If it's a matter of a woman replacing a man I'm against it. If it's a matter of "woman or nobody", hell yeah - throw them in the fray.
Hell, part of me thinks that we should just get a small pack of women who are fully combat trained, put them together long enough that their cycles sync up, wait for them to PMS, and just drop them behind enemy lines and watch them kick and scratch their way to victory.
They'd probably see a pack of men and be thirstier for blood than the worst Viet Congs.
Not really, as those I remember (admittedly I haven't been paying any attention) you seem to be misquoting or attempting to put inaccurate words in the mouth of others. I don't respond or defend points I haven't made, so feel free to bugger off or even post your own opinion about the OP.Several....many of which you've commented on.
"If I take death into my life, acknowledge it, and face it squarely, I will free myself from the anxiety of death and the pettiness of life - and only then will I be free to become myself." ~ Martin Heidegger
Don't worry, guns make everything gender equal anyway (according to some characters who post here).The fact is, you have zero experience in combat, and are simply arguing from a philosophical perspective. Yeah, I agree, women are equals intellectually and legally, but even as you admitted, they are NOT equal physically. I have no problem with women who can fit the same standards as the grunts. I do have a problem with people like you trying to drag down the standards to fit the weak.
It is not an admission. There is nothing wrong with the level of fitness women attain. It is simply a different level from men. US women are often giants, like Euros standing on a box. Possibly fitter and stronger than some foreign national male adversaries.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice....shame on me.
I did have a lot of experience fighting my brother growing up. I learned that I'm strongest when I can use my legs to bring his chubby body down.