the record some things that were not allowed happened but we were not allowed to fight a war with a real intent on total victory.  My view of course.
Odd you should mention that. It's the one thing that has always irritated me about the otherwise great movie: "Saving Private Ryan". If I were the battalion commander, I could see myself asking for volunteers. No way I'm going to send men out to risk their lives for a "feel good" mission.

As for the subject of woman in the military; combat is enough to drive men mad. When the decision was announced the other day; I ran my mind back to when I was in Vietnam and some of the conditions I lived under. Most women I've known - including three sisters - take full ownership of the bathroom in the home. As a guy, you get to put your toothbrush and shaving gear in the room. I can't imagine any of them, not bathing for a month at a time - or as I once did, take your cloths off, grab a bar of soap and go outside in Monsoon rain.

As for how our enemies would treat captured POW's, will we start making war decisions on how our opponent might treat captured woman POW's? You should read about how the Japanese treated English, Australian, and Chinese Army nurses when they captured Hong Kong and Singapore. The Taliban, for example, throw battery acid in their OWN women's faces. GOD knows what would happen if the ever got their hands on an "infidel slut". To this day, I believe that everyone of the women captured by Arabs during the two Iragi wars was attacked - because that's the way Arabs are - and our government is keeping it under wraps because it would be a Public Relations disaster.
"LIBERALS: their willful ignorance is rivaled only by their catastrophic stupidity"!

BILLY Defiant

Quote from: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
I came up with another theory:

It may have nothing to do with women's or gay rights. The system is already overwhelmed with cases of PTSD, suicides, and a variety of mental disorders. I can't help but wonder if this is a deliberate move on the part of the Obama administration to feminize and weaken our military.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/military-times-poll-wait-for-ptsd-tbi-treatment-091411w/

Well now you are hitting on one of my theories that the Left wants to
socially engineer the military to the left because traditionally the Military is conservative.

Gays, Minorities/foreign born and the generally disenfranchised would have less compunction over turning their weapons on AMERICAN CITIZENS and do Obamao's bidding no matter what.

I guess great minds think alike eh?
Evil operates best when it is disguised for what it truly is.

Byteryder

If they could figure out a way to induce a state of permanent PMS they could be a formidable addition to a squad.

kramarat

Quote from: Byteryder on January 25, 2013, 07:33:19 PM
If they could figure out a way to induce a state of permanent PMS they could be a formidable addition to a squad.

Hell, they wouldn't need men! :biggrin:

keyboarder

Quote from: Solar on January 25, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
You make an excellent point Baked, but then, we all knew it was never about rights, rather the destruction of values and the Military.

Wow, y'all been having a great time with some of these threads and I'm having a great time trying to catch up on all the threads/replies.  This thread really hits me on my last nerve for several reasons, some of which I haven't seen mentioned so here goes.

I know that all of you have watched and experienced the turn of the tide in our public school systems for years.  The thing I'm talking about is how boys and girls are treated exactly the same as far as studies go.  There is no such thing as gender related activities-if you are a boy and want to sit with the little girls and color all day, fine.  If you are a girl, you are encouraged to participate in any sport.  That's public school for you.  I have to mention the media too with its bent on putting females in the macho role, rescuing men from something-heck anything.  What about the female doctor who tells the male nurse what he's doing wrong?  It hasn't been over ten years since I worked on my job in my place of business on the same crew with a lady electrician (she stayed hid most of the shift).  Well, I don't agree with any of these ideas.  Women started working outside of the home during war years to help the cause and got used to it as far as the money it added and the independance they thought it would bring.  Some how or other we started having more divorces and the fall of the traditional home.
Along with the breakup of the home, other measures had to be implemented to help these broken homes with children to be able to survive.  Enter the single parent with dependants laws.  Depending on whether the kids were under school age or not, spelled out the limits that you were "entitled to" under these laws.  Well, all I can see that this crop of new laws did was encourage more people to seek the way out of their situations.  What does all of this have to do with having women in the military?  I'm touching on the base but from there alot has trickeled its way into our society that has only served to bring us down to look weak and desensitized.

I don't think that any woman should just get up in the morning and decide, "I'm joining the military".  Rather, be thankful that they don't live in a country that expects its women to enter the military at a certain age.  Women in Israel know from an early age that they will be required to serve, but at least they would have had the proper time to train.  All of our women are being raised to occupy the male roles in life with little or no training.  It's too darned easy to put the guys into women's roles I reckon.  I forgot which poster replied that all kinds of cheating and lies about readiness would take place just so the women could have their rights, but he/she was spot on with this reply.  This putting women in the military defies all of God's admonishments to Christian men and women as to their roles in life.  The heck with what O'blamer thinks because he's an Islamist anyway.  We've got to get away from what he thinks or we're going down. 

I think solar was the one to say that we should pick one side and stick with it.  I agree and it is not a true conservative opinion that  favors women serving in the military.  If they are allowed in, it should be in some type of administrative position with no opportunity to rank.  She should have to serve locally so that she could be near her home and have working hours to go along with what most office workers have.  In other words, secretarial work. 

I'm really not in favor of women working outside of the home but let's face it.  As long as the government plays its silly games, women will no doubt still try to keep a job.  The government needs all able bodied citizens to work and pay taxes so they aren't going to do anything that would be negative towards women's rights to work. 

.If you want to lead the orchestra, you must turn your back to the crowd      Forbes

walkstall

Quote from: keyboarder on January 25, 2013, 09:52:11 PM
Wow, y'all been having a great time with some of these threads and I'm having a great time trying to catch up on all the threads/replies.  This thread really hits me on my last nerve for several reasons, some of which I haven't seen mentioned so here goes.

I know that all of you have watched and experienced the turn of the tide in our public school systems for years.  The thing I'm talking about is how boys and girls are treated exactly the same as far as studies go.  There is no such thing as gender related activities-if you are a boy and want to sit with the little girls and color all day, fine.  If you are a girl, you are encouraged to participate in any sport.  That's public school for you.  I have to mention the media too with its bent on putting females in the macho role, rescuing men from something-heck anything.  What about the female doctor who tells the male nurse what he's doing wrong?  It hasn't been over ten years since I worked on my job in my place of business on the same crew with a lady electrician (she stayed hid most of the shift).  Well, I don't agree with any of these ideas.  Women started working outside of the home during war years to help the cause and got used to it as far as the money it added and the independance they thought it would bring.  Some how or other we started having more divorces and the fall of the traditional home.
Along with the breakup of the home, other measures had to be implemented to help these broken homes with children to be able to survive.  Enter the single parent with dependants laws.  Depending on whether the kids were under school age or not, spelled out the limits that you were "entitled to" under these laws.  Well, all I can see that this crop of new laws did was encourage more people to seek the way out of their situations.  What does all of this have to do with having women in the military?  I'm touching on the base but from there alot has trickeled its way into our society that has only served to bring us down to look weak and desensitized.

I don't think that any woman should just get up in the morning and decide, "I'm joining the military".  Rather, be thankful that they don't live in a country that expects its women to enter the military at a certain age.  Women in Israel know from an early age that they will be required to serve, but at least they would have had the proper time to train.  All of our women are being raised to occupy the male roles in life with little or no training.  It's too darned easy to put the guys into women's roles I reckon.  I forgot which poster replied that all kinds of cheating and lies about readiness would take place just so the women could have their rights, but he/she was spot on with this reply.  This putting women in the military defies all of God's admonishments to Christian men and women as to their roles in life.  The heck with what O'blamer thinks because he's an Islamist anyway.  We've got to get away from what he thinks or we're going down. 

I think solar was the one to say that we should pick one side and stick with it.  I agree and it is not a true conservative opinion that  favors women serving in the military.  If they are allowed in, it should be in some type of administrative position with no opportunity to rank.  She should have to serve locally so that she could be near her home and have working hours to go along with what most office workers have.  In other words, secretarial work. 

I'm really not in favor of women working outside of the home but let's face it.  As long as the government plays its silly games, women will no doubt still try to keep a job.  The government needs all able bodied citizens to work and pay taxes so they aren't going to do anything that would be negative towards women's rights to work.



Could you imagine if woman stopped working or even half of them.  What would happen to the tax base.  Not only would federal but state would be in deep doo doo.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Hindes204

Quote from: BakedInMN on January 25, 2013, 03:00:23 PM
I want to know how far the administration is willing to go to make sure women have equal rights in the military. Even with the announcement by Leon Panetta, women can still "opt-out" of combat by not volunteering for service. Men do not have that option. They are required to sign up for Selective Service and can be conscripted against their will. Until women are required to sign up for Selective Service, there are no equal rights. Equal rights, equal risk, equal reward.


The administration can tout "equal rights", but if they say they will add women to Selective Service, there will be a lot of unhappy voters. If they say they aren't adding women to Selective Service, then it truly isn't "equal".


A friend of mine started a White House petition to see what the administrations position is on women and Selective Service. The petition can be found here: http://wh.gov/yGER . If anyone could help it would be greatly appreciated.


Just for the record I am a twenty + year vet with two combat tours. I think physical standards/requirements should not be adjusted for women to qualify for combat positions. If they can qualify under the current standards, then they should be able to fill that position.


My opinion is based strictly on physical requirements, and not the social, mental, moral or philosophical scenarios. The subject of women becoming POWs, men sacrificing themselves in some gallant or chivalrous act, etc. are completely different topics.

All excellent points, I actually came in this thread to post about the same thing. I am Active Duty AF, and there are large differences in the fitness requirements between men and women. While this works in the AF due to lack of ground combat (excluding the spec ops units), it would absolutely not work for those on the front lines. I don't mind females being there, but they better be held to the exact fitness standards as the men. If a soldier goes down and a female is not able to drag him to safety because the physical standards were lowered for her.......absolutely unacceptable
"It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so."


― Ronald Reagan

walkstall

Quote from: Hindes204 on January 25, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
All excellent points, I actually came in this thread to post about the same thing. I am Active Duty AF, and there are large differences in the fitness requirements between men and women. While this works in the AF due to lack of ground combat (excluding the spec ops units), it would absolutely not work for those on the front lines. I don't mind females being there, but they better be held to the exact fitness standards as the men. If a soldier goes down and a female is not able to drag him to safety because the physical standards were lowered for her.......absolutely unacceptable

BakedInMN and Hindes204

Thank you both for serving our country. 

It is always nice to hear first hand from our men and woman in and out of the service.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."