House votes 61-1 against women in combat...

[wink]

Foreign countries have proven the capabilites of women in combat,

I love it when people bring up old history. The cases of which you speak were all countries in fights for their very existence. The women fought as bravely as any man defending their home or village. Their overall effectiveness is still debated. In all of those cases, the role of women in combat was dramaticly reduced or eliminated after the war because those societies were not comfortable with such a role for women in absence of extremis. Are we there yet?

This legislation simple tightened up language that ensured the Army must do what the congress intended in the first place. The permanent colocation of some combat support elements with women was never intened by congress. The Army is trying to game the system and work around the intent of their mandate. It is not worthless or lame. The Army was doing an end run. Congress simply put an end to it. If you support extensive roles for women in combat it will seem like a bad idea, meddling at the least. If you support minimal roles for women in close combat then you will support this. What is apparent, is that congress didn't appreciate the Army's slight of hand. Oh and the numbers are in dispute to say the least. The Army claims huge personel issues with thousands of soldiers being effected. The congress claims something like 460 folks.

 

[phrogdriver]

Congress and the Army are turning circles around each other. I don't think the issue was even a factor in Iraq until it was turned into a political football.

All numbers issues aside, I would roll back the MOSs open to women. As point of fact, other countries have found women in combat arms to be a big failure. Israel is a point in case usually used by the feminist side. As soon as the 1948 war was over, they immediately took women out of combat units and haven't used them since.

Numbers being what they are, I say stick with what's working right now and sort it out in the after-action once the war's over.

 

[A4sForever]

Barring Women From Combat Support Would Shortchange Military

Friday, May 20, 2005

By Martin Frost

...... The religious right (*opinion: HUH ?? The Religious Right?? *) is pushing a change in military policy regarding the role of women in combat that has the potential to cripple our current military efforts in Iraq.

The change, which was written into the 2006 Defense Authorization Bill by the full House Armed Services Committee on May 18, will be voted on by the full House in the very near future.

The change will prohibit female soldiers from being assigned to units involved in close combat support. This could prohibit women from driving trucks in convoys, serving as vehicle mechanics or working as MPs in the field. Estimates are that as many as 22,000 women would have to be reassigned if this became law.

For the rest of the article check the link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157095,00.html

DISCLAIMER: Martin Frost used to be my US Congressman when I lived in Texas --- I have dealt with him on a personal level when I was a political hack for Reagan in Dallas in 1980. My opinion: Martin Frost is a manipulating, sour, can't-do-anything-else, P.O.S. political-hack, Having said that:

Perhaps this should start another thread... but if Frost's assertion is true:

Is it time to bring back the military draft????

 

[wink]

Frost's assertion is not true! The legislation would not have any effect on women in cases he sites. Women soldiers would still be able to drive trucks, for instance, through hostile areas and right up to the front in necessary. They may not be colocated or based with a front line unit as an assignment. In otherwords, they can not live and work 24/7 at the front. If the Army was desperate for temporary manpower due to say, a required modification of equipment, female mechanics would be allowed to do that work at a front line combat unit. This article is so far off it is laughable. And it come from FOX news, a news organization libs insists is an organ for the GOP and never writes anything bad about the government.

And that number, 22,000! There are not that many females in Iraq and Afganistan.

And no, it isn't itme to bring back the draft. It is time to provide appropriate incentives our young people to join the military. Better pay at the E1 through E4 rates is a good start. Bonuses that are better targeted is another, and of course, life style improvements. Use of the draft is for times when the free market in labor must be subverted due to emergency. We arn't there yet, nor do I believe we will anytime soon.

 

[Rg9]

If women can be in combat, they should also have to register for the draft, as well as meet the exact same physical standards men do (none of this different run time/pushups/situps/etc. stuff).

Same privileges = same responsibilities.

 

[wink]

I believe they do register for the draft now. Sadly, the PRT requirement is yet to come.

 

[Rg9]

I believe they do register for the draft now. Sadly, the PRT requirement is yet to come.

Uh... I don't think so. This is from the Selective Service website:
http://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm

Anyway, I personally don't think women should have to register for the draft, nor should they have the same requirements, simply because men and women are different. For some reason saying that today makes people angry. I don't know why. Men and women are equal, but they're not the same. I also don't think women should be allowed to be in the same combat roles as men (hence, not the same standards). They shouldn't be in a position to take direct fire, nor should they be in mixed tight quarters under stressful environments (i.e., submarines, infantry during combat, etc.). I don't think it's really smart to have women on ships either. It's not a sexist thing, just a pragmatic observation.

I probably made someone angry with this post, so I'll await the firestorm...

 

[sonshine]

If women can be in combat, they should also have to register for the draft, as well as meet the exact same physical standards men do (none of this different run time/pushups/situps/etc. stuff).

Same privileges = same responsibilities.

Women should have to register for the draft no matter what.

 

[sonshine]

Uh... I don't think so. This is from the Selective Service website:
http://www.sss.gov/wmbkgr.htm

Anyway, I personally don't think women should have to register for the draft, nor should they have the same requirements, simply because men and women are different. For some reason saying that today makes people angry. I don't know why. Men and women are equal, but they're not the same. I also don't think women should be allowed to be in the same combat roles as men (hence, not the same standards). They shouldn't be in a position to take direct fire, nor should they be in mixed tight quarters under stressful environments (i.e., submarines, infantry during combat, etc.). I don't think it's really smart to have women on ships either. It's not a sexist thing, just a pragmatic observation.

