[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23855[/url]
AMEN!

Great Article Hangfire, Thanks. I agree 100% with that articles view.

good read, hangfire, the voice of reason speaks up! thanx.

A few years ago a LTC did a small test to show why he didnt belive women should be in combat. he had an aide pick 40 names off a roster from a diferent unit 20 female 20 males he then had them assambled and tested the test was simple roll back the breach of a ma-duece 50BMG. results female 1/20 could do it males 18/20 could do it. of the 2 males that couldnt do it one had a cast on his right arm. what does that tell you...it tell me that if women want ot be in combat then women need to do the same as men..women have to do 18 pushups in the 17-21 age group to pass men have to do 42 if she can do 18 ok she can be a clerk in the army if she can do 42 then she can be inf. but you have to apply the standards all accross the board not just the push-ups that was just an example.

I rmembered somethng else...I was in a Field Artillery Unit = combat arms unit. yet we have women cooks, medics, clerks, supply...guess what when we go to war they go to. and i hate that when they get put on guard duty they didnt take it seriously. or that when setting up nets or constanta wire they cant/wouldnt do it right. couldnt shoot good, which suprized me because women are supposed to be better shots...not if they are not intrestead (why join a military force then)plus getting to take a shower every 2-3 days by ARMY rules because of "female problems" I didnt get to shower what they dont think my ass smell or itches when dirty...? sorry rant mode off....


If she can do the job fine if not suck it up, drive on, move out and draw fire.

[b][size=4]Egg-frickin-zactly!![/size=4][/b]

Every one of us who was in the military can name specific instances when it was made perfectly clear to him that women and the military lifestyle -let alone combat- are not compatible. I can name only one woman who I thought was worthy of the title Marine. She PT'd hard, didn't expect or ask anyone else to carry her load, always set the example in terms of hard work, appearance and conduct and always dealt with other Marines as though there was no gender difference. Sergeant Garcia was hard. That was her name, Sergeant Garcia. Her first name? Sergeant. And that's what she called me, Sergeant Smith.

Now, I won't go into the innumerable instances where a WM (Woman Marine) made it perfectly clear to me that she was just there for the college money, to find a husband, to get out of a bad neighborhood or to get a job skill, and that I should cut her some slack because she was different, sweet, pretty, delicate or really looked good in cammies. I [b]could[/b] give you a list of 4 or 5 of those times off the top of my head, but I'll spare you the tears and smudged makeup.

Not to say that there were no male non-hackers who did not pack the gear to serve in my beloved Corps. There surely were, but they were the exception rather than the rule.

The military is not a social services experiment designed to improve your self-esteem. The Special Forces aren't about making you feel special. The Marine Corps didn't build Camp Pendleton in southern California so you'd be close to Mission Beach. No, you can't sit in the truck while the guys dig the fighting holes and set up the GP tents. Pick up a goddamned shovel and get some callouses on your soft, white hands or get that Eagle, Globe and Anchor off your chest and carry your happy ass back home.

Jarhead out.

I was never in the military, but I understand that because of woman, the military has switched to different boots because the old boots were too heavy for the woman??

My personal belief is that woman are the nuturers of our society, and if you see a lot of woman being shot up and killed, it could be VERY bad for morale, and it could cause us to loose a war.

The reason women were ever let into the military in any numbers in the first place was the "Free a Man to Fight" program for World War II. The idea was that they would take administrative jobs in the States to free the men who formerly held those positions to go and fight in Europe or the Pacific. A good idea on the drawing board when you've got Japanese and German bayonets pointing at the belly of America, but it's left us a bitter legacy.

They should have hired the women as civilian secretaries and saved us a lot of heartache and discontent.

FMCDH
Semper Fidelis
Jarhead out.

Men being generally 50% stronger than women does help.  Not being able to throw a grenade past it's burst radius can be hazardous to your health.  illustration:[grenade]

Women can pay attention to details better than men.  In long distance shooting, sight picture, wind, and mirage have to be dealt with.  They are the difference between the winner and loser.

One thing on the guys' side is better perception of 3 dimensional image(s).

"Just the Facts, Mam."

that's what i like to hear.  i've found that the ones who complain the most are the ones that are worried the most.  if you're sooooo confident about your abilities, you don't have to advertise it to the rest of the world.  women have a place in the defense of our country.  would you deny me that right?  because i'm female?

how about keeping out blacks because they're black and a bunch of them are saying they want to go back to africa?

or how about keeping out jews because historically they aren't the warmongering kind we need to win a war (kill, kill, kill)?

women should have a limited role in the armed forces.  but a role they should have.

Hoo, boy.

We have an all-voulunteer force, which means only those truly motivated or those truly desperate sign up.

Should women be in combat?  IMHO, yes, if they want to be and can cut it.  Should the physical standards be modified to compensate for women?  Depends on the service.  Grunt?  NO WAY.  Height and strength absolutely count.  Pilot?  Well, according to some studies women have better reflexes, better eye-hand coordination, and higher G-tolerance than men, on the average.  Being smaller helps there too.  It doesn't take Arnold's biceps to fly the modern warplane.  

In MOST combat positions the women should have to meet the old physical standards.  For some specialties, those standards should be reviewed.

By all means, women should be allowed in most REMF positions.

And as soon as someone comes up with an effective implantable MALE birth control "pill" equivalent to NORPLANT, then BOTH sexes should be required, if not married to civilians, to use them.  Women married to civilians should STILL have to use them because pregnancy (as pointed out) takes women out of action.  Feminists will scream that the policy isn't "fair", but if you join the military, that's your first priority.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

No one is saying they shouldn't have a role in the armed forces. This isn't an issue of race.
All they are saying is women do not need to be on the front line of combat.[army]

The only thing women are good for is cooking, cleaning, and having children.

Birth control???
[i]Riiight[/i]
The strongest argument against
integration of females into combat
units will be the
economics of accomodation.


 

raf: 5 minutes not bad....... I find the dragging to help remove the Large amounts of hair growing there.[:D]

I couldn't RESIST!! [pyro]

you're right and you're wrong.

this isn't an issue of race.  and it shouldn't be an issue of gender.  it should be an issue of whether or not the recruit standing before the drill sgt. can pass according to ONE set of standards that has NOT been watered down.  i say if a female can accomplish everything according to the standards set in place for the males, then by God she should be allowed in combat.  however, i know that most females can't/won't.  but this doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to serve at all.

you're wrong in saying that no one believes women shouldn't serve.  i'm sure many, on this board and throughout the U.S., believe this very thing.  i'm nipping it in the bud on this board.

and the pregnancy issue is sort of a cop out.  a woman truly dedicated to serving her country will do what she nees to do to avoid getting pregnant.  there will be no need to force some sort of birth control on her.  for those that don't, their priority is not with serving/defending.  do you want that kind of person in the armed forces in the first place?

I don't buy that stuff about women having better hand-eye cordination.  As far as taking G forces, that has to do with a person's height, weight, and physical condition- not their sex.

I believe there is a place for women in the military, but not infantry or armor.  The rest is debatable.  

Well, here are some of the problems that crop up with women in the military.

1) If you don't force contraception you open the window for a pregnancy to occur. About every one in the military know cases of women getting pregnant in order to not deploy.  During the build up to the Gulf, doing that very thing, so unless human nature has changed that will always be an issue.

2) Women interfere with unit cohesion.  Men and Women don't generally interact in a positive way when it comes to war fighting concerns.  Men, being men, will attempt to curry favor with the women in the unit.  They also get resentful of other men that do get the attention of women.  Ask about anyone in the military they probably have seen this also.

3) Because of PC, standards have to slip in order to accommodate lower physical ability of most women.  If they don't than women would not promoted at "equal" rates and the NOW crowd and politicians goes nuts.

I don't agree.

In combat, you may find that your unit is decimated, and you have to fightg alongside others.

Integrating female soldiers, even if they can handle the job, with male soldiers they don't know is problamatic. A male officier can have trouble gaining respect from soldiers he doesn't know. A female will be even worse off.

Further, I don't agree that women (or anyone else) has a [i]right[/i] to serve.

Ultimitly, the question is: can women in combat  not degrade combat performance? If the answer isn't "yes", then they shouldn't be allowed to serve in combat.

They are solvable, but not in the America of today.  20 or 30 years ago when just about every politician had served, the understood what the military was about.  Today when less than 1/2 of 1 percent are in the military, and most politician haven't served. Those that control the military are poll driven, since the majority of populace doesn't understand the military, they often view the military as a place of equality, which it is not since the only equal people on the battlefield are the dead. Most of America, drive by the Ophra watching crowd would find the measure to correct the problems distasteful.

"Several studies in the past year have confirmed the typical differences between men and women -- better
performance by men on mathematical reasoning, mental rotation, perception of the horizontal, and targetting
accuracy. Women were confirmed to have larger colour vocabularies, better verbal memory, and better
performance on a test of finger dexterity."

