• 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!

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:57]

Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

  • Total voters
    87
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
In my 21 years in the military I have never heard of one person be they man or woman who wanted to serve in combat.
Click to expand...


I wanted to. I tried to join the Army for Gulf War I and requested a shot at getting into a combat unit. I wanted to serve in a combat unit, and I wanted to engage in combat.

Unfortunately a hearing problem kept me out, to my disgust.

I'm far from the only one. Why do you think people volunteer to try out for Rangers, Recon, Special Forces, etc? It ain't because they want to sit in the rear with the gear.

Granted, I was young and gung-ho... but so are most recruits.


I don't see why there might not be some women who feel similarly, despite their relative lack of testosterone poisoning. I've known some pretty tough chicks in my time who didn't mind a scrap.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Goshin said:
I wanted to. I tried to join the Army for Gulf War I and requested a shot at getting into a combat unit. I wanted to serve in a combat unit, and I wanted to engage in combat.

Unfortunately a hearing problem kept me out, to my disgust.

I'm far from the only one. Why do you think people volunteer to try out for Rangers, Recon, Special Forces, etc? It ain't because they want to sit in the rear with the gear.

Granted, I was young and gung-ho... but so are most recruits.


I don't see why there might not be some women who feel similarly, despite their relative lack of testosterone poisoning. I've known some pretty tough chicks in my time who didn't mind a scrap.
Click to expand...

I chuckled.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Medusa said:
technology which was developed by human may not need even men..only robots may have to fight one day :lol:
Click to expand...

Which would, of course, usher in the Clone Wars.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

earthworm said:
If our nation was being directly attacked....then these powers that be can go to hell !
A woman IS a human being.
Click to expand...

A human being who cannot carry nearly as much as a man into the battle on balance.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Henrin said:
Who said anything about treating them as property?
Click to expand...

There is a fine line in the treatment of others..
It can be love, it can be patronizing, a little of both, we know not..
But, there are men who do treat others as property...
Maybe this is in our basic makeup.....
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Navy Pride said:
You people who are posting yes have you ever been in the military... Did you serve in combat?
Click to expand...

yes and yes, have the scars to prove it.

Now if you have never met someone WILLING to go into combat you needed a more stouter circle of men to have served with, but then again YOU are expressing a very strong opinion and never have been locked in mortal combat- true?

I won't even begin to attempt to explain to pogues the grunt mindset, it is beyond most people's understanding of rational.

Once again you ask a hack question-

Very few want to see their son, brother, husband, daughter, sister, wife in harm's way. But just like cops and firefighters it is part of the job. you either get it or you don't.

It makes no difference if I die in desperate hand to hand combat or a 500lb roadside bomb rips into a poorly protected Hummer to my loved ones. I died doing what 99% of the military won't do, put boots on the ground looking for a fight. I seriously doubt a pogue understands that- even one with 21 years service.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Mathematician said:
They want "equality", which typically means the same rewards without genuinely equal achievement.
Click to expand...
Elaborate.
Are you saying that a woman cannot achieve as much as a man ?
And by what standards ?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

MaggieD said:
I think if you lined up 200 soldiers, 100 men and 100 women, (in today's army) you'd find that far fewer women than men are eager for combat.

I have nothing but gut instinct to back up that opinion. Well, that? And that I believe a woman with children is far less likely to want to be in harm's way than a father.
Click to expand...

In harm's way ?
Here I agree, if its a foreign adventure combat.
If its in defense of one's nation..eg ...Israel, Poland, Ethiopia ....
Then, all bets are off.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Fisher said:
A human being who cannot carry nearly as much as a man into the battle on balance.
Click to expand...

you have to be VERY selective on the choice of man and woman to claim that. guys always use 200 pound men vs 100 pound women.... ahhh unless you are talking about middle school girls or meth addicted strippers it is difficult to find many 100 pound women in the real world. Try a 5'6" woman should come in between 130 to 144.

Now I seem to recall the winners of the SE Asia games being a tad smaller than us and were not that bad at close combat. The expression amount of fight in the dawg comes to mind. ;)

When I was in the Light Infantry I was 138. I can only think of three 200 pound guys in our platoon and they were a constant distraction, always hungry, always hitting the rest of us up for part of our C-rats. What got the ALICE humped through the bushes wasn't bulk but heart. We did make our bigger guys carry the heavier loads the longest, for us it was the 90rcl most the time. but the big guys got payback on road marches, they were put up front and told to stride the puck out. :shock:

I'd suggest those panning women in combat quit comparing female grunts to girls you want to date and start thinking of them as vicious byotches you want having your back.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

StillBallin75 said:
I was gonna say it was more because the English plain didn't like her lol.
Click to expand...

Although if I remember my history, it was the French who wanted her executed.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
you have to be VERY selective on the choice of man and woman to claim that. guys always use 200 pound men vs 100 pound women.... ahhh unless you are talking about middle school girls or meth addicted strippers it is difficult to find many 100 pound women in the real world. Try a 5'6" woman should come in between 130 to 144.

Now I seem to recall the winners of the SE Asia games being a tad smaller than us and were not that bad at close combat. The expression amount of fight in the dawg comes to mind. ;)

When I was in the Light Infantry I was 138. I can only think of three 200 pound guys in our platoon and they were a constant distraction, always hungry, always hitting the rest of us up for part of our C-rats. What got the ALICE humped through the bushes wasn't bulk but heart. We did make our bigger guys carry the heavier loads the longest, for us it was the 90rcl most the time. but the big guys got payback on road marches, they were put up front and told to stride the puck out. :shock:

I'd suggest those panning women in combat quit comparing female grunts to girls you want to date and start thinking of them as vicious byotches you want having your back.
Click to expand...

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Asserting that now all three mile treks will simply have to take more time and that smaller, lighter, weaker soldiers will be better "on balance" is simply dishonest. Dropping the basic physical requirements of all, to be more "fair" to some, is insane. As you pointed out, bigger is not always better, but the goal of best is never attained by simply redefining it as adequate, to let more have a chance to "participate".
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

notquiteright said:
you have to be VERY selective on the choice of man and woman to claim that. guys always use 200 pound men vs 100 pound women.... ahhh unless you are talking about middle school girls or meth addicted strippers it is difficult to find many 100 pound women in the real world. Try a 5'6" woman should come in between 130 to 144.

Now I seem to recall the winners of the SE Asia games being a tad smaller than us and were not that bad at close combat. The expression amount of fight in the dawg comes to mind. ;)

When I was in the Light Infantry I was 138. I can only think of three 200 pound guys in our platoon and they were a constant distraction, always hungry, always hitting the rest of us up for part of our C-rats. What got the ALICE humped through the bushes wasn't bulk but heart. We did make our bigger guys carry the heavier loads the longest, for us it was the 90rcl most the time. but the big guys got payback on road marches, they were put up front and told to stride the puck out. :shock:

I'd suggest those panning women in combat quit comparing female grunts to girls you want to date and start thinking of them as vicious byotches you want having your back.
Click to expand...


Ahhhhh.... look: I have no problem with women in combat, as long as they are trained and conditioned to the unit's required standards without regard to gender.


However, it is most evident that there are physical differences in the genders regarding certain physical performance capabilities.

Most of the time, in comparing a 140 lb man and a 140 lb woman, who are both comparably trained and conditioned, the man will typically have more strength and endurance, more muscle and bone mass, and will likely be a bit faster overall. If you look at athletic records it becomes quickly evident that in most sports where strength or endurance are the major factors, male athletes typically outperform female athletes on average.

Not to say there aren't exceptional female athletes who are capable of competing with top-rank male athletes... yes there are a few, but only a few.

Now I figure most women who'd want to be a Ranger, and are capable of qualifying under existing standards, would be exceptional physical specimens with exceptional drive and committment to excel already, so if they qual I have no problem with them doing it.

But pretending that there aren't significant differences in physical performance capacity between the genders, speaking in terms of averages and generalities, is just not factual.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Some but not all women would be willing.
Just don't change the requirements. Anyone passing all tests can go for any position.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

celticwar17 said:
Yea, that's where the problem comes in for me.

I'd say IF a women is allowed to go into combat she must succeed on the same physical requirements and have the same qualifications as the men. Currently in the military they don't.
Click to expand...

Women that will serve in combat roles will have to meet male physical requirements.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

I don't think anyone prefers to "risk" their life. There is a certain amount of risk we all take when joining the military because, well, you never know. But I hardly recall a bunch of hands going up in the air when asked, "Who wants this ****ty detail? Any volunteers? "
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

As a Marine Vet from OEF. if they want the job, meet the requirements, and serve honorable then I have no problem in combat rules. As an MP I have fought along with my fellow female MPs with no problem, but do think females should have to sign up for selective services now.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?[W:

Navy Pride said:
In my 21 years in the military I have never heard of one person be they man or woman who wanted to serve in combat.
Click to expand...

I'm in total disbelief at that. I dabbled in ROTC and I have a dozen friends serving overseas as enlisted or newly commissioned officers with varying degrees of service time, and in my extremely short exposure to the military I have met literally hundreds of people who desired combat arms branches or MOS's and wanted the opportunity to deploy to a combat zone like Afghanistan or Iraq. I don't know how you could possibly have gone 21 years in the military without meeting someone who didn't want to go to a combat branch and experience combat.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Aunt Spiker said:
*snort* - you think people join the military to die?

Heck - why'd you go in? You want to die?

No one wants to die - you're in - ask why people join . . . everyone has their own reason and no one ever says "I have a death wish"

What a stupid question :roll:
Click to expand...
The true "stupid" question is the one people FEAR to ask.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Navy Pride said:
Its really easy for you lefties to say I don't have a problem with it..........Your not in the military no do you have to face a combat situation where you are laying your life on the line.........If that were the case you might have a different opinion.
Click to expand...
So called "lefties" have nothing to do with this.
I would trust my life to a woman...the gun is the great equalizer..
And these other silly things that conservatives bring up....how childish of them..
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Navy Pride said:
All I am saying is that men don't have a choice and I don't believe women should either.
Click to expand...
As much as I detest this word "persons" ...persons, not men, not women should have no choice....
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Goshin said:
Ahhhhh.... look: I have no problem with women in combat, as long as they are trained and conditioned to the unit's required standards without regard to gender.


However, it is most evident that there are physical differences in the genders regarding certain physical performance capabilities.

Most of the time, in comparing a 140 lb man and a 140 lb woman, who are both comparably trained and conditioned, the man will typically have more strength and endurance, more muscle and bone mass, and will likely be a bit faster overall. If you look at athletic records it becomes quickly evident that in most sports where strength or endurance are the major factors, male athletes typically outperform female athletes on average.

Not to say there aren't exceptional female athletes who are capable of competing with top-rank male athletes... yes there are a few, but only a few.

Now I figure most women who'd want to be a Ranger, and are capable of qualifying under existing standards, would be exceptional physical specimens with exceptional drive and committment to excel already, so if they qual I have no problem with them doing it.

But pretending that there aren't significant differences in physical performance capacity between the genders, speaking in terms of averages and generalities, is just not factual.
Click to expand...


I agree that the next war fought only with fists, knives and swords should be only fought by men.

Besides, we learned how incompetent in physical activities women are when they went to work in factories and riveting ships in WWII. That's why Germany and Japan won World War II and we lost.
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Navy Pride said:
would you want your wife, sister or daughter to serve in hand to hand combat and live in a foxhole?
Click to expand...

No... but I wouldn't wouldn't want my brother, father or Son in hand to hand combat either.

But that's their choice now... isn't it?
 
Re: Do you really think women in the Military want to risk their lives in combat?

Goshin said:
Most of the time, in comparing a 140 lb man and a 140 lb woman, who are both comparably trained and conditioned, the man will typically have more strength and endurance, more muscle and bone mass, and will likely be a bit faster overall.
Click to expand...

In my experience, the average person who weighs 140 pounds is fairly easy to toss around, regardless of their gender. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom