Author Topic: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES (Read 1591 times)

BILLY Defiant · « **Reply #45 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

justiceday · « **Reply #46 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]

BILLY Defiant · « **Reply #47 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.

kramarat · « **Reply #48 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.

kramarat · « **Reply #49 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."

Or their reaction if they were told that they had to, because it was a brave new world, and political correctness trumped all else?

BILLY Defiant · « **Reply #50 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.

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.

kramarat · « **Reply #51 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/

Solar · « **Reply #52 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/

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.

Turks · « **Reply #53 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

Solar · « **Reply #54 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.

The Stranger · « **Reply #55 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.

Turks · « **Reply #56 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.

raptor5618 · « **Reply #57 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
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.

kramarat · « **Reply #58 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
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.

raptor5618 · « **Reply #59 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.

News:

Friends of CPF

Author Topic: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES (Read 1591 times)

BILLY Defiant

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

justiceday

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

BILLY Defiant

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

kramarat

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

kramarat

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

BILLY Defiant

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

kramarat

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Solar

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Turks

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Solar

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

The Stranger

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

Turks

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

raptor5618

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

kramarat

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES

raptor5618

Re: Good or Bad Idea: WOMEN TO COMBAT FRONTLINES