[The Great RJ]

I have mixed feeling about lifting the ban. Women I think can serve in some combat roles like being fighter pilots or flying helicopter gun ships and certainly in combat support. Fighting in the infantry is another issue as I agree that women do not have the physical strength to do what must be done. I see this in civilian occupations too women might make great ambulance medics, but when they have to haul 100 pounds of hose up several flights of stairs to fight a fire they physically aren't up to the job.

There is another side to putting women into combat. We have already seen when women soldiers are captured, especially in the Middle East where women are considered inferior, they quickly become victims of rape and sadistic sexual attack. There is also the sexual side of putting men and women together in combat conditions. Unless all the other men they serve with are gay, sexual dalliances are inevitable as well as rivalries and jealousies. I don't see this as a good thing in combat.

[centurion316]

I have mixed feeling about lifting the ban. Women I think can serve in some combat roles like being fighter pilots or flying helicopter gun ships

Women already serve in those roles. They are excluded from a few military specialties: infantry, armor, special forces, field artillery and there are legitimate, practical reasons for the distinction.

[USAF80]

Women I think can serve in some combat roles like being fighter pilots or flying helicopter gun ships and certainly in combat support.

The problems with even these positions is that airplanes and helicopters crash or get shot down. Now that crew member is in a more dangerous position because they are usually in a hostile environment by themselves and maybe injured or have injured other crew members with them.

Aircrew training has been watered down because of women.

All pilots are drafted into the infantry once their birds are shot out from under them.