Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 04:17:26 AM

Title: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 04:17:26 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/ (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/panetta-opens-combat-roles-to-women/)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 04:33:19 AM
I'm fine with it, but only if they are strong enough to carry all of their own gear, and have the physical stamina to keep up with their male counterparts................otherwise, it is a "feel good" move, that puts everyone in danger. Running liberal social experiments in combat zones could get very deadly, very fast.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 04:43:56 AM
"The focus of our military needs to be maximizing combat effectiveness," said U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

"The question here is whether this change will actually make our military better at operating in combat and killing the enemy, since that will be their job too. What needs to be explained is how this decision, when all is said and done, increases combat effectiveness rather than being a move done for political purposes -- which is what this looks like," Hunter said.

"Lifting the ban is contrary to law and the wishes of the American people," said Phyllis Schlafly, the conservative activist and constitutional lawyer. "It is an embarrassment to the country."

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Paul E. Vallely tells Newsmax that physical limitations prevent women from serving is special combat forces, including the Navy SEALs.

"There are two ways to look at it," Vallely said. "Women are already in combat zones — flying in helicopters, providing military intelligence, and in support units in Afghanistan.

"But I don't think they should be in Special Forces or infantry units or deployed, in a conventional way, as part of special operations forces like Navy SEALs."

"The upper-body strength that it takes to carry the weapons and gear — and especially on long hikes they'd have" prevents them from serving these operations effectively, said Vallely, who retired from the Army in 1993 as Deputy Commanding General, Pacific. "It's been proven that women just don't develop that upper-body strength."



http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Women-in-Combat/2013/01/23/id/472653#ixzz2ItddWlg6 (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Women-in-Combat/2013/01/23/id/472653#ixzz2ItddWlg6)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 04:55:00 AM
There might be some that qualify. :scared:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 04:57:00 AM
 :scared:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: The Stranger on January 24, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 04:55:00 AM
There might be some that qualify. :scared:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html)

Holy big sticks Batman!!
Who would ant to be with a woman with a bigger ones then you. :woot: :tounge: :tounge:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 05:01:38 AM
Quote from: The Stranger on January 24, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Holy big sticks Batman!!
Who would ant to be with a woman with a bigger ones then you. :woot: :tounge: :tounge:

Maybe bigger in more ways than one... :laugh:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 05:09:59 AM
"In one of his last acts as Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta today will revoke the last of the policies that prevent women from serving in combat arms.

Make no mistake about it: this action isn't about civil rights, equal opportunity, or any of the laudable things America has done in the past fifty years to remove false barriers within the military. This is different. It's a purely political act that will make our military — and the military families liberals claim to venerate — much weaker than they are today.


Panetta is acting in response to feminists' demands that women be able to serve in any capacity men do because they will be denied promotion to the higher ranks if they lack combat experience. It's true that there is a huge number of women of flag rank among the services, some at the top four-star rank. But there surely is a "glass ceiling" in the combat arms that women haven't broken through.

The problem with this statement of the issue is that the military "glass ceiling" is streaked with blood. If women are to be warriors — and thus earn the right to command other warriors — they have to train like men, live like men, and be able to survive the intense dangers of the modern battlefield as many men do. If they don't, they cannot gain the respect and admiration that commanders of warriors must have to be effective. Should they be permitted to do that?

There are two components to the question. First and foremost is whether the presence of women will add to or detract from the readiness and capability of the unit to perform its mission. The second is a moral question: Will having women serve in harm's way benefit our military and society at large?"





http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/the-blood-smeared-glass-ceilin (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/24/the-blood-smeared-glass-ceilin)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 05:13:01 AM
On a serious note; Panetta is a dedicated lib. This has more to do with women's rights, than combat readiness. Much like the "open" gay thing. It's embarrassing.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 05:36:28 AM
It's worse than letting gays serve openly, and it definitely has nothing to do with rights, but rather unraveling a long standing institution.
Putting women on the front line will simply get more men killed, and not because the women are necessarily incompetent, you just can't go against human nature.
Women are by nature, nurturers, men are caretakers, Govt, no matter how hard it tries, can't destroy 10s of thousands of years of human development, especially in one day.

If I was there, someone would definitely get a boot in the ass.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: The Stranger on January 24, 2013, 05:57:34 AM
Lets take o pool and see how long before the first protest/law suit.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:27:17 AM
I wonder if women now have to register with thge local "draft board" just like males are supposed to do.  I believe legally all are still supposed to even though there is no draft.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:43:48 AM
Want to piss off a liberal?

Tell them that you think that women and gays should make up the entire front line, in any battle. :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:45:41 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:43:48 AM
Want to piss off a liberal?

Tell them that you think that women and gays should make up the entire front line, in any battle. :rolleyes:

Hell the enemy would likely laugh themselves to death.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:48:45 AM
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:45:41 AM
Hell the enemy would likely laugh themselves to death.  :laugh:

Yeah. We could bomb the shit out them as they're staring at the transsexual cross dressers. :lol:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 06:55:01 AM
Just wait until the savages in the middle east grab a few women and start raping the hell out of them on streaming video.

Then of course there will be howls for special rescue efforts that will get a bunch of people killed.

Then some enterprising liberals will find a way to sue for all that.

It's never THE THING that we see today.  It's always about their next 5 or 6 steps that are coming, in the long march to chaos, anarchy, and unbridled hedonism.

You see it with abortion, then 3rd trimester, then partial, then infanticide & euthanasia.

