ptsdkid

Let me be clear. I love women for their many contributions to society including but not limited to their care giving and mothering roles. However, I am dead set against women in combat units, and to a lesser degree, unhappy and marginally concerned about women obtaining any military occupation especially during wartime. I’m all for women assuming a non-military Rosie the Riveter type role during wartime.
Wasn’t it a woman that wrote a bestseller titled, “Men are from Battleship Galactica, Women are from Love ship Greenpeace?” I may have gotten the title wrong but the theme of the book acknowledged that women are better emotionally equipped to handle the tribulations of a soap opera saga from couch side, rather than squeezing the trigger of an M-16 rifle at an approaching enemy soldier while standing and trembling inside of a foxhole.
Aside from a few lady wrestlers and a handful of masculine lesbian butches--the biological makeup of most women makes demanding combat roles an impossibility.
I remember humping a 75 pound rucksack up the treacherous mountainside of the A-Shau Valley in Vietnam during hot climate and high humidity. I also carried a 22-24 pound M-60 machine gun, heavy ammo belts, and weighty water canteens. There were a couple of effeminate cherries that caved in to the strenuous demand. Those guys were quickly shuffled back to REMF status at our base camp. The point being with everything unfair and unequal in war and body structure--I see no way for a woman (any woman) to have been able to proceed in that combat setting--let alone survive it.
Bill Clinton helped bring political correctness and e-masculinity into the United States military. With the advent of the total acceptance of gays in the military during his administration and the emasculation thereof--women could now call on their feminist sisters to help complete the feminization of our military, you know, with their equal rights agenda and all.
With young men’s hormones in a constant uproar, and the availability of women troops to satisfy their needs--the role of a militarily focused warrior had now transferred to the role of a wanton sex-craved young man.
With rapes, women troops getting pregnant, and incidents like the Tail hook Affair--sensitivity and further emasculation classes for young men were in order. Training to kill for combat now took a back seat for a new protocol featuring the sensitive, caring, and peaceful demeanor of all new male recruits.
The president of the United States is our CIC (Commander-in-Chief) of our combat units. Knowing a woman’s emotional handicap and inability to function properly in a combat setting--doesn’t it alarm you to the possibility of having Hillary as our CIC overseeing all operations of our combat personnel? I have no problem with having Condi Rice assume the position of CIC, for she acts like she owns a complete set with her brilliant performance as Secretary of State. Just because Hillary looks like a man does not mean that she possesses the emotional nerve needed to be a military leader--let alone our CIC.

TimmyKid

vergiss

Hint: something in the polls forum needs a POLL.

ptsdkid

How do I present it as a poll?

Hornburger

Go to thread tools, then add poll to this thread.

As for myself, I think that women should be able to be in combat if they want if they past psychological and fitness tests...if they pass the tests, the person is fit to be a soldier. It's as simple as that.

__________________
"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain."
-Winston Churchill

cnredd

[Moderator mode]

Added a poll...

[/Moderator mode]

__________________


www.politicalwrinkles.com

Stace

Women that join the military don't do so merely on a whim. They know what they're getting into. I actually think that women are emotionally stronger than men, and I'm sure there are at least one or two people around here that would agree with that.

That being said, if a woman can carry the load, and get the mission done, and WANTS to be part of a combat mission, then why not? If she's wounded, or killed, well.....she knew what could happen.

__________________
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.

~Benjamin Franklin

Caine

This book reference bears no weight on your lengthy anti-feminist argument, a man once wrote an emotional book, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus."

Did you actually read the book or just judge it by its cover?

Thier body is what they make of it, women are just as capable of carrying all this equipment that you mention below as some men are.
Good for you.
Again, your judgement of women is based on stereo types.

This part of your argument makes it sound like you want to restrict women to the kitchen and take away thier voting rights, then place blacks in seperate parts of the bus, etc, etc.

This is true, even if the women are not around. The women make choices on this matter too, and sometimes, although unethical, leads to a boost in morale for both the female and male.
Its not a woman's fault that a man doesn't understand NO. This statement is not true, as this type of training is only done once per year, and does not take prescedence over combat training
This is another pointless statement that means nothing. It only shows that you are very willing to make fun of the appearance of one politician that you disagree with, without making fun of the other (Condi's death gap in her teeth).