I probably made someone angry with this post, so I'll await the firestorm...

If drafted, the "soft" females could do the stereotypical secretarial or non-combat related jobs. Women being allowed in combat shouldn't be a precursor to them being required to sign up for the draft. This is America. We all enjoy the same freedoms and we should all (women included) be willing to defend them if called upon to do so.
ps. Didn't make me angry....just annoyed :icon_rage

-Rachel

 

[lance]

Why does a male have to do more pushups to drive or fly the same dam vehicle? Seriously separate but EQUAL------ I DON'T KNOW BUT I THINK ONE SIDE IS GETTTING F**CKED!

 

[Rg9]

If drafted, the "soft" females could do the stereotypical secretarial or non-combat related jobs....

Good point. According to that link I posted, they almost started drafting women during WWII for nursing and other supportive roles. I'm not a real big fan of the draft, though, since I think an all-volunteer force is significantly more effective. In addition, I guess I'm pretty conservative when it comes to male/female roles, so I don't want to force women into the military. That's good if women want to volunteer (we couldn't do what we do today without the support of women military members), but certain jobs I think have to be reserved for males, thus the draft should apply just to males.

HOWEVER, if the liberals in congress want to allow women in the same positions as men, it seems only fair that all the same standards (including the draft) apply for women. It's not the optimal situation in my mind, but it is the only fair situation IF we allow women to be in the same roles as men.

 

[wink]

Why does a male have to do more pushups to drive or fly the same dam vehicle?

Of course a male should not have to do more push ups than a female to fly the same aircraft. A female should have to demonstrate the same physical capabilites neaded to perform all aspects of her job, which would be the same as a male, of course. The number of push ups, or physical capability, has little to do with flying. While some aircraft are a handful in certain degraded control modes, and certain types of flying are just plain physically demanding, that isn't the real reason you have to PT. Just to begin with, everyome in the Navy must be able to work in a damage control team and fight fires. I don't want to have to count on a 110 pound person (male or female) that doesn't have the upper body strenght to pull me out of a burning compartment. I don't want to lay bleeding on a litter while enough sailors with the strenght to lift said litter are rounded up. What if the crew they round up to strip an arresting gear cable just happen to be heavy on females. Do I have to wave off at bingo fuel because they didn't get it done as fast as the male crew? So it has to be asked, if male sailors are performing to a physical standard, that is adequate to perform all the duties expected of them, than can we trust that a female sailor, performing to a lower physical standard is able to perform all the duties expected of her? I believe that the 110 lb male sailor is better equiped perform all the tasks expected of him than the 110 lb female sailor, and only because the female sailor has not demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Fly Navy]

Of course a male should not have to do more push ups than a female to fly the same aircraft. A female should have to demonstrate the same physical capabilites neaded to perform all aspects of her job, which would be the same as a male, of course. The number of push ups, or physical capability, has little to do with flying. While some aircraft are a handful in certain degraded control modes, and certain types of flying are just palin physically demanding, that isn't the real reason you have to PT. Just to begin with, everyome in the Navy must be able to work in a damage control team and fight fires. I don't want to have to count on a 110 pound person (male or female) that doesn't have the upper body strenght to pull me out of a burning compartment. I don't want to lay bleeding on a litter while enough sailors with the strenght to lift said litter are rounded up. What if the crew they round up to strip an arresting gear cable just happen to be heavy on females. Do I have to wave off at bingo fuel because they didn't get it done as fast as the male crew? So it has to be asked, if male sailors are performing to a physical standard, that is adequate to perform all the duties expected of them, than can we trust that a female sailor, performing to a lower physical standard is able to perform all the duties expected of her? I believe that the 110 lb male sailor is better equiped perform all the tasks expected of him than the 110 lb female sailor, and only because the female sailor has not demonstrated otherwise.

Well said. Agreed.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Of course a male should not have to do more push ups than a female to fly the same aircraft. A female should have to demonstrate the same physical capabilites neaded to perform all aspects of her job, which would be the same as a male, of course. The number of push ups, or physical capability, has little to do with flying. While some aircraft are a handful in certain degraded control modes, and certain types of flying are just palin physically demanding, that isn't the real reason you have to PT. Just to begin with, everyome in the Navy must be able to work in a damage control team and fight fires. I don't want to have to count on a 110 pound person (male or female) that doesn't have the upper body strenght to pull me out of a burning compartment. I don't want to lay bleeding on a litter while enough sailors with the strenght to lift said litter are rounded up. What if the crew they round up to strip an arresting gear cable just happen to be heavy on females. Do I have to wave off at bingo fuel because they didn't get it done as fast as the male crew? So it has to be asked, if male sailors are performing to a physical standard, that is adequate to perform all the duties expected of them, than can we trust that a female sailor, performing to a lower physical standard is able to perform all the duties expected of her? I believe that the 110 lb male sailor is better equiped perform all the tasks expected of him than the 110 lb female sailor, and only because the female sailor has not demonstrated otherwise.

Couldn't that same argument be used to say that a 50 year old Chief should be held to the same PRT standard as an 18 year old new recruit?

 

[Rg9]

Couldn't that same argument be used to say that a 50 year old Chief should be held to the same PRT standard as an 18 year old new recruit?

Yes it could. You make a good point in regards to minimums. However, a 50 year old Chief generally will not be doing the same thing as an 18 year old recruit. And since they were held to those standards when they were younger, they'll probably still be strong enough (since strength is really what matters for safety) to do whatever is needed for their job.