Time to Rethink Women in Combat

[Quon Sen Hutt]

http://www.military.com/

After reading David DeBatto's article ("The Young and Restless") I believe the points he raised should make all concerned people reconsider their support of flawed decisions that allow women to be placed in combat situations.

As you probably know, women constitute about 15 percent of the active force today. Some Reserve and National Guard units have a higher concentration of females, who did not enlist for combat duty.

At last count, seven females have been killed in Iraq, and no one seems to care, but let one ****** assault complaint see the light of day, and a congressional hearing is launched. We would not be flooded with ****** assault investigations today if the senior leadership displayed the courage needed years ago to prevent the expanding employment of women in the military. This being an election year, you can bet the farm no politician will take on the feminist movement that is pushing for greater opportunities for women in the military.

Dressing women in battle dress uniforms does not make them soldiers. Calling them soldiers does not mean they possess the requisite skills required of warriors.

No nation, in modern history, has advanced the cause of equality and women rights by sending women into combat. Until the American people demand reconsideration of existing deployment policies, women will continue to die needlessly in Iraq and Congress will continue to waste time and resources reviewing ****** assault complaints.

For years, the senior leadership ignored declining physical standards caused by increasing reliance on female recruits to fill manpower quotas. Mention pregnancy rates and no comment follows. Now, because some women, who are as culpable as some men at initiating ****** contact, are complaining, the brass are forced to take another look at predictable problems created by *** integration.

Old soldiers, like me, remember Tailhook and its impact. Years ago, Tailhook allowed the media to blackmail the senior leadership into over-reacting to claims of ****** harassment. Because this nation is so obsessed with anything involving ***, excessive media coverage, as witnessed today, is the natural result. However, national security concerns warrant more than congressional hearings that fail to address the negative impact of consensual ****** activities, as well as the corrosive impact of women in combat. Asking young men and women to ignore ****** attractions, resulting from living and working conditions found today in our armed forces, is unnatural and dangerous.

Our national security will be impacted if common sense does not prevail. Away from the media spotlight, I believe education and discipline will correct most problems drawing media attention today.

No one seems to understand that it is not the primary purpose of our armed forces to provide employment opportunities for women and young men. Our armed forces exist for the single purpose of defending the nation by destroying any enemy that threatens our national security. Clearly, women can contribute to the nation's defense, but not as warriors.

[NcDeuce]

I believe the problem lies within the standards not the sole fact that women are in uniform in combat arms branches or in support branches that are being hit with casualties.

I personally am in the presence of female cadets and possible future soldiers in the Army everyday. They know what they're signing up for. Hell, a couple of our female cadets are already airborne and air assault qualified.

I definitely think the physical requirements for females should go up.

BTW, females are not allowed in Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces for combat arms branches. I think they are very limited in all the other combat arms branches, especially field artillery.

[Red]

that is so much BS,if they can fight why not.is it their fault that they are assualted? no i dont think so.If they can do the job then lets roll.The problem is not the women but the organization.

[Kilgor]

Btw.. wasnt it a woman that raised the red flag over the Reichstag ?

The russians and vietcong had many women in combat situations and they were hard bitches

[TALOS]

Btw.. wasnt it a woman that raised the red flag over the Reichstag ?
I dont think so, I have a photo of that somewhere, I will look for it tomorrow

[front]

Quonsa Hut? You are missing the point.

"Warriors" do not want women in the military but your military is not lead by warriors. Each and every two-star is looking for a political ticket to the Senate or Congress or worse. As long as they have warm bodies to fill the billets and soak up the MOS they are quite happy...

Male or female...

Homo****** or not...

Your military is politics. I do not understand how you do not realise it.

So stop the whining about "protecting the honeys" and "American women should not be in combat" bull. Your leaders don't care. You might... but they sure as fcuk don't.

cheers

front

[Jack Mehoff]

Sure, if they are hot

[Quon Sen Hutt]

We do have political generals. Gen. Clarke is an example.

But we only need to vote right and clean the liberals out of office to restore sanity.

[Kilgor]

Btw.. wasnt it a woman that raised the red flag over the Reichstag ?
I dont think so, I have a photo of that somewhere, I will look for it tomorrow

I recently got the "world at war " dvd series and it had a interview with the woman who did it. Not sure if its true of course.

Who can tell though.. often the photos taken later are for re-enactment for the cameras ie "the encirclement of stalingrad"

[Durandal]

Blame women for ignorant males inability to change.

Great, next Hutt is going to want to segreagate troop formations.

We cannot have blacks and white fighting together, as one unit. that would be insane and against the laws of man, nature and god!

*snort*

[Ratamacue]

We do have political generals. Gen. Clarke is an example.

But we only need to vote right and clean the liberals out of office to restore sanity.

Yeah, everything would be so perfect if it wasn't for those people with differing views, right? Damn freedom of thought!

[front]

Well... the people on this board do not understand your phrase yet:

Quon Sen Hutt = QUONSET HUT

OKAY ENOUGH!

We are not idiots. What is the point of your nick on this board?

cheers

front

[Quon Sen Hutt]

We do have political generals. Gen. Clarke is an example.

But we only need to vote right and clean the liberals out of office to restore sanity.

Yeah, everything would be so perfect if it wasn't for those people with differing views, right? Damn freedom of thought!


http://www.gambits.com/politics/kerry--arafat.jpg

We know how the liberals think. Thank goodness for elections, we get to throw the bums out.

[USMarine3521]

that is so much BS,if they can fight why not.is it their fault that they are assualted? no i dont think so.If they can do the job then lets roll.The problem is not the women but the organization.

I think it would be a bad move to put women into combat. Naturally, women do not have the kind of upper body strength that males have, which will be taxing them a lot with pull ups, hiking with heavy loads, push ups, etc.. If women were in the field with men I believe they would just slow everyone down, because they just wont be able to keep up. Sure, there are some women who can keep up but the number is probably very few, so dont you think in the long run its just a waste of money and training to train them combat arms MOS when most women won't be able to be as efficient as a male infantryman, for example.

Again I'm not saying all women cannot keep up with males, its just that it would be a waste of money and time when only a few women out of hundreds/thousands possibly will actually be as effiecient as a male infantryman. It's like this: Women in combat in combat is like buying a Honda Civic for $100,000 when you can get a Porsche for the same price. :D

Also men and women infantry in a battlefield would obviously be a problem. I mean what if there is some 19 year old private who is still a virgin??? rofl getting pregnant in a war wouldnt be good :D

[GrimmyRX]

One of these days, you guys are gonna say that to the wrong girl and then:

:bash: :fork: :-*$ :slap: :backhand:

:lol:

[11F5S]

Old soldiers, like me, remember Tailhook and its impact. Years ago, Tailhook allowed the media to blackmail the senior leadership into over-reacting to claims of ****** harassment. Because this nation is so obsessed with anything involving ***, excessive media coverage, as witnessed today, is the natural result. However, national security concerns warrant more than congressional hearings that fail to address the negative impact of consensual ****** activities, as well as the corrosive impact of women in combat. Asking young men and women to ignore ****** attractions, resulting from living and working conditions found today in our armed forces, is unnatural and dangerous.

Over-reacting my ass...Exposure...Not blackmail ....forced senior leadership to act responsibly, instead of turning a blind eye to reprehensible behavior as they had in the past. Responsibility comes with the job of being a leader.

[11F5S]

Also men and women infantry in a battlefield would obviously be a problem. I mean what if there is some 19 year old private who is still a virgin??? rofl getting pregnant in a war wouldnt be good :D

If a 19 year old is thinking of *** with a fellow soldier while on the battlefield.....he's an idiot and doesn't belong on the battlefield.

[Haiw]

Also men and women infantry in a battlefield would obviously be a problem. I mean what if there is some 19 year old private who is still a virgin??? rofl getting pregnant in a war wouldnt be good :D

If a 19 year old is thinking of *** with a fellow soldier while on the battlefield.....he's an idiot and doesn't belong on the battlefield.
rofl
Just imagine... a US squad is attacking some Iraqi insurgent position. They come under heavy fire and become pinned down. Two soldiers have already taken hits when... "hey...we don't seem to be going anywhere soon....wanna ****?" "yeah sure, we'll fight later!" :lol:

[11F5S]

We do have political generals. Gen. Clarke is an example.

But we only need to vote right and clean the liberals out of office to restore sanity.

1. It's Clark not "Clarke".

2. Wesley Clark, General USA (RET) is a Retired General not a General. Major difference.

3. Many Retired Generals have become POTUS in the past. Does General George Washington or General Dwight D. Eisenhower ring any bells?

4. Being a politician is part of the job description of being a General. If you are note politically adept, you will not rise to that level.

5. When you provide a link to an article you are posting.....post the link to the article not to military.coms home page. The article should be posted within quotation marks.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_031004_Women,00.html

[USMarine3521]

Also men and women infantry in a battlefield would obviously be a problem. I mean what if there is some 19 year old private who is still a virgin??? rofl getting pregnant in a war wouldnt be good :D

If a 19 year old is thinking of *** with a fellow soldier while on the battlefield.....he's an idiot and doesn't belong on the battlefield.
rofl
Just imagine... a US squad is attacking some Iraqi insurgent position. They come under heavy fire and become pinned down. Two soldiers have already taken hits when... "hey...we don't seem to be going anywhere soon....wanna f***?" "yeah sure, we'll fight later!" :lol:

rofl rofl

[aktarian]

No nation, in modern history, has advanced the cause of equality and women rights by sending women into combat. Until the American people demand reconsideration of existing deployment policies, women will continue to die needlessly in Iraq and Congress will continue to waste time and resources reviewing ****** assault complaints.

Aren't there examples of women in military serving in front lines. Soviet Union coems to mind. As does Vietnam. It was either Etiopia or Eritrea that used them as well. Bosniacs used women snipers. Nepal will start using them soon, if not already.