Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: Women in Front Line Combat

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    390

    Women in Front Line Combat

    Now that Leon Paneta has removed the block for women to be in combat do any of you have thoughts about women in front line combat? See any problems arising? Conflicts? Distractions?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    856
    One problem that I see, is that women are not as strong as men. If a soldier is injured a women may not have the strength to carry him if need be. I think in Isreal that everyone has to serve. I wonder what problems they have or lack of problems arises there.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,675
    I just wonder when females, at the age of 18, will be required to register with selective service, just like males are required to do so.
    - a little sarcasm, a little truth, - you decide.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,537
    Some women are tough enough and some are not.
    Walk softly and carry a big stick.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Russia used females in combat out of desperation in WW2, especially as snipers.
    They were not treated kindly once captured, most were immediately shot.

    I do not thank the Geneva rules on prisoners would apply with a bunch of pissed off ragheads

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    I have always felt that there is a reason we have females and males of our species. I think there are, in general, some strengths and weaknesses to each gender but that each gender is hard wired differently. There are women who are much tougher than some men. If you had a physical contest between all the women and men, a man would surely be the one to come out as the winner. I also think he would have left the strongest female behind long before he battled the last of the strong men. It is just a plain old fact that women, physically, are very different from men. We just aren't built for living in primitive conditions for long periods of times easily. Emotionally we are also, generally, very different from men.

    I believe that any female who is doing the same job as a male should be paid the same. I believe that any job should be open for anyone to apply but that no standards or qualifications should be lowered just to allow weaker applicants a job.

    What I really don't get these days is why women want to do a lot of this stuff. Since when is it so horrible to be a woman? Why is it that we want to physically compete with men?

    Combat positions can be open to women, but I think there should be no extra accomodations or exceptions made and no lowering of standards or requirements. Those women who don't enjoy the advantages we have as women, who, imo, will be fighting against the female they are to become more male-like emotionally and physically should go for it.

    With the wars our country has been fighting the past decades seeming to be more about commodity and less about protecting the home land, we are running out of enough young men who think it's worthy to lay their lives on the line for. Now we have come up with a partial solution to the problem... women in combat.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Gordon, Texas, United States
    Posts
    16,210
    Quote Originally Posted by lamb View Post
    Some women are tough enough and some are not.
    I would change that to ... few women are tough enough and most are not. JMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Much opposition coming from the Republicans.
    No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Once again we see Republicans trying to restrict our freedoms by limiting choices.
    Secretary,
    Harper Valley PTA

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake Coleman Tx
    Posts
    442
    Maybe they should have to deal with some women that have PMS. See how weak they are. HAHA

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Much opposition coming from the Republicans.
    No one is forcing anyone to do anything. Once again we see Republicans trying to restrict our freedoms by limiting choices.
    My son had a female Air Force spotter in his squad during the Iraq war, she was the only one killed in a IED bomb and the only casualty his squad suffered in the tour.
    Are the republicans the only ones trying to do the right thing?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    What does that have to do with her being the only female there?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,675
    Don't get me wrong....

    Females are awesome.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    What does that have to do with her being the only female there?
    It is nothing to to be proud of, the questions he asked himself could he have placed her in a different vehicle.
    Last edited by mingus108; 01-26-2013 at 06:57 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    18,406
    Nice touch thut. When I think of the women that will qualify for front line combat PFC Vasquez and Commander Ridley from the movie aliens come to mind. Along with the Williams sisters in tennis. Softball players. Truck drivers. Boxers. Athletic types that aren't high maintenence or daddy's girl's.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Here is a good take on the subject.

    From: Gary L. Bauer



    Sending Women To War

    The Pentagon made history last week when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that he was lifting the ban on women serving in frontline, combat positions. The new policy is not going into effect immediately. It will be phased in, and the services will be permitted to request exemptions for specific posts such as elite units like Navy SEALs or Army Rangers.

    Many on the left hailed the decision, saying equality demands equal opportunity for women in the military. President Obama offered his "strong support for this decision," which he described as "another step toward fulfilling our nation's founding ideals of fairness and equality." He went on to say that "every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love."

