America Opens Combat Roles To Women

America Opens Combat Roles To Women

Posted in the London Forum

First Prev
of 8
Next Last
__Jenny__

Greenbrier, AR

#1 Jan 23, 2013
I think this is awesome. Women have already been in combat situations in the middle-east. Even wounded and killed. There already has been women even assigned to and working within US Special Forces units (Green Berets) in combat situations, them being an asset in questioning middle-eastern women on the battlefield and in freshly captured villages. Also six out of fifteen CIA agents killed in the line of duty were women.

But this new decision by the Government will make combat roles official and open many other doors.

The Republican leaders would never have done this ..... they still believe us to be second-class sub-citizens who should be home fixing dinner. This is another step up the ladder to equality and another plus for President Obama.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#2 Jan 23, 2013
Post #1 is by me. I, for some reason, had a problem posting it under my registered account.
RTRD

Somerset, KY

#4 Jan 23, 2013
They had to start including women because real Patriot American Men like Ted Nugent would rather poop their pants than serve. (it's true, look it up)

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#5 Jan 23, 2013
RTRD wrote:
They had to start including women because real Patriot American Men like Ted Nugent would rather poop their pants than serve.(it's true, look it up)
Or go to France like a Republican Presidential candidate did.
ZZZzzzzz

Morehead, KY

#6 Jan 23, 2013
I guess this means young ladies will also be required to register.
Some probably won't consider it "awesome".
RTRD

Somerset, KY

#7 Jan 23, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Or go to France like a Republican Presidential candidate did.
Or keep getting deferrments because he said he had better things to do like Cheney did.

Since: Sep 09

o------------><-----------o

#8 Jan 23, 2013
ZZZzzzzz wrote:
I guess this means young ladies will also be required to register.
Some probably won't consider it "awesome".
Didn't you know? Women have served in the middle-east wars and even been killed over there. And they weren't drafted ..... they joined.
Patriot

London, KY

#10 Jan 24, 2013
Good men will die so these liberal idiots can be stylish.
Tell Me

Los Angeles, CA

#12 Jan 24, 2013
When you go into a combat unit you size up everyone. You soon learn who has your back and who doesn't. When the time comes, if it you or them, you make sure it's them, if you know what I mean. Soldiers don't like to carry the load for others, misfits are dealt with.
Patriot

London, KY

#13 Jan 24, 2013
I would allow any woman that can carry two ammo cans of 30Cal. 8 miles or more the chance to try. Then again I would probably just visit the cat house instead. lol
Patriot

London, KY

#14 Jan 24, 2013
Let me serve with no man that I would have to carry but could not possibly carry me. It is an unequal yoke. So two die instead of one.

Free a man to fight.
ha ha ha

Barnesville, GA

#15 Jan 24, 2013
Wrong on Women Warriors (The new policy to place women in combat units is a mistake)
National Review ^| 01/24/2013 | Heather MacDonald

We have apparently arrived at the Golden Age, free from strife and the threat of foreign enemies. Little else can explain so gratuitous a decision as to place women in combat units. The downsides to such a policy are legion and obvious; the only reason to pursue it is to placate feminism’s insatiable and narcissistic drive for absolute official equality between the sexes.

Any claim that our fighting forces are not reaching their maximum potential because females are not included is absurd. The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.

Feminists routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault”— getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.

Even if Leon Panetta intends to keep female fighting units sex-segregated, that distinction won’t last. Feminists will complain that female-only units stigmatize women.

Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce. If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.

I am not aware of any comparable crusade to create gender-integrated football teams. At least America knows what’s really important.

— Heather Mac Donald is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
ha ha ha

Barnesville, GA

#16 Jan 24, 2013
Elaine Donnelly: Women in Combat Order “Dangerous Social Experiment”
Newsmax ^| Wednesday, 23 Jan 2013 08:54 PM | David A. Patten

Military-readiness advocate Elaine Donnelly warns that the Obama administration’s decision to put women in ground-combat roles amounts to “social engineering to achieve a political end in the name of diversity.”

She adds that the policy shift means “lives could be lost unnecessarily, not just women, but men.”

Donnelly’s organization, the Center for Military Readiness, released a 42-page report earlier this week exploring the unintended consequences of putting women on the front lines.

“It will do great harm to women in the military, especially those who will find themselves in the infantry—something there’s no indication they wanted,” Donnelly said Wednesday in an exclusive Newsmax interview.“It will harm men and the mission of the infantry as a whole.”…

(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
lol

Greenbrier, AR

#17 Jan 24, 2013
Lol. the rednecks don't wanna give up their boys club.
Pide Piper

United States

#18 Jan 24, 2013
Congrats! Now your daughters can be drafted also! Woot woot!!
unequal

Somerset, KY

#20 Jan 24, 2013
Physically, women and men are not equal. The long marches, carrying heavy loads and fighting should be left to the men. There are plenty of roles in the military that woman are suitable for, actually I'd say most of them, but being a field grunt is not one of them.

Since: Oct 12

Rock Forever

#22 Jan 24, 2013
Give the women the chance to prove themselves. They've proved themselves in other things.
truth

Barnesville, GA

#25 Jan 24, 2013
Why are women not in the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL.

Why are women not allowed to compete against men in pro tennis, volleyball, swimming, etc but its ok to compete against them in life or death fighting?
876t87i6t7i676tr

Barbourville, KY

#26 Jan 24, 2013
Exactly. Well, there would be nothing wrong with an NFL women's team. If they want to play football, fine, but not against the men.

There is not a single world record in Track and Field held by a woman. We all know why.

Leave the fighting to the men.
truth wrote:
Why are women not in the NFL, NBA, MLB, or NHL.
Why are women not allowed to compete against men in pro tennis, volleyball, swimming, etc but its ok to compete against them in life or death fighting?
876t87i6t7i676tr

Barbourville, KY

#27 Jan 24, 2013
But if a woman wants to serve in the Air Force and be a fighter pilot, that's different.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 8
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

London Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 17 min Traveler 149,017
Ricky Smallwood 58 min Loveit 5
Laurel River Road 2 hr Billy 67
London's 4th of July Celebration 2 hr Heatherlou 2
What muslims really think 2 hr pearl 40
Single woman over 40 (Aug '15) 3 hr wow 26
science says liberals are psychotic 3 hr Cajun 17

London Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

London Mortgages