Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 73

Thread: Women May Now Serve in Combat (U.S. Millitary)

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,686
    Post Thanks / Like

    Women May Now Serve in Combat (U.S. Millitary)

    Breaking News today.

    Women may now have equallity in the Millitary, and may serve in Combat Operations, same as Men.

  2. #2
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Seems fair. Equal rights and all. No war on women here.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,663
    Post Thanks / Like
    Disagree with the move. Most women can't handle the training combat arms units go through in particular Light Infantry and FA. 80% of the jobs in the military are already open to women anyway.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,779
    Post Thanks / Like
    it is the right move.

    Modern American Military tactics rarely employ the Phalanx formation.

  5. #5
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    5,454
    Post Thanks / Like
    But... who's going to cook for all the soldiers back at the mess?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,512
    Post Thanks / Like
    What were they doing before today?

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,953
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    What were they doing before today?
    Basically everything but...

    Not sure this was the right move but I won't complain about it... If they want to be on the front line, their call...

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    I actually feel a little bad for our enemies.

    They have no idea what we've just unleashed on them

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    I am not for this. Having been a combat commander, I have trouble envisioning a woman's capability in any of the combat arms - infantry, armor or artillery.
    Infantry - the individual soldier is (unfortunately) overloaded with equipment. Loaded, a soldier can carry over 80 pounds of equipment. And a mortar section is even worse. Many men can't cope.
    Artillery - a 155mm round weighs 87 pounds. It's not like lifting weight on a bar. Awkward and heavy. On a fire misssion the handling of ammo is constant and can last a long time. Again, many men can not do this job.
    Armor - there is more than driving around in a tank than riding. The ammo is not as heavy as artillery but maintenance of the tank is hard work. Replacing a thrown track is brutal.

    I would not want a person with minimal physical capabilities fighting with me. They are a liability to my life and the lives of others.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    5,968
    Post Thanks / Like
    Im torn on the issue, but either way, this doenst mean they're going to just throw 120 lb women into combat arms units if they can't handle the physical rigors, correct?

    If there are women physically and mentally capable, and Im sure there are some, I dont think I have a big issue with it.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Raleigh, N.C.
    Posts
    2,411
    Post Thanks / Like
    Oh Boy, this will cause some Dear John and and Joanie letters back home

  12. #12
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    Im torn on the issue, but either way, this doenst mean they're going to just throw 120 lb women into combat arms units if they can't handle the physical rigors, correct?

    If there are women physically and mentally capable, and Im sure there are some, I dont think I have a big issue with it.
    I was wondering the same thing. I don't have a problem with it but I'm guessing there aren't many 5' 100 lb males engaging in firefights and lugging heavy rucks over harsh terrain in Afghanistan...

    Again if they adapt seamlessly and are just as physically capable then I am all for it.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Post Thanks / Like
    Does this mean they are entitled to 2nd amendment rights to own guns in the house? We are so screwed.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Brooklyn Jet View Post
    Im torn on the issue, but either way, this doenst mean they're going to just throw 120 lb women into combat arms units if they can't handle the physical rigors, correct?

    If there are women physically and mentally capable, and Im sure there are some, I dont think I have a big issue with it.
    This honestly might be the first thread in the history of the politics forum that is "useless without pics"

  15. #15
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    The depths of Despair.
    Posts
    39,882
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I would not want a person with minimal physical capabilities fighting with me. They are a liability to my life and the lives of others.
    Welcome to my world.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1237053


    That being said, if the women can perform the current training regimen the men do, have at it.

    However if they completely eliminate whatever activities women find difficult, like the NYPD eliminating physical combat training and size restrictions(one of the cops in that story was 5'2" and 105 lbs)....they are a liability to themselves and their fellow soldiers.

    Sorry to say, I think that is the route the military will take.

    -

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    I tend to think it's fine. Being combat millitary is far more than Grunts with a 90 pound pack and an M-16 these days. As time goes on, it will be less and less about that, despite the doubters.

    I agree that standards should not be eliminated or lowered, but I'd also say that the standards many are bandying about at not "average grunt", but "elite special forces ultrakiller" standards. The fact is, women are already in combat today, already meet the grunt standards, and already die in that service to our Country. This simply formalizes it, and opens access to those who qualify to the Special Forces Schools.

    Take a look at history. When the USSR was on hte brink against the Nazi, plenty of women fought, and plenty of women killed Nazi's. I think the old "oh, women are fragile and must be protected by men, and they can never live up to what men can do" ideal is very, very outdated.

    As long as standards are maintained, and maintained at appropriate levels for the jobs at hand, I don't care if it's man or women doing it. Equallity is a core belief, and this helps bring that to this area.

    And if we ever face a draft, i.e. the oh ****, we're under attack moment, now we have twice the potential defenders than we had two days ago. As it should be, equallity isn't just about the good things, it's also the responsabillities too. No reason a woman cannot be handed a rifle and told she has to defend her country too today.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    4,870
    Post Thanks / Like
    Since they are equal to men does that mean we won't need women's and men's sports. Men and women playing hockey and football.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,433
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by palmetto defender View Post
    I would not want a person with minimal physical capabilities fighting with me. They are a liability to my life and the lives of others.
    What about a man with minimal physical capabilities? There are plenty of them. Pencil neck, paper pushers.

    If Holly Mangold wants to rip a terrorist's throat out with her bare hands and can display she has the physical capabilities...I say have at it.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,471
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    What about a man with minimal physical capabilities? There are plenty of them. Pencil neck, paper pushers.

    If Holly Mangold wants to rip a terrorist's throat out with her bare hands and can display she has the physical capabilities...I say have at it.
    Those guys are typically assigned to support and pencil pushing functions. I hope they do not lower the minimal standards for combat/special units otherwise you'll eventually have Gloria Alred announcing her class action lawsuit against the military because her 4"11 98 lb female client was re assigned from a combat unit because she kept falling behind during foot patrols/incursions.

  20. #20
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    What about a man with minimal physical capabilities? There are plenty of them. Pencil neck, paper pushers.

    If Holly Mangold wants to rip a terrorist's throat out with her bare hands and can display she has the physical capabilities...I say have at it.


    I actually fought. As an infantryman and an atilleryman. I never had any midgets. THe men had to cary heavy equipment and handle heavy equipment. I did not get to pick my men so they were assigned a specilaty well before they assigned to a unit. Guys not combat fit were in supply and other support functions.
    As for someone like Holly Mangold - she is totally unfit for combat - way too fat, no mobility.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us