Replies

People in the Forward Support Teams are AT LEAST as vulnerable to capture as those in "front-line combat." They operate in light trucks, are semi-detatched, and thus particularly vulnerable to getting lost and stumbling into situations that they cannot back out of, yet they are unequipped for serious combat.

And SF face worse risks then cooks, Rangers face worse risks than DIs, pilots face worse risks than recruiters. But ya know what? They're all volunteers. A person has to want to be a soldier before becoming a soldier (or sailor, etc.), and that means accepting the risks. Why are so many civilian commentators convinced that women are not capable of assessing and accepting risk? The subtle sexism of lowered expectations, I suppose.

The vulnerabilities unique to women can and probably will be exploited by enemy captors in this and similar situations as the war on terrorism continues.

I doubt seriously that men handle being raped and sodomized better than women. (And it happens, though it's seldom if ever mentioned.) There are better reasons not to have women in combat than this.

Oooooo, I am just sooooooooo thankful to my feminist sisters for liberating us poor, oppressed women enough to go get brutalized in war. I never knew what I missed! And I can't wait for my daughtert to have this golden opportunity, too!

Just about every study done on sex related combat readiness, including ones done by the National Organization for Women, consistently show that female units are basically 4 four times worse in every measure. They are 4 times slower to deployment, take 4 times as much leave of absence, are 4 times more likely to get captured or killed in the first place, require 4 times the logistical support effort, and on and on. Until those numbers change, and I don't care why they are what they are, I'm totally opposed to females in combat roles. The military is a killing machine with a grave and sobering mission, one that is predicated on ruthless efficiency. It simply doesn't have the leisure of placating people's social objectives, or appealing to the civil rights of anyone. It's mission is crucial to the very survival of our Republic. Hence, it is simply foolish to support any person being put in that role with the 'combat readiness' numbers we see for females. This is why the military has medical qualifications for entry and job assignments: combat readiness. It's just common sense.

WOULD SOMEONE ANSWER THIS ONE SIMPLE QUESTION FOR ME???

OK...Women get into the military by meeting physical criteria that is ***something*** less than men have to meet. Correct?

Yet...They qualify to serve in ***many*** of the same positions as these men. Obviously there are a number of positions that women aren't allowed-in. Correct?

Now my question...

Why can't men, who did NOT meet the the "Men's Criteria" simply meet the "Women's Criteria" and then serve with the same restrictions?

Can anyone answer that simple question? I know the hypocritical feminazis who push "Women in the military" REFUSE too.