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

Skip to comments.

BUSH PENTAGON MOVING TO FORCE WOMEN INTO LAND COMBAT (Center for Military Readiness Bulletin)
Center for Military Readiness ^ | 12/9/2004 | Elaine Donnelly

Posted on 12/18/2004 1:34:07 AM PST by huac

"Officials Ignore DoD Rules, Congressional Notification Law"... "The United States Army plans to force female soldiers into land combat units, despite current regulations and a law requiring prior notice to Congress. CMR has learned that some Army leaders believe there might not be enough male soldiers to fill the new “unit of action” combat brigades. They are therefore making incremental changes in policy that will soon force young unprepared women—many of them mothers—to fight in land combat."

(Excerpt) Read more at cmrlink.org ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: military; militaryreadiness; totalbullshit; womenincombat; yeahright
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 last
To: UCANSEE2
"ASK A MALE COP if he thinks women are weaker and need to be protected? That they have to be 'helped' by the big strong MALE policeman?"

As a matter of fact, my cousin's husband is constantly lamenting that the gals cannot pull their weight as cops, are placed in desk jobs early in their career, and not capable of performing when size and power are needed.

161 posted on 12/20/2004 4:45:39 AM PST by Meldrim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: JimVT; 506trooper
I suspect I'll get a lot of heat for that last statement

This kind of "I beg your pardon" really has to stop. It is an acknowledgement that you consent to an absurd position of opposition to be taken even though there is not a well-founded basis for the opposition.

This kind of thing encourages the opposition and softens the point one is making---where what is needed is for the opponents to be treated as adults so they can recognize the facts.

162 posted on 12/20/2004 5:24:35 AM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

You "logic" avoids the facts. Even the above post had the instance of the male who was assigned a female gunner and he had to carry her ammo and tripod. Military field operations require fit young men to do extraordinary things on a regular basis. Having people present who cannot do those things impairs everyone else and puts a strain on everyone else who have to carry those less capable. It is a shamne that people let other considerations blind them to the facts.


163 posted on 12/20/2004 5:34:03 AM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

I don't mean any personal animosity, but you are really Pi---ing me off this morning. You use such facile arguments to dance around real good factual arguments. I read your profile and figure that you have to be able to do better than this. Your motive must be based elsewhere. Combat now, 5000 years ago, or 5000 years in the future will be the same in that there are no rules in extremis and it is a fight to the death. The point about many men not being physically able to fight in combat and that women cannot meet the minimum male standard, is just something you ignore. [This is not a matter where hurting young women's feelings should matter.] There are facts of combat and physical facts of the difference between men and women. Combat is the extreme and no rules apply in the end. Women only physically "compete" with men when the rules are controlled and that kind of control does not exist in combat when people are trying to kill you in order to avoid being killed.


164 posted on 12/20/2004 5:49:28 AM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
I get indigestion if I eat prior to sleeping. I guess that would disqualify me from battle.

Yeah, you probably would be disqualified. Can you meet the physical requirements stated above? If you can't, you don't qualify. And I mean the male requirements. The point is that this isn't about who can run for class president. There are real qualifications that should not be played with just to allow women in and damn the consequences. This is what bureaucrats and politicians. They think everything can be played with.

165 posted on 12/20/2004 6:36:44 AM PST by ontos-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ontos-on
Thought this thread had died a natural death"............ It is an acknowledgement that you consent to an absurd position of opposition to be taken even though there is not a well-founded basis for the opposition.

I didn't see it that way; I did expect to get an argument, and this was my way of acknowledging my position would take fire.

There is another name for soldiers who can not "hack" it. They're called casualties.

After reading the entire thread again, I see no valid posts to convince me women belong in close combat, if it can be avoided.

It must be acknowledged, all people who serve in our military will be exposed to situations/dangers not entirely in our control.

A leader must accept the fact, there will be casualties; it ain't a video game, there is no replay button.

One of the responsibilities of military leadership, in times of conflict, is to avoid unnecessary casualties, emphasis on unnecessary. Many reasons for this, but the single biggest reason is, casualties weaken the ability of the unit to accomplish the mission.

Placing individuals in the unit who do not have the physical or mental ability to cope with the requirements of ground combat is just plain stupid.

166 posted on 12/20/2004 9:45:38 AM PST by 506trooper (There is no such thing as too much ammo or fuel on board.........unless you're on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Thanks for the plug for my essay The Feminist Delusion.

And while on the subject of your post, please accept my heartfelt wishes that you and all your loved ones have a Very, Very Merry Christmas!

Bill Flax

167 posted on 12/20/2004 10:52:56 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-167 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