Replies

I think there's a world of things women can take that men can't even conceive of. We're a lot stronger than men think. Jessica Lynch is someone I see as a role model for women in the military, not a reason to exclude us.

What are those things you're speaking of? Do any of them have to do with the ability to march long distances, and sometimes run, while carrying a 60 lb. pack, and then engage the enemy in a fight to the death? And then carry a wounded buddy on your back for a couple of miles? You sound just like the female Marine impersonator the article cites.

As for Jessica Lynch, she's great role model, if your goal in life is to be a prisoner of war. But she was no hero. The heroes were the SEALs and rangers who rescued her. You know, the guys who didn't get any of the limelight, and who won't be getting any book or movie deals.

I think you need to read the studies of women's combat abilities. You can start by hitting the link to Fred Reed's article.

As for your claim that a study showed women to be physiologically "better suited for Sub and Flight duty," I please provide your source.

Do any of them have to do with the ability to march long distances, and sometimes run, while carrying a 60 lb. pack, and then engage the enemy in a fight to the death? And then carry a wounded buddy on your back for a couple of miles?

And when did most of the US military have to be able to meet those standards? Back circa 1918. Today, maybe 25% of the military are infantry grunts of some type or otherwise need those strength and endurance skills (like navy bomb loaders). The rest are techs, tweeks, and clerks. Which women can handle.