Panetta to lift ban on women in combat

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTE

Please charitable discuss the issues, not each other

 

[filter2700]

Anyone who says women should not be in combat are forgetting that WOMEN ARE ALREADY IN COMBAT. Just because they don’t have a combat MOS does NOT mean they haven’t already seen people die, been shot at, and dealt with the stress of a firefight!

There have been thousands of women deployed overseas to the middle east whose MOS was something other than a combat MOS, and they have been engaged in combat regardless. To say “women shouldn’t be allowed in combat” is discrediting the women who already experienced combat, handled the stress, and were able to survive.

If women aren’t going to be used during a real war, why should they receive weapons training at all? Hell, if women “shouldn’t be allowed in combat,” why are they being trained to do just that? Why are they even in the military if they can’t be deployed to fight for our freedoms, especially when they are as fit and mentally prepared as men?

To say “women shouldn’t be in combat” is like saying “women shouldn’t be police officers. They can’t handle the stress of criminals and gunfire.” Give me a break, it isn’t about logic for some people, its about their own sexism.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Anyone who says women should not be in combat are forgetting that WOMEN ARE ALREADY IN COMBAT. Just because they don’t have a combat MOS does NOT mean they haven’t already seen people die, been shot at, and dealt with the stress of a firefight!

There have been thousands of women deployed overseas to the middle east whose MOS was something other than a combat MOS, and they have been engaged in combat regardless. To say “women shouldn’t be allowed in combat” is discrediting the women who already experienced combat, handled the stress, and were able to survive.

If women aren’t going to be used during a real war, why should they receive weapons training at all? Hell, if women “shouldn’t be allowed in combat,” why are they being trained to do just that? Why are they even in the military if they can’t be deployed to fight for our freedoms, especially when they are as fit and mentally prepared as men?

To say “women shouldn’t be in combat” is like saying “women shouldn’t be police officers. They can’t handle the stress of criminals and gunfire.” Give me a break, it isn’t about logic for some people, its about their own sexism.

Irrelevant. We are not discussing sexism and we are not discussing whether women should be in a combat zone, that’s a separate question. We are discussing whether women should be infantry soldiers, tankers, or artillerymen, and whether they should be Special Forces soldiers, Rangers, Delta Force, or SEALs. The physical and emotional demands of those jobs are quite different than simply being “in a combat zone.”

 

[filter2700]

It’s not irrelevant at all. Like I said, women have had non-combat MOS’s but still seen combat. Women have served the role of an infantrymen in essence (engaged in direct combat with enemy, fired rounds at enemy) while technically not having that MOS.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed in tanks, and around artillery? If women are inferior to men emotionally, where is the evidence to support this?

Its much more stressful to be on the front lines, behind a bunker, not knowing exactly where your enemy is than being far away loading artillery or in a tank.

Women have already served as infantrymen in essence, thats a fact. They survived, they handled the stress.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

It’s not irrelevant at all. Like I said, women have had non-combat MOS’s but still seen combat. Women have served the role of an infantrymen in essence (engaged in direct combat with enemy, fired rounds at enemy) while technically not having that MOS.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed in tanks, and around artillery? If women are inferior to men emotionally, where is the evidence to support this?

Its much more stressful to be on the front lines, behind a bunker, not knowing exactly where your enemy is than being far away loading artillery or in a tank.

Women have already served as infantrymen in essence, thats a fact. They survived, they handled the stress.

No. Being in direct combat with an enemy and firing rounds at the enemy is not being an infantryman. Were you one?

One can see combat - heck, cooks saw combat during the Tet Offensive - but still not be an infantryman. Cooks don’t earn the CIB even if they defend a base against an enemy assault.

Nor did I say women were emotionally inferior to men. Quite the opposite.

You seem to be focusing on the emotional issues of being a tanker or being an artilleryman in a firebase instead of the physical demands. Why?

The physical demands of the infantry, artillery, and armor and the differences in the way men and woman are able to handle them are extremely well studied, and extremely well documented over the past several decades. Do you need to see the proof?

 

[GreenTeaHamster]

It’s important to remember that we’re dealing with the military. The military deals with matters involving overseas matters. Other countries do not care about political correctness and see woman in the military as a sign of weakness. It effectively encourages the enemy.

hmmm never thought of that…

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It’s not irrelevant at all. Like I said, women have had non-combat MOS’s but still seen combat. Women have served the role of an infantrymen in essence (engaged in direct combat with enemy, fired rounds at enemy) while technically not having that MOS.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed in tanks, and around artillery? If women are inferior to men emotionally, where is the evidence to support this?

Its much more stressful to be on the front lines, behind a bunker, not knowing exactly where your enemy is than being far away loading artillery or in a tank.

Women have already served as infantrymen in essence, thats a fact. They survived, they handled the stress.

Women haven’t served “in essence” as infantrymen. What you are describing are women being soldiers. While every infantryman is a soldier, not every soldier is an infantryman.

 

[epan]

It’s not irrelevant at all. Like I said, women have had non-combat MOS’s but still seen combat. Women have served the role of an infantrymen in essence (engaged in direct combat with enemy, fired rounds at enemy) while technically not having that MOS.

Why shouldn’t they be allowed in tanks, and around artillery? If women are inferior to men emotionally, where is the evidence to support this?

Its much more stressful to be on the front lines, behind a bunker, not knowing exactly where your enemy is than being far away loading artillery or in a tank.

Women have already served as infantrymen in essence, thats a fact. They survived, they handled the stress.

have you ever been in a tank? in the invasion of Iraq, guys where in their tanks for a number of days. i won’t go into detail about what life is like for four men inside of an armored box for an extended period. there is no privacy, and no way to create privacy in a tank.

one other little bit of combat trivia. when on the move in combat, one does not defecate or urinate outside of the sight of your unit members. the reason for this is the danger of ambush if you go behind a tree or a rock or into the grass.

just thought i would paint a couple of pictures of some of the details to be dealt with in real situations.

it is true that there were women in front line supply roles, and such. because the lines of battle are not always clear, and they do change, a few of those women did fire weapons. this is not the same as going from door to door. nor is it anything like being in the lead of an invasion force.