Do US women belong in the thick of the fighting?

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 5/29/05 | Brad Knickerbocker

[DMZFrank]

There WILL NOT be a single standard for men and women because it will have to be lowered to accomodate women. If it is kept high enough to adequately test men than we will not have the numbers of women that the Patsy Schroeder types and DACOWITS feel are politically acceptable. This situation with women is largely POLITICAL and NOT impelled by military necessity!!!!

[Nowhere Man]

There WILL NOT be a single standard for men and women because it will have to be lowered to accomodate women. If it is kept high enough to adequately test men than we will not have the numbers of women that the Patsy Schroeder types and DACOWITS feel are politically acceptable. This situation with women is largely POLITICAL and NOT impelled by military necessity!!!!

Unfortunatly, you are correct. The "femilezis" (if I may borrow your term, RCA2000) will not go for it. I did offer my plan to hopefully accomodate both sides of the issue but the Patsy Schroeder types will still think my plan does not go too far. I still stick to my guns though, "if you wanna be a combat soldier you gotta pass the tests as well as pull their weight." This is a good case where somebody should just tell the femilezis to "sit down and shut up." Political correctness will be our downfall, what worries me is that the PC crowd will do the same thing in Iraq as we did in Vietnam.

[Rca2000]

Yes, you, and anyone else who wants to, including Rush, if he hears it, may use that term.(so long as no one forgest where it came from.My little contribution to the lexicon of America.) I think it fits many women, including some so-called conservative women, who want to be feminists ,too.

As for the current discussion, I will plead the 5th amendment,EXCEPT to say, that it apperas there is another troll aboard.

[Axhandle]

I think that the primary problem with the women in the military issue is that most people cannot fathom the difference between women in combat and women in the military. People will claim that there are no front lines in war anymore, and that is true to some degree, but there are certainly areas that are more dangerous than others. There is a place for women in our hospitals and our offices. In spite of the claims of "no front lines" our hospitals and offices are not getting attacked. The fighting is mostly in the cities and occasionally on the supply routes. Women should not serve in combat arms units or in combat support units that venture into harms way. They can make a worthwhile and appropriate contribution in our hospitals and offices.

[Nowhere Man]

Yes, you, and anyone else who wants to, including Rush, if he hears it, may use that term.(so long as no one forgest where it came from.My little contribution to the lexicon of America.) I think it fits many women, including some so-called conservative women, who want to be feminists ,too.

As for the current discussion, I will plead the 5th amendment,EXCEPT to say, that it apperas there is another troll aboard.

Thanks, that's why I pinged you. Also, I like your saying, "it's all part of the big plan."

As to the other matter, I'll bump the Viking Kitty meter to Defcon 3, have them start headed towards their failsafe points and alerted General Pansy at HQ. >B-)



Pansy: 1987 -

[Meldrim]

" the GOP re-instituted the draft after so vehemently denying it, they would have an extremely difficult task of being reelected in this country for a long time...."

You are correct. We won't have another draft...until we have another major incident. Either a war or an incident, oh say like the Russians had with fanatics sneaking up from the southern border and murdering school children. Then we'll draft folks if only to secure the borders...

[Meldrim]

"In situations of full mobilization, women are essential."

Not to the military. We didn't draft them in WWII, Korea or Vietnam. There would be no need to draft them now. But we can all agree that there should be no disparity in physical fitness, height, weight or strength requirements. We should have the same standards and absolutely not quota's.

[DMZFrank]

There WILL NOT be a single physical fitness standard for men and women because it will have to be lowered to accomodate women. If it is kept high enough to adequately test men than we will not have the numbers of women that the Patsy Schroeder types and DACOWITS feel are politically acceptable. This situation with women is largely POLITICAL and NOT impelled by military necessity!!!!

I would like an honest answer to this thankfully hypothetical question. If we were suddenly restricted for God knows what reason to recruiting ALL service personnel from ONLY the female populace, does ANYONE truly believe that we could obtain a military with sufficient levels of agression, physical fitnesss and competence to take the fight to the enemy and win wars?