No Women in Combat Passes House.

[Aerosoul]

WASHINGTON - Women in the military would be barred from serving in direct ground combat roles, under a House bill that sets Defense Department policy and spending plans for the upcoming budget year.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the overall measure early Thursday on a 61-1 vote. The same committee in the Senate passed a different version last week. The House and Senate are to vote on their respective bills next week.

President Bush requested $442 billion for defense for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, excluding money to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House bill, like the Senate's version, envisions creating a $50 billion fund for the conflicts for next year - but provides no money for it.

Article at Military.com (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_women_051905,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl)

[Werewolf01]

Boy, these poeple really want a draft don't they?

[Aerosoul]

I don't think women in combat will determine the likelihood of a draft.

And I don't think women belong in combat, either. No sexism here, it just doesn't make sense to have ******ly-integrated units in combat operations.

[marktigger]

define a combat zone?

and if the US Govt wants to play away from home and its young men don't then why not start drafting you all.

[GrimmyRX]

I don't think women in combat will determine the likelihood of a draft.

And I don't think women belong in combat, either. No sexism here, it just doesn't make sense to have ******ly-integrated units in combat operations.

It's an old argument with many for and many against.

Though I do wonder, why is it that it doesn't make sense?

[Jani.R]

I don't think women in combat will determine the likelihood of a draft.

And I don't think women belong in combat, either. No sexism here, it just doesn't make sense to have ******ly-integrated units in combat operations.

Like homo******s? Or what do you mean with this "******ly-intergrated"?

[Aerosoul]

Fair question.

I'm talking about not allwoing women to be in combat units because I feel it would be a distraction for one thing. Plus, there's the factor of women's needs from time to time if you know what I'm saying.

As for gays. Same reason I don't think open gays should be allowed either. Disraction, prejudice, etc.

You can hide being gay, you can't hid being a woman.

[moughoun]

Fair question.

I'm talking about not allwoing women to be in combat units because I feel it would be a distraction for one thing. Plus, there's the factor of women's needs from time to time if you know what I'm saying.

As for gays. Same reason I don't think open gays should be allowed either. Disraction, prejudice, etc.
no offence S87, but if you think that you'll be sleeping in a fox hole with your mate's and they won't find out, your dreaming, stuff alway's get's found out, before you join you might want to think about it, and make sure your ready for when the **** hit's the fan, these guy's will be as close as your brother :|

[Aerosoul]

:|

[moughoun]

:|
I'm not saying don't join, but just be aware, do your job give no one any reason to give out **** about your performance, be the best you can be, and ignore the ****'s when you meet them ;)

[pathfinder82]

I'm sure these points have been made before but they need to be said again.


Its bad enough having to watch a 19 year old male bleed out or seeing his entrails lying on the ground, I couldn't imagine watching a 19 year old girl in the same situations.

How is a 19-20 year old girl going to sling 150-200 pounds of dead weight onto her shoulders, I could barely do that and I'm 6 feet tall and 192 pounds.

I'm not questioning their heart, I'm questioning their physical capabilities and the fact that the military will always be a male dominated entity. It doesn't make sense for young men having to watch young women die. It would seriously damage the psyche of the male soldier in that situation, in my opinion.

[tyovan]

So while we're already over-deployed and short of strength, they're deciding to do this?

Are the neo-cons trying to run the country into the ground?

[Kilgor]

From the stories ive read about russian female soldiers fighting in ww2 and Nam, they were just as vicious and brave as their male counterparts.

[SEALInTheMaking]

It's a tough call. On the one hand, yes, having women serving in the combat zone will create a distraction for both the men and the women. And soldiers in a combat zone should have as few distractions as possible. On the other hand, in the modern war zone where physical strength is less important then being able to shoot straight, women could easily prove just as deadly and fierce in combat as male soldiers. But overall, Congress vote comes down to the simple fact that our society is not prepared to see women coming home in body bags. Female fatalties will turn the population against the war effort faster then male fatalites will.

[Aerosoul]

From the stories ive read about russian female soldiers fighting in ww2 and Nam, they were just as vicious and brave as their male counterparts.

True, I've heard the same. But most women in the US nowadays are vicious in other ways.

[FallenAngel]

So while we're already over-deployed and short of strength, they're deciding to do this?

Are the neo-cons trying to run the country into the ground?

You're a real dumbass arent you?

This law will not change anything that isn't already happening. It's long been the policy of the US armed forces that women could NOT serve in combat arms positions (infantry, armor, artillery, SF, etc). They CAN however fight in combat support positions such as pilots (fixed and rotary wing) as well as serve as MPs-- which in today's world face the possibility of seeing just as much action as infantry. All this bill is doing is taking this "in house" policy and making it federal law.

As for the neo-con comment, I highly doubt that all 61 of the committee members are right-wing hawks. Odds are that just under half are Democrats. This issue (not seeing women in combat) is something that all but the furthest left-wing feminists support.

[obd]

Yeah people used the same argument to try to prevent racially integrated units in the past.........and guess what: THEY WERE WRONG.

You could make just as strong a case that barring women in combat hurts the Army because it denies them options which are especially needed in these times of relatively poor recruitment...........The Radical Republicans are yet again on the attack against freedom and equality in America.........One more nail hammered in on Osama Bin Ladens coffin built for America. I wonder who has put more nails in the coffin?-> Radical Islam or Radical Republicans............

Not only that but barring women from combat is downright unamerican.

Every single able bodied person should have the right to serve on the frontline and I think women clearly are physically capable of killing.

I know PLENTY of women that could do a hell of a better job as an infantry soldier then some of the complete lazy ****s and misfits from my high school that signed up for lack of anything better to do.

I would rather have a motivated woman on the front line then some drop out who signed up b/c he couldnt think of **** else to do!!!!!!

The Radical Republicans are going against the very wishes of the US Army which is deeply oppossed to such legislation because it makes thier job more difficult. Why the hell do we have a bunch of radical right wing pussies who never served dictating to the Army want it "should want" instead of listening to the Army and giving it what it DOES WANT.

Ironic that a bunch of hawkish little babies that never served (shall I give you the list again ?) and/or flat out shirked serving and tried to openly skimp service, are now dictating to the Army because of some stupid backward ideology that men should protect women from the horrors of war and women have no right to see combat if they so wish!!!!

F'ing Radical Republicans!!! They truly are the right hand of Osama. Im sure Osama laughs at them every day from his cave as they make his dreams come closer to truth every single day they remain in power.

[usm2b]

^^^The wise one speaks again!!! :roll:

[Aerosoul]

OBD...go...I dunno. Just do something. I don't consider serving in the military a right. That said, even if the military bars me from entering for whatever reason, be it my preferences in bed, medical, or otherwise, I'm not gonna bitch. The policy is in place for a reason.

[moughoun]

one of the finest soldier's I know is our 5'5 UC instructer, she beat the crap out of me :oops: , but then I have to ask the rational thought, could this 5'5 115LB women carry my 6'6 260LB ass if anything happened, that's what it come's down to, capability :|

[obd]

The policy is in place FOR THE WRONG REASON though.

There is no logical reason to ban women from combat, only a backward ideology bull**** reason that has more in common with RADICAL ISLAM then with true American pirnciples!!!

[Ratamacue]

The only problem I can see with women in combat is that, on average, women are not as physically strong as men, which leads to issues when it comes to having to carry a wounded comrade and such. However, that's not to say that they can't accomplish geats like that with enough physical training.

Essentially, my belief is that women should be able to do anything they want in the military so long as they can meet the exact same standards as men. Gender-integrated combat units will happen some day in the future, it's just a matter of when.

[obd]

moughoun, the whole argument that a women "couldnt carry a man" is total BS anyway.

I have about 10 skinny ass friends at Ft. Bragg who probably couldnt carry a wounded and loaded down trooper any farther then a strong woman!

Im not saying just let any women in. Im saying let any woman that can meet the standards in. Dont just arbitrarily ban all women. That makes no sense at all and there simply is no logical argument to support it......unless of course your the same type of person that argued blacks, mexicans, etc also should serve because mixing races woudl cause "tension".

Well it did cause tension but over the long term its been highly succesful and has made both the nation and the US Military infinitely better for it!

Same with women. IT WILL make things uneasy for a time but in the long run it will strengthen both our army and our nation. Not only that, but our Army wants options. Give the US Army what it wants and dont let some backward Taliban-like ideology get in the way.

[moughoun]

The policy is in place FOR THE WRONG REASON though.

There is no logical reason to ban women from combat, only a backward ideology bull**** reason that has more in common with RADICAL ISLAM then with true American pirnciples!!!

there are perfectly logical reason's, how many women do you know that can carry a 100 pound bergan for 15 20 KM's, or haul a Javelin ATGW system with a couple of round's?

[scm77]

The only problem I can see with women in combat is that, on average, women are not as physically strong as men

That's not a problem for the Canadian Forces. They just lower the fitness standard so weaker women can get in (9 pushups!!) :roll: http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/mad/1003.gif

[Aerosoul]

Aww hell. Let's all just watch G.I. Jane and call it a day.

http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/movies/mcgurk/img/jane_rev_175x230.jpg

[moughoun]

moughoun, the whole argument that a women "couldnt carry a man" is total BS anyway.

I have about 10 skinny ass friends at Ft. Bragg who probably couldnt carry a wounded and loaded down trooper any farther then a strong woman!

Im not saying just let any women in. Im saying let any woman that can meet the standards in. Dont just arbitrarily ban all women. That makes no sense at all and there simply is no logical argument to support it......unless of course your the same type of person that argued blacks, mexicans, etc also should serve because mixing races woudl cause "tension".

Well it did cause tension but over the long term its been highly succesful and has made both the nation and the US Military infinitely better for it!

Same with women. IT WILL make things uneasy for a time but in the long run it will strengthen both our army and our nation. Not only that, but our Army wants options. Give the US Army what it wants and dont let some backward Taliban-like ideology get in the way.
I don't know about the US military but there are standard's of ability in our military, you have to be able to do certain thing's in combat, no women has been able to pass them yet

[PhillyMobster]

The simple reason why women should not be allowed in combat units is because they have really annoying voices when they're yelling. Gotta tell you, the most annoying sound I've ever heard is a platoon of female cadets trying to sing a marching cadence. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! :( :( :(

[moughoun]

Aww hell. Let's all just watch G.I. Jane and call it a day.

http://members.tripod.com/~llwyd/willing/janeh1.jpg
oh my God, GI Jane's been kidnapped by the tripod people :(

[obd]

Strength depends on many things but one of them is utlization of resources. Women are at the moment an underutlized resource in the military because they have artificially placed limits on thier own options for service. If we allowed the US Army to recruit women for combat then it would give them options.

One of the many reasons I feel Islam and much of the middle east is doomed to failure and will never truly compete with the west is because they have such a low vision of the role of women in society. America should be as far from them as possible, not move closer to thier brand of failure.


Women have been struggling for equality for a LONG time in the US military. Every time they overcome one hurdle and PROVE they have what it takes Radical Republicans simply fall back to the next barricade and defend it to the last. How many times to Radical Republican Talibans have to be proven wrong???

Just like conservatives tried to stop Americans from serving because they had different skin color, now they try to stop Americans from serving because they have ****.........when will it end? When will they realize that denying our military options to get "the best" hurts us and doesnt make us stronger? When will they realize that a military that lives up to the very ideals of the country it defends is ALWAYS stronger because its moral will ALWAYS be higher because it will have that much clearer idea of what it is defending every single day!!!!!

[Aerosoul]

Aww hell. Let's all just watch G.I. Jane and call it a day.

http://members.tripod.com/~llwyd/willing/janeh1.jpg
oh my God, GI Jane's been kidnapped by the tripod people :(

LOL I noticed. Found new pic.

[moughoun]

Aww hell. Let's all just watch G.I. Jane and call it a day.

http://www.cincinnati.com/freetime/movies/mcgurk/img/jane_rev_175x230.jpg

Demi Moore doesen't look too bad wet p-)

[FallenAngel]

moughoun, the whole argument that a women "couldnt carry a man" is total BS anyway.

I have about 10 skinny ass friends at Ft. Bragg who probably couldnt carry a wounded and loaded down trooper any farther then a strong woman!

Im not saying just let any women in. Im saying let any woman that can meet the standards in. Dont just arbitrarily ban all women. That makes no sense at all and there simply is no logical argument to support it......unless of course your the same type of person that argued blacks, mexicans, etc also should serve because mixing races woudl cause "tension".

Well it did cause tension but over the long term its been highly succesful and has made both the nation and the US Military infinitely better for it!

Same with women. IT WILL make things uneasy for a time but in the long run it will strengthen both our army and our nation. Not only that, but our Army wants options. Give the US Army what it wants and dont let some backward Taliban-like ideology get in the way.

Alot of investigation went into the different physical standards of men and women when they starting allowing women to the USMA, the Citadel, USNA, and VMI. The studies found that generally speaking 85-90% of the women could not handle the obstacle courses and physical training as it was, so it was changed (some say lowered) to accomodate the females.

Not that this issue is solely the military's problem. The LAPD had a 6 foot fence on their obstacle course that had to be negotiated as part of the application process. The vast majority of women could not do it so guess what....no more 6 foot fence. Female firefighters for LA County and LA City are exempted from the carrying the dummy up and down ladders during training not only because they can't do it, but to attempt to would put themselves at risk.

I honestly don't see what the problem is. The Army boasts of having 220+ jobs a soldier can choose from. Of the 220, how many are women barred from? a half dozen? a dozen tops?

[moughoun]

Strength depends on many things but one of them is utlization of resources. Women are at the moment an underutlized resource in the military because they have artificially placed limits on thier own options for service. If we allowed the US Army to recruit women for combat then it would give them options.

One of the many reasons I feel Islam and much of the middle east is doomed to failure and will never truly compete with the west is because they have such a low vision of the role of women in society. America should be as far from them as possible, not move closer to thier brand of failure.


Women have been struggling for equality for a LONG time in the US military. Every time they overcome one hurdle and PROVE they have what it takes Radical Republicans simply fall back to the next barricade and defend it to the last. How many times to Radical Republican Talibans have to be proven wrong???
women do serve in the military though, what's the difference is it, if their in a loggie unit or a combat infantry one?, they both serve, or should getting shot at be an experience everyone should enjoy? :|

[obd]

Im strongly against lowering standards for women by the way :) That pisses me off more then anything because its hypicritical.....and its just as bad as just passing a blanket ban on all women in my opinion.

[obd]

Getting shot at should be an experience nobody should be banned from.

It goes the other way as well. Why should a man be forced to face fire but not a woman. It makes no sense at all. Women are equal in our society which is a good thing. That also means they should bear equal responsibility and face equal dangers. They should be judged by objective standards of ability, not ideological throwbacks to the dark ages............

[tyovan]

So while we're already over-deployed and short of strength, they're deciding to do this?

Are the neo-cons trying to run the country into the ground?

You're a real dumbass arent you?


You're apparantly quite intelligent yourself, coming up with a retort like that! :roll:

[moughoun]

Getting shot at should be an experience nobody should be banned from.

It goes the other way as well. Why should a man be forced to face fire but not a woman. It makes no sense at all. Women are equal in our society which is a good thing. That also means they should bear equal responsibility and face equal dangers. They should be judged by objective standards of ability, not ideological throwbacks to the dark ages............
forced to face fire, last time I looked it was all voluntery ;)

[FallenAngel]

So while we're already over-deployed and short of strength, they're deciding to do this?

Are the neo-cons trying to run the country into the ground?

You're a real dumbass arent you?


You're apparantly quite intelligent yourself, coming up with a retort like that! :roll:

Could have done better but I like to keep things somewhat civil ;)

[Kilgor]

I think it is another example of the christian taliban. Is there any reason (other than physcial strength) why women shouldnt be on the battlefield ?

As much as I hate agreeing with the commies, at least they believed in equal opportunity.

[Pandy]

OBD, what it comes down to is the fact that Congress itself voted "No-Women for Combat." and it goes from there. It's always been to my understanding that Women are not allowed in Combat Units.. (Infantry and Armor.) But, I still see lots of them in Combat Supporting Units (Air-Missile-Defense, Enginners, Civil Affairs, and even, support units in the US ARMY Special Forces.)

Combat Units and Combat Supporting Units normally work hand-to-hand, all the time. In the AMD (Air-Missile-Defense, Avengers), I have at least 21 folks in my section. 6 of them are females, and our duties is to supply the batteries (whole battalion) with requested supplies and keep the flow of supplies going. We work with battery 1SG, supply sergeants, and other key person. Many times, AMD units (during Iraqi Freedom), have been up with Combat Units and Armors units when the bullets flied. It'll been my understanding that a good amount of personnel from the AMD-ADA units were KIA during combat operations due to ambushes and being pushed to the front to support the combat units themselves.

[MEGR]

LOL, what does this have to do with the so called "Christian Taliban?" Are they the new Zionists or something? Gosh, let it go. Most Christians don't care that much anyways. Please point out the so called Christian influences in this decision?

[Kilgor]

I usually back america, and quite often agree with their foriegn policy in this very less than idealistic world.

But the hardening of the christian right in the US is a definately NOT a good thing for a modern society.

[MEGR]

I usually back america, and quite often agree with their foriegn policy in this very less than idealistic world.

But the hardening of the christian right in the US is a definately NOT a good thing for a modern society.

Again, point out the Christian influences in this decision.

[usm2b]

Im strongly against lowering standards for women by the way :) That pisses me off more then anything because its hypicritical.....and its just as bad as just passing a blanket ban on all women in my opinion.

Then you agree that women have sub-par standards in our military. How can we put women in the front lines if they do not put the same training and standards as men? In the Marine Corps PFT 20 pull-ups is a max. 70 second arm hang for women is a max. Every male that can do 20 pull-ups can do 70 seconds on an arm hang...but not every female that can do 70sec arm hang can hit 20 pull ups.

And just a little FYI, women are already in combat...they may not wear the 75th ranger regiment tab, but they are indeed getting shot at and returning fire...

[pathfinder82]

How many of you guys have actually tried to carry the dead weight of a incapacitated human being? Not someone who uses their legs to boost on to your shoulder but actual dead weight. Its not very easy, at least it wasn't for me. I can tell you right now no woman I have ever met would be able to carry my ass.

[Aerosoul]

How many of you guys have actually tried to carry the dead weight of a incapacitated human being? Not someone who uses their legs to boost on to your shoulder but actual dead weight. Its not very easy, at least it wasn't for me. I can tell you right now no woman I have ever met would be able to carry my ass.

:(

[pathfinder82]

Sorry if I said something that angered or saddened you silencer87 just speaking my mind, no hard feelings.

Its only a matter of time before women will serve in the infantry on the line, theres no doubt of that.

As for gays serving in the military I dont see any problem in that, Im sure some people I served with were gay, I will never know though because they had to hide it, and thats a shame.

[11F5S]

Its bad enough having to watch a 19 year old male bleed out or seeing his entrails lying on the ground, I couldn't imagine watching a 19 year old girl in the same situations.

BTST and their gender didn't make a bit of difference....a human being is a human being.

[Jack Mehoff]

Women will never be in combat MOS's when the military still have double standards in APFT and Selective Service System.

[pathfinder82]

11f5s- I respectfully disagree. It has to do with how women are perceived by the individual. For me, I absolutely adore women, its hard to put into words, I love everything about them. I cant imagine having to see a young woman soldier with a head wound, it would seriously mess me up, and I have seen some messed up things as a police officer.

I suppose I should clarify that, I have seen dead women on the job, but I didn't serve with them, they were not a part of my military family. I did not get to know their quirks and habits, I didn't get to read their letters or see their pictures from home. I didn't perhaps develop a big brother attitude towards them as I did with my little sister growing up, I didn't know them.

Not to mention the fact if integration was to happen there would be ****** problems. A male soldier might develop a little crush, or the other way around. What happens when they become a casualty or worse, it could seriously damage unit cohesiveness and its effectiveness to carry on a fight.

Its only a matter of time before it happens, and it will be a true trial by fire.

[obd]

No usmc, your just putting words into my mouth.........I never said I agree woman have "sub par standards", I simply said I would be against any lowering of the standards for women. Im firmly of the belief that women dont NEED to have the standards lowered for them. OF course there are some, even some women, that want standards lowered in the Army.....and there are even some men withing the Army who support that in order to make thier own arguments stronger............but the simple fact is this: Women who can meet the standards for a combat soldier SHOULD have the right to be a combat soldier. A "standard" that denies you because you have **** is an un-American standards just a denial based on race, color, creed, etc...............

Of course it is true that women are, on average, physically weaker then men. It is also true that many women are physically stronger then men. It is also true that women tend to be more patient and analytical about decisions, a fact that made them excellent COMBAT SNIPERS during WW2 for those nations willing to get passed ancient and idiotic "biological determinism" and set in place gender roles in society.

Trust me, enough weak assed pimply kids with asthma and past drug problems get passed basic and into our army to make the fact that women are generally phyiscally weaker a NON ISSUE. I know of several current losers in the infantry who could EASILY be replaced by more motivated women.......and the Army would be a hella better for it too!

Either way it makes no difference. The argument that women are weaker so they shouldnt be allowed in combat still does not answer the question of women who ARE physically strong enough and CAN pass the physical tests. Thats because the question of women in the military HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT THE FACTS. Its ALWAYS been about conservative ideology and percieved gender roles in society. Its just one of the many commonalities that Radical Republicans have with our hated enemy: Radical Islam. Radical Republicans simply use the "fact" that women are generally physically weaker to give weight to thier ideological conviction that women should stay in the home and raise the kids.

You can find the same exact type of argument that Radical Muslums use in Saudi Arabia to keep women down and "in thier place". And they use the same tactics of trying to back up thier backward ideology with selected "facts" and "figures" and notions ranging from biological determinism to "security" to "modesty" and ITS ALL BULL****.

What the hell is America going to be? Are we simply our enemy with a different vocabulary or are we going to truly support American ideals?.....

[obd]

Maybe the Army should used past methods of success to get past the bigot Radical Republican Taliban types:

Start an all female volunteer frontline infantry combat unit.

I'd be willing to bet my house that those female infantry could easily develope a record of honor and success that would make them the envy of at least a few units. They would truly make America proud. In the process it would make America stonger because people would be able to point out and say "see that, its an all female frontline infantry unit!! Where else but this great country America could you have the freedom to do that? Where else but America would your right to contribute be so honored? I LOVE AMERICA. I WOULD DIE FOR IT".

Thats the strength Im talking about. Thats the kind of strength Osama will never crush. We can only crush it from within. Only ourselves. Which is exactly what Radical Republicans are crushing every day they remain in power.

Of course, there are some who are going to attack me for this saying women are inherently weak and pitiful.....probably the same type of people who argued blacks couldnt fly because they didnt have the "constitution" for it. Just like the Tuskeegee Airmen proved the ****wits wrong, I would bet an all female combat unit would do the same.

It would be a great thing to see all the Radical Republicans forced to fall back on thier Taliban style ideology amidst an "assault of success" on the part of an all female combat unit.

[Roaming East]

How about this brillant idea, have a single set of f***ing standards for combat role admittance, i dont know let it be 60 push ups in a minute 10 chinups a 2 mile run in 14 minutes and carrying a combat loaded ruck on a forced march over terrain in a time limit. if you make it, congratulations, if you fail, well man or women your taking the desk job.


Now whats unfair with THAT for Godssake?

[digrar]

Obd the people you know from school are different after 6 months of PT, discpline and training, after that experience they are not the same people you knew in school. I'm yet to meet a young Infantrymen straight out of training who wasn't a highly motivated, confident, fit, individual.
After 6 months of the same training as above, your female recruits would still have a lower percentage of muscle mass and would still be unable to carry over 110lbs of kit, 30 miles and then be able to assault a hill top defensive position, the sort of scenario that is an Infantrymans bread and butter.
I'm not saying women can't be warriors, given the right scenario a woman can be a world class sniper or CPP operator, but the vast majority are unable to keep up with the hard graft that is the Infantrymans trade.
In the end it's just not economically viable to train a 1000 females to find the three or four who would be able to make a contribution to a unit, when you could train 1000 men and get around 950 qualified Infantrymen.

[Aerosoul]

Obd the people you know from school are different after 6 months of PT, discpline and training, after that experience they are not the same people you knew in school. I'm yet to meet a young Infantrymen straight out of training who wasn't a highly motivated, confident, fit, individual.
After 6 months of the same training as above, your female recruits would still have a lower percentage of muscle mass and would still be unable to carry over 110lbs of kit, 30 miles and then be able to assault a hill top defensive position, the sort of scenario that is an Infantrymans bread and butter.
I'm not saying women can't be warriors, given the right scenario a woman can be a world class sniper or CPP operator, but the vast majority are unable to keep up with the hard graft that is the Infantrymans trade.
In the end it's just not economically viable to train a 1000 females to find the three or four who would be able to make a contribution to a unit, when you could train 1000 men and get around 950 qualified Infantrymen.