--Doreen Kimura Ph.D., F.R.S.C., L.L.D. (Hon)
 Neurobiology of Cognition

http://www.sfu.ca/~dkimura/

What is really important is how men and women would stack up in a dogfight. I haven't seen any data on this, but a dogfight involves, basically, complex 3-D topography as well as the ruthless application of force. Prior to the dogfight (and after) there is typically navigation and stalking. The male superiority in spatial reasoning will come into play. I also believe that males are more apt to apply force with great ruthlessness, and are probably better at hunting activities such as stalking (the male advantage in spatial reasoning and targeting are generally though to arise from our evolution as hunters).

The female advantage in hand-eye cordination  is related to finger dexterity--which has little to do with the coarse hand-eye cordination required to control a stick in a gunfight (although it will help in typing up an after action report, as will a "larger colour vocabulary" and "better verbal memory").

ARlady, you are wrong.  I used to buy the line that if they could do what a man could do they should be allowed in combat units.  Once I joined the military, I can see the falacy of this argument.

Men and women are not equal.  Never have been, and never will be.  The woman who can do 42 push-ups is still a woman.  And despite her best efforts to be manly, she is still a woman.  She will create bad morale as described on other posts and she is more than a liability.  In my oppinion, she is dangerous to have around.  

In wartime, I can't immagine a woman gritting her teeth, picking up her rifle and charging foward through sniper and machinegun fire.  This isn't the movies.  What I know will happen, is that she will hide behind cover clutching here unloaded weapon crying that this is not what she wanted.  A real warrior will have to come and unnecessarily risk himself to move her to safety because she is unable to fight.

I can still remember some women crying when at a briefing where we were told that we would have to kill rabbits and eat them for survival training.  They were litterally in tears; "I'm not the kind of person who would kill something. I can't do this."

So in light of being a knuckle dragger, go back to the kitchen or the desk where you belong.  You should be raising a family and not humping a rucksak.  You do not belong in my unit and I will never accept a female as an equal warrior.  You can be damn sure you will not get my respect when you do 42 push-ups.  You are not my equal.

Raf- that about sums it up.

Some people insist that women are just as tenacious as men.  Why not let them play football then?  I would love to see a woman full-back try to run up the middle against Oklahoma's defense, which mostly consist of 18 to 19 year old boys.  I'm not degrading women, I'm just making a point.  Does it not take physical strenght to fight on the front lines?

And please, no one bring up the Russians.  3 million Germans killed and estimated 20 to 40 million of them.  That was a slaughter until one side ran out of man and material.

lo-fat, you're absolutely right.  there is absolutely no cohesion in the unit when members have already made up their mind not to accept others regardless.

would you say i belong in the kitchen or behind a desk when the freedom of our country is at stake and i am willing and able to fight?

and about not being your equal, you're absolutely right again.  i believe the following sums it up quite nicely:

"women who seek to be equal to men lack ambition."

and you can be damned sure that i don't lack ambition.  so guess where that puts you.

the real issue here is that some men refuse to accept women in the armed forces period.  and will make up every excuse to explain why women don't belong.

i really don't advocate women in combat situations for several of the reasons mentioned.  the main one being that men won't accept them regardless of their abilities.  men WILL NOT change their attitude, as lo-fat has so eloquently demonstrated that fact. (of course, there will always be stupid women doing the very things that perpetuate those stupid ideas in men. [rolleyes] ). so we women can change our focus.  simple as that.  we adapt.

i think it's a gross (and incorrect) assumption to say that all women will behave in one manner.  those women that poo-pooed about having to eat the rabbits don't belong in the military.  not because they are women, but because they don't have the capacity to kill.  granted, this attitude is more prevalent in women, but it's not in all.  there are several people on this board i wouldn't have a problem offing.  just kidding.  little sarcastic humor there.  but you get my point.



damn, i do this everyday by posting in this board.  your problem is that you've never met a woman who wanted to serve her country.  those ones you're talking about crying about killing a rabbit were there for other reasons.  and for that fact alone they don't belong.  a real woman knows when it's time to fight.  just try going after her kids.  i for one would not sit crying in the middle of battle with an unloaded rifle begging for someone else to come rescue me.  it's not my style.  it's not my mindset.  it's not my attitude.  i have an aggressive personality (as if you hadn't already figured that out).  just ask my significant other.  i'm the first one to go for my [i]loaded[/i] weapon when i think i need it.  i beat him to the punch.  and i have [i]never[/i] told [b]him[/b] to go investigate a noise or bump in the night.  i'd just as soon do it myself.

