Reply With QuoteSeems fair. Equal rights and all. No war on women here.
Breaking News today.
Women may now have equallity in the Millitary, and may serve in Combat Operations, same as Men.
Seems fair. Equal rights and all. No war on women here.
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.
it is the right move.
Modern American Military tactics rarely employ the Phalanx formation.
But... who's going to cook for all the soldiers back at the mess?
What were they doing before today?
Basically everything but...Originally Posted by DDNYjets
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...
I actually feel a little bad for our enemies.
They have no idea what we've just unleashed on them
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.
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.
Oh Boy, this will cause some Dear John and and Joanie letters back home
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.
Does this mean they are entitled to 2nd amendment rights to own guns in the house? We are so screwed.
This honestly might be the first thread in the history of the politics forum that is "useless without pics"
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks