Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Render

US servicewomen challenge combat role ban

58 posts in this topic

Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking as a soldier..... Awesome! Some of the best gunners I knew were female... The only "issue" I could see arising from females in combat is the male mentality to take care of them, which may or may not distract the male soldier but I think that will melt away as long as they are training side by side at NTC or elsewhere.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not strongly, I object to women in combat only because it seems the probability of rape goes up.

We already know that it's pretty high, and very well covered up, and that includes women employed by Halliburton and others in the war zone.

Don't have an opinion on whether or not it has a negative influence on combat readiness, but would not be surprised if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.

Messed up values and morals.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you said OverSword, what you said sir! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Marines opened up positions for women in the school that trains infantry combat officers. Of the 80 women that were eligible, two applied resulting in one of them quitting the first day and the second dropping for medical reasons.after two weeks. 26 of the 107 men also dropped out the first day so this is no walk in the park but they aren't exactly kicking the doors down to run a platoon in the corps. The Marines said they will keep offering positions to women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.

Messed up values and morals.

Way to over simplify the life of a soldier as well as being derogatory and sexist in 4 short sentences.... I myself was a combat engineer, airborne, sapper.... I have no blood lust, but I served my country proudly and did what was required of me to survive and move through different situations. These women want the same right.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These women are stupid as is anyone who actually wants to shoot people or be shot at. Are they looking for a way to kill someone without being charged with a crime? Thank God you don't have to go to war, don't sue for the right to go to war.

Messed up values and morals.

Complete foolishness. They're not looking to murder people, neither are the male soldiers. What they want is the right to be treated on the same level as the men. Nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a positivie step forward, there is no real reason why woman cant fight on frontline combat roles.

There are minor issues in regards to men tending to be protective of women etc but the military fosters a "care for your comrades" attitude anywhere, indeed the unconditional support of comrades under fire to the point of risking and indeed giving up your own personal saftey for the sake of others is central to how armies function.

In short, you take a bullet for the person next to you, whether there male, female or anything else.

Women can be just as fit as men, most cannot ever quite attain the level of brute strength that men can, but never the less they are more than capable of lugging most standard military kit alongside the men, plus bodyarmour and weapons are getting lighter as time goes on for the most part.

A woman with a gun can shoot and kill as a well as a man, so sex is mostly irelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to over simplify the life of a soldier as well as being derogatory and sexist in 4 short sentences.... I myself was a combat engineer, airborne, sapper.... I have no blood lust, but I served my country proudly and did what was required of me to survive and move through different situations. These women want the same right.

Forgive me for not thanking you. I'm against war and believe you were in a war based mainly on lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for not thanking you. I'm against war and believe you were in a war based mainly on lies.

Regardless of whether or not said war was based on lies, demeaning the position of those who risk thier lives to do a difficult and dangerous job does you no credit.

Out of intrest, how far would you carry your "against war" argument? If your nation was invaded and those around you were being herded into pens and mown down by machinegun fire, would you consider it reasonable to fight back? or would you consider it better to lie back and die?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really only have four objections to this...

1. The male 'protective instinct' (mentioned earlier) - and it can be overcome in time - though it could possibly lead to higher casualties in the mean time...

2. The very real possibility that standards for Infantry "persons" would be lowered to account for physical ability differences between the genders... A 'leg' Infantrymans combat load is pretty heavy - moreso if they are a specialist (communications, heavy weapons, etc) a fully loaded out infantryman can easily carry an extra 80 -100 pounds - routinely... That is about 3/4ths of what a typically fit female will weigh... Airborne Infantry can carry even more at times - after all if you don't bring it with you, you don't have it...

3. Quite a few of our potential enemies are rather 'chauvanistic' (to say the least)... Quite of few of those who would be willing to surrender to a male soldier, would refuse to do so to a female - resulting in higher casualties on both sides, and potentially greater loss of intelligence due to few prisoners to question... We are already facing this problem to a degree in Afghanistan, and that is to female soldiers who are not 'front line' troops...

4. Morale loss at home due to larger numbers of young females returning home dead... This may sound chauvanistic to some - and perhaps it is... but emotionally we, as a society, are more shocked by the death of a young woman than we are by the death of a young man ... Both are tragic, and both are equally painful to the family, but society as a whole is more willing to accept the loss of a male soldier than a female one... This can lead to loss of morale - or equally possible - heightened anger at the enemy - resulting in escalation...

I served in the US Army for 34 years, both in Combat Arms (Infantry, Artillery) and Support (Communications, Intel, Maint, etc)... I've served with some fantastic female soldiers, and some not so fantastic - just like the males... And I have served under female officers and NCO's just as willingly as male - so I don't think I am unreasonable in my objections...

These are just my thoughts... If these points can be overcome - then fine... Otherwise, IMO it is just a case of using the Military for forced social engineering...

(editted several times because I can't spell)

Edited by Taun
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether or not said war was based on lies, demeaning the position of those who risk thier lives to do a difficult and dangerous job does you no credit.

Out of intrest, how far would you carry your "against war" argument? If your nation was invaded and those around you were being herded into pens and mown down by machinegun fire, would you consider it reasonable to fight back? or would you consider it better to lie back and die?

If a foriegn army invaded they would not have to start hearding me and mine into camps and machine gun them before I was fighting back. But since Afghanistan doesn't have an army invading the USA I don't have to worry about that. Too bad they can't say the same.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a foriegn army invaded they would not have to start hearding me and mine into camps and machine gun them before I was fighting back. But since Afghanistan doesn't have an army invading the USA I don't have to worry about that. Too bad they can't say the same.

So, your not against war?

Your merely against a wars fought under certain premises?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your not against war?

Your merely against a wars fought under certain premises?

Nope. I'm against war.

If a war is brought to me on my doorstep then I have no qualms fighting it. I refuse to go somewhere else and fight one. If everyone thought like me there wouldn't be many wars.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I'm against war.

If a war is brought to me on my doorstep then I have no qualms fighting it. I refuse to go somewhere else and fight one. If everyone thought like me there wouldn't be many wars.

In some cases not going somewhere else to fight one guarantees that it will be brought to your doorstep.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some cases not going somewhere else to fight one guarantees that it will be brought to your doorstep.

You know, you may be right. However, since it can easily be proven that most wars are based on lies and making profit I will not volunteer to be shipped off to some 3rd world country to make some miserable persons life more miserable, and I refuse to have extra respect or sympathy for those who do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trueism: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

trueism: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Indeed thus we should have no good intentions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed thus we should have no good intentions?

I was going to respond with an explanation but one really shouldn't be necessary. It's obvious that some people believe That every death since 9/11 is justified. IMO, people like that are;
  • thoughtless
  • unsympathetic
  • brainwashed

Some people actually believe that the USA are white cowboy hat wearing dealers of truth and freedom. These people don't read much history, but do watch alot of TV.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, you may be right. However, since it can easily be proven that most wars are based on lies and making profit I will not volunteer to be shipped off to some 3rd world country to make some miserable persons life more miserable, and I refuse to have extra respect or sympathy for those who do.

I've not asked for your respect nor your sympathy, I have no issues with what I have done. I sleep pretty well most nights. I have no complaint about the conditions overseas as a soldier, I knew full well when I enlisted what my life would be like from then on. Now, as for your "miserable life" comment... I find it sickening that you view another human being that way but I suppose you can have that luxury while sitting stateside drinking your cola, having your dinner, voting, driving, getting an "education" and working a job for decent wages... oh, and when it comes to some one else being in our country as an invasion force... I wont ask you to stand up... my brothers and I have that handled... besides, what fun would it be to have us in the field and not have people like you to tell us how horrible we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a woman wants to fight and die for their country.

So be it.

Let women fight.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not asked for your respect nor your sympathy, I have no issues with what I have done. I sleep pretty well most nights. I have no complaint about the conditions overseas as a soldier, I knew full well when I enlisted what my life would be like from then on. Now, as for your "miserable life" comment... I find it sickening that you view another human being that way but I suppose you can have that luxury while sitting stateside drinking your cola, having your dinner, voting, driving, getting an "education" and working a job for decent wages... oh, and when it comes to some one else being in our country as an invasion force... I wont ask you to stand up... my brothers and I have that handled... besides, what fun would it be to have us in the field and not have people like you to tell us how horrible we are.

Good. I'm glad you feel justified and fulfilled in what you chose to do. I hope you also felt it was necessary.

And if you believe that you going to the mid-east made it possible for me to drive, vote, work, etc...I was doing all of that before you went to war and likely before you were born. You weren't fight Hitler or Hiorohito.

Edited by OverSword
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to over simplify the life of a soldier as well as being derogatory and sexist in 4 short sentences.... I myself was a combat engineer, airborne, sapper.... I have no blood lust, but I served my country proudly and did what was required of me to survive and move through different situations. These women want the same right.

My young nephew is in the US Army, and his intentions are noble, just like yours.

However, (and he understands this just like many did back in 1970) you, him and me might have THOUGHT we were serving our country, but in reality, we were serving the government, and the two are not the same.

Our country and its government are 2 separate entities. They are not the same thing, though the powers-that-be are thrilled when people think they are the same. Indeed, the propaganda ALWAYS blends the two and makes them indistinguishable.

And in case you have not realized it yet, General Eisenhower understood full well that the marriage of government and industry is an UNHOLY one. He warned future generations to beware. Sadly, we ignored him, and those who control things are in very firm control, and have been for years. Contemporary american 'wars' are but military aggression in advancement of empire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.