[VaBthang4]

That was a cute little rant but rhetoric doesnt change the facts.

Women simply do not posses the physical, mental and emotional abilities to withstand combat and even if they did they still serve as a roadblock to unite cohesion and discipline.

6000 years of human history bears that out.

Dont attach your rear end to an idea that can get shot down because when it does....so do you.

[ChemistCat]

I didn't say I disagree with all of those statements. I believe it is foolish to train women for combat, infantry, or artillery roles. The few who are strong enough physically may be stronger than men who are too weak, but what do we gain? I have however known too many women who serve next to men quite well in noncombat roles, such as satellite communications, aircraft maintenance, medicine, orderly rooms, security guards, judge advocates, et cetera et cetera. If a woman is running supplies, she frees up a man for a combat role.

The Air Force handles gender issues particularly well; the Army, Marines, and Navy (predictably) less well. In the Air Force, of course, the enlisted people send the OFFICERS out to fight instead of the other way around.

I also think that a woman with children needs to get out of the service; she cannot serve her children's needs and her country at the same time. It's obvious. But a woman without children can and ought to serve her country; it's idiotic to say anything else. I think some form of public service ought to be required before one gets the vote. (Married, mature motherhood is service. Unfortunately, it gets too little credit.)

You're assuming I know nothing about the military, and there, you err.