Posted on 10/21/2004 9:28:48 PM PDT by IDontLikeToPayTaxes
Female soldiers eyed for combat; Army seeks end of 1994 ban...
This from the same source claiming major US strike on Iran in the next week?
Since when do nurses take up arms and go to the front lines to fight?
Women do not belong in combat positions. Simple.
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.
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.
Yep, when Drudge speaks some people listen. Me, I think I'll wait to hear it from the Army not Drudge.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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.
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."
Do you have a link to a story?..I could find nothing except the one liner....Is this another "draft" scam plant?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.