Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Drudge: Female soldiers eyed for combat; Army seeks end of 1994 ban...
Drudge ^ | 10-21-04 | Drudge

Posted on 10/21/2004 9:28:48 PM PDT by IDontLikeToPayTaxes

Female soldiers eyed for combat; Army seeks end of 1994 ban...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: combat; females; military; women; womenincombat
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: orangelobster

This from the same source claiming major US strike on Iran in the next week?


21 posted on 10/21/2004 9:42:12 PM PDT by TheBattman (Islam - the cult of Satan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
"Banning female nurses from the military is pretty ridiculous."

Since when do nurses take up arms and go to the front lines to fight?

22 posted on 10/21/2004 9:42:59 PM PDT by TheCrusader ("the frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" Pope Urban II (c 1097 a.d.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes

Women do not belong in combat positions. Simple.


23 posted on 10/21/2004 9:43:16 PM PDT by Bandaneira (The Third Temple/House for All Nations/World Peace Centre...Coming Soon...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

It is human nature: Man desire to protect women.

Women in foxholes will get men killed trying to protect them. Women that get captured WILL be raped - and the men soldiers know it.

Foolish idea.


24 posted on 10/21/2004 9:44:06 PM PDT by clee1 (Islam is a deadly plague; liberalism is the AIDS virus that prevents us from defending ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes
Female soldiers eyed for combat; Army seeks end of 1994 ban...

I don't believe having women in the military serves anyone's interests except the feminists.

In a combat situation I believe they'll do more harm than good. American men will pay with their lives if the women can't do the job.

Having said that, I also think that the only way to prove the feminists wrong, and to prove that most women make lousy soldiers, is to have them come home in body bags.

That may seem like an extreme view, but any female soldier that screws up in combat will have a PC officer cover her mistakes, and the public will never know about it. Body bags don't lie.

25 posted on 10/21/2004 9:44:11 PM PDT by Noachian (A Democrat, by definition, is a Socialist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBattman
"This from the same source claiming major US strike on Iran in the next week?"

Yep, when Drudge speaks some people listen. Me, I think I'll wait to hear it from the Army not Drudge.

26 posted on 10/21/2004 9:44:33 PM PDT by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
You should get flamed.

Fair enough. But in my defense, I doubt that Abu Ghraib would have happened without that idiot woman heading up the operation. And what the hell is up with Private Lynndie England getting pregnant on duty, hm?

No offense to your sister-in-law, but I'd say the trends of late support my side more than yours.

27 posted on 10/21/2004 9:45:13 PM PDT by Prime Choice (The Leftists think they can tax us into "prosperity" and regulate us into "liberty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

Not to flame you.... but as a "woman" in the Army, I can tell you females DO belong in the Army. Just like females belong in the police department (which I belong to in my real life), in the fire department, and in every other place but the kitchen. I do agree that females in combat would pose serious problems. I see it now, when some of the males I serve with, especially the older males, get protective. And in talking to them they say that they can handle watching a male die, but watching a female die would be so much harder. Maybe some of the more masculine females could handle it, and we have QUITE A FEW of those in the military. I just think combat in itself is a stressful situation, so why add to it just for political correctness?


28 posted on 10/21/2004 9:46:08 PM PDT by ThaLeena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader

I was responding to post 5. Mr. Prime Choice wants women out of the military completely. He's a few degrees shy of Medium Rare.


29 posted on 10/21/2004 9:48:32 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
As long as women have vaginas and are candidates for rape and abuse, as long as they are not as strong as men, as long as our men have an instinctive desire to protect them, they should not be in front-line combat situations. There are men on this forum who say that they have commanded women in combat situations, as in operations in Panama, and have respect for their fighting abilities. Fine. Panama was not quite as serious as Iraq and our opponents there were not the howling hordes of Allah.

I am a woman myself, and as women go I'm strong and tough. But even though I break stallions for a hobby, I am no match for a man. Even holding an automatic weapon, I do not have the strength a man does, and infantry operations require strength, or at least tirelessness.

Janis Karpinski is an embarrassment to the Armed Services and a symbol of everything that's wrong with promoting people for political correctness.

30 posted on 10/21/2004 9:49:09 PM PDT by Capriole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes

That's all he has for now. If the Army wants to actually INCREASE females in Combat Support roles, they are insane. The Army should be going in the other direction.

Combat Support means more truck drives, admin, mp's yada, yada, yada.

When they say they want to increase females in SF then worry!


31 posted on 10/21/2004 9:50:59 PM PDT by MHak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes
If the Army is talking about combat support roles, doesn't that mean that they want to take men out of combat support and put them into combat?

And, since the feminists are so enthusiastic about women in combat, would this not be a wonderful opportunity for them to shut up and put up, and enlist by the tens of thousands?

32 posted on 10/21/2004 9:53:25 PM PDT by Enterprise (The left hates the Constitution. Islamic Fascism hates America. Natural allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pyx

I though DACOWITS when I saw this headline too, but then I also thought Rumsfeld had done away with this group's extremism.

This just doesn't seem like something the Army would do in the absence of political pressure, and since the GOP controls the White House I wouldn't expect there to be this type of pressure.

Why would the Army want to do this when their experts -- the veterans of combat duty -- almost all say this is a bad idea and when the most extensive study ever done on this subject by the British military a few yrs ago came out overwhelmingly against opening ground combat units to women. And this was after the test had been watered down by removing some of the more physically demanding tests.

This doesn't sound right, though if it were true, it would present a dilemma for Kerry and the Left. On the one hand they could use it as proof of the dire situation Bush has put the military in that they need women to fight, but on the other hand that would be ideologically repulsive to the Left because in order to score political points they would be forced to admit that putting women in combat is a horrible idea, and an idea that should not ever be considered except in the most dire of circumstances (as when Russia did it on a limited scale after losing millions of soldiers in WWII or when Israel did it when faced with destruction in 1948). In effect, to score politically, they'd have to admit that combat is a duty best left to men


33 posted on 10/21/2004 9:55:16 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice
But in my defense, I doubt that Abu Ghraib would have happened without that idiot woman heading up the operation. And what the hell is up with Private Lynndie England getting pregnant on duty, hm?

The existence of one idiot woman in command means that all women can't be in the military? I doubt the Romans would have lost Cannae if that idiot Varro wasn't in command, so let's ban all Roman men from combat. Brilliant logic you have going there.

And I suppose you think England was impregnated by a lesbian with a strap-on artificial inseminator!

Two examples and you think banning women entirely makes sense. And here I thought the meteors wiped all of you out. I guess one of the fossils at the British Museum of Natural History has come back to life -- perhaps Kerry is showing off his skill and is tired of mediocre tricks like restoring central nervous system functions.

34 posted on 10/21/2004 9:57:46 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes
Female soldiers fought alongside male colleagues in Israel's War of Liberation, which ended in 1948. Because of the problems that this created, Israeli women never again were sent into battle. Explains military historian Edward N. Luttwak of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has written a book about the Israeli military: "Men moved to protect the women members of the unit instead of carrying out the mission of the unit."

Luttwak adds that women are integrated into the Israeli military at many levels, and conduct most of the training. Women also serve in the Mossad, Israel's elite counter-terrorist force. But women are excluded, Luttwak notes, from infantry and other combat positions based on "the pragmatic experience of 40 years."

Source

35 posted on 10/21/2004 9:59:19 PM PDT by Gideon7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IDontLikeToPayTaxes

Do you have a link to a story?..I could find nothing except the one liner....Is this another "draft" scam plant?


36 posted on 10/21/2004 10:00:21 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry has been AWOL on issues of national security for two decades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

That makes more sense; moving men out of support roles into frontline combat units and replacing them in support roles with some women.

But barring some sudden and drastic change in biology and nature then women would never make up a significant percentage of the combat units. I did not serve, but from what I've heard its usually female officers, not enlisted women, who are most keen on this idea. And while there may be a few women who could genuinely meet the tough standards for combat duty, there wouldn't be many. So standards would have to be lowered in order for women to have a large part in combat units.


37 posted on 10/21/2004 10:02:16 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Prime Choice

If it weren't for women in the military, no one would ever commit abuse, lose a battle, have a breakdown in discipline?..I don't believe women should be in combat, but you go too far.


38 posted on 10/21/2004 10:06:13 PM PDT by MEG33 (John Kerry has been AWOL on issues of national security for two decades)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats

Varro clearly wasn't in Hannibal's league, but in his defense he fought like Romans were expected to fight -- with aggressive tactics. It took a Hannibal for Rome to produce a Scipio. But I get what you're saying.


39 posted on 10/21/2004 10:07:47 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gideon7

Didn't Israel change course again and decide to let women in the frontline units last yr or earlier this yr?

I mean, I'm sure if they evey have a major war on their hands they'll put all-male units at the front, but I though they had decided to let women take part in the skirmishes.


40 posted on 10/21/2004 10:09:37 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson