Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

US ends ban on women in frontline combat

leon panetta women combat ban

  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#61    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 26 January 2013 - 01:53 PM

We have compulsory military service for all young men in Vietnam, provided you have finished high school, are not an only son, are not in college, don't have a job, don't have a criminal record, are physically fit, and don't have a brother who has already served, and you answer the door when they come to get you.

One gets the idea that at the moment they don't need very many.


#62    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,637 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:26 PM

View PostAntilles, on 25 January 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Anyone who has served in the military knows that women are the soft target.

Not because they aren't as capable and in many cases almost as strong, but because the men will always go in to save them or to defend them.

How do you screw around with the enemy when they have female combatants?

Go after the women.

Women should not be front line grunts. They put their male counterparts in an untenable position. No man worth his name is going to walk away and leave a woman behind. That's just the fact. And women can argue up and down and around but the basic fact is, they put the men they serve with in danger.

There are many service positions behind the lines that women can fill way better than men.

I have to agree a man may jeopardize his whole troop to save a women, more then he would a man.


#63    Thanato

Thanato

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 26 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 26 January 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

I have to agree a man may jeopardize his whole troop to save a women, more then he would a man.

Do you have any proof? There are many occasions when other soldiers had to hold back a buddy in combat because he wanted to go save his friend who was gunned down.

~Thanato

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#64    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:03 PM

View PostStill Waters, on 24 January 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has lifted the military's ban on women serving in combat roles, potentially opening hundreds of thousands of frontline positions to women.

The ruling, officially announced on Thursday, overturns a 1994 rule barring women from small ground-combat units.

But the military will have until 2016 to argue for any specific posts they think should remain closed to women.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-21172033

Is this how desperate the Pentagon is to wage the hoax known as the GWOT?  The war is so unpopular that they have to put women into the "front line" troops?

What a sad comment for a once great country.


#65    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,866 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 January 2013 - 03:53 PM

View PostAntilles, on 26 January 2013 - 05:41 AM, said:



Prove it.

It's already been proven by the many militarized of the world that already have women as front line soldiers. If you're telling be that they're a liability, you prove it.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#66    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 26 January 2013 - 08:54 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 January 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

It's already been proven by the many militarized of the world that already have women as front line soldiers. If you're telling be that they're a liability, you prove it.

It cannot be proved, except under fire.


#67    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,866 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 26 January 2013 - 09:16 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 26 January 2013 - 08:54 PM, said:

It cannot be proved, except under fire.

And women have been under fire.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#68    bacca

bacca

    Puppet master of Vision

  • Member
  • 2,424 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • Allasourous
    Jan 2003-Sept 25 2005
    Have a SUPER SPARKLEY DAY

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:45 PM

why exactly do some of you think that women are so incapable of doing the same job as men? Do  you really think that all males on the front lines are big strong men? that is laughable, there are criteria to meet and if they are you are in, that simple. Again if the men in the US military are unable to do their job because there are women around then they need to be better trained, it is THEIR problem not the womens.

And what was that about the average weight being 120...I want to know where you got that stat lol, maybe years ago but not now, they even have an alternate, heavier weight index because no one is thin anymore....But I will say this I am small and I weighed just over 100ibs and would routinely carry a baby in a car seat, diaper bag and purse, now that may not be 100 ibs, but it isn't light and that was with no training, no working out etc...women are capable of doing this if they choose to, and it really is upsetting that there are so many people on here who think so little of women, you don't love women you treat them like children who need a big strong man....uuugh

Commit random acts of kindness


Careful what you wish for, you just might get it!!!

#69    Thanato

Thanato

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 26 January 2013 - 10:53 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 January 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

And women have been under fire.

And have lead soldiers in battle.

~Thanato

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****

#70    Uncle Sam

Uncle Sam

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,355 posts
  • Joined:26 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Free America

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:09 PM

If a woman wants to serve, let it be so. But we shouldn't lower the standards required for special ops, because lowering it will put lives in danger to be blunt. I am all for woman becoming part of our elite groups of warriors. I think most of the feelings come from the fact that woman are the life givers, the mothers of our children, they are the holy grail of the human race. It is because of them, we as a race is immortal.

Edited by Uncle Sam, 26 January 2013 - 11:11 PM.

A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. - Albert Einstein

#71    draugr

draugr

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 50 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tortuga

  • It's a secret to everybody.

Posted 26 January 2013 - 11:29 PM

All this natter about not being able to physically perform (i.e. tote gear, deal with deployment conditions [which are gross, but livable], etc...) is bupkiss, dudes.  What do you think female soldiers in the Army do now?  The same crap the men do, and let me tell you, a lot of it is just that:  Crap.  I, personally, am not a soldier, as a bummed out ankle kept me from being able to enlist, but Mr. Draugr is, and even with no training I can carry his full pack of gear for a good long while.  Not as long as he can, because I don't have the endurance training he does, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could keep up.

A friend of ours in the Army made a point, and this is true for a lot of soldiers I know personally:  There are no girls in the Army.  There are soldiers who happen to be female.  Except for pregnancy, they're kept to the same strict standards the dudes are.  Overweight?  Lose it.  Can't pass a PT test?  Lol, suck it up.  Anyone under the impression women have it easier or that standards are lowered for them have obviously never had any contact with real military life.  It's a tough one, dudes, for everyone involved, and it takes a special kind of person - male or female - to not wash out.


#72    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,531 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 27 January 2013 - 02:42 PM

View PostStellar, on 26 January 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

And women have been under fire.

That they have, and exactly how well one does under fire is, obviously, different in each individual.


#73    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,866 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:31 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 27 January 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

That they have, and exactly how well one does under fire is, obviously, different in each individual.

Different in each individual, not each sex.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#74    CRYSiiSx2

CRYSiiSx2

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 667 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan, USA

Posted 27 January 2013 - 04:37 PM

No, women shouldn't be anywhere near the enemy.  I dated a girl who was raped.  I didn't know at first but then I knew it was a nightmare that you cannot wake up from.  It's horrible.  I cant even listen to the news now.  A woman being raped for months until it kills her?  Is that what we want?  I believe in Woman"s rights trust me.  I guess I'm just asking, please, dont go to it.

Posted Image
NRA - PROTECT THE 2ND AMENDMENT
my twitter @sktm06

#75    Thanato

Thanato

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,134 posts
  • Joined:27 Jun 2004

Posted 27 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

View PostCRYSiiSx2, on 27 January 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

No, women shouldn't be anywhere near the enemy.  I dated a girl who was raped.  I didn't know at first but then I knew it was a nightmare that you cannot wake up from.  It's horrible.  I cant even listen to the news now.  A woman being raped for months until it kills her?  Is that what we want?  I believe in Woman"s rights trust me.  I guess I'm just asking, please, dont go to it.

If you are captured, its not just the women who are raped. Especially in the areas we are fighting in now. Also thats just a possibility, women have been captured by the enemy in the past and have not been raped. Men have been captured and have been raped. Women are just as capable of killing the enemy as any man with today's tools of war.

~Thanato

"Your toast has been burnt, and no amount of scrapping will remove the black parts!" ~Caboose

"I will eat your unhappyness!" ~Caboose

****
"Freedom isn't bought in stores, it is bought on battlefields." ~Thanato
****




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users