Or DADT, then open flaunting, then demanding military sponsored gay days and SF style debauchery.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 07:00:56 AM
If they pass the physical standards let them do it.  The Russians had women in their ranks during WW2 and the Viet Cong used women too.  Russia kicked the Nazi's out of their country that included some of the most brutal battles of the war and I have never heard a single word that they would have succeeded sooner if  they left the women home.   Perhaps someone who is more of a historian than I could pip in on what the Russians experience was. 

I just hope that this does not become one more example of where we as a nation have to include those who are not able to meet the standard. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:04:02 AM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 07:00:56 AM
If they pass the physical standards let them do it.  The Russians had women in their ranks during WW2 and the Viet Cong used women too.  Russia kicked the Nazi's out of their country that included some of the most brutal battles of the war and I have never heard a single word that they would have succeeded sooner if  they left the women home.   Perhaps someone who is more of a historian than I could pip in on what the Russians experience was. 

I just hope that this does not become one more example of where we as a nation have to include those who are not able to meet the standard.

No doubt they next step is to lower the standards.  This is all part of the "Master Plan"  The one everyone denies and will call you a conspiracy kook if you mention it.  :sad:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:11:16 AM
As long as they can pass the requirements, that's fine.

If you have to make different tests for women in order to get some through, I don't agree.

If that results in 1000 women in, that is all good. If that results in 0 women in, I'm fine with that too.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:14:13 AM
"Former Navy SEAL commander and Montana State Sen. Ryan Zinke reacted sharply Wednesday to news the Obama administration will drop the prohibition against women serving in military combat roles, warning it is "nearly certain" to cost lives. A Republican who served in the elite SEAL Team Six, Zinke cautioned that introducing male-female dynamics on the front lines "has the potential to degrade our combat readiness."

http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz2IuFUHXq4 (http://www.newsmax.com/#ixzz2IuFUHXq4)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:16:59 AM
I promise you that commanders WILL be rated on how well they support the women's integration into combat units and ops.

CC's that have very few will be hurt and their careers will flounder.

CC's that pump out big #'s of women for the cause.....will get promoted and slowly become the top cadre of Obama's military.

Same with who does and doesn't grow the gay presence in the military.

There will be myriad strategies, workarounds, and flat out cheating to get it done.

Like F & F, Behghazi, etc.....those who get caught will slip away with little interest.

Those who get caught not cheating and supporting the cause......will pay.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:21:35 AM
Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 07:25:04 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:21:35 AM
Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.

Completely agree.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:28:17 AM
redlom, I think you somehow missed the point.

We conservatives typically support things like letting the amazon women who can kick guys' asses....go ahead and earn whatever they want.  And whatever badass gay guys that are out there.

What we don't support is the immediate and systemic cheating that will come with political overtures like this.

Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us.

That's a lock.  Look at how every other affirmative action program is used as a criminal enterprise, and you're called racist if you bring this up.

Women and gays now have license to cheat their way to anything they feel like demanding in the military.  It will happen.  And I'll bet that folks like you will be supportive of it, and howl out all the standard accusations whenever it's discussed.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:37:20 AM
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:28:17 AM
redlom, I think you somehow missed the point.

We conservatives typically support things like letting the amazon women who can kick guys' asses....go ahead and earn whatever they want.  And whatever badass gay guys that are out there.

What we don't support is the immediate and systemic cheating that will come with political overtures like this.

Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us.

That's a lock.  Look at how every other affirmative action program is used as a criminal enterprise, and you're called racist if you bring this up.

Women and gays now have license to cheat their way to anything they feel like demanding in the military.  It will happen.  And I'll bet that folks like you will be supportive of it, and howl out all the standard accusations whenever it's discussed.


"Standards will be changed, shaved, ignored, and fudged.  We WILL have non-credible, weak, whiny, and oftentimes pregnant women on the front lines, getting people killed and losing battles and wars for us."



BINGO!


And we all know how standards get "dumbed down"  under the guise of inclusiveness.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 07:42:16 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:21:35 AM
Republicans, you aren't going to win any more elections by continuously not allowing different segments of the voting population to do things.

If a women can pass all the training, the same training as a man, let them serve. You have to be one strong lady to want to do this and always pass.
But do you think this is a good idea, and if so, why?
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:43:14 AM
If that is the case, I won't support that.


But you guys are ruling it out completely based on hypothetical scenarios.

" If we allow gays to serve openly, they may start trying to get special powers and privileges, therefor we shouldn't allow them to serve to beguine with."

It would have been the same in the day when dealing with racial issues. ( not claiming you're inferring this or anything)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
QuoteBut do you think this is a good idea, and if so, why?

Honestly, probably not.

Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 07:48:19 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
Honestly, probably not.
Then why not argue that fact, instead of carrying the leftist water?
Point is, you don't always have to go along with the party, even when they're wrong, like every lib that stumbles through the forum.
Find your position and take a stand, I know you from your posts, you're better than that.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 07:58:47 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:44:56 AM
Honestly, probably not.

Given more thought, there are physiological factors alone that make it a bad idea..........even if they are tough.

A couple of examples: Women have to go through a lot more trouble to take a leak. There is also the issue of them being on their period during a combat deployment. Neither one of them is a good thing for combat readiness.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 08:01:37 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 07:11:16 AM
As long as they can pass the requirements, that's fine.

If you have to make different tests for women in order to get some through, I don't agree.

If that results in 1000 women in, that is all good. If that results in 0 women in, I'm fine with that too.