    Polling suggests overwhelming public support for the idea. A Gallup poll released Friday found that nearly three-quarters of the public would vote for a law allowing women to serve in combat. But I wonder how many Americans have really given the idea
    much thought and serious consideration.

    For example, every teenage man must register with the Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday. It is doubtful that a draft is coming. After 9/11 the nation fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without a draft. But the law requires that all of our sons register just in case of some catastrophic emergency. The world is a very unpredictable place and becomes more dangerous every day.

    If women will now be in frontline combat, is registering our daughters and granddaughters for the draft next? After all, that would be the "equality" that the feminists say they want. But I doubt if modern feminists and large swaths of the public will be very pleased when their daughters come of age and have to give their contact information to Uncle Sam.


    Bizarro World

    The alternate reality that many liberals live in is a strange place indeed. Over the weekend, the president, who just hailed your daughter's right to engage in combat, said that if he had a son he would be reluctant to let him play football --
    because he might get hurt.

    Speaking of the strange world the left occupies… Because he is so concerned about guns getting into the wrong hands, the president spent the past week building pressure to make it as hard as possible for law-abiding citizens to purchase certain firearms. And in the same week, he authorized the transfer of
    F-16 fighter jets and Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who under any measurement should qualify as the wrong people! Obama wants to limit guns to average Americans but give weapons of mass destruction to jihadists!


    Media Bias

    President Barack Obama has given two major interviews in recent days -- one print (The New Republic) and one television (60 Minutes). With all the news of recent days, either interview would have been a terrific opportunity for a journalist to ask the president of the United States serious questions about important issues.

    That did not happen. As it turns out, both interviews were almost entirely devoid of substance. That is a damning indictment of the left-wing bias of Big Media.

    Consider the much-hyped Obama/Clinton interview with "60 Minutes," which bills itself as America's leading investigative journalism show. But the hardnosed "60 Minutes" team got all tingly when it came to questioning President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

    If you didn't watch it, Yahoo News has a column identifying the
    "five takeways" from the interview:


    • The 2008 Clinton/Obama feud is over.
    • Obama is happy with Clinton's loyal performance.
    • Some think Obama is "anointing" Hillary for 2016.
    • CBS was happy to be used by the White House to boost its ratings.
    • And, lastly, Hillary is feeling better since her fall and concussion.


    That sums it up pretty well. Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center blasted CBS reporter Steve Kroft for wasting so much of his precious time on softball questions. "Kroft's questions weren't just softballs," Gainor wrote. "More than half resulted in laughter from Obama or Clinton and sometimes both. A couple were so bad that even Kroft laughed as well." The left is in a happy mood, even though a majority of the country is fearful about the future.

    The New Republic interview wasn't much better. The most pressing issue for the left-wing publication appeared to be Obama's inability to get congressional Republicans to cave in more often. Consider this question: "Are there any forces for reform within the Republican Party, people you've been able to establish some sort of working relationship with?"

    What about the economy? Or Syria? What about Iran's nuclear weapons program or Pastor Saeed Abedini? How about job creation, the deficit, entitlement or tax reform?


    * * * * *

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Consider this question: "Are there any forces for reform within the Republican Party...
    There are none, and that is why you Republicans will continue to lose elections.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    There are none, and that is why you Republicans will continue to lose elections.
    I am not a Republican, slap happy.

    I am disgusted with this up to no good administration, they are a traitorous bunch of idiots.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    I wouldn't admit being one either.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    I wouldn't admit being one either.
    Have you no shame? Or morals left?

    Must not or is it a mental illness? Tis sad to be in your shoes.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    I used to be a Republican, but the new conservatism repulsed me, like it does so many others. I don't agree with a couple of items in the Democratic platform, but agree with none in the Republican's. To many, the new Republican's are a concentration of selfish rich people, the hypocritical religious right, and power grabbing social climbers all blindly followed by dumb flag wavers who are too lazy to stop and analyze the consequences of their poor choices.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by mingus108 View Post
    Have you no shame? Or morals left?

    Must not or is it a mental illness? Tis sad to be in your shoes.
    Ne obliviscaris

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    I used to be a Republican, but the new conservatism repulsed me, like it does so many others. I don't agree with a couple of items in the Democratic platform, but agree with none in the Republican's. To many, the new Republican's are a concentration of selfish rich people, the hypocritical religious right, and power grabbing social climbers all blindly followed by dumb flag wavers who are too lazy to stop and analyze the consequences of their poor choices.
    And you are trying to tell us you have improved yourself.
    You and your traitor of a President are one & the same in thoughts.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Just like the Father and the Son. Would you like the cross on my left or the one on my right?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    390
    How did this discussion devolve into a rant on religion and name calling? This was a question about your feelings on women in combat rolls.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    6,537
    Mingus and Mutha are what happened!

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by lamb View Post
    Mingus and Mutha are what happened!
    Maybe they need their own hate channel!

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by marecanine View Post
    Maybe they need their own hate channel!
    You are known by the company you keep, so have at it.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Quote Originally Posted by marecanine View Post
    How did this discussion devolve into a rant on religion and name calling? This was a question about your feelings on women in combat rolls.
    You never did post your feelings on women in combat roles.
    How long do we have to wait?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    You never did post your feelings on women in combat roles.
    How long do we have to wait?
    I just posed the question but since you ask I am opposed to it.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    18,406
    Quote Originally Posted by marecanine View Post
    I just posed the question but since you ask I am opposed to it.
    Your reasoning being?

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    390
    These are what I feel are or could become a problme in a combat situation. There may be more that I have not listed. Like I say these are my opinions! You can have yours!

    Physical strength, endurance, constantly facing an enemy and killing (most women would have a hard time doing that), unit cohesion (who do you protect in a combat situation?), would sex be a problem? Could jealousy become a problem?

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    18,406
    Quote Originally Posted by marecanine View Post
    These are what I feel are or could become a problme in a combat situation. There may be more that I have not listed. Like I say these are my opinions! You can have yours!

    Physical strength, endurance, constantly facing an enemy and killing (most women would have a hard time doing that), unit cohesion (who do you protect in a combat situation?), would sex be a problem? Could jealousy become a problem?
    You really don't have to shout. To be in the infantry or any combat duty they will have to qualify. You seem to have a preconceived notice that women are the weaker sex. That's so obvious and your not alone.When I was active duty there were no female canine handlers. Men like you said we couldn't do it along with flight line security. Women were not "qualified".
    Honestly I'm not sold on selectice service for women.
    Last edited by cyotefishing; 02-01-2013 at 09:22 PM.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    They would have to be in a separate unit to get the utmost out of them. With a mixed unit far to many distractions. Working out of the Red River Arsenal during the first years of the Viet Nam War. They had a bunch of female grunts working in the warehouses, from what little I was around them. I have watched dogs being treated far better. In Warner Robbins Air Base the caliber of the civil workers were so bad we had to fill out paper work for them.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    It must not have been too complicated.

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    It must not have been too complicated.
    You thank so? Pissant

  36. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    I know so.

  37. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    881
    I don't think women should be allowed on the front line. My reasoning may sound sexist, but here it goes:

    Men and women are different. If a women is captured by any enemy, do you think they will receive equal treatment??? If a group is in a firefight, will chivalry, jealousy, or machoism, cause the male members to make the wrong decision?? Let the men keep fighting, let the women play support roles.

    JMHO
    Let's Make the Spin Great Again!!

  38. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    I know so.
    You don't have a clue, so quit showing your ass about something that happen 47 years ago.

  39. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    Who helped you fill the paperwork out?

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    Who helped you fill the paperwork out?
    How old were you 47 years a ago?

  41. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    8,695
    As old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth.

  42. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    5,421
    Quote Originally Posted by MiraculousMutha View Post
    As old as my tongue and a little older than my teeth.
    And about as dumb as a fence post.

  43. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    18,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    I don't think women should be allowed on the front line. My reasoning may sound sexist, but here it goes:

    Men and women are different. If a women is captured by any enemy, do you think they will receive equal treatment??? If a group is in a firefight, will chivalry, jealousy, or machoism, cause the male members to make the wrong decision?? Let the men keep fighting, let the women play support roles.

    JMHO
    Oh I see. You mean kinda like the church?

  44. #44
    Bless your heart.

    "...democracy must be more than what the majority insists upon."
    Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

  45. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by cyotefishing View Post
    Oh I see. You mean kinda like the church?
    Amen sister


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •