• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Aclu sues over policy barring women from combat

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,389
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
 
I'm not sure why this made me laugh. Not that I agree or disagree. It's more a "damn lawyers" LOL thing.
 
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out

War has boundaries? Ever?
 
The women in the Navy I talk to don't want to be in combat.
 
The women in the Navy I talk to don't want to be in combat.

Oh well that settles it then. Navy Pride has talked to like six women who don't want to be in ground combat, so we should ban all women from ground combat.
 
Oh well that settles it then. Navy Pride has talked to like six women who don't want to be in ground combat, so we should ban all women from ground combat.

I would never want my wife or daughter in combat but that is just me. Since one is a lawyer and the other is and RN that is not likely to happen...By the way they both served in Iraq.
 
I would never want my wife or daughter in combat but that is just me. Since one is a lawyer and the other is and RN that is not likely to happen...By the way they both served in Iraq.
Interesting thing about that. Considering they are both adults and we do not have slavery anymore the decision to go into combat should be theirs, though as a husband or father I am sure your opinion would be welcome in THEIR decision making process. Your wants and desires in this situation are really only relevant as an opinion and other than that you should butt out.

I like how the military is supposed to be fighting for something called freedom and here we have a member who wants anything but for his child and spouse.
 
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:
 
Last edited:
If women want to be in combat let them as long as they receive the same exact training as men, they have every right to be there too.
 
I've had some girlfriends who were far more dangerous than some Navy Seals. At a certain time of the month, just 3 of them could have killed every Taliban in Afghanistan and still have had the energy to disagree with me.

Let 'em loose.
:shoot
 
I'll have to fetch some interesting reports, but some evidence has been gathered to indicate that unisexual combat formations (depending on type of service) tend to perform better than co-sexual ones. Most data in this area has been drawn from Israel and their experiments with female combat integration, but it was also gathered by studying organized guerrilla groups like the PKK which have by trial and error come to similar conclusions.
 
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out
Hrm... I don't know, I've played Modern Warfare and I didn't see any females at all in it.
419271_319056694820176_202188616506985_891560_1970188691_n.jpg


War has boundaries? Ever?
Yes, for those who aren't cowards.
 
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:

18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender (including transgendered), ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership. Posting links to any website deemed by the Moderator Team to contain hate messages will also constitute a violation of Rule 18.

Moderator's Warning:
Racial slurs, in and of themselves, do not violate Rule 18 but they are a grey area that can easily get you into trouble.

And if you think something should be allowed by the rules, but aren't certain if it is, in-thread is not the place to discuss it.
 
ACLU sues over policy barring women from combat - chicagotribune.com


The American Civil Liberties Union and four servicewomen sued the U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday to end a ban on women in combat, calling the military the last bastion of discrimination by the federal government and saying modern warfare has already put women in the line of fire.

modern warfare doesn't have the clear boundaries that may have once existed. It will be interesting to see how this plays out

Great, just what the Military needs. More civilians with no military experience telling us what we need. Same reason we now get issued thousands of dollars of equipment that stays in its original packaging, stuffed in a ruck in the back of a closet.
 
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Rudyard Kipling - "The Young British Soldier"

There's no reason why women can't serve in front-line combat-- they're fully capable. There are, however, many reasons why they should not, and should not be allowed to... first and foremost the effect on morale that women being wounded or dying has. Male soldiers will take stupid and excessive risks to protect female comrades and no amount of training can suppress this instinct, nor should it be suppressed. Demographically and biologically, women are simply too valuable to be wasted in combat-- while bleeding off a few men here and there is actually good for society.
 
But women deserve the right to get blown apart, too!

Why on Earth would ANYBODY fight for the "right" to place themselves in harm's way, just to say they can?!? There is only one advantage to a front-line combat assignment: medals, without which senior officers cannot make General. And since there are affirmative action type programs in place for female officer selection, I don't see what the problem is. They can already take full advantage of all the military has to offer, without the worst part of the work.

Also, as a side-note: "war words" are an active device used to dehumanize the enemy, for it is far easier to kill a "towel head" as opposed to a "human being of Arabic descent."
 
But women deserve the right to get blown apart, too!

Why on Earth would ANYBODY fight for the "right" to place themselves in harm's way, just to say they can?!? There is only one advantage to a front-line combat assignment: medals, without which senior officers cannot make General. And since there are affirmative action type programs in place for female officer selection, I don't see what the problem is. They can already take full advantage of all the military has to offer, without the worst part of the work.

Also, as a side-note: "war words" are an active device used to dehumanize the enemy, for it is far easier to kill a "towel head" as opposed to a "human being of Arabic descent."

Hate to break it to you, but Service Members don't go to combat for little pieces of ribbon and brass. And we don't call the enemy by denigrating terms to "dehumanize" them. We know damn well that they're people, regardless of how we describe them. Words don't mean a damn thing when you're getting shot at.
 
Women in combat should be treated the same as men in combat in the same situations. I don't want to hear about men who will "protect women" more than they will "protect their own comrades in arms". Soldiers are soldiers. Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality. The USA is at war. Women who serve are at war. I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.
 
Historically men go to war to protect their women and children from wars barbarism. Women do not belong in a combat situation period. Having said that though those little gook women were bad ass cold blooded killers so I could be wrong. And gook is not a racial slur, it was the term of the day like kraut or Jap, war words are not infraction worthy, I don't think.:neutral:

Lol, the fact that you had to go on this little diatribe to white wash your use of derogatory terms is all we need to know. What next? Nigger isn't a racial/ethnic slur? It's just the term of the day for black people? Just because something is the 'term' of the day to the historically illiterate, it does not mean it's not a racial/ethnic slur. The two are more than mutually exclusive.
 
Great, just what the Military needs. More civilians with no military experience telling us what we need. Same reason we now get issued thousands of dollars of equipment that stays in its original packaging, stuffed in a ruck in the back of a closet.

I would agree with you except that in this case the women bringing the law suit ARE military.
 
Soldiers are soldiers.

Except they're not. No matter how much we might pretend otherwise, they're still human beings first and that influences how they fight.

Women in the military have the same responsibilities as their male counterparts. If they can fight for their country, and die for their country, they deserve equality.

Yes. The problem is that they have no business being that close to foreign wars in the first place. The entire purpose of having a standing military is to keep war away from women. Women dying in combat is what happens when you lose a war, and why any nation that deserves to survive does everything in its power to ensure that doesn't happen.

I cry to see our veterans return with their limbs and their minds destroyed because of what they have suffered... but I cannot and will not dismiss the sacrifice of women who have served with honor, simply because they lacked a penis in the field of battle.

I'm not dismissing their sacrifice. I'm lamenting their sacrifice as costing society more than the same sacrifice made by a man.
 
There is only one advantage to a front-line combat assignment: medals, without which senior officers cannot make General.

Civilians seem obsessed with medals for some reason. Nobody in the military would volunteer for a dangerous assignment for a freaking medal.
 
I would agree with you except that in this case the women bringing the law suit ARE military.

I didn't read the article before I posted. It's about the eighty-six thousandth time this issue has come up. My bad.

If these female Service Members want to be Infantry, more power to them, but I don't see them complaining about the "inequality" in the PT standards. If they can pass the male standards of the PT test at a minimum of 70%, and maintain that, then by all means, let them in. If not, they can go back to being mechanics, medics, pilots, surgeons, heavy equipment operators, cooks, administrative personnel, electricians, drivers, Sappers, lawyers, Military Police, intelligence personnel, and all those other important roles which they feel aren't good enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom