Commission urges Pentagon to let wome...

Commission urges Pentagon to let women serve in combat

There are 34 comments on the thehill.com story from Mar 8, 2011, titled Commission urges Pentagon to let women serve in combat. In it, thehill.com reports that:

U.S. military officials should reverse a long-standing policy and allow women to serve in ground combat units, largely because it will help their uniformed careers, a commission on military diversity said Monday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at thehill.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
McCarthy was right

United States

#2 Mar 8, 2011
"...largely because it will help their uniformed careers..."

Sigh.
WOODCHUCK

North Port, FL

#3 Mar 8, 2011
Was not this resolved yet???..It took pages of comments here before.......like gays,the women ques in the Pentagon is not moving very quickly....
Eleanor

Vernon Hills, IL

#4 Mar 8, 2011
Even tribal leaders know not to let their women close to the enemy.

You KNOW what could very well happen with a woman prisoner in the hands of the enemy.

Have they completely LOST THEIR MINDS?????
helema

Niceville, FL

#5 Mar 8, 2011
Women are already being put into combat but its hush hush in the pentagon and here. I say only as a last resort just as many tribes all over the world would do, they would defend the women children and their homes and if the enemy breeched the lines the women and older children had anasty surprise fo rthem....THEY COULD WEILD WEAPONS LIKE THEIR MEN!!! teach the women to do combat bu tkeep them far behind the lines and only use them if its necessary just as many people did before us. Dont put them on th efront lines to be possibly captured and tortured or made into sex slaves by the enemy!!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Mar 8, 2011
Eleanor wrote:
Even tribal leaders know not to let their women close to the enemy.
You KNOW what could very well happen with a woman prisoner in the hands of the enemy.
Have they completely LOST THEIR MINDS?????
Pretty much the same thing that happens to a male prisoner in the hands of the enemy. Or are you so ignorant to believe the male p.o.w.s aren't raped too?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#7 Mar 8, 2011
Women deserve the same opportunity to get killed in battle as men. If not, then they shouldn't be serving at all.
McCarthy was right

Middlebury, CT

#8 Mar 8, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
Women deserve the same opportunity to get killed in battle as men. If not, then they shouldn't be serving at all.
But what they DON"T deserve, you stupid racist sociopath, is the "opportunity" to put male front line troops at increased risk "because it will help their uniformed careers..."

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#9 Mar 9, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
But what they DON"T deserve, you stupid racist sociopath, is the "opportunity" to put male front line troops at increased risk "because it will help their uniformed careers..."
So now women would put male front line troops as increased risk too? Gee, didn't we hear the same stupidity from you about gays & lesbians?? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about women serving aboard ships & subs??? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about blacks serving with the white troops and putting the whites at increased risk????

Is there ANYONE who (in your mind) wouldn't put the front line troops at risk?

How about hispanics?

Maybe asians?

Or the left-handed?

What is it about those front line troops of yours that they're so easily put at risk? Are they completely incapable of focusing on their job? Can they be that easily distracted?

Maybe we should put women & gays & lesbians & blacks & hispanics & asians & lefthanded troops on the front line and leave your overly sensitive straight white right-handed men in the rear with the gear.

Unlike you, I have full faith in ALL our troops to act professional and do their job. So long as the women can meet the new Army physical fitness standards for combat unveiled this month ("casualty" drag 180 lbs, 400 yd full combat gear run, rifle agility course, etc) then they should be able to serve. We're going to need every warm body that's willing and able, because there are going to be a lot of MEN who aren't going to be able to pass the new fitness tests too.
McCarthy was right

Milford, CT

#10 Mar 9, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now women would put male front line troops as increased risk too? Gee, didn't we hear the same stupidity from you about gays & lesbians?? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about women serving aboard ships & subs??? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about blacks serving with the white troops and putting the whites at increased risk????
Is there ANYONE who (in your mind) wouldn't put the front line troops at risk?
How about hispanics?
Maybe asians?
Or the left-handed?
What is it about those front line troops of yours that they're so easily put at risk? Are they completely incapable of focusing on their job? Can they be that easily distracted?
Maybe we should put women & gays & lesbians & blacks & hispanics & asians & lefthanded troops on the front line and leave your overly sensitive straight white right-handed men in the rear with the gear.
Unlike you, I have full faith in ALL our troops to act professional and do their job. So long as the women can meet the new Army physical fitness standards for combat unveiled this month ("casualty" drag 180 lbs, 400 yd full combat gear run, rifle agility course, etc) then they should be able to serve. We're going to need every warm body that's willing and able, because there are going to be a lot of MEN who aren't going to be able to pass the new fitness tests too.
Sheep, a self-admitted sociopathic racist trying to take the racism "high road?"
Hahahahaha!
McCarthy was right

Milford, CT

#11 Mar 9, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now women would put male front line troops as increased risk too? Gee, didn't we hear the same stupidity from you about gays & lesbians?? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about women serving aboard ships & subs??? Didn't we hear the same stupidity from your side about blacks serving with the white troops and putting the whites at increased risk????
Is there ANYONE who (in your mind) wouldn't put the front line troops at risk?
How about hispanics?
Maybe asians?
Or the left-handed?
What is it about those front line troops of yours that they're so easily put at risk? Are they completely incapable of focusing on their job? Can they be that easily distracted?
Maybe we should put women & gays & lesbians & blacks & hispanics & asians & lefthanded troops on the front line and leave your overly sensitive straight white right-handed men in the rear with the gear.
Unlike you, I have full faith in ALL our troops to act professional and do their job. So long as the women can meet the new Army physical fitness standards for combat unveiled this month ("casualty" drag 180 lbs, 400 yd full combat gear run, rifle agility course, etc) then they should be able to serve. We're going to need every warm body that's willing and able, because there are going to be a lot of MEN who aren't going to be able to pass the new fitness tests too.
The point is, you ignorant, racist sociopath (and something you’re psychologically incapable of understanding), is that women ARE different than men. But guess what? COMPETENT WOMEN ARE ALREADY SERVING IN COMBAT. Instead of being “assigned” to a combat unit as men are, they are “attached.”

Rather than your stupid “one size fits all” approach to everything, all that’s needed is an administrative change of their designation. The “democratic” solution of fools like you to just plug women in based solely on meeting physical standards would increase the risk to other front-line troops, just to “enhance their career opportunities.”

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Mar 9, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
Rather than your stupid “one size fits all” approach to everything, all that’s needed is an administrative change of their designation. The “democratic” solution of fools like you to just plug women in based solely on meeting physical standards would increase the risk to other front-line troops, just to “enhance their career opportunities.”
How?
How?
How?

Once again you fail to demonstrate just HOW assigning women to combat would increase the risk to other troops. Just like a man who meets all physical standards, why would such a woman increase the risk to others?

You've never been able to answer that with gays serving openly, and now you're taking the same tact with women in combat.

Just once, try to focus on the question and see if you can answer it-

Please list SPECIFICALLY how women serving in combat will increase the risk to other combat troops? If they have the same MOS and meet the same standards as their male counterpart, HOW will that increase the risk to other troops?
McCarthy was right

Milford, CT

#13 Mar 9, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
How?
How?
How?
Once again you fail to demonstrate just HOW assigning women to combat would increase the risk to other troops. Just like a man who meets all physical standards, why would such a woman increase the risk to others?
You've never been able to answer that with gays serving openly, and now you're taking the same tact with women in combat.
Just once, try to focus on the question and see if you can answer it-
Please list SPECIFICALLY how women serving in combat will increase the risk to other combat troops? If they have the same MOS and meet the same standards as their male counterpart, HOW will that increase the risk to other troops?
I already explained it, you stupid, self-admitted racist sociopath.

Competent women are ALREADY in combat. Throwing ANYONE into combat for your kumbayah "democratic" or rank advancement purposes is a recipe for increased risk.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Mar 9, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
I already explained it, you stupid, self-admitted racist sociopath.
Competent women are ALREADY in combat. Throwing ANYONE into combat for your kumbayah "democratic" or rank advancement purposes is a recipe for increased risk.
Who said "anyone" would be thrown into combat?

Women would STILL have to meet the same physical requirements as all other combat troops. So how would that put anyone at risk just because one combat trooper has a vagina and another has a penis?

Actually YOUR way of sneaking them in unofficially means they HAVEN'T had to meet the same physical requirements as the rest of the combat troops, and therefore COULD endanger others.

Why do you hate our combat troops?........
McCarthy was right

Milford, CT

#15 Mar 9, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said "anyone" would be thrown into combat?
Women would STILL have to meet the same physical requirements as all other combat troops. So how would that put anyone at risk just because one combat trooper has a vagina and another has a penis?
Actually YOUR way of sneaking them in unofficially means they HAVEN'T had to meet the same physical requirements as the rest of the combat troops, and therefore COULD endanger others.
Why do you hate our combat troops?........
Still struggling with your twin problems of reading comprehension and telling the truth, aren’t you , you stupid, self-admitted racist sociopath?

YOU said they should be put into combat as along as they passed the physical requirements, once again displaying your total ignorance regarding what it takes to be an effective front line soldier, etc.

And you’re lying when you claim I advocated “sneaking them in unofficially.” I said the opposite. Competent women are already on the front lines but are not recognized as such. I said they should be. What I’m against is your stupid, stupid kumbaya approach that assumes all women, any more than all men, would be equally competent on the front lines.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#16 Mar 9, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Still struggling with your twin problems of reading comprehension and telling the truth, aren’t you , you stupid, self-admitted racist sociopath?
YOU said they should be put into combat as along as they passed the physical requirements, once again displaying your total ignorance regarding what it takes to be an effective front line soldier, etc.
And you’re lying when you claim I advocated “sneaking them in unofficially.” I said the opposite. Competent women are already on the front lines but are not recognized as such. I said they should be. What I’m against is your stupid, stupid kumbaya approach that assumes all women, any more than all men, would be equally competent on the front lines.
Just like the current policy where any male soldiers who meet the physical requirements can be assigned combat duty on the front lines? Why should it be any different for women. Have them meet the EXACT SAME REQUIREMENTS as the men to be on the front lines. That current requirement for the men is that they are a) breathing and b) passed their most recent physical readiness test. Congrats, you're now a front line combat soldier. If that standard is good enough for men to go into combat, why isn't it good enough for women to go into combat?
bailout my duck

Roy, WA

#17 Mar 9, 2011
combat makes horny really impaient not a place for playing hard to get......human nature is a bitch
McCarthy was right

Bedford, TX

#18 Mar 9, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like the current policy where any male soldiers who meet the physical requirements can be assigned combat duty on the front lines? Why should it be any different for women. Have them meet the EXACT SAME REQUIREMENTS as the men to be on the front lines. That current requirement for the men is that they are a) breathing and b) passed their most recent physical readiness test. Congrats, you're now a front line combat soldier. If that standard is good enough for men to go into combat, why isn't it good enough for women to go into combat?
Because, you stupid, racist sociopath, there IS a slection process among male soldiers...and WOMEN WHO QUALIFY ARE ALREADY IN COMBAT.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#19 Mar 10, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, you stupid, racist sociopath, there IS a slection process among male soldiers...and WOMEN WHO QUALIFY ARE ALREADY IN COMBAT.
Officially there are no women in combat, therefore they currently DO NOT go through the same "selection process" as men do. Which means we have no idea if the women currently in combat are qualified in any way shape or form to be there.

The commission is recommending all women go through the EXACT SAME "selection process" as men if they want to serve in combat, instead of your way of sneaking them into combat without knowing if they are qualified or not.

Women would have to go throught the EXACT SAME process to be assigned to combat as men, meaning they would have to be just as physically & mentally qualified as the men they are serving alongside.

Why do you want to put our troops as risk by allowing possibly unqualified women to secretly serve in combat??

Why do you hate our combat troops??
McCarthy was right

United States

#20 Mar 10, 2011
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Officially there are no women in combat, therefore they currently DO NOT go through the same "selection process" as men do. Which means we have no idea if the women currently in combat are qualified in any way shape or form to be there.
The commission is recommending all women go through the EXACT SAME "selection process" as men if they want to serve in combat, instead of your way of sneaking them into combat without knowing if they are qualified or not.
Women would have to go throught the EXACT SAME process to be assigned to combat as men, meaning they would have to be just as physically & mentally qualified as the men they are serving alongside.
Why do you want to put our troops as risk by allowing possibly unqualified women to secretly serve in combat??
Why do you hate our combat troops??
Haha! There you go again, you self-admitted racist and sociopath.

You can't respond with logic, intelligence or honesty so off you go on another of your lie and fantasy filled rants.
:^)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#21 Mar 10, 2011
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha! There you go again, you self-admitted racist and sociopath.
You can't respond with logic, intelligence or honesty so off you go on another of your lie and fantasy filled rants.
:^)
??

Obviously you have no intention of honestly debating this issue either. I'm actually suprised you didn't bring up the BSA-KKK and try to link that in here somehow.

Just like with gays in the military, it doesn't matter because you won't have any influence on the decision- no big shocker there.

Women will be in combat, just as gay are. If you don't like it, too bad.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
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.

Department of Defense Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Department of Defense retweets call for Trump, ... 43 min YouDidntBuildThat 7
News Growth of American base will bring change to Gu... (Jan '09) Oct 19 ZZZzz 4 5
News US shoots down medium-range ballistic missile i... Aug '17 anonymous 5
News Clean energy is a matter of national security; ... Jul '17 Solarman 1
department of defense employee annette marion c... Jun '17 JOHN 1
News $1.1 Million Grant Funds Study on Why Early Pre... (Mar '17) Mar '17 butters_ 9
News Department of Defense bids farewell to Obama (Jan '17) Jan '17 Le Jimbo 19
More from around the web