Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/18/2005 6:27:22 AM EST
man, i kinda think this is bs. i'm starting to think women have what it takes to do the job in the military (for the most part). i don't think they would be an asset in actual combat, but they sure as fuck can fight when they have to...

Combat Support Ban Weighed For Women
Pentagon Opposes GOP Proposal
(Boston Globe, May 18, 2005, Pg. 1)
The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee plans to introduce a proposal today that would bar women from mixed-gender military support units operating in Iraq, expressing concern that female soldiers are engaging in direct combat despite U.S. laws keeping them from serving on the front lines. But the Pentagon, already straining to fill the ranks, maintains that the military critically needs female soldiers to help the men on the battlefield and that keeping them from support companies-transport, supply and medical units working close to the front lines-would hurt readiness.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:31:38 AM EST
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:33:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



I agree... but what they're missing out on is the fact that there are plenty of "men" out there who are not capable of what you say.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:35:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:35:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



Agreed. I'm all for equal rights but lets face it women are women and there are probably some that can fit the role in combat but there are many who can not. Equal should mean best person for the job regardless of sex, not regardless of capability. Just because we have a vagina doesn't mean we should receive special treatment. What is best for the TEAM is what is best.

Patty
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:38:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



+1
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:38:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



But if they can than you have no problem with it right.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:39:24 AM EST
I was use to no woman in my units and i think it just makes things run better. I have seen too many woman say, "Oh i can't lift that" and if you have any female NCO's oh shit they are the worst.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:41:17 AM EST
It's a different army... equality of training isn't even the same anymore. They have the fast, moderate and slow groups for runs... sad.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 6:52:56 AM EST
It isn't that the females don't have heart, there are bigger issues at hand. For a brief example, when I was a Marine in MSG school, the program allowed women to enter the ranks and my class was the first to have them after a 6-8 year ban. It was a fucking soap opera. The WMs didn't intend to be devisive, but they were just by their very nature. When the females fell back on a run, half the fucking formation was back there pampering them and encouraging them to press on. We had a male Marine role his ankle and fall back and all he got was a "suck it up devil dog" and he wandered back to the chase vehicle by himself. The standing rule was the runs were individual effort, and yet Marines broke that rule following thier natural desire to comfort the women.

In addition to this special treatment, the WMs were allowed to train in a tactical stack in PT gear because they couldn't hack the standard REACT/combat load. So here you had Marines clad in their reactionary gear with a female in PT. For fucks sake. Again, not their fault.

I can only imagine this scenario would be compounded "by orders of magnitude" greater in a combat actual combat.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:01:15 AM EST

Originally Posted By Langadune:
It's a different army... equality of training isn't even the same anymore. They have the fast, moderate and slow groups for runs... sad.


Theres a valid purpose for that. Some guys are extremely fast runners and it would screw THEM over having to limit themselves to the slowest persons pace.There have always been and will always be group runs.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:05:34 AM EST
Two Words
Thank God
or
About Time
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:07:44 AM EST
Men and women are equal. That does not mean we are the same.

Besides, the military isn't the place for social experimantation. An army of 100 million Chinese MEN or the young MEN of Al-Qaeda (sp?) would like nothing better than to face an army comprised of a)women and b)men who have attended sensitivity training so as not to sexually harass those women or make them feel lesser in any way.

If women can complete the training, they have to remember that every job in the military, no matter what, is either directly or loosely linked to KILLING. Our military should be comprised of men who can do that, without hesitation, when necessary.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:08:42 AM EST
It's about time. Unfortunatly, they are already integrated into CSS units. In the case of the Marine Corps, they are everywhere they are allowed to be. Pulling them out will leave those units short.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:40:02 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 8:42:36 AM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By photoman:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



But if they can than you have no problem with it right.



Wrong.

There's more to it than just a single task.
Inability to perform this particular is a disqualifier.
ABILITY to do so is not a universal qualifier
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:42:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By Gargoyle:
It isn't that the females don't have heart, there are bigger issues at hand. For a brief example, when I was a Marine in MSG school, the program allowed women to enter the ranks and my class was the first to have them after a 6-8 year ban. It was a fucking soap opera. The WMs didn't intend to be devisive, but they were just by their very nature. When the females fell back on a run, half the fucking formation was back there pampering them and encouraging them to press on. We had a male Marine role his ankle and fall back and all he got was a "suck it up devil dog" and he wandered back to the chase vehicle by himself. The standing rule was the runs were individual effort, and yet Marines broke that rule following thier natural desire to comfort the women.

In addition to this special treatment, the WMs were allowed to train in a tactical stack in PT gear because they couldn't hack the standard REACT/combat load. So here you had Marines clad in their reactionary gear with a female in PT. For fucks sake. Again, not their fault.

I can only imagine this scenario would be compounded "by orders of magnitude" greater in a combat actual combat.



damn in PT's that would kick ass!
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 8:56:53 AM EST
I am in pretty good shape for a 36yr old male. One of my best friend's wife could probably out lift me, definately out run me, and certainly kick my butt in a fight. I am pretty smart - pretty sure she is smarter as well. Regardless of what the policy is, she has been in combat already - and will probably be redeplyed soon enough (she got pregnant after her first tour in the sandbox - all those shots messed up her birth control). Both my friend and his wife are career officers.

It is alturistic to want to protect, but they can be entirely capable
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:25:03 AM EST
Hate to break it to you, women have been in combat.

Nah, nah nah nah nah!



And it won't change. They are in combat support and they are there to stay.

(sorry, just thought I would inject a little maturity into the thread)
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:33:46 AM EST
I personally have no problem with women in combat, much less in support units that could see combat.

IMO nothing wrong with Muslim men being killed by American women.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:36:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By Langadune:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
If you aren't physically capable of pulling that gunner's body out of the way, jumping up into the ring mount and CHARGING THAT M2 OR MK19....

...you have no business being on a Combat Convoy.

Period.



I agree... but what they're missing out on is the fact that there are plenty of "men" out there who are not capable of what you say.



Amen to cinci and you are ONLY assuming he missed that part.

Knowing his stance on this issue, he'd JUST as quickly kick to the curb ANY man that can't neet the criteria.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:37:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
I personally have no problem with women in combat, much less in support units that could see combat.

IMO nothing wrong with Muslim men being killed by American women.



And what about the American men killed because the American woman couldn't lift the ammo boxes needed to support the MG position??

Anything wrong with that??
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:38:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
- women can't do the same things as men. It's just a natural fact.




You'll have a hard time convincing some of the PC, gov't educated mental midgets in this forum of that natural fact.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:40:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
I personally have no problem with women in combat, much less in support units that could see combat.

IMO nothing wrong with Muslim men being killed by American women.



And what about the American men killed because the American woman couldn't lift the ammo boxes needed to support the MG position??

Anything wrong with that??



Has that happened?

What about that Woman MP who gunned down a shit load of Iraqis with her SAW? That's actually happened.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:40:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Langadune:
It's a different army... equality of training isn't even the same anymore. They have the fast, moderate and slow groups for runs... sad.



Wouldn't want anyone to have "low self esteem"

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:41:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By hardcorps1775:
man, i kinda think this is bs. i'm starting to think women have what it takes to do the job in the military (for the most part). i don't think they would be an asset in actual combat, but they sure as fuck can fight when they have to...

Combat Support Ban Weighed For Women
Pentagon Opposes GOP Proposal
(Boston Globe, May 18, 2005, Pg. 1)
The Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee plans to introduce a proposal today that would bar women from mixed-gender military support units operating in Iraq, expressing concern that female soldiers are engaging in direct combat despite U.S. laws keeping them from serving on the front lines. But the Pentagon, already straining to fill the ranks, maintains that the military critically needs female soldiers to help the men on the battlefield and that keeping them from support companies-transport, supply and medical units working close to the front lines-would hurt readiness.




THANK GOD
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:43:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Has that happened?



Ask some of the soldiers who actually have seen the inabilit of women.



What about that Woman MP who gunned down a shit load of Iraqis with her SAW? That's actually happened.




Under the right circumstances, a one legged senior citizen gay hairdresser with a speech impediment could do that.

What you don't get .....well, I was gonna explain, but there's just too many things you don't get. And me not being a member YET, I'm self-imposing limiting my bandwidth use here

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:43:52 AM EST

The Farging Icehole chimes in:

When they started allowing short, fat, weak, slow, pregnant, flat-footed, weak-kneed, ear-ring-wearing, pony-tail-keeping, overly-emotional, dainty, gotta-prove-myself-to-daddy, standards-lowering, women's-studies-educated, tools-of-the-lesbo-NOW-clan-feminazis into the armed forces we hit rock bottom.

Women on average are weaker, slower, more prone to injury, spend 3X more time in infirmary, are much more prone to urinary tract infections if out in the field for extended times, and, by the very nature of human biology, create unneeded sexual tension/conflicts among troops which weakens morale and unit stability.

To hell with pixie-haired, special-treatment, lower-standards women wanting to play army dress-up!




Link Posted: 5/18/2005 9:45:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By OFFascist:
I personally have no problem with women in combat, much less in support units that could see combat.

IMO nothing wrong with Muslim men being killed by American women.



And what about the American men killed because the American woman couldn't lift the ammo boxes needed to support the MG position??

Anything wrong with that??



Has that happened?

What about that Woman MP who gunned down a shit load of Iraqis with her SAW? That's actually happened.


My unit had several who could not ride security on convoys because they weren't capable of operating the M-2 and Mk-19, not to mention 2 more that simply shut down mentally before we even entered Iraq.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:10:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By The_Macallan:
The Farging Icehole chimes in:

When they started allowing short, fat, weak, slow, pregnant, flat-footed, weak-kneed, ear-ring-wearing, pony-tail-keeping, overly-emotional, dainty, gotta-prove-myself-to-daddy, standards-lowering, women's-studies-educated, tools-of-the-lesbo-NOW-clan-feminazis into the armed forces we hit rock bottom.

Women on average are weaker, slower, more prone to injury, spend 3X more time in infirmary, are much more prone to urinary tract infections if out in the field for extended times, and, by the very nature of human biology, create unneeded sexual tension/conflicts among troops which weakens morale and unit stability.

To hell with pixie-haired, special-treatment, lower-standards women wanting to play army dress-up!








THis post, verbatim, should be read into the Congressional Record. As a witness to Americans of all future generations.



Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:12:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By joker581:
My unit had several who could not ride security on convoys because they weren't capable of operating the M-2 and Mk-19, not to mention 2 more that simply shut down mentally before we even entered Iraq.




What you ahve seen and experienced is irrelevant.

Poeple who come here arrive with an agenda on this issue (I'm not sure why. I guess they figger if they ever get drafted, they want handy poon) and NO AMOUNT of actual factual incidents or rationale from actual soldiers will EVER presuade them.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:16:34 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 10:16:45 AM EST by Sturmwehr]
If a woman can't preform the duties she's required of, she shouldn't have the job.

The same holds for men.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:41:55 AM EST
Forget for a moment about they way it "should be" and what "can be" or "could be".

Let's deal with cold hard facts.

Unfortunately, the very nature of women in the military is one of compromise.
There ARE lowered standards for women.
They ARE allowed in many COMBAT Service Support Billets, having been vetted WITH these lowered standards.
MOST, yes MOST women in these units are not capable of loading and manning the M2 or Mk19.
The M2s and the Mk19s are the keys to survival on these convoys (that and vigilance).
EVERY member of a convoy needs to be able to perform these tasks.

Those are the facts, as we stand today.

Now, this thread is proof that there is a ground swell of support for women in these units, DESPITE the facts that I presented.

Do you really think that the climate exists for RAISING the standards for these women?
Not likely.


Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:44:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Forget for a moment about they way it "should be" and what "can be" or "could be".

Let's deal with cold hard facts.

Unfortunately, the very nature of women in the military is one of compromise.
There ARE lowered standards for women.
They ARE allowed in many COMBAT Service Support Billets, having been vetted WITH these lowered standards.
MOST, yes MOST women in these units are not capable of loading and manning the M2 or Mk19.
The M2s and the Mk19s are the keys to survival on these convoys (that and vigilance).
EVERY member of a convoy needs to be able to perform these tasks.

Those are the facts, as we stand today.

Now, this thread is proof that there is a ground swell of support for women in these units, DESPITE the facts that I presented.

Do you really think that the climate exists for RAISING the standards for these women?
Not likely.





It will be very interesting to see how the Army handles the obvious personnel shortfalls that implementation of this policy will almost certainly incur, at least in the near term, should this initiative pass and become law.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 10:45:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:

Now, this thread is proof that there is a ground swell of support for women in these units, DESPITE the facts that I presented.




There you go, talking sense again.

Which makes me wonder.... why do I come here? To plague myself with non-sensical people apparently.

Making me the most non-sensical of anyone.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 11:51:01 AM EST
If she can shoot and doesn't run, I have no problem with women in a combat theater.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 12:22:56 PM EST

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
If she can shoot and doesn't run, I have no problem with women in a combat theater.



+1

Same here, I think it should be case by case basis. Some women would crumble in this situationm, as would some men. Why cut our military off by the balls with something like this?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 12:45:47 PM EST
For every poodle you have at the front, it is one less mastif.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 12:47:25 PM EST
Case by case basis?! Like the military has the time to make that kind of assessment for each individual. Sure there are some women that can hack it in combat, but by and large men are more physically able, as well as more psychologically suited. My question is where's the value added? So some can hack it; what ultimate benefit is there for the military in allowing women to fight along men, other than simply for the sake of saying that they are co-gender units? I see more problems created by this than there are benefits. Kind of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 12:57:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Forget for a moment about they way it "should be" and what "can be" or "could be".

Let's deal with cold hard facts.

Unfortunately, the very nature of women in the military is one of compromise.
There ARE lowered standards for women.
They ARE allowed in many COMBAT Service Support Billets, having been vetted WITH these lowered standards.
MOST, yes MOST women in these units are not capable of loading and manning the M2 or Mk19.
The M2s and the Mk19s are the keys to survival on these convoys (that and vigilance).
EVERY member of a convoy needs to be able to perform these tasks.

Those are the facts, as we stand today.

Now, this thread is proof that there is a ground swell of support for women in these units, DESPITE the facts that I presented.

Do you really think that the climate exists for RAISING the standards for these women?
Not likely.





I guess the answer is that we need to develop chick friendly weapon systems.

How about AirSoft?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:04:19 PM EST
I saw 2 females hiding behind a barrier, crying their eyes out after their first mortar attack and I've seen a female volunteer to man a SAW on a convoy. And she could damn sure shoot that thing. She was the best shot with a machine gun I've ever seen.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:20:12 PM EST

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:
I saw 2 females hiding behind a barrier, crying their eyes out after their first mortar attack and I've seen a female volunteer to man a SAW on a convoy. And she could damn sure shoot that thing. She was the best shot with a machine gun I've ever seen.



I've seen men do that too (hiding behind a barrier, crying). Point is, people crack under the pressure, male or female.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:29:30 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 1:31:56 PM EST by guardian855]
Here's the cold hard facts

Women are in the military, and they are in Combat Support positions. The military needs people, and nothing is going to change that. Women will stay in Combat Support positions.

People will jump into this thread and talk about how weak females are, they can't charge a MK-19, should be mothers etc. etc. Heck, they'll even say how this makes America weak and will lead to it's downfall. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sure, I've seen females to weak to charge the Mk-19 and I've seen females who could (a lot of it has to do with technique i.e. bracing their feet on the turrent ring or pintel mount). I've also seen males who couldn't charge the Mk-19 either.

I've seen females break down and cry, I've seen males do it also. I've seen females who do everything in their power to get out of the war zone to stay home, I've seen males do it too.

I've seen a female get shot through the arm by a 7.62mm round. It entered into her lower arm, went through her upper arm, the same bullet made two wounds, pretty much shattered her arm. Right after being wounded, she stood up in the turrent and returned fire with her MK-19.

I have been privilaged to see selfless acts of bravery and courage, and I have been unfortunate enough to also see acts of cowardice and pettiness, and there wasn't a corelation to these types of acts and what gender the person was.

Point is, females are serving in combat and I think we should support them the best they can for the sacrifices they have done for us.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:30:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By cjk1:
Case by case basis?! Like the military has the time to make that kind of assessment for each individual. Sure there are some women that can hack it in combat, but by and large men are more physically able, as well as more psychologically suited. My question is where's the value added? So some can hack it; what ultimate benefit is there for the military in allowing women to fight along men, other than simply for the sake of saying that they are co-gender units? I see more problems created by this than there are benefits. Kind of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.



The issue here at hand is not women in combat, but women in combat support roles.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:35:43 PM EST
I have no problem with women in the military.

If they can meet every standard that men can, physically, mentally, and psychologically.

'course, that's not the way it works.

Just applying male PT standards to women, absent anything else, and you'd see a whole shitload of women wash out.

The military, whatever branch, needs warfighting capability, not diversity and everybody feeling good about themselves.

