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
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
And I'll tell right now...every single man negotiates the Marine Corps Obstacle Course.
There's a rope in front of us. Somebody has to climb it. The women are automatically counted out because none of them can climb it leaving the dwindled numbers to the samew selct men over and over again. What do you think that will do to the moral of the unit? To the comraderie?
This is not about "women's rights." This is about making the strongest infantry you can.
But we do not do this. We hike though the mountains of Afghanistan because our vehicles can not go. We hike up cold mountainous environments to train for altitude and cold weather with these 80 pound packs (for a radio operator, these packs are 120 pounds by the way). In urban terrain we have to climb walls and launch through windows. Only the few women could endure.
There is a reason the Olympics show a seperation between the Men's and Women's events. There is a certain standard for the men. Very few women could compete with them. If this is true for sporting events where a medal is at stake, why on earth do women think that the military should be open and "fair" when lives are the price of substandards?
Last edited by MSgt; 08-09-09 at 08:52 PM.
Speaking of false, this idea that no women in the military would want to be a "grunt" is false as well. I have stated it is probably not common, but to say that none want it is obviously false.
By the way, I am not a politician, and I am a veteran.
Lets face it. The Navy does not do much in the way of ground combat.
No Lives Matter
If women can handle the physical rigors of service, of course. I think it would take an exceptional woman to do it, but if they can meet the standard, why not?
As for the feasibility of having women in combat arms branches, I read a book a while back, but I forget the name now. The gist of the book was about Mexican drug cartels somehow starting a war with the United States, but one of the side stories is about how the armed forces were putting women in combat arms roles. They begin the program by putting qualified officers in command as platoon leaders and having them there for a certain amount of time before introducing enlisted females to get the other men in the platoon used to the idea of serving with females. It seems like a good idea to me.
Originally Posted by SWM
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
This reinforces the fact that you are truly ignorant of the subject then and simply putting forth your personal opinion. For which you have no real experience to draw upon. This is good for all of our readers to know so that they can have a reference point from which to further judge your posts.I've NEVER raised my hands against a Woman. Have you?
I have served with female MP's and police officers for years. During that time I have had to rely upon them for backup in armed confrontations and fist fights. Just like men, you know who you can count on and who you can't. There have been several women that I know that could very easily hurt a man in a fist fight, take them down and kick the **** out of them. Conversely, I have known many men who personify the term "pussy" and I wouldn't have them backing me up if they were the last resort because I would feel the need to watch out for them and know full well they couldn't or wouldn't do the same for me. They would be a liability to me.
I have had to fight women in the execution of my job duties. I have also trained with women in mixed martial arts. If you would NEVER raise your hand against a woman then are certainly not what you seem to be holding yourself out to be. Someone like you would get your fellow troops killed because you would refrain from violence against a woman. Why is that? Because they are frail and inferior beings who need protecting? Or is it that you feel they really aren't a threat to a man? I'm curious, warrior.
So, would you really never raise your hand against a woman?
So she is very capable of utilizing a weapon to kill a threat, just like a man.And I've made sure my Wife is a crack shot.
Fine.I don't believe Women belong in a ground pounding War.
Why? You've yet to actually explain a valid reason women should not be utilized to fight where necessary. I mean other than your description that they are weak and very poor in physical combat performance. Neither of which you can actually back up with any honest argument.Unless you're in a "Last Stand" situation,,,neither should you.