Female soldiers eyed for combat

[manny7_99]

lol

Firstly dude, there's quite a difference between consenting adults and minors unable to legally give consent, but I'm not going to bother with that argument. Ok man?

Secondly, you need to chill out buddy. And try not to make lame, thinly veiled threats or whatever you want to call that....I'm fairly sure I won't be reporting to an 'Academy applicant' anytime soon pal.

Oh gosh, you guys are great.

yeah, yeah call me dude all you want, all of you, non-stop, everyday-allday.

Second, I am not advocating for the pedohile thing, but there is a group doing so. If am not mistaken, to be openly gay back in the day was even defined as a desease (See the DSMV- II, for further info.) anyway, moving on.

Lastly, The Academy is not the only path for commissioning. So, don't be as "open minded" to think that anyone interested in the academy is a 17 yr old, no prior service, no experience, just out of high school kid. ALSO,I didnt threat anyone,lol. It is still a fact that you don't know who'll yolu report to, isnt it?

Come on guys, you are wingers. Aren't you suppose to have a decent size well-functioning brain?


Last thought...even Academy applicants have relatives. Be careful, lol.

 

[flashypants]

Last thought...even Academy applicants have relatives. Be careful, lol.

Glad to see you're sort of lightening up, except this last statement. I'm sure I'll be in the fleet some day, just wondering why I'm getting **** on with all the weekend and holiday watches, and it will don on me...my CO is related to that guy that I had an argument with on AW!! That MUST be it!! Come on now.....relatives?

My dad can beat up your dad.

 

[manny7_99]

lol

Glad to see you're sort of lightening up, except this last statement. I'm sure I'll be in the fleet some day, just wondering why I'm getting **** on with all the weekend and holiday watches, and it will don on me...my CO is related to that guy that I had an argument with on AW!! That MUST be it!! Come on now.....relatives?

My dad can beat up your dad.

LOL! that was pretty funny. However, My W can beat up your K anytime!!!
:icon_rage

 

[kevin]

to the original topic- and im just asking this innocently...if a lady can do EXACTLY what a man can do physically, and she wants to be in an infantry, whatever, unit, then why not? im not talking about the girl has to pass the "girl" minimum, im talking about passing the "guy" minimums. there arent many women who would fit into that group, but there definitely are some (i know a couple)...and if they can, why not?

 

[Schnugg]

There's a new Dude in town.......

The original Dude.....

 

[twoshots02]

I agree with kevin on this one. My problem has never been females in combat. It has been with a double standard for men verses women. There should be one standard period. You should never have to question if the person next to you can accomplish the physical task regardless of their gender.

 

[Flash]

The headline made it sound worse than it is. It's just moving support units up to better support the trigger-pullers. I'm sure that after it's over, the radical left will try to use this as a springboard to get women in infantry, artillery, etc.

I think that getting women into combat arms units will be a serious uphill battle. I think there are very few advocates for that to happen, even among women in the military. All the women in the military I knew did not want to go in any of those areas, including the ones I flew with.

In the countries that have allowed women into combat arms, they are scrambling for recruits. I read an article that the Canadian military had serious trouble attracting women to its combat arms. One of the Marines in the Prowler RAG got engaged to a Canadian Armor officer, she drove LAV's I think. She was injured in an accident and was going to leave the service and apparently she was being wooed very heavily by a lot of brass to stay in because she was one of only 2 female armor officers in the Canadian military.

Even Israel, which has a really liberal policy with women, does not have women in infantry, and I think armor.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

 

[twoshots02]

It should never be about attracting anyone except soldiers. This is not the military affirmative action "we have to get x number of females". You want individuals that know what they want and are willing to meet the same standards. I think with equal standards you aren't going to see a huge number of females trying for the front line combat roles but thats fine. The population of females will be small but those should be equal to the men in everyway.

In the end we shouldn't care if women are flooding into the infantry. If it appeals to them great if not then thats fine too. Appeal to the soldier and ignore gender and keep the standard identical.

 

[kevin]

agreed. it's not fair to say "well, most women won't want that anyway, so let's not let them in". i dont necessarily think there should be equal physical standards straight across the board for everything...i mean, if you're an engineer, there's more emphasis on the head game than physical fitness that goes towards being successful at the job. im referring to the specific areas of forward combat such as infantry, s/f, etc. if a girl can do what the guys can physically and mentally, i just dont see what the problem is. maybe there's a psychological component or sexual component...im not sure what the reasoning would be. if it was psychological, id say get over yourself. ive known a couple females who can do things in the weight room, etc, that most guys can't.

 

[airwinger]

I've been thinking alot along these lines on different subjects.

Why does the military change? I feel that a rough analysis would reveal a)technology b) tactics c) socio-politcal reasons.

Technology and tactics are usually the most difficult ones to initially implement but eventually end up being the easiest to push through. The arrival of the machine gun indeed of the rifle, later the tank, airplane were never welcomed. However a war seems to clear out any misconceptions about what is the better weapon or tactic. I'd probably point out that by the 1800s very few nations were still using bows/arrows and by the end of WWII very few (if any) fighter units flew in the tight vic formation that had been common at the beginning.

Those two are easier. The third one,social, is tougher for the military to accept. Unlike most parts of the civilian workforce, the government in whatever form can mandate action and the military has to accept. Thus Lenin and stalin attempted to shape an egalitarian military that wound up having ranks again, Truman was able to order desegregation while Israel initially had women infantry, then removed them and now I believe has women in infantry units. We initially attempted(as a democracy) to elect our officers, ditched it pretty quick after the civil war. Point being that the decision is political, but ultimately war provides adjudication.

I'd be willing to bet a good steak dinner that a Kerry Edwards team would eventually accept gays in the military in the next 4 years. Women may take a little longer but I think 8 years is about the time frame for that. Starting with tanks, AAV, artillery, then infantry.

Personally I think they should have quietly dropped the exclusion and kept the high standards. Fighting every inch of the way means that when it is dropped they'll be really strong pressure to prove there is no discrimination, and the lack of women in infantry will be defacto proof of discrimination. So why not make 100 points on the run 21:00 minutes for everyone instead of requiring 18:00 minutes.

 

[Slammer2]

When it comes down to trading bullets with the enemy, I believe if a soldier can at least meet all of the minimum requiments then it shouldnt matter male or female. Of course there are other issues like the "affirmative action"-like problem that Flash mentioned with the Canadian woman as well as others... But I think when it comes down to it (physically, on the front lines) that the enemy's weapons are equal opportunity killers. If a soldier, male or female cant physically handle the demands then thats potential death to the soldier and possibly his/her unit. Whatever ends up happening, my opinion is that there should be no special standards for different people. Equal rights means equal responsibility.

 

[VarmintShooter]

Another Dude ...

 

[EngineGirl]

There are more issues than them "keeping up physically" involved with women being integrated into all parts of the military. First (and not everyone will agree here) , I've had friends that, during the first Gulf war, were on the front lines. They said that if women had been there, fighting along beside them, is that in our country, women are held to such a high regard that that some men, even if subconciously, would try to "protect" them and that would take away from the mens combat ability. Second, and no one can disagree with this one, women have alot higher hygene requirements than males. We cannot go very long without showers or we have physical problems; we have to have certain accompidations made for us that men don't; etc. These requirements could be a cause a large problem if women were integrated into all parts of the military.

EngineGirl

 

[twoshots02]

The protect instinct can be conditioned by training. Learning to work as a group regardless of who it is. You are suppose to be able to save the life of your best friend as well as the biggest jerk in the unit.

I do agree on the medical front but as a demand arrises so does a supply. Guys have to wear cups when playing athletic events. So finding something that would help females stay hygenic in the field after long periods of time would only be a matter of creating the demand.

 

[46Driver]

Where exactly are the origins of this "lighter, more mobile force" that I keep hearing about? Does it bother anyone else that as we call up reserves like crazy we keep downsizing the regular forces? Is there something I am missing?

It all comes down to money. Reservists are cheaper than active duty by virtue that we do not get retirement until age 60. For every dollar that the Pentagon spends on active duty pay, it spends another 84 cents for retirement pay. If you delay retirement by on average 20 years, you save a lot of coin.