This is why if we were faced by any serious enemy with comparable technology and warfighting capability, all this nancy-boy pansy shit would go right out the window - or we'd lose.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:53:32 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 1:59:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By cjk1:
Case by case basis?! Like the military has the time to make that kind of assessment for each individual. Sure there are some women that can hack it in combat, but by and large men are more physically able, as well as more psychologically suited. My question is where's the value added? So some can hack it; what ultimate benefit is there for the military in allowing women to fight along men, other than simply for the sake of saying that they are co-gender units? I see more problems created by this than there are benefits. Kind of a solution in search of a problem if you ask me.



The issue here at hand is not women in combat, but women in combat support roles.



Ok, but based on your previous post, I don't see much of a difference, particularly the last line...
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 2:15:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By 82ndAbn:
Cold Hard Facts






Feminist "equality" = bullshit lies.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 2:44:59 PM EST

The issue here at hand is not women in combat, but women in combat support roles.


With the current type of fight we are in, combat service support personnel are engaging the enemy directly due to the nature of their missions. There is no more front line. The line between combat and combat service support is very blurry these days.

Congress needs to leave this issue alone. For every woman not allowed to serve in combat support, another soldier has to fill that job. Where is that male soldier going to come from?
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 2:53:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:

The issue here at hand is not women in combat, but women in combat support roles.


With the current type of fight we are in, combat service support personnel are engaging the enemy directly due to the nature of their missions. There is no more front line. The line between combat and combat service support is very blurry these days.

Congress needs to leave this issue alone. For every woman not allowed to serve in combat support, another soldier has to fill that job. Where is that male soldier going to come from?



I was actually going to post that. The women fill in Combat Support roles, which may become involved in a fight. If we get rid of the women, that's more guys we need to become supply clerks, MPs and truck drivers.
Link Posted: 5/18/2005 3:34:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/18/2005 3:35:25 PM EST by Cincinnatus]

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Here's the cold hard facts

Women are in the military, and they are in Combat Support positions. The military needs people, and nothing is going to change that. Women will stay in Combat Support positions.

People will jump into this thread and talk about how weak females are, they can't charge a MK-19, should be mothers etc. etc. Heck, they'll even say how this makes America weak and will lead to it's downfall. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sure, I've seen females to weak to charge the Mk-19 and I've seen females who could (a lot of it has to do with technique i.e. bracing their feet on the turrent ring or pintel mount). I've also seen males who couldn't charge the Mk-19 either.

I've seen females break down and cry, I've seen males do it also. I've seen females who do everything in their power to get out of the war zone to stay home, I've seen males do it too.

I've seen a female get shot through the arm by a 7.62mm round. It entered into her lower arm, went through her upper arm, the same bullet made two wounds, pretty much shattered her arm. Right after being wounded, she stood up in the turrent and returned fire with her MK-19.

I have been privilaged to see selfless acts of bravery and courage, and I have been unfortunate enough to also see acts of cowardice and pettiness, and there wasn't a corelation to these types of acts and what gender the person was.

Point is, females are serving in combat and I think we should support them the best they can for the sacrifices they have done for us.


No one belittles their sacrifices.
My agenda is that there be LESS sacrifices.


That's nice that you have been able to see the rare exceptions.
How lucky of you.

Unfortunately they are the exceptions, not the rule.
MOST females, the OVERWHELMING majority of females who are RIGHT NOW serving in these billets that may require them to man the Mk19 -cannot.

It has nothing to do with those few who have been able, or could be able.
Fact is, RIGHT now we have convoys rolling where MOST of the females just CAN'T.
The fact that there are a few males who can't, is irrelevant.
THEY TOO are the rare exception.

Link Posted: 5/18/2005 3:37:57 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By TANGOCHASER:

The issue here at hand is not women in combat, but women in combat support roles.


With the current type of fight we are in, combat service support personnel are engaging the enemy directly due to the nature of their missions. There is no more front line. The line between combat and combat service support is very blurry these days.

Congress needs to leave this issue alone. For every woman not allowed to serve in combat support, another soldier has to fill that job. Where is that male soldier going to come from?



I was actually going to post that. The women fill in Combat Support roles, which may become involved in a fight. If we get rid of the women, that's more guys we need to become supply clerks, MPs and truck drivers.


All you have to do is recruit more men, less women.
Like the rest of PC America, the military spends MORE trying to get a woman than they do a man.
They forgive women of their flaws and issue more waivers to allow their entry, as well.

Why does this happen?

The same reason it happens on campus.

It's "progressive".
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top