Good for you, ARlady - we need more like you - females are the best pro-2nd amendment delegates we have to present to society!!!

That being said - women in the military are not treated equally and this waters down the force - period.  I was in the Navy, and while not in a heavily physically demanding job, it was physical, and I could easily see the majority of females performing lower than vast majority of males if there were women onboard. I was in before women were allowed on combat vessels, so I never saw it first hand.  

Two quick instances of women lowering the fighting capability of the United States Armed Forces - this is not hearsay - this is observed fact:

1. During my "A" school (AE - NAS Millington - '87) if a male flunked an class evolution, they were sent as "non-designated" sailors to the fleet to start chipping paint.  When a female flunked a class evolution, she was sent back a class to restudy/retest that evolution.  I was personally told, off the record of course, that this was to keep the Navy's quotas up.  I don't know how the Marines handles their female flunkies, but if I remember correctly, the male Marines were sent to the fleet and placed in an rating/MOS of the Corps' discretion.

If you were a pilot - who would you want working on your bird?

2. During a WESTPAC cruise, we had to undergo sexual discrimination / sexual harassment / teamwork / bullshit training (thank God it was only for a few hours - I've heard that these classes are longer and occur often nowadays).  The master chief doing the presentation *ACTED* like he could not believe it when I suggested that women aboard would cause problems.  This was supposed to be an open discussion type of presentation - but disagreeing with the views of the MC was clearly frowned upon.  I heard crap from him like "I could certainly work with a woman and not think of her sexually".  I (along with other shipmates) am thinking "well then guess what, chief - you're either a liar or a fag - you could at least be honest with us".  Others - up to 1st class petty officers - agreed with me after the class.  Oh well - we all got our names checked off the list...

Wasted training time that made us view the MC as a lying ticket puncher.

If you are a man, and you are like me, then when you look at a female nearing legal age all the way up to one that will need a hip replacement in a few years, you judge her sexually - ie: "man in a few years, she's gonna be a knockout" or "man, I'll bet a few years ago, she was hot" or for a female of appropriate age "man, I would like to clear off a spot on my face for her to sit on".  God made men that way - a fact.

I have a high respect for women and am not a chauvinistic pig, and I am not saying that I am better than a woman.  I AM saying that that I am different from a woman and that since most of the women perform lower than most of the men in combat roles - there is no need for the distraction, special logistics, and reduction of combat readiness that women cause.  

You should have seen our boat when a female would come aboard during a cruise (reporter - whatever) - you would have thought the skipper was getting a blowjob from a mermaid on the flight deck the way we were gawking.

For those who would say that we should have had more discipline and a female shouldn't have been a big deal - F*ck off.  Why not just keep us all pumped full of valium so we're calm to the point of comatose?  We were SUPPOSED to take notice - that's the way God made us!

whew - done ranting

meant to offend none

Tate  

Women should not be in combat for the same reason gays should not be in combat.  Try ordering your significant other to charge a machine gun nest.  There is no way in hell I would order my wife to charge one.  This is just one example.  I'm sure there are a hundred more.

Actually, I amazed that at no point has anyone actually drawn on the one strength of the female sex that no male can mathch.  The one awesome power that could be molded into an unstoppable force against which no enemy could stand.

P.M.S.

Let me illustrate.  Its a known fact that women who work in close contact begin to synchronize their menstrual periods.  Now, select four teams that are having their periods during different weeks of the month.  When a crisis flares up, just go to the team that's, uh, 'on', and say something like "Yo, this Saddam guy thinks that you women are a bunch of emotional playthings best kept pregnant and barefoot", and stand back.  They'll do the rest, trust me.  The T-shirt says it best: "I have PMS and a gun - don't mess with me".
They'd probably look something like this:
[pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed][pissed]
I mean, that's a war face, isn't it?

The fact of the matter is that members make up their minds from what they see around them. The majority of female military members see that the system, as instituted by the current political process, can be worked to their advantage. What is the result of this? They work it. I mentioned in my first post the one female Marine who actually embodied the attributes of an outstanding Marine. She got respect and admiration from everyone around her, but she was the exception, and she knew it.



That's exactly what I'd say, if there were many others who could fight harder, stronger and longer than you. The military is not about having your rights and self-esteem upheld. It's about killing people and breaking things. If you're not better than any other candidate, you shouldn't be there.



Oh, that's rich. The nature of modern warfare is that there is no rear area anymore. Anywhere you are can become the next Hue City, Mogadishu, Srebrenica or Sarajevo. I need to know that the person serving next to me can pick my 6'3" 220lb wounded self up, throw me over your shoulder and leapfrog back to the battalion aid station while firing your weapon at the bad guys. I don't care about your ambition. Ambition doesn't get it done. Being able to sustain more damage than your opponent while inflicing more horrible damage than your opponent wins wars. Look it up.

Actually, you're being given reason after reason from men who [b]have[/b] served alongside women, and have seen the effect on unit cohesion when women work the system to their advantage or when women who don't measure up to the already lowered standards they face are treated the same or promoted over men who face a higher standard. Yet you continually say it's bias on the part of men here with military experience.



So the main reason that women don't belong is combat is that men won't accept them, regardless of their abilities? It's not that they can't lift as much as I can, that they can't run as far as fast as I can, not that they can't beat me in hand to hand combat, not that they don't have the ferocity in a fight that I have? How many fistfights have you been in to date? I'll wager it's a few less than I have, and I'm no Billy Badass.

The main reason women don't belong in combat is because combat is a fight and the average woman doesn't measure up to the average man in a fight. That's it. I don't care about any girlfriend/boyfriend business when it comes to combat, or men getting upset seeing women in danger. Sexual fraternization within a unit is damaging in garrison, as I have seen firsthand, but that ceases to be an issue when the bullets fly and you have to hack into a man's throat with a sharpened entrenching tool.



Get our politicians who set the rules for the military without any knowledge or experience of it to change the rules so that everyone wearing the uniform has to meet the same high standards, and I'd say welcome aboard. But when I see that you are considered my equal when the standards have been lowered for you, that doesn't make me think of you as special. It makes me think of you as baggage, as substandard. That happens anytime an individual is held to lower standards yet treated equally to those around them.

cont'd.



Outstanding. We need aggressive, motivated people in our military services. Unfortunately, the NOW-ACLU-Pat Schroeder-Bill Clinton crowd have rigged the system with quotas and fail-safes for women that don't exist for men, and the political climate, as STLRN has said, will not allow those structures to be torn down to really allow equality in the services.

If you have a solution to that, instead of a complaint, I'd love to hear it. I have many more complaints about the current state of the military, having lived it first hand, than you do. I'd love to serve alongside the Sergeant Garcias (see my first post) of the world. The unfortunate thing is that there are far more Lance Corporal Arcaros out there, and the system has been set up to coddle them and reinforce their self-esteem rather than to kick their asses out on the street if they don't measure up to the paragon example of Sergeant Garcia.

Jarhead22 said it, and I'll repeat it -

Combat is a fight. Even teh exceptional woman is a poor match for the average man in a fight.

Should a US soldier woman come up against an enemy soldier man, we'll LOSE that part of the battle.

Their is NO reason for getting into a fight (i.e. combat) UNLESS you plan to win it.

Inserting women into the fight INCREASES the chance of losing the fight. Its NOTHING more than PC stupidity.

And UNTIL you can show me that even the EXCEPTIONAL woman stands a reasonable chance of beating the average man in a fight, there's NOTHING more I can say on the issue. And you should check out WHY you are buying into the PC lie.

Hello gents. Thought I would venture out of  AssaultWeb to see whay you boys were up too.
Looks like just in time too.

So anyway, anyone who advocates women in combat does not have the first clue as to what the hell they are talking about. Even those who advocate "if they have the strength" BS are making pretensions to possessing cranial matter.
And Denmark?! Denmark?!! If I ever see you in a bar my good man remind me to buy you a nice tall glass of reality. ;)

Israel did try to use women in combat, and I dare say Israeli women are a darn bit tougher then Americas little sweethearts. But they "discovered" that this led to MORE causalities. What happened was that enemy forces were making quite the concerted effort to shoot as many of the female Israeli soldiers as they could. It seems that while a man can keep mission focus when his best chum is hit, he loses that focus when a bunch of women are screaming in agony with their entrails hanging out. So, while they would try to help these poor lasses to safety, they where then themselves hit. Israel is not stupid, they took women out of combat for a reason. Why, because they were sustaining more casualties with them, i.e. losing. And while they still have women in reserves it is because of the philosophy that at a certain point, if they are being invaded from all sides, what does it then matter. Does anyone honestly believe that if thousands of women stormed the beaches of Normandy that there would NOT have been more US casualties and that in fact we would have lost that day? Now imagine hundreds and thousands of 18 year old girls coming home in body bags and having to have closed caskets because their heads are blown off, or they were cut in two, or blown into a hundreds pieces. Do you really think the American people could stomach that? Imagine thousands of women POW's raped daily by countless captors.
Think of what would have happened if we sent ONLY women against the Germans in WWII or the Chinese Communists in Korea.
I read on a previous post the assinine comparison about keeping women out is like keeping out blacks and Jews. HAHAHAHAHAHAH. Yeah, another case of "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, ribit, ribit"
Send a division of black and jewish men against a division of women and girls and see what happens. Which reminds me of one report by the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) that said another reason Israel suffered more casualties when using women in combat was that the Abrabs fought much harder because they did not want to be seen as  having been driven from the field of battle by girls.
So after the next big war, when we build yet another Wall, do we really want to have thousands of names on it that died ONLY becuase of political correctess? Because Barbra Boxer and Diane Feinstein said they know whats best for the United States Armed Forces?

Women in combat. Right.
Why not just raise the white flag over the nations capitol now and be done with it.

In the spirit of solutions instead of whining, here is my five point plan for equality and utopian bliss:

1. No pictures, pronouns, names or other sex or race-identifying descriptions will be allowed on promotion or retention packages.  The person will simply be referred to as the last four of his SSN.
2. One unified PFT event and scoring matrix.
3. No recruiting of anyone with legal dependants.  No retention of anyone who is the sole guardian of a dependant.  One of the two members of a two serviceperson marriage must separate within 30 days if they have any dependants.
4. Marriage will not be a legally binding contract without the signature of the CO.
5. No MOS restriction based on sex.  Anyone can choose any MOS, and anyone can be forced into any MOS if that person signs an “open contract”.

I think if we followed these simple and fair standards, we would be rid of women uniform within a few years.  The administrative results of these standards will certainly reduce their overall presence.  They will not go completely away without a few thousand of them being splayed out on a hillside in full view of CNN.  That will happen soonest if they are forced into the infantry.  The sooner it happens, the sooner we can move on with things.  I know their presence will result in some additional male deaths, but that’s the way it goes.  It’s more important to drive home their total unsuitability as soon as possible.

Just about all the NATO countries now allow women into their combat arms units.  It is a matter of necessity than desire, they have found they cannot recruit enough men, so they have to open the gate for women.  Most have adopted the common sense, one standard for all (One has got to ask themselves about the standards of many of the foreign militaries, if women can make it though infantry training, but that is another debate).  You see units like the Royal Marine Commandos, having several women start training, but as yet none have made it past the first week.

There is big difference between the effect of black on unit cohesion and the effects of women on unit cohesion.  The last time I checked, their is not an automatic drive to reproduce with members of other colors, but of the other sex there is.  Also big difference between a bias based on color and one based on physical capability.  

Well, DK I can kind of answer your question.  As a Battery XO, I had a female HST team attached to my Battery for some Helo raid training that we were doing.  The Marines were all trying to show off for the women.  I had to have them stay all the time at the XO pit and sleep in my HUMVEE (by themselves) so I could ensure they weren't doing anything and the Marines would not be show boating when they should keep their minds on shooting 95 lbs HE rounds down range.  When my BN went to a CAX a few years ago we had a female embarker attached in order assist in load out and debarkation, we had to send her back early since she broke her hip (she fell off a washing machine at the base camp while having sex, with a long line of Marines), we suspected her of prostitution, but we never could prove it.  On a MEU that went out a few years back, they had to have a curfew because of all sex that was occurring, the ship receive a very derogatory nick name because of all the sex on that vessel.  

The better question is why it is that you do not have "this brilliant insight?"


Who gives a rats ass if you "WITNESSED" women in combat units? What in the hell does that prove? So you have seen women in the military. So friggin what? You have not witness women in combat have you scooter? So if you are at a bar and see women in the mens room that then means "they belong there" because you have "witnessed" them there. Right. You of course would make a terrible MP. "Sir I saw the subject breach the top secret compound but figured that since I "witnessed" him there that he must belong there. Brilliant. What you are really saying is that you cannot refute anything I said. You cannot refute the REAL LIFE experience of the IDF. And you cannot refute their conclusions on why they sustained higher casualties.  


Don't take yourself so seriously, thanks.