Hooah, sir. I concur.

[obd]

You may be right about the "just out from PT" but I know several who have spent years at Bragg and they:

a) smoke
b) do drugs (mostly pot)
c) drink (a hella lot)
d) have pot bellies
e) are skinny armed
f) have zero ambition
g)are pretty ****in stupid and about as sharp as an egg............


Yeah they can do the PT and everything.............but I sure as hell wouldnt want to fight alongside them based on what I know of them. There are a hella lot of women I know I'd rather fight alongside.

My simple argument is this: I agree, there should be an objective standard. But that objective standard should never say "no women", "no blacks", or "no jews". Why is it that the US Army has ended most forms of descrimination but still clings to *** descrimination as if its the last vestige of the "good old days" where "killin was a mans game"...........

They need to get with the times and realize that women can make excellent infantry. Even some of the best snipers in history were women and we all know what a tough job the combat sniper has!!!!

Im appalled at some of the excuses I read on this board like "Well I just cant take looking at a busted up women so I dont want them on the front". So basically what your saying is that because your a big fat pussy you want to deny an entire group of willing and able bodied people the chance to fight for the country they love??? Why do other people have to suffer because your a big fat pussy ??? Let me guess, dogs should be banned from the Army too because you just cant bare to see them step on land mines or get shot............Jeezuz. What a panzi ass argument.

Women in Saudi Arabia have almost no rights. Whats the excuse? To protect them. To honor them. To preserve thier modesty. To keep them moral...............Jeezuz all it is is an endless string of nonsense to conceal the real truth: Its to keep them down, obedient, and in thier place.

America should be as far away from that type of society as possible, not as close to it as we can get. Its almost as if some Radical Republicans envy the religious fervor of radical Muslums and want to prove they can be just as obssessive, just as fundementalist..........in the end its only going to serve the purpose of Osama because its only going to weaken America.

This war should never end up being about "Christian radicalism vs. Islamic radicalism". It should always be about liberal free and open democratic societies vs. closed backward and religiously radical conservative ones.

We should always be wary of the age old expression: Be carefull when fighting your enemy lest you become like him"

[obd]

Look, there would be no need to train 1,000 randomly selected women anyway..........Just have a basic fitness test that is designed to make sure that every women who applies for basics has what it takes to succeed....................

I know women who can bench press more then me. Just watch a womans fitness competition. Those chicks might be kinda freaky but they are stronger then 75% of the men in the US Army. Supposen one of them wanted to sign up for infantry.........What reason would you have for denying her the right to fight ?

People made these same kinds of arguments about blacks back in the day: Oh they said "blacks have poor eyesight because of thier diet", they dont have the "consitution" for flight operations, and "it wouldnt be economical to train them all because too many would fail. WELL LOOK NOW!!!

Sure guys, it might be costly in the short term........but over the long term it would only strengthen our great nation. Simply by the fact that it would be a shining example of all we stand for it would improve the nationalism and sense of pride in every American......a force that goes well beyond just numbers.

As I said before, just imagine the pride and sense of love of country it would inspire if a 12 year old girl looked at an infantry parade and saw some women marching by. Just think of all the implications that would have or could have on her and her life.

The fewer barriers we have based on religion, ***, creed, race, etc in this country the better. The more people feel like they can do anything so long as they have the ability the stronger America becomes.

I would have ZERO problem if no women met the objective fitness standards. Thats not important to me. What is important to me is the principle that every women be given a chance and be judged based on thier ability, not size of thier ****. THAT is the American way ladies and gentlemen. Go far away from that and you walk the path of our enemy.

[Seiyuuki]

Oh, this argument can't get any more pathetic than, so women can't be in the infrantry because they can't complete with the "objective physical," (You do realize you paranoid religious idiot if such a thing exist, a hell lot of women, including those not in front line high threat environment would be out of a job) so that make the U.S. a religious hell hole where female are oppress and can't vote, can't drive, can't own their own home, business, such as the Saudis.



Beside the other physical scenarios pointed out by others, the day I'll be happy to have a female infrantry at my side is the day I know that if I got shot in both legs or incapacitated, she can drag or carry my ass to safety. Until experience prove me otherwise, I still consider that as a necessary physical requirement for the basic of "leave no men/women behind." In addition, the fact of human nature, men have ****, women have ****** and it is delusional to think that would not cause any deterioration in unit cohesion. While I am sure a few could maintain their professionalism under stress, pressure, etc. it is the rest that could potentially cause problems that affect the whole. Though I would certainly consider the idea of a separate all-female unit, but of course, segregation is separate, but not equal and that would go against the preaching of the religious paranoid idiot about all this ****** equality.

[digrar]

Look, there would be no need to train 1,000 randomly selected women anyway..........Just have a basic fitness test that is designed to make sure that every women who applies for basics has what it takes to succeed....................

I'm not talking about 1000 random women, I'm talking about 1000 women already serving who get high PT scores. They are still not going to be able to complete the training.


I know women who can bench press more then me. Just watch a womans fitness competition. Those chicks might be kinda freaky but they are stronger then 75% of the men in the US Army. Supposen one of them wanted to sign up for infantry.........What reason would you have for denying her the right to fight ?

The women are out there obd, I'm not doubting it, every 4 years we watch the female power atheletes at the Olympics, they're out competing in Eco Challenge and Raid Gauloises and there are some strong women serving, but they are a very small minority, not even 1%. If you open it up for them you need to open it up for the other 99.9% who don't have a hope in hell. It's a waste of resources and a waste of time. Where is the benefit in having them serve in the Infantry, when they can step into so many other jobs and make an impact? It seems like a lot of effort for what will ultimately be a token effort.



They need to get with the times and realize that women can make excellent infantry. Even some of the best snipers in history were women and we all know what a tough job the combat sniper has!!!!


You are over estimating the physical prowess required to be a sniper obd. You definately don't need to be super man to don a yowie suit, take a long rifle, stalk and shoot people.
It's the motarmen, heavy machine gunners, anti armour gunners, signallers and reconnaissance patrolmen who go out with heavy kit and cover extended distances and then go into battle at the end of it.

[sp2c]

Women will never be in combat MOS's when the military still have double standards in APFT and Selective Service System.

exactly

get rid of the double standards and have them perform the same feats as their male counterparts and they can serve anywhere they like for all I care.

And if that means less chix in the army then so be it, no point in hiring for 2 girls for a one man job

[usbabmc]

How about this brillant idea, have a single set of f***ing standards for combat role admittance, i dont know let it be 60 push ups in a minute 10 chinups a 2 mile run in 14 minutes and carrying a combat loaded ruck on a forced march over terrain in a time limit. if you make it, congratulations, if you fail, well man or women your taking the desk job.


Now whats unfair with THAT for Godssake?

Damn good idea, for a start. I was an MP in the Marines and we had women in our unit. Some of them were good shots and fine Marines, however not once did I see a female complete a force march. Put a pack on the strongest womans back and she will be a "hump" drop. I've seen it happen many times. But if they can hang physically I say let em fight. I'm willing to bet less than 1% of those who try to meet the physical requirements actually can.

[Bia]

As a young woman...I agree that females do not belong in combat.
Simply my opinion.

Men are brutal....and brutality is an admirable quality in war.

[Werewolf01]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.

[Werewolf01]

As a young woman...I agree that females do not belong in combat.
Simply my opinion.

Men are brutal....and brutality is an admirable quality in war.

women can be equally if not more brutal and they tend to be better at subterfuge.

[Bia]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.

Agreed....but here in the United States the uber liberals LOVE ****ing up the requirement levels so more can easily pass.
That is simply dangerous and counter productive.

Of course....a tiny percentage of females have that killer instinct and physical ability....but to dumb down the requirements to make the numbers reflect an "inclusive" society is harmful.

I'd want to tend the mens wounds and comfort those returning from battle if I were enlisted.

[Jack Mehoff]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.
You mean like this, right?
http://www.tamc.amedd.army.mil/residency/ARMY%20APFT%20TEST%20SCORING%20GUIDELINES.HTML
http://scetc.tecom.usmc.mil/SecurityAssistance/general/pft.asp

Wanna bet how fast the feminazi will go up in arm if the military makes all females to have the same APFT score just like the males?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Women shouldn't be in combat because as we all know, Curved hips sink ships.

[Werewolf01]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.
You mean like this, right?
http://www.tamc.amedd.army.mil/residency/ARMY%20APFT%20TEST%20SCORING%20GUIDELINES.HTML
http://scetc.tecom.usmc.mil/SecurityAssistance/general/pft.asp

Wanna bet how fast the feminazi will go up in arm if the military makes all females to have the same APFT score just like the males?

I agree wiht your point, but if they want to be treated equally, let them perform equally. Let the Rabid Strap-On gang rave all they want.

[Werewolf01]

Women shouldn't be in combat because as we all know, Curved hips sink ships.

:cantbeli:

[Werewolf01]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.

Agreed....but here in the United States the uber liberals LOVE f*** up the requirement levels so more can easily pass.
That is simply dangerous and counter productive.

Of course....a tiny percentage of females have that killer instinct and physical ability....but to dumb down the requirements to make the numbers reflect an "inclusive" society is harmful.

I'd want to tend the mens wounds and comfort those returning from battle if I were enlisted.

My point is this: standards remina the same. Exclusivity can go to Hell.

[DPGLAW]

I think that it is time that this rile, law, regulation, whatever changes. Women, I think, have proven in Iraq that they can handle themselves superbly in combat. I understand that their are certain physical constraints but they are basically serving in combat in Iraq and therefore that should be extended to everywhere....especially as there arent clear friendly/enemy lines as there used to be.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

If they can meet the physical standards, I say let them fight.

Agreed....but here in the United States the uber liberals LOVE f*** up the requirement levels so more can easily pass.
That is simply dangerous and counter productive.

Of course....a tiny percentage of females have that killer instinct and physical ability....but to dumb down the requirements to make the numbers reflect an "inclusive" society is harmful.

I'd want to tend the mens wounds and comfort those returning from battle if I were enlisted.

My point is this: standards remina the same. Exclusivity can go to Hell.

Listen - the simple fact is that the military brass don't want the females in combat roles, but are unable to articulate the obvious for political reasons. It is political suicide for a career officer to state "because they are not as capable as men". It will never happen - so instead they are forced to use other nonsensical arguments.

I have no moral or ethical problems allowing females on the front lines. I do think there probably are some serious issues with morale/fraternization with close-knit combat units being co-ed. But my major beef is - like Bia stated - the reduction in physical requirements that will result.

Females would not be required to carry as much, run as far as fast - standards would be lowered to allow them to pass, and then we would have less qualified people on the front. I don't care who they are as long as they meet the standard. Firemen used to be trained to pick your sorry ass up and carry you out of a building. Now that there are women on the job, they are trained to drag you out. All things being equal, I'd rather be carried. And there is no shortage of qualified men applying, btw. Unless there is some kind of critical shortage, why the hell would we want less qualified people on the job? Answer: politics.

Do stupid people get standards lowered for them so they can have engineering/electronics/pilot positions in the service? Then why are weak allowed to fill positions reserved for the fit & capable?

The other thing that chaps my ass is that females are given options that men are not. If they become pregnant, they get the option to leave the service. Guess how long it would take them to get pregnant & get out in the event of a shooting war? Men becoming fathers recieve no such option. From what I understand of the current legislation, it also gives females a choice - they get all the training, but in the event of having to actually risk themselves (and pay back the nation for their training), they are given the option to go or not go (an option that men do not get). Just absolutely shameful pandering to the left.

[Bia]

Listen - the simple fact is that the military brass don't want the females in combat roles, but are unable to articulate the obvious for political reasons. It is political suicide for a career officer to state "because they are not as capable as men". It will never happen - so instead they are forced to use other nonsensical arguments.
Exactly!

You have a wonderful way with words.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Listen - the simple fact is that the military brass don't want the females in combat roles, but are unable to articulate the obvious for political reasons. It is political suicide for a career officer to state "because they are not as capable as men". It will never happen - so instead they are forced to use other nonsensical arguments.
Exactly!

You have a wonderful way with words.

I stole that off a cereal box. I think they were Combat-O's :lol:

[Werewolf01]

Listen - the simple fact is that the military brass don't want the females in combat roles, but are unable to articulate the obvious for political reasons. It is political suicide for a career officer to state "because they are not as capable as men". It will never happen - so instead they are forced to use other nonsensical arguments.
Exactly!

You have a wonderful way with words.

I stole that off a cereal box. I think they were Combat-O's :lol:

I bought a box of the stealth combat-o's, I kept missing my mouth, they never filled me up, and I think it might explain the crunchy things I keep stepping on but can't seem to find.

[Bia]

And free in every box is a diecast metal JDAM

;)

[Werewolf01]

And free in every box is a diecast metal JDAM

;)

That would explain the explosive gas problem. :oops:

[2Sheds_Jackson]

http://media.militaryphotos.net/photos/albums/2shedsjackson/acs.jpg

Combat-O's
Combat-O's
So Fruty Good
Gotta Get Some 'a Those

Combat-O's
Combat-O's
A Taste Sensation
You'd Best Square Yourself Away, Motherf*cker!


(...and this will conclude my hijacking of the thread. My apologies)

[Roaming East]

cant wait to try out my OMG DELTA!!!!11!!11! Decoder ring

[Aerosoul]

pfft, edit.

[obd]

edit

[NcDeuce]

So while we're already over-deployed and short of strength, they're deciding to do this?

Are the neo-cons trying to run the country into the ground?

You're a real dumbass arent you?

This law will not change anything that isn't already happening. It's long been the policy of the US armed forces that women could NOT serve in combat arms positions (infantry, armor, artillery, SF, etc). They CAN however fight in combat support positions such as pilots (fixed and rotary wing) as well as serve as MPs-- which in today's world face the possibility of seeing just as much action as infantry. All this bill is doing is taking this "in house" policy and making it federal law.

As for the neo-con comment, I highly doubt that all 61 of the committee members are right-wing hawks. Odds are that just under half are Democrats. This issue (not seeing women in combat) is something that all but the furthest left-wing feminists support.

Aviation is a combat arms branch. Just sayin'

[b33f]

House Drops Women In Combat Bill
Associated Press
May 26, 2005

WASHINGTON - House Republicans abandoned their own plan Wednesday to curb the role of women in combat zones after it ran into opposition from the Pentagon and lawmakers from both parties.

Instead, the GOP-controlled House decided to let the military continue determining which jobs women can hold, as long as defense officials give Congress advance word on any changes. The provision was included in a $491 billion defense bill that the chamber approved by a 390-39 vote.

Earlier, the House approved on a 428-1 vote a watered-down provision that lets the Pentagon decide military jobs for women as long as it gives Congress 60 days notice - twice as much time as is currently required.

"There will be no restrictions in statute for how the Army can assign women in the military," said Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M. The only female veteran now serving in Congress, Wilson was a leading opponent of the plan that was dropped.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the House-passed provision guarantees that Congress will be involved if the services change their policies on which jobs are open to women.

Source & Remainder (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_women_052605,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)