Replies

I agree! 99% of women probably wouldn't be qualified to be in 99% of combat positions. But that doesn't mean some few women aren't qualified for some tasks. Women reportedly have some aptitudes that could be useful in some situations. For exammple, some women are excellent sniper-type markswomen. They may be of use in guerrilla type urban warfare situations.

In addition, women were instrumental in intelligence operations in WWI and WWII. Not exactly combat, but certainly very dangerous "front lines" (or actually behind enemy lines) type work.

The most effective military always knows how to use their resources to their best advantage. Excluding half the population out of hand from the military is tactically stupid. The military even utilizes the talents of some men in wheelchairs! Obviously not on the front lines, maybe not even enlisted, but they utilize the talents of many people not combat capable nonetheless.

I agree! 99% of women probably wouldn't be qualified to be in 99% of combat positions.

And herein lies the true test of conservatism.
Lorianne..you say 99% of women aren't qualifed for combat positions. But, how do you find the 1%? Through tax payers money, and the lives of men being lost, in finding out if they are 'capable'?

The polls seem to be stacked against women on this instance. The polls are stacked toward women on many other fields.