[blackdog]

Absolutely. Sometimes you get what you ask for.

[Night Hides Not]

Is this a trick question?

HELL NO!!!

[ProtectOurFreedom]

...in Israel, one woman saved the life of a fellow soldier by crafting a tourniquet out of her bra

Well, if that isn't the best justification I've ever heard for women in front-line combat positions, I don't know what is. That certainly overcomes all of my objections.

[Adder]

So should women be serving in combat?

Well its a good idea, maybe, on paper...butI think they would have a hard time carrying those trays with beer and sandwiches...

[yldstrk]

yeah women and children front and center, what an effing travesty, that is depraved

[Secret Agent Man]

no. next question.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Moot point because they’re going there anyway. Might as well since we’re already in the midst of collapse.

[B212]

my first impulse was to say NO!....but as I thought about the issue, I realized that if women are foregoing motherhood then women are just another human person, and they bleed like men.....

[Paladin2]

It's too bad that we can't enlist wymyn like Janet Reno to go against America's enemies.

[Chode]

feh...

[Vendome]

Damned straight they should be serving.

Serve me a beer. Get me a couple hamburgers.

Hey, massage my back and calves.

[henkster]

Considering that armed conflict was one of mankind’s earliest creations and has been practiced continuously by all cultures for millenia, and considering that it is the one endeavor where it is literally a case of victory or death, I would say the fact that armed combat is historically the exclusive province of men pretty much settles the issue. If women were effective in combat they would already be doing it and we wouldn’t be asking this stupid question.

[Vendome]

FNG

nOOb....

Welcome to FR?

[Vaquero]

No. And while we’re at it any job like fireman or fireman where the physical requirements were ‘dumbed down’. In all cases if they can perform the original physical requirements I’m good with them be alowed to work those jobs.

[Vaquero]

CORRECTED No. And while we're at it any job like fireman or police officer where the physical requirements were 'dumbed down'. In all cases if they can perform the original physical requirements I'm good with them be alowed to work those jobs.

[shankbear]

They can stop lead just the same.

[Psalm 144]

Only if it is a matter of survival. Otherwise, it is the sign of degenerate, spent culture and polity that deserves to die.

[Finny]

We're asking the wrong question.

The question we should be asking:

How would we feel if a hostile nation's military announced that it was now embracing the "fair" concept of including women "soldiers" in front-line battle, not to mention the maritime equivalent of making it a point to have women serving alongside men in their nation's submarines and navy ships?

Would we worry because that enemy was all the sundden a stronger opponent?

Or would be be celebrating at the prospect of only having to face a weakened force?

THAT is the only question we should be asking, because as sure as water is wet, "democratically" weaving girls/women into the human-natural all-male defense fabric, is military sabotage, intended or unintended.

[Dick Vomer]

Welllllll lets have them start by defending a ship at say USS Mahan late Monday night at a Naval Station...say at night in Norfolk harbor and see how well they do. Give them a sidearm and have them stand post. If they can master weapon retention and closed quarter combat....

oh that’s right, she got disarmed and a MAN got killed defending her. Maybe have two women man the post with sidearms.....maybe three?

[Breto]

How can you tell its a woman anymore? May be transgender? Anyway if Gay guys can be there why not girls, and gay girls too.

Heck anyone that wants to fight for ObamaLand... be my guest.