Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

  • Thread starter Thread starter captainmike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChurchSoldier said:
90 pound woman carrying 100 pounds of gear on a 5 mile movement to contact.

Let me know if you need another…
Click to expand...
can’t believe we are having this discussion.

hey, you want women to go toe-to-toe with men in combat? how about if we start by letting women play on sports teams with men. surely, if many women are physically able to make it in combat, at least one could play, say, on a men’s college football or basketball team.
 
captainmike said:
let’s test how egalitarian you are. a big war comes along and we need 300,000 people for combat. a draft is necessary. should we draft both men and women to serve in the infantry?
Click to expand...
YES!!!

Assuming the draft is reinstated we should absolutely draft both sexes. Doing so would allow us to keep families intact and prevent children from losing parents and wives from losing husbands.

If a draft were reinstated we could take the able bodied single people, then the able bodied married without children people, and then as a last resort parents.

This system would be far more fair to men, children, and women who don’t want to lose their husbands.
 
women have no idea how bad they would be treated by their fellow male troops if we ever ended up in combat. a man would have no tolerance for a woman’s inability to keep up, men would work together to the exclusion of women, and women would be assaulted and raped. women in combat would have it the worst of all. the other side would be trying to kill them, and their male colleagues wouldn’t want them there. disaster.
 
Let me guess, registering for Selective Service still won’t be a requirement for women under these changes.
 
Are these the same women that Republican’s want to see “dying on the floor”?:rolleyes:
 
captainmike said:
women have no idea how bad they would be treated by their fellow male troops if we ever ended up in combat. a man would have no tolerance for a woman’s inability to keep up, men would work together to the exclusion of women, and women would be assaulted and raped. women in combat would have it the worst of all. the other side would be trying to kill them, and their male colleagues wouldn’t want them there. disaster.
Click to expand...
Obviously in order to qualify for the position they would have to be able to do it, so keeping up isn’t a concern. If the men work together at the exclusion of women then they are the ones harming the units productivity and will be punished. If male troops assault and rape women the answer is not to punish women by keeping them out of these jobs, but to put those men behind bars for a lot of years. Of course the other side would be trying to kill them, that’s war. But a lot of women already die in overseas conflict. And actually men in the military have been serving alongside women for a long time and most of them wouldn’t have a problem doing so in even harder jobs. I think that it is made clear to them in basic that women can be just as scary as men. (Yes, there are women TIs.)

You have a really, really low opinion of men. And you want women to suffer the consequences for the way you perceive men to be. That’s sad.
 
culturewars.com/2009/Killer%20Moms.htm
When Willa Townes, a single mother in the Army Reserve, was called to Iraq early in the war, her sister agreed to watch her 5-year-old son — then backed out two weeks before Ms. Townes was to deploy. ‘I broke down right there,’ Ms. Townes said. ‘I was devastated.’

Refusing deployment was not an option, she said. She was then the No. 3 person in the chain of command, and it was her 15th year in the military. She needed five more years to retire with a hefty bonus. ‘I wanted to go,’ said Ms. Townes, who retired last year as a lieutenant colonel. ‘I needed to go.’

Frantic, she turned to her son’s first day care provider, who had become a friend and volunteered to take him for the year Ms. Townes was away. ‘We were not related at all,’ Ms. Townes recalled, adding that the arrangement worked wonderfully and that she insisted on sending her friend money for expenses. ‘We were not even of the same race. That didn’t matter. People come together to help you when you are in need.’

Why was Townes so devastated that her sister backed out? After all, Townes owed a greater responsibility to her son than did his aunt. Why was fulfilling her responsibility to her son “not an option”? Townes “wanted to go,” instead of staying to raise her son. Why did she abandon her son to a day care provider? So she could “retire with a hefty bonus”? The idea that people help each other when they are in need seemingly doesn’t apply to her serving her son’s needs.
Click to expand...
Women have something better and more important to do than go off to war: bear and raise children. Our country’s laws should recognize that. This view, though, is unpopular today as it also argues against women in the workforce, daycare, contraception, extramarital sex, abortion, and permissive divorce laws, all of which are now ingrained as parts of the American way of life.
Click to expand...
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Obviously in order to qualify for the position they would have to be able to do it, so keeping up isn’t a concern. If the men work together at the exclusion of women then they are the ones harming the units productivity and will be punished. If male troops assault and rape women the answer is not to punish women by keeping them out of these jobs, but to put those men behind bars for a lot of years. Of course the other side would be trying to kill them, that’s war. But a lot of women already die in overseas conflict. And actually men in the military have been serving alongside women for a long time and most of them wouldn’t have a problem doing so in even harder jobs. I think that it is made clear to them in basic that women can be just as scary as men. (Yes, there are women TIs.)

You have a really, really low opinion of men. And you want women to suffer the consequences for the way you perceive men to be. That’s sad.
Click to expand...
You really, really don’t understand the military.😃
 
captainmike said:
let’s test how egalitarian you are. a big war comes along and we need 300,000 people for combat. a draft is necessary. should we draft both men and women to serve in the infantry?
Click to expand...
Hey I’m all for making the draft only women. Men have carried the burden long enough so let the feminist do it from now on.
 
iamrefreshed said:
You really, really don’t understand the military.😃
Click to expand...
Well, let’s see. I come from a military family, I was in a relationship with a man in the military for 5 years, lived with him on base for 4, which also means that many of my best friends are still serving in the military, and my second degree is in political science with dual emphasis on foreign policy and the legal system. While getting this degree I had two internships on a military base. I think I can hold my own in this discussion, thank you.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Obviously in order to qualify for the position they would have to be able to do it, so keeping up isn’t a concern. If the men work together at the exclusion of women then they are the ones harming the units productivity and will be punished. If male troops assault and rape women the answer is not to punish women by keeping them out of these jobs, but to put those men behind bars for a lot of years. Of course the other side would be trying to kill them, that’s war. But a lot of women already die in overseas conflict. And actually men in the military have been serving alongside women for a long time and most of them wouldn’t have a problem doing so in even harder jobs. I think that it is made clear to them in basic that women can be just as scary as men. (Yes, there are women TIs.)

You have a really, really low opinion of men. And you want women to suffer the consequences for the way you perceive men to be. That’s sad.
Click to expand...
lol. a “low opinion of men,” huh?

no, i have a realistic view of men. you evidently don’t know men as well as you think you do.

in super-stressful situations such as combat, men are ruthless. they will do whatever it takes to survive.

women would be in very big trouble, because NONE of them would be able to keep up. you can’t find even one woman who could physically keep up with a man in war. not one.
 
captainmike said:
lol. a “low opinion of men,” huh?

no, i have a realistic view of men. you evidently don’t know men as well as you think you do.

in super-stressful situations such as combat, men are ruthless. they will do whatever it takes to survive.

women would be in very big trouble, because NONE of them would be able to keep up. you can’t find even one woman who could physically keep up with a man in war. not one.
Click to expand...
This is such a common myth. Women have been in combat for years. Women have been training men for combat for even longer. If they can do the job, let them. Its better for women, and its better for the military to have the best person for the job regardless of gender.

Also, modern warfare is so different from war of the past. Physical fitness while important, is not as vital as it used to be.
 
I personally think women in battle would be very bad for all involved. In this day and age, we ignore biology.

Men have a natural inclination to protect women…this is good and ensures survival. A man’s natural desire to protect a woman (who might remind him of his wife, daughter, mother…) could jeopardize safety for more military personnel.

Also, women are not biologically designed for battle. Our centers of gravity are different. We have less upper body strength. Our natural hormonal cycles lead to certain times of the month when our ligaments are more susceptible to injury. And the physical stress of military training/activity can lead to hormonal imbalances including cessation of menses.

There are many more biological differences and God designed with a purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top