By the way; you still have failed to respond to my arguments on VA benefits and PTSD.

__________________
This same attitude is going to be the excuse used when Obama loses. Mark my words.

Stace

Also....

Yes, let's just go back to the times when women were mainly barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen....no thanks.

The only book I can think of that comes even close to anything like that would be "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus", and that was written by a man. You really should read it, it's quite excellent. That aside, I know that I at least could shoot an M-16 better than a lot of the males in my unit. I'm certainly not much of a soap opera person. Like I said in my previous post, I think women are more emotionally stable than men, but none of that has any relevance here.

Really? Do you have a study supporting this?


So let's see here....We'll say you're carrying about 150 lbs there. I can think of many women that could handle that and then some, and they're not professional weight lifters, wrestlers, or "masculine lesbian butches".

Ummm...Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. The military instituted a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Meaning, homosexuals can't be openly homosexual, and cannot engage in homosexual activities. And women have been a part of the military since....oh, about 1941-1943-ish. Look it up.

If men can't keep it in their pants, they have a severe problem. Most men I knew in the military didn't have a problem serving side by side with women.....INCLUDING men that were in Iraq with female counterparts.

And this training? It's called sexual harrassment. And EVERYONE goes through it, not just males.

Again, I'd like to see some sort of source for this so-called "emotional handicap". Women are just as capable of running things, maybe even more so, because we tend to be more efficient and more organized. And have you ever REALLY pissed a woman off? Not a pretty sight.

A lot of your posts seem to have quite a sexist overtone. Why do you exude such disdain for women? You seem to think that we're not as good as men in many different areas, which simply isn't true. Yes, there may be things that we can't do that you can, but there are also things we CAN do that you can't...and I'm not just talking about childbirth, either.

ptsdkid

Women are not capable of carrying all that weight (especially in a combat venue). Women didn't qualify for firefighter positions in the states because some of the grueling qualification tests (in certain states like Ohio) demanded that they carry a 150 pound dummy some 100 yards or so. Not one woman passed the test (and I believe there was a female wrestler there as well). Not only would they be forced to carry as much weight in a combat setting--but they would also need to be alert to dangerous surroundings. There is no time in combat to be fumbling with a makeup kit.

This isn't a matter of restricting women to the kitchen, rather it's putting qualified people into military positions that are fit, capable and emotionally in-tuned to do the job. Women fail at all three. I said earlier that I love women, afterall I had married three of them. Women should stick to what they do best. Women in combat is akin to me injecting milk into my breasts to try and feed a baby.

Again, it isn't a matter of men understanding the word 'no' when it comes to raping or groping a woman. This is the military. The objective of the military is to train young men to become warriors. Adding women to the mix naturally throws this objective into total disarray. Do I need to give you a lesson on the birds and the bees? Social experimentation is fine for a liberal/Communist anti war rally at Harvard Square, but when the defense of our country via the military is on the line--I want the most qualified men to rely on--not some hysterical emotionally inept woman.

I answered those questions you had on VA benefits and PTSD. Perhaps you didn't like my answers, or perhaps you weren't specific enough with your questions.

Caine

Woman CAN be capable of all this, if they want to be. Just because a select group of women were unable to do it, does not mean it isn't possible. Also, what did YOU use to Cammo your face in the military. I remember using something that looked awfully like a makeup kit, so your remarks bear no influence on this debate, and only work to discredit your arguments.

Being someone who HAS worked with women in the military, I can tell you that they are capable of all three. Several women in the military are in better physical shape than the men.
My reaction to this comment could get me banned, but in the future, do not use such comments as they bear no influence on the debate, and only work to discredit your arguments. Your comments bear no influence on this debate and only furthur discredit your arguments.

All this garbage can be summed up in the fact that you don't agree that men should take responsibility for thier own irresponsible actions when dealing with thier hormones. The US Justice system, as well as the UCMJ disagree with you, and thier opinion on the matter outweights your own sexist agenda.

I have yet to see a rebuttal to my claim that VA benefits ARE in fact being cut. I posted a VFW article on the issue, specifically dealing with the issue of benefits for those with PTSD.