As a woman, I agree with this.  Absolutly no special concessions should be made.  If no women can hack it, then they weren't meant to.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:05:38 AM
My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

QuoteA couple of examples: Women have to go through a lot more trouble to take a leak. There is also the issue of them being on their period during a combat deployment. Neither one of them is a good thing for combat readiness.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 08:15:59 AM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:05:38 AM
My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.
Cramps and mental instability, or rather emotional instability, though both go hand in hand, then there is the issue of male, female dynamics that cannot be overcome, nature of nurture and protect, that is instinctual.
This whole move has absolutely nothing to do with rights, women have not been protesting the right to die in combat.
This whole thing by design, is to destroy the Military structure, and if you can't open your eyes to the obvious, then you are lost in the flock of other mindless followers to the slaughter.

Question the motivation of your leaders, if you don't do it now, then when? For crying out loud.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 08:17:52 AM
I really am starting to believe that this countries biggest problem is that in your face honesty is no longer the norm.  All the hot topics of late are argued on both sides not for what the rule or decision of plan is, but what it might become.   The Left want to regulate guns and they base it on the hypothetical that a gun somehow causes someone to shoot someone else. Gun rights people do not want any regulations because they fear, with good reason I believe, that the new regulation is only a stepping stone and not the actual extent of what the other side wants.   

In this case women in the military seems to be opposed not because none of them are capable but because standards will be dropped and promotions will be based on female affirmative action. Again I never thought about that but think it has merit.

Everything is based on the fear that if you give an inch they will take a mile.  It just seems that there is no honor anymore where when an agreement is reached that the discussion is over.   Even the negotiations are not honest.  What happened to a mans word is his bond way of thinking.  How can we ever get anything done when everyone believes they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and  most action is done for appearance sake and not with the goal of actually solving a problem. 

This really is a no brainer if everyone were honest and someones word could be trusted.  I see no reason why they should not be able to serve if they can qualify in exactly the same way as men.  If anyone is captured they are brutalized so that should not be an issue.  The ambassador supposedly was raped so why is that not as bad as if he was a she.  I accept that there are differences between Men and woman but thing that we as a society should not be limiting what we can do based on race, sex or even sexuality.  But given our society that can find a way to litigate over anything well I think that it will be a long while before we find a way to solve problems rationally. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:28:03 AM
QuoteCramps and mental instability, or rather emotional instability, though both go hand in hand, then there is the issue of male, female dynamics that cannot be overcome, nature of nurture and protect, that is instinctual.


Question the motivation of your leaders, if you don't do it now, then when? For crying out loud.

Solar, all those things you mentioned would be taken care of in the screening process. If a female is emotionally immature, she doesn't pass, same as a man.

When you talk about differences in male and female biology, I agree. That is why a lot more men are in the military, especially front line rolls.

As I said before, If this equality results in one female passing and serving her country, so be it. If it means 50, so be it.

QuoteThis whole move has absolutely nothing to do with rights, women have not been protesting the right to die in combat.
This whole thing by design, is to destroy the Military structure, and if you can't open your eyes to the obvious, then you are lost in the flock of other mindless followers to the slaughter.

I don't honestly see Obama/Democrats or even Republicans, trying to bring down our military power. That is not their aim. Obama supports our military ( I think for the wrong reasons, but that is another discussion).

Why else would he increase our military budget and also continue Bush's wars ?
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 08:17:52 AM
I really am starting to believe that this countries biggest problem is that in your face honesty is no longer the norm.  All the hot topics of late are argued on both sides not for what the rule or decision of plan is, but what it might become.   The Left want to regulate guns and they base it on the hypothetical that a gun somehow causes someone to shoot someone else. Gun rights people do not want any regulations because they fear, with good reason I believe, that the new regulation is only a stepping stone and not the actual extent of what the other side wants.   

In this case women in the military seems to be opposed not because none of them are capable but because standards will be dropped and promotions will be based on female affirmative action. Again I never thought about that but think it has merit.

Everything is based on the fear that if you give an inch they will take a mile.  It just seems that there is no honor anymore where when an agreement is reached that the discussion is over.   Even the negotiations are not honest.  What happened to a mans word is his bond way of thinking.  How can we ever get anything done when everyone believes they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg and  most action is done for appearance sake and not with the goal of actually solving a problem. 

This really is a no brainer if everyone were honest and someones word could be trusted.  I see no reason why they should not be able to serve if they can qualify in exactly the same way as men.  If anyone is captured they are brutalized so that should not be an issue.  The ambassador supposedly was raped so why is that not as bad as if he was a she.  I accept that there are differences between Men and woman but thing that we as a society should not be limiting what we can do based on race, sex or even sexuality.  But given our society that can find a way to litigate over anything well I think that it will be a long while before we find a way to solve problems rationally.

I think you have a very good point.  It is all about trusting someones word.  If the military lowers the bar for women, then it is the military that is to blame for lowering that standard.  Will a ton of women even want to be put in combat positions?  I doubt it, women work in firefighting and coast guard positions as well, but in very small numbers and this would be much more taxing a job than those.
As for peeing, women have been camping, hunting, and working construction (etc) for many years, we kinda have the peeing in the wild thing down.  Menstruation is also an easy fix, many women rework their pill cycles during college so that they don't have a period until it is "convenient", or you can simply get the Depo Prevara shot, which stops your period altogether.  As to moodiness, not all women get moody during their cycle and I would hope that a woman who was a high enough rank in our military to even qualify to try to do this would have the moody factor under control.
As to a mans need to protect females, well I can't really say anything about that, I think a man, if given the opportunity is just protective in nature, no matter if the subject being protected is man or woman.

Do I think it is a fantastic idea?  No, I don't.  Things were working just fine before, and I honestly have heard nothing from the Womens lib groups intimating that they wish to do this, so it seems more of a parting shot from a retiring man who won't have to see how it turns out.  However, if the regulations for admittance be left as is, then let them try.  I don't see very many woman succeeding.  The amount of gear, that has to be carried constantly, alone would limit the number of likely candidates down to negligible numbers, then add the test of being able to port wounded would pretty much eliminate all other candidates.     
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: raptor5618 on January 24, 2013, 11:35:37 AM
Women have their own issues as do men that can be a detriment as a soldier. The protective part is I think a non issue because guys in combat protect each other anyway.  How many stories about guys giving their life up to recover another soldier even when that soldier was dead.  I think some women will want to do it but I think few would really be able to make it through something like the Seals. 

I go back to Russia in WW2 and maybe even today but women were on the front lines and fought right next to men and they certainly were an effective army at that time. 

As far as capture goes and the enemy does not comply with the rules well neither man nor women are going to be treated well and I think it is a fact that women can endure pain much better than men.  At the beginning especially I think any women who is on the front lines would have a larger burden on their shoulders not to let women down and I think they would have to be pretty bad ass anyway to want to be in combat and fulfill all the requirements.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 01:35:11 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:28:03 AM
Solar, all those things you mentioned would be taken care of in the screening process. If a female is emotionally immature, she doesn't pass, same as a man.

When you talk about differences in male and female biology, I agree. That is why a lot more men are in the military, especially front line rolls.

As I said before, If this equality results in one female passing and serving her country, so be it. If it means 50, so be it.

I don't honestly see Obama/Democrats or even Republicans, trying to bring down our military power. That is not their aim. Obama supports our military ( I think for the wrong reasons, but that is another discussion).

Why else would he increase our military budget and also continue Bush's wars ?
I know I can't change your mind, mostly because you've never served.
But there is an issue, one that covers gays and women in a front line position.
Relationships, people will sacrifice others to save their mate, male or female.

I'm done with this issue, trying to educate libs is a useless attempt at justifying insanity.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 01:58:31 PM
Quote from: redlom xof on January 24, 2013, 08:05:38 AM
My gut reaction is no, based on the feeling it will turn into the climate we see today in the police force/general jobs.

That shouldn't happen given we're talking about the military.

But logically, if the right rules are set, namely the same criteria for women and men, that is fine and there shouldn't be any problems.

A combat ready girl will take a leak anyway, that is no problem. The period thing is easily taken care of too. They will have many more major problems facing them than those two things.


We can not do things on hypothetical scenarios Solar. That is not a winning or logical ticket.

Your whole attempt to excuse away the problems with women in combat.....is hypothetical.

That there won't be pregnancies in theater, or problems with relationships on the front line, guys fighting or killing each other over this, gals fighting with each other over such things, guys forgetting about their safety and others' to save their girl and vice versa, and so on.

There's a whole element of BS that IS GOING TO HAPPEN, that has no business happening in combat.

But of course liberals pretend that none of this will happen, or even more insidiously, "well, too bad, that's the price you pay so that I can have my rights".
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 01:59:06 PM
There's also the big elephant in the room that no one is willing to address, and we know for a fact that it causes problems all of the time.........in and out of the military.

It's the same reason I'm not comfortable with open gays in the military.

When on combat duty, the bulk of the time is not spent shooting at enemies. It's time in remote locations with lots of boredom.

The issue is human nature, sexuality, urges, and the problems that they cause.

Lets face it, sex and sexual jealousy create all kinds of problems, just in normal society. People wind up in prison over it.

Mix men and women together in some remote desert, some of them away from their spouses, and there are going to be problems; there's no question about it, and those problems could get people killed.

To me, that is reason enough to keep them separated and completely focused on their jobs. It's not about women being weaker.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 01:59:06 PM
There's also the big elephant in the room that no one is willing to address, and we know for a fact that it causes problems all of the time.........in and out of the military.

It's the same reason I'm not comfortable with open gays in the military.

When on combat duty, the bulk of the time is not spent shooting at enemies. It's time in remote locations with lots of boredom.

The issue is human nature, sexuality, urges, and the problems that they cause.

Lets face it, sex and sexual jealousy create all kinds of problems, just in normal society. People wind up in prison over it.

Mix men and women together in some remote desert, some of them away from their spouses, and there are going to be problems; there's no question about it, and those problems could get people killed.

To me, that is reason enough to keep them separated and completely focused on their jobs. It's not about women being weaker.

You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Reality on January 24, 2013, 02:33:34 PM
Sadly, the rubber will meet the road when one of our female combatants gets captured by the likes of the Taliban. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 24, 2013, 02:40:00 PM
Quote from: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.
There's no convincing libs, consequences be damned and social mores proven over tens of thousands of years never cross the mind of an emotional kid.
Throw it all out because they might be right, regardless of what history has taught.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 03:09:06 PM
Quote from: Reality on January 24, 2013, 02:33:34 PM
Sadly, the rubber will meet the road when one of our female combatants gets captured by the likes of the Taliban.
Sadly, the libs will then fabricate some amazing way to blame Bush, or as stated earlier by someone, use it to undermine the war effort.

There is NEVER a "ah, we were wrong" moment for liberals.  Just a slight change in the lies, to make them "still right no matter", and to move right along to demand something else.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 03:31:20 PM
Quote from: JustKari on January 24, 2013, 02:10:18 PM
You and Solar make a valid point with this.  I know life is far from fair, but I can't see whole teams of women being a viable option either (like they did when women started in the military.  Though I don't think you would be able to tell they were women when suited up, if the enemy found out, they would be targeted.

I don't have a perfect solution, I am not in a position to put my heart into this, because 1) I am not military.  2) I am not the type to want to be a part of combat, even if I were military.  I defer to those with more experience in this subject.

It won't be like MASH, where Hawkeye beds any woman he wants, and everybody else stays away.

They started putting women on tenders back in the early 80's when I was in the Navy, for limited deployments, as well as on carriers for full deployments.They never admitted that there were problems that I know of, but there were. It doesn't have to do with prejudice against women, it's just that the problems that do occur, impact both moral and full combat readiness.

We're talking about young kids here. The left has already taught them that sex whenever they feel like it, with whoever, is okay.

Although I don't think it was rampant, there were also women that entered the military and chose their assignments, specifically to engage in prostitution. Needless to say, they made LOTS of money.

I don't even want to think about what the taliban would do to a captured female..............and suppose she was romantically involved with a guy from the unit. Would he be able to think straight in that situation?

Soldiers are expected to perform like machines. Any level of emotional disruption. is too much.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: BILLY Defiant on January 24, 2013, 03:56:36 PM
Good or bad? Time will tell.

I say let 'em do it  IF they can pass the physical parts of the couse
and THE MILITARY DON'T LOWER THE STANDARDS.

I recall the same controversy about Police women on patrol, it worked out, also as an aside not one female could pass the physical requirements for SWAT.


Billy
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: justiceday on January 24, 2013, 05:14:55 PM
The Pentagon can't and won't protect women in the military from being sexual assaulted and raped.  They dishonorably discharge them when they report rapes.  Why would I think sending them into combat is for their own good? 
[size=12pt]http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/HideTheTruth.html[/size]
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: BILLY Defiant on January 24, 2013, 05:23:13 PM
Maybe we should choose women who have had an abortion...they have no problem when it comes to killing kids...useful when the enemy uses children as living suicide bombs.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:02:48 PM
Whether it's gays or women, my entire argument on this subject, is that the decision should rest solely with the field commanders. Not agenda driven Washington politicians.

Washington can stick with starting wars. Let the people that are qualified, make the decisions as to who is best able to fight them, and where they are best utilized. Period.

If the commanders say that women on the front lines and open homosexuality will enhance our military might and combat readiness, so be it.

I think we all know what the commanders think of these orders that are coming from idiot politicians. :huh:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:09:49 PM
Can anyone imagine Patton or Eisenhower sitting around thinking, "Darn, I could really do some serious damage to the enemy, if only I had some women and open homosexuals around to help out."
:blink:

Or their reaction if they were told that they had to, because it was a brave new world, and political correctness trumped all else?
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: BILLY Defiant on January 24, 2013, 06:16:31 PM
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:02:48 PM
Whether it's gays or women, my entire argument on this subject, is that the decision should rest solely with the field commanders. Not agenda driven Washington politicians.

Washington can stick with starting wars. Let the people that are qualified, make the decisions as to who is best able to fight them, and where they are best utilized. Period.

If the commanders say that women on the front lines and open homosexuality will enhance our military might and combat readiness, so be it.

I think we all know what the commanders think of these orders that are coming from idiot politicians. :huh:


Hey my attitude is you want equal rights, fine get your asses on the front lines LIKE MEN HAVE BEEN DOING and have an equal chance to come home in a body bag... coz if you can't pull your weight thats where you are gonna end up....register for the draft too.

Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 02:51:04 AM
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 24, 2013, 06:16:31 PM

Hey my attitude is you want equal rights, fine get your asses on the front lines LIKE MEN HAVE BEEN DOING and have an equal chance to come home in a body bag... coz if you can't pull your weight thats where you are gonna end up....register for the draft too.

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/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/military-times-poll-wait-for-ptsd-tbi-treatment-091411w/)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 25, 2013, 04:19:23 AM
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/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/military-times-poll-wait-for-ptsd-tbi-treatment-091411w/)
That's all it's ever been about, a weakened Military doesn't dare take on forces when internal morale is in tatters.
Open homosexuality within the ranks of men, how in the Hell is that supposed to benefit the Military at large, now water down the sheer strength of the fighting force with women, and what do you have?

All the kids that didn't get picked for 8th grade softball and now they will be playing on our side.
Add to that PC BS and all the whining that used to get you kicked out, now has you as protected status.
It's never been about rights, it's always been about weakening America, and the if these kids don't wake up, there won't be a Military capable of protecting American assets around the world.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 25, 2013, 04:56:23 AM
An interesting "read" on the topic.


http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/25/a-battle-conservatives-need-to (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/25/a-battle-conservatives-need-to)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 25, 2013, 05:12:56 AM
He's absolutely Right, if I have to explain this thread to people, then they'd never get it, though I really don't think this one needs explaining.
When our leaders need protection, they choose someone with a gun, when our banks need protection, there's a gun involved, when so called celebrities need protection, the rely upon what?
But the left shows us just how much they disdain us serfs, that they force us to protect our young with "Gun Free Zone" signs?

I always thought a revolution might come after my death, but I just might see it sooner than later.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: The Stranger on January 25, 2013, 05:15:22 AM
Reasons it will not work. Even if they can pass the same stringent physical test the men can. I an all for equal pay for equal work but it never works that way. I have lived it.
So you train a women for months for a combat mission in a desert and find out a week into the mission she is pregnant, what then? She is carrying a wounded soldier out of harms way and oops it's her time of the month and gets severe cramps. These are just a few and I am sure there are thousands more in the battle field.

I ran a department of about 20 maintenance workers years back and the women were paid the same and I will tell you for a fact the best wasn't worth it. THEY couldn't move heavy tanks (air/oxygen), they had more days off then all the men combined, I have my period and am cramping, oh my Mom can't watch the kids today, Oh the school called I have to leave, I'm pregnant and can't lift anything or work near smells or paint and so on. It don't work and it will not here either.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 25, 2013, 05:25:54 AM
What about the costs. Separate sleeping facilities, showers, etc.  If it's nominal it's one thing but if it gets costly is it woirth it.  Fraternizing comes into play.  M.A.S.H. comes to mind.  Imagine a few thousand or more cases of Hot Lips Houlihan and Frankk Byrnes. :blink:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: raptor5618 on January 25, 2013, 05:59:29 AM
I know solar and some others hate Wikipedia as a source but I thought it would provide a quick and easy source for what the Russians experienced with women in combat. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II)
I think in Israel women are in the military too but I did not check on that.


I think a lot of the concerns expressed here have some merit but in many cases could be applied to others in the military as well. Would a soldier not attempt to help a best friend.  The sex stuff is going to happen but who would be able to perform when bullets and bombs start landing next to you.  I think very few women will be able to meet the standard.  I saw last night that most males do not meet the standard to even get admitted to the military and then an even smaller portion make it through basic.  So the number of women that would qualify will be very small and of those that could qualify how many would want to go that route.  As far as rape well that is a known problem before they get captured and it seems the military is better at turning a blind eye. 

The reality is that women are fighting and dying already.  For me the biggest concern is that the military and its commanders are forced to change standards to allow entry of those who really do not measure up.  Granted most women cannot drag a 250 pound guy back into cover but there are some men that cannot either.  But there are a few who could and if they can stand up to the requirements let them in.  Oh and the comments about women not pulling their weight.  Well that is an example of what cannot happen. 

I think the best women soldier is probably better than the worst male soldier so the problems associated with women are just different than problems associated with men. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 06:19:13 AM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 25, 2013, 05:59:29 AM
I know solar and some others hate Wikipedia as a source but I thought it would provide a quick and easy source for what the Russians experienced with women in combat. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II)
I think in Israel women are in the military too but I did not check on that.


I think a lot of the concerns expressed here have some merit but in many cases could be applied to others in the military as well. Would a soldier not attempt to help a best friend.  The sex stuff is going to happen but who would be able to perform when bullets and bombs start landing next to you.  I think very few women will be able to meet the standard.  I saw last night that most males do not meet the standard to even get admitted to the military and then an even smaller portion make it through basic.  So the number of women that would qualify will be very small and of those that could qualify how many would want to go that route.  As far as rape well that is a known problem before they get captured and it seems the military is better at turning a blind eye. 

The reality is that women are fighting and dying already.  For me the biggest concern is that the military and its commanders are forced to change standards to allow entry of those who really do not measure up.  Granted most women cannot drag a 250 pound guy back into cover but there are some men that cannot either.  But there are a few who could and if they can stand up to the requirements let them in.  Oh and the comments about women not pulling their weight.  Well that is an example of what cannot happen. 

I think the best women soldier is probably better than the worst male soldier so the problems associated with women are just different than problems associated with men.

There's a point to made there. Female Soviet and Israeli soldiers were/are having their homeland attacked. There's no political correctness about it.

If and when enemy forces breech our shores and borders, I would fully expect every man, woman, and child over 12 that can handle a weapon, to be utilized in the fight.

Forcing it through to celebrate diversity in our military, is stupid.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 06:47:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Turks on January 25, 2013, 07:24:13 AM
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.....
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 25, 2013, 07:29:44 AM
Quote from: Turks on January 25, 2013, 07:24:13 AM
Not much of anything LBJ did worked out well.....
Unless you a Dim rep.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: 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 (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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 25, 2013, 03:03:15 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 03:21:23 PM
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 (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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: mdgiles on January 25, 2013, 03:54:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: BILLY Defiant on January 25, 2013, 04:19:54 PM
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/ (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?
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: kramarat on January 25, 2013, 07:56:47 PM
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:
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: keyboarder on January 25, 2013, 09:52:11 PM
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. 

Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: walkstall on January 25, 2013, 10:17:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Hindes204 on January 25, 2013, 10:41:06 PM
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 (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
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: walkstall on January 25, 2013, 10:55:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: taxed on January 25, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
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

Right on!!
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: keyboarder on January 26, 2013, 04:18:30 AM
Quote from: walkstall on January 25, 2013, 10:17:45 PM


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.
Well Bingo!  I alluded to that but had done written enough.  What a mess it would be if women just banded together and stopped working outside the home if for no other reason than because of their claims that they weren't being treated equally?  I can just imagine all that would go down because of that tactict.  I'll bet you'd see some quick changes then.  Of course that might take a little fortitude on the part of women and i'll bet they'd cave to the establishment at the first sign of want.  They might even be reduced to making sure that their homes were cleaned, their children's homework done, that pile of sewing caught up or corner full of dirty clothes was washed, dried and/or ironed or folded.  Goodness knows that husbands and children would be on perhaps a better diet, might even settle for routine dining.  Noone would starve as long as she could keep enough cardboard rounded up for every member of her clan.  Cardboard is near the only thing I can think of that Moochelle might approve of anyway because of her attitude towards salt and sugar.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 26, 2013, 07:21:59 AM
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.
Well said Keyboarder, you pointed out the communist infiltration of our country, they knew that breaking down social norms would begin the demise of our very way of life, remove Religion from schools, the main impediment to their plan.
The list reads like a training manual for young communists, yet it's all real, it really happened, were at the precipice now, we are the last generation to experience both worlds, one of freedom and happiness, while looking into the pit of man against man, because that's how the left wins battles, pitting it's enemy against itself, splitting it's allegiance and sitting back and waiting.
Insidious as it is, it still works, it's still up to us, the remaining generation to fight to the death to save this Nation, if we can't, then the kids deserve what they created.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Josie on January 27, 2013, 01:45:27 AM
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 04:55:00 AM
There might be some that qualify. :scared:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2110301/Female-bodybuilders-captured-photographer-Martin-Schoeller-results-years-sculpting-perfect-physique.html)
:blink: *goes to wash eyes*
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2013, 11:29:41 AM
It's only a joke...

(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6975462144/hD24CE8B6/)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: mdgiles on January 28, 2013, 07:39:43 AM
It occurs to me that the generals/admirals now running the services were the "checklist" officers of the Vietnam era. This was an era in which it was more important for an officer to have served in a number of billets, that to have demonstrated outstanding ability, as opposed to simple competence, in any of them. Officers were constantly being moved through assignments to get "their list checked". It was careerism as opposed to professionalism. Anyone who served during, or just after, Vietnam will recall the constant turnover in officers. Why would you expect a Chief of Staff who came up through such a system, to have any real concept of unit cohesion. Throughout their entire military career it's been all about him/her looking good to the higher ups. Right now, these people are in command of services that are often completely different from the ones they are familiar with. What sounds like a good idea to the careerist commanders at the top, sounds like disaster to the field and company grade officers, in services that are now all about unit cohesion.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 08:03:44 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on January 28, 2013, 07:39:43 AM
It occurs to me that the generals/admirals now running the services were the "checklist" officers of the Vietnam era. This was an era in which it was more important for an officer to have served in a number of billets, that to have demonstrated outstanding ability, as opposed to simple competence, in any of them. Officers were constantly being moved through assignments to get "their list checked". It was careerism as opposed to professionalism. Anyone who served during, or just after, Vietnam will recall the constant turnover in officers. Why would you expect a Chief of Staff who came up through such a system, to have any real concept of unit cohesion. Throughout their entire military career it's been all about him/her looking good to the higher ups. Right now, these people are in command of services that are often completely different from the ones they are familiar with. What sounds like a good idea to the careerist commanders at the top, sounds like disaster to the field and company grade officers, in services that are now all about unit cohesion.
Excellent point Giles, I do remember the rotation, between 6 and 10 months is how I remember it in 73-74.
And if memory is correct, once they promoted above Butter Bar, they were transferred out.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: raptor5618 on January 28, 2013, 11:42:10 AM
Quote from: mdgiles on January 25, 2013, 03:54:18 PM
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.

I will comment on your last part first. I do not think that any of our POW's were treated well. I do not like the idea of women treated wrong but do not like what they do to the guys either. 

As for your experience in Viet Nam.  I am just a few years younger than you probably and got out of high school just as it was ending.  Yesterday on H2 they had a 6 hour documentary on Viet Nam and they showed some things that I do not recall seeing before.  One of the things that really struck me was that they sent the guys out on 30 or 40 day patrols and once they were out they were out there.  Up until seeing that I kind of thought that they stayed at a base and went out on patrols for a day or two and then came back.  And they talked about being so dirty and smelly. 

It was a well done documentary that I think was not trying to present a biased view other than a view that waging a war that only has a body count objective is wrong. It seemed like time after time the soldiers were put in a precarious situation because the ability to be resupplied was not secure.  In one battle they were down to 10 shells each and were licking moisture off of their poncho's because they had no water. 

You were there so I apologize if my comments do not ring true but I think that even as far back as WW2 the top generals got there because they were the most adept at politics. So many decisions based on politics and not on battle strategy.  I hope the story I related happened a lot.  If you are going to ask a soldier to risk his life it better be for an objective that leads to a successful resolution of the war.  In that documentary, story after story was about taking some hill and after a long struggle succeeding only to pull everything out and give it right back.

I think the focus of the the whole show was a good one.  They talked a bit about how they say that the WW2 vets were this nations finest.  They said that the soldiers in V-N did all that was asked of and succeeded and because of that they were our nations finest as well.  I think that war was where this country first saw how awful war was and could not deal with it.   As I watched I wondered how any soldier could ever get their mind around what they did and saw.  Taking a location and then abandoning it makes no sense to me at all.  Sounds more like a football game than a war.  No sense of what victory would be and no attempt to keep what was won.   Sorry if I get carried away but I do hope that you have been blessed in life and have found peace in what ever you experienced over there and in coming home which might have been worse. 

I guess I strayed off topic but if this countries govt could be honest and only use women who are capable to perform the task I think they deserve the right to serve even on the front line.  Only a few would qualify just like a lot of men do not qualify.  However, I hope that when our countries decides to use these soldiers it is only when the proceed with bad intent against the enemy. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: Solar on January 28, 2013, 01:36:29 PM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 28, 2013, 11:42:10 AM
  As I watched I wondered how any soldier could ever get their mind around what they did and saw.  Taking a location and then abandoning it makes no sense to me at all.  Sounds more like a football game than a war.  No sense of what victory would be and no attempt to keep what was won.   Sorry if I get carried away but I do hope that you have been blessed in life and have found peace in what ever you experienced over there and in coming home which might have been worse. 


My brother used to say that all the time, as an off handed saying. "Didn't we just take this hill, weren't we just here" Dejavu and things to that effect..
They said it so often, it became part of the vocabulary.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: mdgiles on January 28, 2013, 06:52:19 PM
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 28, 2013, 11:42:10 AM
I will comment on your last part first. I do not think that any of our POW's were treated well. I do not like the idea of women treated wrong but do not like what they do to the guys either. 

As for your experience in Viet Nam.  I am just a few years younger than you probably and got out of high school just as it was ending.  Yesterday on H2 they had a 6 hour documentary on Viet Nam and they showed some things that I do not recall seeing before.  One of the things that really struck me was that they sent the guys out on 30 or 40 day patrols and once they were out they were out there.  Up until seeing that I kind of thought that they stayed at a base and went out on patrols for a day or two and then came back.  And they talked about being so dirty and smelly. 

It was a well done documentary that I think was not trying to present a biased view other than a view that waging a war that only has a body count objective is wrong. It seemed like time after time the soldiers were put in a precarious situation because the ability to be resupplied was not secure.  In one battle they were down to 10 shells each and were licking moisture off of their poncho's because they had no water. 

You were there so I apologize if my comments do not ring true but I think that even as far back as WW2 the top generals got there because they were the most adept at politics. So many decisions based on politics and not on battle strategy.  I hope the story I related happened a lot.  If you are going to ask a soldier to risk his life it better be for an objective that leads to a successful resolution of the war.  In that documentary, story after story was about taking some hill and after a long struggle succeeding only to pull everything out and give it right back.

I think the focus of the the whole show was a good one.  They talked a bit about how they say that the WW2 vets were this nations finest.  They said that the soldiers in V-N did all that was asked of and succeeded and because of that they were our nations finest as well.  I think that war was where this country first saw how awful war was and could not deal with it.   As I watched I wondered how any soldier could ever get their mind around what they did and saw.  Taking a location and then abandoning it makes no sense to me at all.  Sounds more like a football game than a war.  No sense of what victory would be and no attempt to keep what was won.   Sorry if I get carried away but I do hope that you have been blessed in life and have found peace in what ever you experienced over there and in coming home which might have been worse. 

I guess I strayed off topic but if this countries govt could be honest and only use women who are capable to perform the task I think they deserve the right to serve even on the front line.  Only a few would qualify just like a lot of men do not qualify.  However, I hope that when our countries decides to use these soldiers it is only when the proceed with bad intent against the enemy.
You don't have to be on a long range patrol to be denied shower facilities; even if you are in a fire base, there is no guarantee that you'll have water for anything except drinking. Even something a primitive as a 55 gallon drum with holes in the bottom and a line run from a water buffalo, is an unobtainable luxury when you are constantly under artillery fire. Or even small arms fire. The enemy has snipers too, so you want to avoid unnecessary exposure. BTW, if I ever come into a possession of a time machine; I'd like to take the opportunity to travel into the past , and slap myself upside the head for the stupid soap/monsoon stunt.

The political generals/admirals of the early part of the second world war (see Kimmel and Short) were soon replaced by the competent generals/admirals. The area commanders were absolute ruthless with those that didn't measure up. Off course there were the exceptions, like General "Jesus Christ Himself" Lee; but he was a supply poagie.

Vietnam did resemble a bad sporting event - except people got killed. It was just the first example of a leftist elite, that saw themselves as for more intelligent than they actually were. And before we condemn the generals of Vietnam; we should always be aware of how many of the decisions were being made by someone other than the commander on the ground.
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: mdgiles on January 28, 2013, 06:54:56 PM
Here's more on the subject:
http://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=9585 (http://victorygirlsblog.com/?p=9585)
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: mdgiles on January 29, 2013, 10:12:58 AM
BTW, has it occurred to any of our geniuses in Washington, that women are "programed" to be attracted to the most competent male. In small units, that would be the officers and the NCO's. It's not something that they would even consciously think about. Having rivalries develop among equals over a woman, would be bad. The idea that the officers and NCO's are "monopolizing" the women, would be far worse. 
Title: Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES
Post by: keyboarder on January 29, 2013, 02:09:51 PM
Giles, my "sheriff" was in VN when it first got started.  He doesn't talk about it much but he saw plenty.  He was dog trainer/handler and part of his job was going out on patrol and recon.  He kept a scrapbook of some of what his job was and it wasn't pretty.  He said the environment was hell on earth.  Baths were a luxury and there's items that he won't eat for no amount of money and one of them is rice, the other is frozen foods.  He said the fertilizing of the rice fields is one reason he would not eat rice and the frozen foods reminds him of the k rations.  Then there was this smell, unlike any he'd ever encountered but much like the smell of death.  He was of the opinion that the war was all about politics, no matter how many got killed.  He said that most of the killed was very young guys.  The worst thing to him was the reception from citizens when they came home.  He managed 20 years and got out without a scratch from any of the places he'd been.  I guess every one that served has a different story of time in the military.  From what I've heard, women just think they want to go thru  those things by entering the military.