Posted on 02/09/2012 8:25:12 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
Rick Santorum, in an interview with CNN's John King a bit ago, was asked whether he thinks it's a good idea or a bad idea for the Pentagon to relax some of the rules about women taking frontline roles in combat, "perhaps opening the door to a broader role for, ultimately, women in combat."
His answer was both praising of women serving the country, and as a part of the armed services, but he went on to explain why he would take issue with women on the front lines.
"Look, I want to create every opportunity for women to be able to serve this country, and they do so in an amazing and wonderful way. They're a great addition to the - and have been for a long time - to the armed services of our country," Santorum said. "But I do have concerns about women in frontline combat."
He added, "I think that can be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved. And I think that's probably - you know, it already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat. But I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. I think that's probably not in the best interests of men, women or the mission."
It's not clear exactly what Santorum meant by "other types of emotions that are involved" for women who would be serving in frontline situations. I've emailed a spokesman for a clarification, but haven't heard back yet.
You are a very bitter person. Perhaps it would be best if we ignored each other.
RE: But he is an empty suit. Sure, he says the right words. But what experience, what accomplishments, does he bring to the table?
__________________________
An empty suit is someone who did nothing when he was Senator. That adjective would have been descriptive of one Senator who mostly voted Present for two years and then went on to ran for President.
NOT SANTORUM.
I present for you herewith, some of the legislations he sponsored and some of the legislations he supported.
1) Religious freedom and ideological diversitySantorum sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA) with U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA).
In 2003, Santorum and fellow Republicans heard from Hillel, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Zionist Organization of America about combating anti-Semitism in American colleges. Santorum drafted language on “ideological diversity,” which Race & Class magazine suggested was tantamount to “policing thought.”
2) Santorum sponsored the Syria Accountability Act of 2003, which required Syria to end all engagement in Lebanon and cease all support for terrorism. He originally wanted to go further with the bill, asking for the United States to create economic sanctions on Syria if it did not do so.
He served eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee where he led the fight before the attacks of September 11th, 2001 to transform our military from a Cold War force to meet today’s threats.
3) In 2005, Santorum sponsored the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which appropriated $10 million aimed at regime change in Iran. The Act passed with overwhelming support.
4) While in Congress, Santorum supported efforts to fight global AIDS, provide assistance to orphans and vulnerable children in developing countries, combat genocide in Sudan, and offer third world debt relief ( OK, I will agree that many conservatives are opposed to GOVERNMENTS doing this).
5) Santorum opposed the Senate’s immigration reform proposal.
Instead, Santorum stated that the U.S. should act to enforce currently existing laws. He has openly stated his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. He supports the construction of a barrier along the U.S.–Mexican border, an increase in the number of border patrol agents on the border, and the stationing of National Guard troops along the border. He also believes that illegal immigrants should be deported immediately when they commit crimes, and that undocumented immigrants should not receive benefits from the government. He believes English should be established as the national language in the United States. Santorum cites his own family’s history as proof of how to immigrate “the right way.
6) He supported partial privatization of Social Security, and following President Bush’s re-election, he held forums across Pennsylvania on the topic.
7) Santorum rejects the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, having referred to it as “junk science”; he also embraces common threads of the global warming conspiracy theory, believing that global warming is a “beautifully concocted scheme” by the political left and “an excuse for more government control of your life.
He has stated a policy of “drill everywhere” for oil and that there is “enough oil, coal and natural gas to last for centuries.
8) As Senator in the 1990’s, he worked with Speaker Gingrich to pass Welfare Reform and Balance the Budget.
In fact, He was also an author and floor manager of the landmark Welfare Reform Act which passed in 1996.
9) That Santorum was one of the strongest and most vocal opponents to Bill Clinton’s partial birth abortion policies is well known.
Santorum wrote and championed legislation that outlawed the heinous procedure known as Partial Birth Abortion as well as the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act,” the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” and the “Combating Autism Act”.
10) Santorum proposed reforming entitlements, cutting spending and even developed a “spendometer” that added up the cost of Democrat amendments to spending bills.
11) Santorum was a member of the famous “Gang of Seven” that exposed the Congressional Banking and Congressional Post Office scandals. It was this record of reform that prompted a Washington Post reporter to write in a recent article that “Santorum was a tea party kind of guy before there was a tea party.”
So, based on his foreign policy in Iraq and Iran and his service in the Armed Services Committee, will he stare down Vladimir Putin? WHY NOT? If he’s Hawkish against Iran, why would he not be against Russia?
I don’t call all of that an empty suit by any means.
he’s just another retread 0bot.
really, well let me tell you something which I know more than most who have served and is serving.
I was one of the first to ever write a report on women serving.
We were out int he Arctic and had a woman attached to us.
This is how the patrol went for the next few days.
It was her time of the month which was not helpful as animals can smell and follow etc, then there is the distraction for her, on her period.
Then she could not keep up, we had to share some of her equipment with others so she could at least keep to a slow patrol.
She BTW was supposed to be one of the best.
It caused friction on the patrol between the men, some men only saw boobs etc, some resented her for having to do her job which she could not do.
She was always late, could not do the job, for some reason thought she should be treated differently etc.
It was a nightmare.
She stayed with us for 3 months and for those 3 months she was not able to the the job, she could not carry nearly a 100pound backpack, she could nto keep up running, climbing, carrying etc.
She caused a big distraction, she caused upset in the company
if women think they want to sewrve then they do the same pyshical tests, not have them reduced she stays in that water for hours, she carries 100 pound backbacks, she carries all of her stuff, she must be able to fight, do the same push ups, sit up, assault course in the same time
I wrote a report at the end of the tour for her and it went into detail on how she was, how the men were how it affected the patrols etc
That report was lie the bogus survey about homosexuals serving.
They ignored it, they twisted the reports, I talked to others who were in charge like me and they all said it did not work out.
RE: Serving in the Military and having served in combat, under fire,
Santorum’s concern is WOMEN IN COMBAT ( hence the title of the thread — FRONTLINE COMBAT), not military service in general. Santorum’s opinions are NOT merely his own. He said that he spoke to a lot of soldiers in combat who hold the same concerns.
Also, I don’t think Santorum is OPPOSED to Women in combat ( I heard him say when he was substituting for Bill Bennett in the radio show — MORNING IN AMERICA -— that if the woman proves that she can do the job as good or better than a man can, LET HER DO IT ).
To express a CONCERN should not be equated to a blanket OPPOSITION.
if a woman wants to serve she has to do the same tests, right now women do not, have you ever seen the state of many in the army airforce, navy , only the Marines and special forces have real people who want to serve not the I want the free education, free loans, VA etc.
Women should do 30 miles, carrying 50 pound over cross country, in 8 hours then do tests like push ups, swim quarter mile, carry another person over an assault course etc
You want to preach about women serving then good you get a woman which can exactly the same test physical wise because right now they make it easier for women.
Women are not as strong lets face it than some serving marines and I ma for women equal rights that means do the same exactly
I belong to the Brotherhood of the 101st Airborne myself. And by all means, a most gracious welcome to FRee Republic, and I immediately apologize for the brainless attacks from the few “mail-order/arm-chair” Generals (most of whom, have never served themselves.) on this forum who know it all, in all things Military.
Forgive them, because they know not what they do, or say.
All I can say is, hold your chin high and hang in there. You rank with the best FRiend.
In his book, he smeared those wives who chose to work outside the home. In the debates he acted like he didn't trust his own wife with their family computer or to retrieve a copy of their taxes. Now he's saying the mere presence of women is disruptive. He's a patriarchal troglodyte statist control freak.
His views on the voters who control elections now is more toxic than Newt's ex-wives.
he’s just another retread 0bot.
And if I provide a sea story that tells a different story I guess we would cancel each other out and be back to square one.
I don’t really want to fight about this - it is a done deal. A decade of war makes it clear that women can fight and die like men. You disparage thousands of brave Americans with your broad stroke smear.
done but it seems that we probably have another retread because for one to come on here with that attitude attacking long time posters like yourself only tells me that they are retreads or they have an agenda because there is no respect for sure.
My wife knows I am for equal rights for women but she also knows that women cannot serve on the front lines even now we have different test, they don’;t have to do as many push ups, longer time on the runs, less to carry etc.
You are a 12 man patrol, OK we’ll say we have a woman, she has to live with us for 10 days, it is her time of the month, she has her emotions, she has to change herself, she has to carry all that weight up the mountains in Afghanistan etc .
There is no way it would work out, then there is the point of pain which we have to endure and what happens when captured and she is raped over and over, she also makes the patrol a target for radical muslims who feel they are insulted or who want to get to her.
I’m against homosexuals serving like they do today as well as women on the front lines.
A unit has to work with each other and have no disputes, understand each other.
Heck we all say men and women can’;t understand each other half the time.
This is another crack at destroying the military, a goal of the socialists.
Women in submarines, they went int he navy and now many come back pregnant, how about the close quarters on subs, where are women supposed to be on there?
Women have less stringent tests than men, less push ups, etc, why?
If it is equal rights then we all do the same tests, carry the same amount of weight etc.
The goal is to use women like they do for homosexuals and take down he military, then have coed showers, rooms etc .
Just like the attack on religion which is against the first amendment.
If obamas and his socialist pals get their way they will now tell Priests they have to accept homosexual women as priests .
really, well the Navy has now women on ships who are now coming back pregnant, who then cannot go with the ship due to them being pregnant, how ever that is the Navy hardly front lines.
I’m talking combat, face to face under fire, carrying enough ammo, supplies for two weeks up in the mountains.
Big difference than being on a ship.
your sea stories might be nice but hardly the same as being face to face with the enemy knowing the next time you turn that corner you could be blown to pieces .
Women on their period, they smell to animals what will the do with their tampon on that patrol, she feels bloated, and tired?
Also men are stronger like that or not, they are, women carrying 110 pound up and down mountains, running, getting down, etc then the simple things like going to the bathroom, it puts a strain on the unit, does she go off and have a leek behind the bush and leave the unit?
As for saying I put down thousands of women, get a grip, the left like to do that crap.
When ever one points out the facts and they are facts the loon fringe left always say the crap you did.
Play the victim,, name call ignore facts.
WE ARE NOT THE SAME, socialists and communists like to think so but WE ARE NOT .
Men are stronger, women weaker, there is rich and there is poor, there is lazy there is hard workers.
I bet you can also tell us sea story that supports the homo agenda. ;-)
thought the same
I am not a Catholic; however, it would seem strict adherence to Catholic doctrine would tend to make one at least somewhat “patriarchal.” (Catholics please feel free to correct me; as you would know far better than I.)
As to “troglodyte;” I'll presume the cave dwelling implication was more a matter of passion than literalism. (smile).
I do believe that Santorum has “statist” tendencies; and he is definitely “Big Government” on some issues.
That said, I could still reluctantly support Santorum over Romney, Obama or Ron Paul.
Disclaimer: I am somewhat of a “dinosaur” myself. (smile)
I’m not the slightest tinge bitter. I just don’t like leftist retread trolls, really quite simple.
Here is an article about women in the military and why being in combat is not a good thing. Donnelly’s opinion is worth much more than yours.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/is-the-idf-ready-for-women-in-combat-1.219239
Is the IDF ready for women in combat?
“Elaine Donnelly is certainly no radical feminist. Quite the contrary. Opponents of the integration of female combat troops in the IDF frequently cite Donnelly, an American researcher who heads a conservative Washington organization called The Center for Military Preparedness. In the early 1990s, Donnelly was a member of the Presidential Commission appointed by President George Bush, Sr. to examine the issue of women in combat. Her research took her to some extraordinary places, from flying in a fighter jet to observing a training session regarding captivity of female pilots, which included a scenario simulating rape in captivity.
“In the collision between the needs of the army and equality for women, the army has to get priority,” she told Haaretz. Donnelly read interviews with the various Yohalan officers and concluded that the IDF tends toward more of an extreme than the British and American armies. “Their priorities are confused. The frequent use of feminist expressions gives rise to demoralization among the male fighters. This kind of attitude can have an adverse effect on volunteering for combat units. It’s important not to break the unit’s cohesion and the soldiers’ trust in the command hierarchy. Without them, there’s no discipline. It’s just a bunch of people with weapons.”
Lowering standards to integrate female fighters detracts from a unit’s preparedness for the reality of battle, she says. “The result is that lives will be lost and missions will be harmed. If the tendency promoted by the Yohalan is accepted, military culture will change. They’re trying to make the army gentler and more sensitive, but this is the only army you’ve got. There is no substitute for it.”
Her solution: A return to the Miller High Court petition, i.e., preventing discrimination in admitting women to courses, but not their mass integration into front-line units. “A man can lug 45 kilos and march 30 kilometers. Load that on a female body and what you get are broken bones.”
What you fail to realize is, the new Military and the technology that has expanded with it, allows women to fight along side men. You listed the recent attributes of a special ops, tactical team, which most men cannot qualify for either. There are very few who could carry out the duties described in post #86.
Women make very good pilots, tank drivers, etc, and in many cases, outperform most men in complex duties and tasks.
And Women can also handle tactical weapons to military standards. To say they are inferior in all ways is downright wrong. The modern military has a place for them and they have been proving that theory for decades.
Again, we are talking about FRONTLINE COMBAT (see the title of the thread ), The sort being done by those who fought door to door in the SURGE in Iraq, the sort that leads Navy Seals to rescue hostages from Somali Pirates.
I don’t think Santorum is so ignorant that he cannot see the difference between Women who can do the job and women who cannot. HE SAID SO in the talk show he subs for.
If a woman can shoot and dunk better than a man in basketball, I see no reason why they can’t allow THAT woman to play in the NBA.
How old do you think I am ? LOL I was and still have pals in the modern military, I was not born in Vietnam you know.
OK got a few wrinkles forming but give me some credit, EEK.
Seriously.
I have no [problems with women serving but not on the front lines, in combat units where I served, it does not work.
MP’s etc yes battle troops and marines , Navy seals etc no way and from experience I can honesty say it does not work
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.