• 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!

Women Should Be Allowed in Combat Units, Report Says

cpwill said:
yes. all the time we do not abandon Marines.
Click to expand...

I can see securing your casualties and making an attempt at destroying the vehicle, but you don't assault. Right?
 
apdst said:
Not the same intensity and intensity is important.
Click to expand...

Very few wars in the history of the IDF were as intense as the 2006 Lebanon war.
You brought up the six-day war, but this war was still less intense than the 2006 Lebanon war, it was only six-days long after all. :2razz:

Soldiers during the 2006 Lebanon war have had to keep up with constant battles for weeks and have not been sleeping or showering for days. I believe that's one perfect example there for you.

It was rejected for political reasons. Not because the IDF commanders had an epiphany and decided that coed infantry units would be the best thing since sliced bread. The, "discovery", was made by the IDF and it was, "rejected", by a judge.
Click to expand...

The "discovery" was made in '48 when the IDF was a baby army, several days old.
The rejection of that decision was made in '95, and the IDF would have not allowed it to happen was the supreme court decision such a devastating decision.

That's one of the problems that will cause damage to unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

I still don't understand where's the damaging factor here. You're saying that because one of the unit brothers is a unit sister they would be less tied to each other as a unit?

Not if the females are being transported to a different area to get their hot shower, while the male soldiers are washing their nads in a bucket, next their foxhole.
Click to expand...

Transported? During a war?

Refer back to Oscar's post where he mentioned going 53 days without a shower.

Which is exaclty the point I've been trying to make.
Click to expand...

Such concerns as letting a female on her day of the month have a hot shower are minor and during an actual war I believe they can be passed on.
 
apdst said:
I can see securing your casualties and making an attempt at destroying the vehicle, but you don't assault. Right?
Click to expand...

on an IED? usually the "assault" would be comprised of tactical-site-exploitation (if victim initiated) or going after the trigger man (if not). or, if it was the iniatior for a larger ambush, dealing with that. but yes. generally the proper response to someone attacking you is to attack him right back and kill him. Even our POG's are taught from Boot Camp (before they go to combat training) that the proper response to a near ambush is to turn and assault.

and again. just speeding up and driving off leaving a vic with three of your guys in it behind is never acceptable.
 
Last edited:
Apocalypse said:
Very few wars in the history of the IDF were as intense as the 2006 Lebanon war.
You brought up the six-day war, but this war was still less intense than the 2006 Lebanon war, it was only six-days long after all. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Well, that's not exactly true. The Yom Kippur War saw the biggest tank battle, since WW2--the second biggest tank battle in history. Not only that, during Yom Kippur, the IDF saw 10,000 casualties. During the 06 war, the IDF saw less than 2,000. Yom Kippur was far more intense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the IDF in 2006 are ******s, compared to the IDF in 1973, just saying that these were two different wars with two different levels of intensity.


Soldiers during the 2006 Lebanon war have had to keep up with constant battles for weeks and have not been sleeping or showering for days. I believe that's one perfect example there for you.
Click to expand...

Entire days?



The "discovery" was made in '48 when the IDF was a baby army, several days old.
The rejection of that decision was made in '95, and the IDF would have not allowed it to happen was the supreme court decision such a devastating decision.
Click to expand...

Ok. I bet the IDF brass took the news the same way the American brass took the news of DADT being repealed.



I still don't understand where's the damaging factor here. You're saying that because one of the unit brothers is a unit sister they would be less tied to each other as a unit?
Click to expand...

A male and a female, who didn't live together, won't be as close knit as two males who do live together. It's a well known and accepted fact.



Transported? During a war?
Click to expand...

Soldiers also train together. Soldiers train together, before they fight together. The lasst thing you want is bad morale, before you ever deploy to the battlefield.



Such concerns as letting a female on her day of the month have a hot shower are minor and during an actual war I believe they can be passed on.
Click to expand...

Until she breaks down, craps out and can't do her job, then she will have to be dusted off for medical treatment.

Look, this isn't the 15th Century. A commander isn't going to tell a female soldier, who has a serious yeast infection that she's just going to have to deal with it. And, if he does, he won't be a commander very much longer after that.
 
cpwill said:
on an IED? usually the "assault" would be comprised of tactical-site-exploitation (if victim initiated) or going after the trigger man (if not). or, if it was the iniatior for a larger ambush, dealing with that. but yes. generally the proper response to someone attacking you is to attack him right back and kill him. Even our POG's are taught from Boot Camp (before they go to combat training) that the proper response to a near ambush is to turn and assault.
Click to expand...

Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?

and again. just speeding up and driving off leaving a vic with three of your guys in it behind is never acceptable.
Click to expand...

I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
 
apdst said:
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?



I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
Click to expand...



I "know a guy" who watched 2 Iraqi IPs burn to death. Iraqis were in a Ford Explorer loaded with their ammo, escorting US patrol through the city. IED hits their vehicle. Guy I know and his squad get out of their vehicle to assist, before they can reach the Iraqis the ammo starts going off due to the fire. literally thousands of rounds in all directions. guy I know, with much regret, orders his team back into their vehicle until explosions stop.

question: did this guy make the right choice not to risk the lives of his squad on the slim chance to save the two iraqis? would it make a difference if it had been two US GIs?
 
OscarB63 said:
I "know a guy" who watched 2 Iraqi IPs burn to death. Iraqis were in a Ford Explorer loaded with their ammo, escorting US patrol through the city. IED hits their vehicle. Guy I know and his squad get out of their vehicle to assist, before they can reach the Iraqis the ammo starts going off due to the fire. literally thousands of rounds in all directions. guy I know, with much regret, orders his team back into their vehicle until explosions stop.

question: did this guy make the right choice not to risk the lives of his squad on the slim chance to save the two iraqis? would it make a difference if it had been two US GIs?
Click to expand...

****ty to say. but yeah, it makes a difference that they were IP's v. Marines.
 
apdst said:
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?
Click to expand...

My SOP when in vehicles was to drive through, getting a sitrep. If there were no casualties or disabled vehicles we might be directed to continue on, dependent on circumstaces (but this never turned out to be the case). If their were casualties/disabled vehicles we'd set up a security cordon w/ sweeps for possible secondary IEDs and secure the vehicles/casualties. If we received small arms fire we'd definitely return fire and assault through.


I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

There were three times specifically we recieved small arms fire after an IED; each time we initiated the assault they quit the attack. On the sweep through they always ditched their weapons and lit out like a fart in the wind.

Thing is, we usually went out ready for this sort of thing, and could respond as such without worrying about the bigger picture because if an HVT was being moved or some other time/mission dependent task was at stake we were reinforced before moving in the first place. That way some could continue and others could conduct the sweep and rejoin after securing casualties, calling med-evac, etc, if necessary. Though this setup was out of the ordinary. 9/10 times in these cases routes were cleared by engineers beforehand, too, and we had some damn good engineers.

...this was SOP in 2004...
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Ok, let me make sure I have a solid copy here: When your convoy is ambushed, you're going to halt the convoy, then you're going to deminish the convoy's security, just to go looking for a few sappers that are hiding in the bushes?
Click to expand...

not at all. i'm going to halt the convoy to A) get my people who are wounded in the downed vic and B) kill the guys hiding in the bushes. depending on how i'm feeling. if i am tired i may just capture them so that someone back in the rear can interrogate them etc.

btw. keeping the convoy together isnt' demolishing it's "security", it's maintaining your security. running away and leaving your rear vic behind is what demolishes your security.

I can understand securing casualties. But, at the same time, I can't see getting an entire convoy wasted for a couple of dead bodies, either. There's the larger picture that has to be taken into account.
Click to expand...

1. these guys weren't dead
2. nobody checked to see if they were
3. if the enemy presents a chance to close with and destroy, close with and destroy. the "oh i don't want to get hurt" mentality will - in the end - hurt more.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
****ty to say. but yeah, it makes a difference that they were IP's v. Marines.
Click to expand...

and it's worth pointing out that this ties back into the other conversation. it's because of that tight unit integrity that, had some of our guys been inside a cooking vehicle, someone would have gone for them.
 
cpwill said:
****ty to say. but yeah, it makes a difference that they were IP's v. Marines.
Click to expand...

I think this guy would've probably made the same decision had they been US troops. there was no way of knowing if the two guys in the truck even survived the initial explosion. not going to risk 8 lives to recover 2 bodies. I'd rather write the letter to the parents of the 2 guys in the truck than write letters to the parents of the two in the truck plus the two or three killed/maimed trying to get to them. the guy I know took two rounds to his body armor while still 50 meters away.
 
zimmer said:
What about the few women who are on par? Too bad for the few women.

How long will they be "on par" with men? For that moment they trained like hell? Vincent makes the case beyond physical qualifications in post #158.

Then there is the fear standards will be lowered, or women will be brought in to make a statement.


It was used to make a point how physically weak women are. There might be the one in ten million who is strong enough, has the stamina... for a while, and actually wants to fight. Too bad for her.

.
Click to expand...

Men and women both need to maintain their strength and continue to meet the standards to serve. Might be one in ten million??? What exactly are these standards you think only 1 in 10,000,000 women could meet?
 
