Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions.
Associated Press ^ | January 23, 2013 | Staff

Posted on 01/23/2013 12:39:15 PM PST by AnAmericanAbroad

Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhodod; bhosecdef; combat; military; militarywomen; obamalegacy; panetta; women; womenincombat; womeninmilitary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 next last
To: AnAmericanAbroad

The engineered deconstrution of the United States continues.

121 posted on 01/23/2013 3:45:26 PM PST by Amish with an attitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni


Life isn’t fair. The Leftist morons need to learn that.

Fairness my patootie.

122 posted on 01/23/2013 3:45:50 PM PST by POWERSBOOTHEFAN (Causing trouble since 1976)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

I fully expect our military to be used against us
I don’t doubt it for a moment. Just following orders....

123 posted on 01/23/2013 3:55:41 PM PST by Starboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet

FReepers, if you thought gun control is important, this is every bit as critical since it directly impacts the combat effectiveness of our military. This is an attempt to further weaken America. Here is what I wrote my Congressional reps and I encourage everyone to contact their reps and get this stopped:

“I just read on Fox News that Leon Panetta is set to lift the restriction on women in combat. Speaking as a former Captain in the U.S. Army Reserves (Infantry), I can’t begin to tell you how wrong-headed this idea is and the harm it will cause to the combat effectiveness of our military.

In every military where this has been tried, combat effectiveness in the heat of battle has been negatively affected when women are wounded in combat, disproportionately distracting fighting forces who are instinctively more protective of their female comrades.

Israel has been the latest country to try this and it failed. I encourage you to exercise whatever power you have left to stop this dead in its tracks.

124 posted on 01/23/2013 4:06:13 PM PST by patriotsblood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: crosshairs

“but what about a female PMS’ing?”

Out of control psychobitches doubling over every five minutes. No problem.

125 posted on 01/23/2013 4:06:42 PM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: NKP_Vet
126 posted on 01/23/2013 4:07:33 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Josa

army regs specify the gals have to come out of the field at more frequent intervals than fellas for such reasons.

good luck with that at forward OP on the AF/PAK border.

127 posted on 01/23/2013 4:08:05 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

I get a kick out of the title of the thread, "Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions."

It creates the impression that there are thousands of women who want to be assigned to combat positions. The reality is that now DOD can order women into combat whether they volunteer or not. I wonder how many women will want to join if they know that they will be ordered into combat.

128 posted on 01/23/2013 4:10:04 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: taildragger
It is actually the other way around. The Hillary story will dominate the news while this much more important and impactful event will be a minor news story. Take a look at the headlines tomorrow and see what receives the most coverage.

And we have the combative Hillary as the heroine taking on all those male Congressmen. Yes, she represents the strong woman who can do anything, President or warrior. The stories complement one another.

129 posted on 01/23/2013 4:20:03 PM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

I have posted on this subject a few times, and I always feel like I need to explain some things in advance, because there are people who will disregard my objections as simple chauvinism.

It isn’t.

I have worked for and with smart, talented, hardworking and dedicated women. Women who could think on their feet, make decisions and would inspire me to work my tail off for them.

But this has nothing at all to do with that. There are people, male and female, who insist that 18 year old men and women can work together as if there is no such thing as sexual interaction, that sex can be regulated away.

Secondly, men and women simply are not the same physically. They aren’t. Women, on average, cannot achieve the same level of physical output for the same duration that men can.

There is a reason that there is a separate category in marathons for men and women. Women cannot compete at the same level as men. In the Boston Marathon, the first woman finished nearly twenty minutes after the first man, and would have come in 28th place overall.

I find it interesting that they do not list the results for men and women together at the official site, and as far as I can tell, there is no option to do so, but I could simply be missing it. But year after year, you hear female athletes analyzing the results and saying that “...with more women running marathons, eventually women will compete at the same level as men...”

Really? They are living in a fantasy world, and they put things like this in newspapers. A lot of people fall for it hook, line and sinker. I am no marathoner, but I will say that when seconds, or fractions of seconds separate first and second place, twenty minutes is insurmountable, no matter how many women run in marathons or how the numbers increase each year. If they take steroids, they might close it up a bit.

And marathons are simply one example. In the military, look at the SEALS, Delta, and the Rangers. It is no coincidence there are no women, or at least women who could get there on the same path the men do. Those units are the top of a pyramid, and in the former selection process, only the top physical and mental performers could clear the bar. If true that the Rangers have begun accepting female candidates, they are finished as an elite unit in the niche they currently occupy. They may be better than a standard infantry unit, but they won’t be the same as the Rangers we have seen, and they certainly won’t have the same mission capability.

They will likely all get to wear nice Ranger berets, though, and wear the snappy Ranger tabs and badges that will label them as elite troops.

Lastly, logistical issues ranging from pregnancy to habitation may not seem like much to some people, but that is only going to be true if they DO treat men and women exactly the same in the field with respect to equipment and habitation. Apart from if that is a good idea or not, does anyone think that is going to happen?

Raise your hands if you think it will.

It WON’T happen, that is guaranteed. But you know what? Nobody will notice. In 5 years after women join the Rangers/SEALS/Delta, you will hear talking heads in and out of the military who will say things like:

NEWS ANCHOR/POLITICIAN/MILITARY COMMANDER: “When we integrated women and homosexuals into these units, people were saying it was going to be a disaster, that it would hurt mission capability, morale and such. We are more capable now than we have ever been, and have the moral buttress of diversity and equality. Remember how they said the same thing about the military when blacks were going to be integrated back in 1946? Same result here...the world didn’t end, and it won’t. It was the right thing to do, and we can all be proud of the diversity we now see.”

And you know what? There will be no dissenting opinion.

The next time this comes up is when we go head to head with an opponent who is going to make our elite units use every single ounce of capability to complete a mission, and it isn’t going to happen. We may find ourselves in a situation where we don’t control the air or the sea. Our avenues of supply have been cut off, and our units have to do with their brains and brawn and endurance to win. And we are going to lose, and lose badly.

We will lose badly, because our opponents won’t be stupid enough to do what we have done to our military.

For an analogy, think of what might have happened on Edson’s Ridge on Guadalcanal in 1942 if we had women integrated into those Marine units fighting the Japanese. That is your answer.

But hey. Nobody is going to read this thread or do anything about it. I am a dinosaur and don’t know any better, can’t change with the is embarrassing for some to even read a post like this one. And if anyone even gave a rat’s patootie anymore, they might get angry and attack me personally.

But they won’t. This fight is over.

130 posted on 01/23/2013 4:20:16 PM PST by rlmorel (1793 French Jacobins and 2012 American Liberals have a lot in common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Good. Just think of it as more lib women getting their a$$es blown away.

I’m sure the men in their unit have decided amongst themselves the girls cannot be relied upon.

Perhaps they’ll leave the girls to “their own devices” to prove themselves as men....and get rid of them

Sorry to be so harsh...actually I’m not sorry. A girl wants to pretend to be a man...face the consequences.

131 posted on 01/23/2013 4:23:47 PM PST by NoGrayZone (For evil to triumph it is only necessary for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

does this also mean my dream of Lingerie Football League gals playing in the NFL is not going to come true?

132 posted on 01/23/2013 4:32:58 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Sometimes I am actually happy to be the age I am—an age when over half my life is over. I’d hate to have to grow up in this country now.

133 posted on 01/23/2013 4:33:20 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanAbroad

Sorry, ladies, but you don’t belong in the front lines. Never, ever, never.

134 posted on 01/23/2013 4:33:53 PM PST by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ParityErr

USA is withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan and it’s unlikely we’re intervene anywhere else anytime soon.

135 posted on 01/23/2013 4:34:11 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: hal ogen
I guess that move gives new meaning to fox hole.

Many moons ago I once used "cockpit" and had one of my female troops blew a gasket.

She thought it was something sexual. I had to point out to her that is was a term to describe fighter pilots in WW1 and that a cock is a male chicken.

They were teaching them in technical school to call a cockpit the flight deck. I said that only applies to larger aircraft. All PC BS. I never stopped using cockpit.

136 posted on 01/23/2013 4:34:42 PM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Lmo56
Agree. If a woman can do the job, then let her do the job and thank her for her service when she does, but also hold her accountable if she doesn't.

And as you said, that also goes for the man who fathers the baby.

Of course, this won't happen. Our government won't do anything to anger the female voters, and too many men are too "whipped" to demand that women be held accountable when they, as you put it, desert in this manner, so there we are.

137 posted on 01/23/2013 4:34:48 PM PST by TwelveOfTwenty (Ho, ho, hey, hey, I'm BUYcotting Chick-Fil-A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni

I thought that was the purpose of allowing homosexuals into the military.

138 posted on 01/23/2013 4:40:58 PM PST by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TwelveOfTwenty

And next come “reasonable accomodations” and other ADA regs meant for civilians in the civilian world.

One more way to make the military just another democrat jobs programs.

The Joint Chiefs must be smoking the extra large joints now days.

139 posted on 01/23/2013 4:41:56 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni
And next come “reasonable accomodations” and other ADA regs meant for civilians in the civilian world.

Wrong, because men will demand that women will be held to the same standards as their male counterparts, and will fight back at the first sign of women getting special treatment and...

Oh, who am I kidding?

140 posted on 01/23/2013 4:54:49 PM PST by TwelveOfTwenty (Ho, ho, hey, hey, I'm BUYcotting Chick-Fil-A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-234 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
Topics · Post Article

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