[CyberCowboy777]

We are talking about different evidence..

We KNOW that men are protective of women (something to do with being raised by a women - suckling at the breast of your mother does that).

We know that women think and react differently to stress, danger and death. (not poorly, just differently)

We know women have a different type of loyalty, expressed differently.

What we DO NOT know is how much of an effect that has on the mission, the home front and the other soldiers (even other women).

And because it is not necessary to have the women in forward positions why risk the unknown? I am NOT for the potential limitations of our troops.

[discostu]

Nobody knew that manuever based warfare would cost fewer lives until the Civil War either. Until one general finally got sick of war in a meat grinder. Europe didn't listen, they trenched up for WWI and wasted thousands upon thousand of lives fighting the old way, then we showed up and manuevered all over the place.

We know it would be different, but different is not equal to bad. You ARE for the potential limitations of our troops because you are AGAINST making potentially helpful changes.