Skip to comments.Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions.
Posted on 01/23/2013 12:39:15 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad
click here to read article
General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps testimony before the SASC on Women in Combat. June 1991.
“Combat is killing..........that’s what it is...........”
and women can’t do it”. They are for nurturing life, not taking it..............”
If the Israelis don't do it, then it doesn't make sense.
I already knew it didn't make sense, but the Israelis could use extra bodies on the firing line, and if female bodies worked as well as any other body, then the Israelis would have them there. IIRC, they tried, it didn't work, they stopped it.
Listen to this soldier who served in Iraq talk about women and fags in combat.
Buggery in one trench. Fornication in the next. Dyke fraternization down the line. And the fighting will be left to the few heterosexual men who have enough honour and commitment not to be lured by the temptation of females in close proximity to a war zone. Unlike the generals who lead them.
"Just a couple minutes ago, presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett, who is personally close to President Barack Obama, tweeted, that "If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence."
"Jarrett's tweet comes the same hour Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to serve in combat..."
It doesn't even appear that Assad is putting women on his front lines (unless, of course, he changes his mind later, as dictators are apt to do).
the GOPe will never, ever undo this
Nor anything else that’s harmful to the Republic.
Congress is irrelevant and has been for a while now.
If this policy is approved, there should be a caveat ...
Any woman in front-line combat unit who gets pregnant while assigned in a combat zone, along with the father of the baby [if also military], should be cashiered with dishonorable discharges.
Combat units in a combat zone have their number of personnel assigned for a reason - they are NEEDED on a 24/7 basis. Current military policy is to remove female support personnel from a combat zone when found to be pregnant.
If a woman assigned to a combat unit in a combat zone gets pregnant, she may not be able to be easily replaced in a timely fashion. This reduces the combat strength of the unit and potentially places the other members of the unit in mortal jeopardy.
It is no different than desertion in a combat zone ...
I honestly dont see the Republicans undoing this anytime soon. But hey, I could be wrong.
No, you’ll be right. Its a safe prediction.
NOw I know the term Warrior Queen come from LOL!
Ambiguous, I suppose my old line( probably garnished or stolen from someone else) is the pink bayonet squad is now a reality. Ann Barnhart aside, there are few men that make it in those spec ops and front line units so I suppose divide by ten or fifty and you have one bad a## woman. I know there were/are Ruskie, Chicom, NVA and Israeli womens teams/units but, I dunno, someone else probably has a better anser than my non-answer.
Captured women will provide the enemy with a great way to get their prisoners back-—starting with the Blind Sheik.
Its all part of the Plan.
Happy Hunger Games. May the odds be ever in your favor.
I can see this going really well.
Women suing because of sexual harassment.
Women suing because of emotional distress.
Women suing because of job discrimination.
Women suing because they don’t have their own bathrooms.
And on and on and on...
This is a recipe for disaster. But then again, this is what our government does. CREATES PROBLEMS!
You and I are the only other ones here that gets this, I saw it right away...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.