OscarB63 said:
I think this guy would've probably made the same decision had they been US troops.
Click to expand...

no comment there really possible. that's one of those decisions that whatever you decide to do, it can probably be justified.

but if we had even the slightest inclination that any of our guys were in a vehicle that was on fire; we would have gone for them.
 
cpwill said:
no comment there really possible. that's one of those decisions that whatever you decide to do, it can probably be justified.

but if we had even the slightest inclination that any of our guys were in a vehicle that was on fire; we would have gone for them.
Click to expand...

yeah, i think this was one of those unique situations. it's not like they were facing a human enemy that they could kill or scare off. due to the heat from the fire, those thousands of rounds of ammo were going to be firing randomly until they were all expended. with zero cover, it would've been suicide to try to reach the truck under those circumstances.
 
cpwill said:
not at all. i'm going to halt the convoy to A) get my people who are wounded in the downed vic
Click to expand...

I agree 100%.




and B) kill the guys hiding in the bushes. depending on how i'm feeling. if i am tired i may just capture them so that someone back in the rear can interrogate them etc.

btw. keeping the convoy together isnt' demolishing it's "security", it's maintaining your security. running away and leaving your rear vic behind is what demolishes your security.



1. these guys weren't dead
2. nobody checked to see if they were
3. if the enemy presents a chance to close with and destroy, close with and destroy. the "oh i don't want to get hurt" mentality will - in the end - hurt more.
Click to expand...

Here's where we part company. The mission, is to get the convoy from point A to point B. The mission isn't to leave the convoy at a standstill, make it an easier target and detaching part of the convoy's security element to go huntin' for sappers.

Me? In a scenario where my mission was to get the LOGPAC through, I'm going to police up my people, weapons and downed victor--or attempt to destroy the downed victor--and break contact as soon as possible, to continue the mission.

The problem I see with halting the convoy, so the security element can go chase sappers, is that it leaves the convoy with deminished security, or no security at all and therefore it becomes a target for the other group of bad guys hiding out on the other side of the road, waiting for the security element to run off, chasing Moe, Larry and Curly through the bushes.

I know I'm just armchair qurterbacking, here, but that ain't what I woulda done. If I had been a convoy commander, I would have told my commander that if he wanted to pursue enemy sappers, then he needed to attach an inorganic assault element to my convoy, just for that purpose, that he wasn't going to breakdown my organic security, just to score a couple fo kills, or he could order an airstrike on the area where the ambush took place.

I was very close to re-enlisting in '04. Looking back on it, it's a good thing I didn't, because I would have stayed in trouble, because of the--IMO--crappy tactics that were being used. Just like doing mounted patrols in Bradleys. That goes totally against the doctrine I was taught in the Army.
 
OscarB63 said:
I think this guy would've probably made the same decision had they been US troops. there was no way of knowing if the two guys in the truck even survived the initial explosion. not going to risk 8 lives to recover 2 bodies. I'd rather write the letter to the parents of the 2 guys in the truck than write letters to the parents of the two in the truck plus the two or three killed/maimed trying to get to them. the guy I know took two rounds to his body armor while still 50 meters away.
Click to expand...


It's all MET-T, bro. You gotta look at the big picture.

It's hard enough to order some kid to go into a situation where he's more than likely to get zapped, much less doing so just to rescue a couple of dead bodies.

War is hell.
 
apdst said:
Because, that's just the way things are. That's how our society works and no amount of social engineering in the military is going to change that.
Click to expand...

That's hog wash. Either you mature enough, or you're a child. If you can't handle sexuality, you can't handle life and death. It isn't socail engineering. It's expecting adults to behave like adults. I'm concerned that too many make excuses for childish and immature behavior.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's hog wash. Either you mature enough, or you're a child. If you can't handle sexuality, you can't handle life and death. It isn't socail engineering. It's expecting adults to behave like adults. I'm concerned that too many make excuses for childish and immature behavior.
Click to expand...

Did you really serve in the Army?
 
apdst said:
Did you really serve in the Army?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. And I would have had no problem then. Most of the people I served with were adults. I would never insult them by suggesting we treat thim like children.
 
apdst said:
The part that you're missing, is that this standard already exists, because of the policies currently in place. It's not going away and as Oscar pointed out, the existance of such policies in combat arms units will cause resentment within the ranks and thereby damage unit cohesion.
Click to expand...

Those policies don't exist because of people like me. They exist because of people like you and Oscar, who don't want your daughter sharing a tent with a sweaty corporal.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Those policies don't exist because of people like me. They exist because of people like you and Oscar, who don't want your daughter sharing a tent with a sweaty corporal.
Click to expand...

Actually, they exist because of candy ass females who want to be treated special and because of politicians who want females to be treated special and politicians who don't want to look they deprived female soldiers of their femanazi rights.
 
apdst said:
Actually, they exist because of candy ass females who want to be treated special and because of politicians who want females to be treated special and politicians who don't want to look they deprived female soldiers of their femanazi rights.
Click to expand...

Wow. I would be interested in any support for either of you. Lets ty to be factual if possible.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Did YOU? And if so, how does dishing chow in the mess hall prepare you to comment on combat conditions?
Click to expand...


It doesn't; not like any of the actual vets on here said that; one of which, you're not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom