Yes, and they should be integrated with the males
Yes, but keep their units seperate from male units
No, but women should be given some basic infantry skills beyond basic training
No, women should never serve in a role where they may encounter combat
Allowing women to specialize in a certain MOS is not about letting any woman become an infantry soldier. It's about allowing a woman an opportunity to see if she can meet the standard, and if she can, serve in that MOS. I saw many males wash out of Infantry School at Ft. Benning. Many more wash out of more specialized schools.
You make the grade or you don't.
I disagree with integrated units. I don't agree with the ridiculous notion that women "in general" can't do the job.
Last edited by Lerxst; 05-27-09 at 02:47 PM.
Having pushed a few men out of the job, I believe I can say with 100% acciracy that men who are physically unable are not allowed to the job. Some still serve in infantry units, but not in the role of infantryman. Who do you think gets pushed into supply jobs which go unfilled? Good men, who are otherwise physically unable.
So how many women can hump a ruck up a mountain with the same alacrity as their male infantry counterparts?
Some obviously, but not many, and of those who could, how many would be willing to serve in the roll of the infantry?
The number of willing to serve in infantry units, even if they are able, will be by necessity, small in number (which you would know if you had read the entire post).
Since it is small, and 19 year old are 19 year olds you still have the seuxal issue. As you acknowledge this, while ignoring the reality of small numbers that physicality imposes, I am not sure what exactly your point is?
The two are linked.
That they are physically able or that this is desreable are two very different things.
This ad hominem attack of yours, was just another falsehood posted by you in an ad hominem smear campaign. Post the quote I requested, or retract your fallacious claim, or get reported for the e"libel" you have committed.