Posted on 05/19/2012 11:01:09 AM PDT by QT3.14
Non Combat roles....maybe.
In combat roles...no freaking way.
Yes, the nation we have and know, not a military unit, or the last member of a family, or an expeditionary force.
but nobody listens to me....
I guess Israelis have had women in combat for some time...
Women have fought and died alongside their spouses since the beginning of time. But God, put a uniform on them, and men say ‘no way jose’. It’s been some time since this country was attacked by land forces in war, and when it happens again, it won’t matter if women wear the uniform. They will fight and die alongside their spouses, children, neighbors, and friends. But then it will be okay, because they won’t be wearing combat fatigues.
Women have fought and died alongside their spouses since the beginning of time. But God, put a uniform on them, and men say ‘no way jose’. It’s been some time since this country was attacked by land forces in war, and when it happens again, it won’t matter if women wear the uniform. They will fight and die alongside their spouses, children, neighbors, and friends. But then it will be okay, because they won’t be wearing combat fatigues.
Warriors aren’t interested in what you feel is fair, or really cool, or if someone is willing to give it the old “college try” although they can’t cut the mustard.
Warriors want to kill the enemy and win the battles with as little loss among themselves as possible. They want standards higher, not lower.
What combat leader would 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, all things the enemy can measure, and use against his military.
Except in many cases we might be looking at a distinction without a difference. Case in point. Not braggin’ but this is how it is. During her first deployment in 03 my daughter (Army Reserve AG officer) was stationed at Camp Anaconda in Balad, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. Their compound, an old abandoned Iraqi fort, was bombarded with RPG and gunfire almost on a daily basis. They faced attack when driving to Baghdad. She carried a sidearm and the combat knife her Dad made for her, as well as an M16 when out in the villages.
Combat?
just saying that when the SHTF, these mind games won’t matter.
Today, we have the luxury of debating whether they should or shouldn’t be in combat. The time is coming when there won’t be a choice.
In my Blackhawk unit, we had one female pilot and one female doorgunner. Both did excellent jobs, but that is different than going out on a foot patrol with an M-16. OIF vet.
McKay, take your mouse selector switch off full auto. please.
Sober up, being capable of performing what is needed in the military is not a “mind game”.
You cannot burden real warriors with females to slow them down and dilute their effectiveness, and endanger their lives.
Warriors are specially trained and equipped to penetrate deeper, stay longer, move about more freely, and carry a bigger load, not exactly female stuff.
Just like ship duty, females on helicopters is fine, until the game changes, then having females instead of males, means lower capabilities, for instance when the helicopter crew has to become infantry.
No way on women in combat. It’s hard enough on men.
This PC BS is going to get people needlessly killed. If I were the enemy, I would gather intel on which outfit had the most women, and hit them first, and take only female prisoners to demoralize that unit.
Post your childish nonsense on the thread, not in freepmail.
It’s a debate. Debate is a mind game. Today we can debate the pros and cons. I have no opinion either way today on whether women in combat is appropriate. The only message I have is that when the war begins on our streets and back yards, it won’t matter if females have on a uniform. They will survive or they will die. And folks like you will be relieved that they didn’t wear a uniform.
I would not want to serve with a woman on the front line. If this must happen then let the military set up outfits of only women and let’s see how they do when the sh*t hits the fan.
Personally I feel that with few exceptions when they are faced with the reality of a bullet in the head they will want no part of it at all.
It’s not about willingness it’s about capability both physical and emotional.
I’m not one of those who think men and women are created equal. Men are better at certain things and women are likewise better at other things. Anyone who believes otherwise is nuts, pure and simple
Look to the role of women in Combat in History—When tried it didn’t work—All over the world in many kinds of societies. BUT, women doing paper work, nursing, cooking, washing clothes, working with radio and communications, as spies, and even as political leaders they have done great things in the past. They can be a great help to the war effort—but I think wasting them as cannon fodder isn’t a wise idea.
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.