With all the recent secret service issues, I think the SS contingent protecting the prez should be all female. It would be befitting our current leader, as long as we are going to have an imperial presidency and descend to turd world status.
Posted on 05/19/2012 11:01:09 AM PDT by QT3.14
The topic of women in combat has always been a touchy one. Many feel that while women should be allowed in the military, they do not belong in jobs that place them on the front line. Others believe that women are just as capable as men and should be given the opportunity to take on any role within the military.
(Excerpt) Read more at spousebuzz.com ...
It’s bad enough when a young man dies, but when a young woman is killed, it’s like killing the future.
Bad for unit morale.
Men have an innate response to protect women, instilled in them by their Creator.
In combat, that will get men killed.
If the politicians want women in combat so badly, let them have a forward unit solely of women, and let them have at the enemy.
However, if the enemy feels like raping any female prisoners, like they have for five thousand years of recorded warfare, well, them’s the breaks.
“Any comment I might make will only appear to make me look like a sexist”.
Well, if you look sexist than so do I. Women do not belong in combat. Can they be doctors, nurses, etc...? Sure. I personally see that women in the military are doing a service for their country. Service does not only include front lines/combat IMHO. Supportive roles held by women are important and valued. IMHO.
It’s despicable.
What? Are you kidding? I’m not all that thrilled having our men in combat.
I don’t like it one bit.Though women should be able to serve in non-combatant units.Which they have been doing since the 1970’s.
What combat leader would not want to replace his man warriors with a shorter, lighter, weaker, sicklier, less aggressive, slower moving, more terrain limited, reduced distance traveling, hygienically vulnerable, smaller weight carrying, more prone to injury, version.
He would have to rewrite all the knowledge and experience, of what his troops are capable of and reduce all that accordingly, and simply eliminate some capabilities entirely, but a fair enemy would not seek to capitalize on those advantages of course.
In the meantime, I wonder if Americans have forgotten that if we lose in a major war, we disappear from the future, forever. It seems that many Americans are starting to see war as a sporting event, where you can win or lose, but it doesn't really change anything.
It is utterly unnecessary. We have a population of 300+ million, of which there are MORE than enough qualified males to fill the current slots.
Our armed Forces is small, elite and the Army is comprised of less than 1,00,000 personnel. There is no logical reason to have has a significant portion of that relatively small force a group which is not required to meet the same physical standards as the men, which BY LAW cannot be deployed to missions which require them to directly engage, close with, and destroy the enemy or to be plugged in as emergency replacements for those who do, which requires a seperate logistic train to include seperate housing, and whose injuries and death impact civillian and military morale in ways that the deaths of males WILL NOT DO, at least untill the baleful effects of cultural marxism continue to corrode the civillizational impulse that has always attempted to mitigate the horrific effects of war against women and children.
We won a World War with 16 million people in uniform against the most formidable battlefield enemies that we have ever faced, with half of today’s population and over 400,000 dead, WITHOUT the need to place women into direct combat roles. This reasoning is being impelled by radical feminism and Cultural Marxist elements who care nothing for the combat effenciency of the Armed Forces.
With all the recent secret service issues, I think the SS contingent protecting the prez should be all female. It would be befitting our current leader, as long as we are going to have an imperial presidency and descend to turd world status.
By all means, let's restart the draft. Gays and women won't have an automatic out this time. Then we'll see how popular this nonsense really is.
Secondly, such action will result in more combat deaths if our military fights a military that does not put women in combat.
Ladies first!
The answers do not always fit the question.
Females are “in combat” under may MOS’s now open to them. One of the most obvious is MPs running route/convoy security. In an ambush they may be “in combat” as they react to the enemy forces.
The problem becomes trying to shift them into the primary infantry/SF/Ranger roles. That is where the heavy lifting of combat occurs.
It is there where the standards will be lowered to accommodate women.
As it stands right now at Ranger School all students must complete 6 pullups. That standard will either be dropped for all - or a different standard between men and women will be established.
If that is the case then women are not held to the same standard as men but reap the same reward.
I say that if any “man” has a problem with it, they are free to take their place.
Anything else is just bravado from an easy chair.
B U M P
That's for sure!
A lot of us HAVE taken their place, and think it is right that American men continue to do so.
Wait until the first time they have to sh** in a bag in a foxhole. I have been there and this is stupid, political correctness designed to kill men and women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.