Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 05/19/2012 11:01:13 AM PDT by QT3.14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last
To: QT3.14

I don’t like it one bit.Though women should be able to serve in non-combatant units.Which they have been doing since the 1970’s.


26 posted on 05/19/2012 11:23:45 AM PDT by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

It is utterly unnecessary. We have a population of 300+ million, of which there are MORE than enough qualified males to fill the current slots.

Our armed Forces is small, elite and the Army is comprised of less than 1,00,000 personnel. There is no logical reason to have has a significant portion of that relatively small force a group which is not required to meet the same physical standards as the men, which BY LAW cannot be deployed to missions which require them to directly engage, close with, and destroy the enemy or to be plugged in as emergency replacements for those who do, which requires a seperate logistic train to include seperate housing, and whose injuries and death impact civillian and military morale in ways that the deaths of males WILL NOT DO, at least untill the baleful effects of cultural marxism continue to corrode the civillizational impulse that has always attempted to mitigate the horrific effects of war against women and children.

We won a World War with 16 million people in uniform against the most formidable battlefield enemies that we have ever faced, with half of today’s population and over 400,000 dead, WITHOUT the need to place women into direct combat roles. This reasoning is being impelled by radical feminism and Cultural Marxist elements who care nothing for the combat effenciency of the Armed Forces.


28 posted on 05/19/2012 11:26:32 AM PDT by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14
The push to put women in combat is but one more assault on the social traditions of Western Civilization with regard to women and their role. It is another blow in the ongoing assault on the West.

Secondly, such action will result in more combat deaths if our military fights a military that does not put women in combat.

31 posted on 05/19/2012 11:27:58 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Ladies first!


32 posted on 05/19/2012 11:31:43 AM PDT by Jack Hydrazine (It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

The answers do not always fit the question.

Females are “in combat” under may MOS’s now open to them. One of the most obvious is MPs running route/convoy security. In an ambush they may be “in combat” as they react to the enemy forces.

The problem becomes trying to shift them into the primary infantry/SF/Ranger roles. That is where the heavy lifting of combat occurs.

It is there where the standards will be lowered to accommodate women.

As it stands right now at Ranger School all students must complete 6 pullups. That standard will either be dropped for all - or a different standard between men and women will be established.

If that is the case then women are not held to the same standard as men but reap the same reward.


33 posted on 05/19/2012 11:34:04 AM PDT by PeteB570 ( Islam is the sea in which the Terrorist Shark swims. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

I say that if any “man” has a problem with it, they are free to take their place.

Anything else is just bravado from an easy chair.


34 posted on 05/19/2012 11:35:17 AM PDT by VanDeKoik (If case you are wondering, I'm STILL supporting Newt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Won’t work. But they’ll say it will.

CPT ARMOR
MACV 1971


44 posted on 05/19/2012 11:44:48 AM PDT by PzLdr ("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Nope,sorry,I’m against.Although I’ve served in the Armed Forces I was never ordered within 5000 miles of a field of battle so I can’t claim any special insight but....the only female members of the Armed Forces that I’d want to see ordered into a combat area are physicians,nurses and other medical professionals.


47 posted on 05/19/2012 11:48:06 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Julia: another casualty of the "War on Poverty")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14
My Drill Instructor used to say, that in war, everywhere is the front line.

He was/is correct.

5.56mm

48 posted on 05/19/2012 11:48:58 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

No for Combat. No for Sea Duty which on 99% of the USN ships is also Combat Duty. I would never want my daughters to be in either circumstance for any reason.


49 posted on 05/19/2012 11:49:16 AM PDT by cva66snipe (Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14
Limit your audience. Only ask the people who have been there and done that...The rest should be quiet up and politely listen to them, combat isn't a game or a boys only club.


51 posted on 05/19/2012 11:54:31 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

100% negative.

It upsets my patriotism as I don’t respect countries that send their women to war.


53 posted on 05/19/2012 11:57:42 AM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14
The idea is part of a many faceted attack on the multi-generational concepts that made traditional Western culture possible. While not an oxymoron, like the suggestion that people of the same sex could actually marry, it is still at least "half-baked."

The traditional concept that it is a male duty, in any rational society, to protect the women & children, was significant factor in a Chivalric code that has brought out the best in soldiers over the past 1200+ years. It reflects of course the, on average, better upper body strength of the male, so important to traditional combat; but it also is provides the motivation to the "above & beyond" the basic call to patriotic duty. It is in fulfilling such a male role that many see the proof of their own manhood.

When you compromise that call to a higher standard, you damage something that is not readily replaceable.

Of course, the "let's pretend" world that Leftist movements seek to impose, needs to pretend that people are interchangeable--that Equality, not excellence, must be the goal. But that compulsion driven pursuit will not bear critical analysis.

For the Feminist Absurdity, in general, see Delusion, which looks at several aspects of the Feminist war on femininity, and female excellence.. For a look at other aspects of the lunacy of Collectivist/Egalitarianism, see Sabotage.

William Flax

57 posted on 05/19/2012 12:06:38 PM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

The opinion of non military professionals about war, is nonsense..
Thats why we have military colleges..

Democrats in military school is a mistake.. most are traitors.. essentially..
Truthful Political ideology is basic.. Lie detector tests should be mandatory..


58 posted on 05/19/2012 12:06:39 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Considering many believe our troops are being groomed to be used against us, well, I’d rather face women and queers than men.


59 posted on 05/19/2012 12:07:30 PM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called “gay” instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Any country that sends its women to fight before it sends the non-shaving boys and its old men of “cane” age and older, is doomed.


67 posted on 05/19/2012 12:14:27 PM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14
I was against it.

Then I saw this.

68 posted on 05/19/2012 12:16:27 PM PDT by Lazamataz (The so-called 'mainstream' media has gone from "biased" straight to "utterly surreal".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

Women should not be in combat-period!


69 posted on 05/19/2012 12:19:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration (Pr 14:34 Righteousness exalteth a nation:but sin is a reproach to any people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

BIG Mistake!

Causes men to compensate and protect, rather than focus on the mission.


70 posted on 05/19/2012 12:19:42 PM PDT by G Larry (Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: QT3.14

No gays, no women.


71 posted on 05/19/2012 12:22:41 PM PDT by faucetman ( Just the facts, ma'am, Just the facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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