Panetta opens combat roles to women

Posted in the Robbinsdale Forum

First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#1 Jan 23, 2013
It's about time. Although there has been little or no outcry about this from the feminist militants complaining about how unfair this policy has been. Wonder why that is?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/pa...
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#2 Jan 23, 2013
How can you write there's been not cry for this ? Why do you "think" the policy changed, osmosis ??? Poor nut-so, you really hate women.

Since: Sep 11

Rogers, MN

#3 Jan 23, 2013
"been not cry"?

Funny there is "not" mention of "women on the front lines" or "women in combat" anywhere on the home page for NOW.

http://now.org/
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#4 Jan 23, 2013
How can you write there's been no cry for this ? Why do you "think" the policy changed, osmosis ??? Poor nut-so, you really hate women.

Funny, you pretend NOW represents military women, to justify making dumb statements... SAD!

Since: Jul 10

Minneapolis, MN

#5 Jan 23, 2013
there has been women fighting for thousands of years. if you are of Celtic(Great Britain and part of Europe) ancestry. your women ancestors fought in battles.
.
some helped in the Revolution against the British.
http://www.army.mil/women/history.html A few courageous women served in combat either alongside their husbands or disguised as men.
.
http://www2.lhric.org/spbattle/wohist.html During the American Revolution thousands of women took an active role in both the American and British armies. Most were the wives or daughters of officers or soldiers.
.
.
it is about time that we women again are allowed to fight on the front lines against our enemies if we are so willing.
.
dont worry guys. the ones at home will still need you to fix those things about the house.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#8 Jan 23, 2013
Can you blame your wife for ripping you a new one, it's not like you were any help at all ! Just as useless, as you are here...

Since: Sep 09

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

#9 Jan 23, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
It's about time. Although there has been little or no outcry about this from the feminist militants complaining about how unfair this policy has been. Wonder why that is?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/pa...
There 'has' been complaints about the discrimination. A lot of them and there has been for a long time. Try looking somewhere other than Republican owned FOX.

The Republicans would never have done this. Another step up the ladder for equality and another plus for President Obama.

Since: Sep 09

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

#11 Jan 23, 2013
Consistent wrote:
<quoted text>
I so look forward to seeing your Mutilated Body come back in a Body Bag from one of Barry Soetoro's many "Wars of Choice".
Where do you hope to die?
Libya, Yemen, Algeria, Mali, Syria?....Which of the Nobel Peace Prize President's Wars are you favorite?
Are you saying we, women, are not true Americans and have the right to defend our nation? I have news for you. Women have already been in combat situations in the middle-east. Women have been 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.

Since: Jan 13

Excelsior, MN

#12 Jan 23, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
It's about time. Although there has been little or no outcry about this from the feminist militants complaining about how unfair this policy has been. Wonder why that is?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/pa...
A really STUPID DECISION, but I doubt that "cantgetitup" has ever SERVED in a FRONT LINE COMBAT UNIT.

That said....

I can see ALL KINDS OF lawsuits popping up, from make medics trying to treat female casualties, injured in "sensitive areas"...

Since: Jan 13

Excelsior, MN

#14 Jan 23, 2013
___Jenny___ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying we, women, are not true Americans and have the right to defend our nation? I have news for you. Women have already been in combat situations in the middle-east. Women have been 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.
No, not saying that at all, except that you are unwilling to accept the FACT that MEN are physically, and psychologically, BETTER EQUIPPED to deal with the MOST SEVERE forms of combat...

It has been PROVEN, time and time again. In FACT, such experiences have broken down even the most toughest of men, but NOW, you think that a division-level of really "tough" women can go in there and do a BETTER JOB than these brave men.

The fact is, is that most women don't have the physical, let alone MENTAL "toughness" to perform at such a high level. It isn't always about intellectual ability. The PHYSICAL part about special operations, the stress, the ability to maintain group discipline, is not something that most Americans can even IMAGINE to appreciate.

Since: Jan 13

Excelsior, MN

#15 Jan 23, 2013
cantmakeitup wrote:
It's about time. Although there has been little or no outcry about this from the feminist militants complaining about how unfair this policy has been. Wonder why that is?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/23/pa...
GOOD LUCK with THAT. When I was in Basic Training, in the late 70's, the women couldn't even carry their own rucksack, and the drill sargents were screwing them almost every night, so they wouldn't get thrown out of the Army. That was just the BASIC ARMY training course.

So know, you want to make them into Green Berets and Army Rangers?

Do you even have a CLUE as to what the difference is?

Guess NOT.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#16 Jan 23, 2013
You a woman yet, dog ?
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#17 Jan 23, 2013
A woman yet, dogger ?
Lawton

Minneapolis, MN

#18 Jan 23, 2013
I'll buy women should be in combat when ONE can qualify as a Navy Seal.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#19 Jan 23, 2013
Lots of men cannot, so you're holding women to a higher standard, than you can meet ??? Sounds right..

Since: Sep 09

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

#20 Jan 23, 2013
maroonberet wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not saying that at all, except that you are unwilling to accept the FACT that MEN are physically, and psychologically, BETTER EQUIPPED to deal with the MOST SEVERE forms of combat...
It has been PROVEN, time and time again. In FACT, such experiences have broken down even the most toughest of men, but NOW, you think that a division-level of really "tough" women can go in there and do a BETTER JOB than these brave men.
The fact is, is that most women don't have the physical, let alone MENTAL "toughness" to perform at such a high level. It isn't always about intellectual ability. The PHYSICAL part about special operations, the stress, the ability to maintain group discipline, is not something that most Americans can even IMAGINE to appreciate.
It depends upon how someone was raised. Someone taught they cannot do anything and they cannot, or at least believe they cannot which usually results in failure. But that is a fading thing. Something rapidly becoming a thing of the past, something only taught to daughters by overly-religious people, sexist bigots, and right-wing conservatives.

Now days it's more and more that it's women who are proving themselves in hazardous situations, not men.

An example which you can check out yourself. Have you ever seen a show called 'What Would You Do'? They would create situations and video how unsuspecting bystanders would react in them. One thing they discovered which was unexpected. They even commented upon it on several of the shows. What they found was the riskier and more dangerous the situation it was far more often women, not men, which reacted and did an in-your-face with the bad guy.

Another change which has come with teaching equality rather than outdated sexism and double-standards ..... more of us, women, are earning college degrees, particularly doctorates, than men, more of us finish college than men (less of us wash out than men), and we are making higher GPAs (grade point averages) than men.

American women even outdid American men in the 2012 Olympics. We're also now a higher percentage of the workforce.

To sum it up ..... stronger doesn't mean better.

Btw, since mass shooters are on the news so much lately. Did you know the only mass shooter killed by a citizen was shot and killed by a woman?
CRASSUS

Green Bay, WI

#21 Jan 23, 2013
Sangelia wrote:
there has been women fighting for thousands of years. if you are of Celtic(Great Britain and part of Europe) ancestry. your women ancestors fought in battles.
.
some helped in the Revolution against the British.
http://www.army.mil/women/history.html A few courageous women served in combat either alongside their husbands or disguised as men.
.
http://www2.lhric.org/spbattle/wohist.html During the American Revolution thousands of women took an active role in both the American and British armies. Most were the wives or daughters of officers or soldiers.
.
.
it is about time that we women again are allowed to fight on the front lines against our enemies if we are so willing.
.
dont worry guys. the ones at home will still need you to fix those things about the house.
Female soldiers are always good for a poke in the Foxhole.
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#22 Jan 23, 2013
You wish, but you'd need a personality change...
Lawton

Minneapolis, MN

#23 Jan 23, 2013
Amused Slew wrote:
Lots of men cannot, so you're holding women to a higher standard, than you can meet ??? Sounds right..
What a nonsensical idiot.

Women are built different than men and may NEVER qualify to be a Seal.

To allow them in combat is setup for disaster. ANYONE having served in a combat unit will tell you it's NO PLACE for a woman.

NONE!
Amused Slew

Seattle, WA

#24 Jan 23, 2013
Yeah, I saw nothing, but a "belief" you penned, without any background.....

Pretty sweet, being stupid enough to believe your OWN drama queenie crap, huh ??? LMAOROTFU~!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
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.

Robbinsdale Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Obama Owns Ebola 1 hr Obama the best 42
Stop Buying Pharmaceutical Stock Folks 1 hr Obama the best 2
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr VN Vet 32,981
Ebola false flag 2 hr Gladius Machete 14
Denver Somali Girls Try to Join ISIS 4 hr cowboy chris 2
Where do you most obtain your news, particularl... 4 hr Zoey Jaja 1
Autopsy reports on Ferguson Shooting 6 hr cantmakeitup 1
Robbinsdale Dating
Find my Match

Robbinsdale Jobs

Robbinsdale People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Robbinsdale News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Robbinsdale

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]