Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women in Combat: Battling Nature, Battering Reality
Canada Free Press ^ | Feb 3, 2013 | Selwyn Duke

Posted on 02/03/2013 9:11:04 AM PST by EXCH54FE

Senseless advice and nothing nice; that’s what little-girls-in-combat policy is made of.

The obvious has already been said about placing women in front-line combat positions. Their presence will reduce unit cohesiveness; male soldiers’ natural instinct to protect women will influence battlefield decisions; there will be the problem of sexual impropriety within the ranks and of rape when women are captured; women will have more trouble measuring up to the physical and psychological demands of battle; special accommodations will no doubt be made so that women may tend to feminine concerns; and, as the high pregnancy rate aboard naval vessels has proven, having young men and women operate in close quarters is folly. Yet the truth is that it was just a matter of time before women were allowed in combat; it’s a piece that fits seamlessly into the modern sex-role puzzle. And it’s not surprising if a majority of Americans support the policy; they are sex-role puzzled.

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: womenincombat

1 posted on 02/03/2013 9:11:10 AM PST by EXCH54FE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Unit cohesiveness will be damaged due to pre deployment pregnancies. A woman becoming pregnant to get out of deploying has been a problem and now will probably be an even bigger problem.
2 posted on 02/03/2013 9:27:15 AM PST by WesternPacific (Deafness has its Advantages)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

The Idiocracy has the Big-Mo on this issue.
Women in combat will not be stopped until the idea runs runs full circle.

Just like every other Leftist/Progressive change, the unforeseen and undesired side effects of their craziness takes time to materialize.

It will take visual reports of young women being maimed and mutilated by muslim animals in the Mideast and Africa, and planeloads of their ravaged remains carried home in body bags before the true impact is realized by the brainwashed American citizenry.


3 posted on 02/03/2013 9:32:01 AM PST by Iron Munro (I Miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

And now, what is going to prevent girls turning 18 from having to register and face the draft, if it were to be needed?


4 posted on 02/03/2013 9:33:50 AM PST by mtrott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
Well-written exposure of the feminist fiction that equal must necessarily mean equivalency. Serving our country in combat is not a career step: it is the highest and most dangerous service we as citizens can perform for our country. The objective of combat is to beat the forces of the enemy and get as many of our people home as possible afterward. Adding ladies (and gays) disrupts the cohesion of the units, dilutes our abilities and loyalties and focus with sexual tensions, and saddles units with members that aren't up to the full rigors required.

Anyone who has served in the armed forces knows full well the truth of this and saw it reinforced every morning during the morning run: the females were always the largest portion of stragglers falling behind. I appreciate and respect the sacrifices of the ladies who serve but they should never, never serve in close combat positions.

5 posted on 02/03/2013 9:39:48 AM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

I’ve read that the true sign of decay within a society is when that society begins to send the young child bearing women into combat. It leaves the immigrants and those that shouldn’t have children the responsibility to procreate the society. Makes sense to me.


6 posted on 02/03/2013 9:43:53 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

This is exactly what is needed in combat. Half Soldiers half as strong and half as capable of using physical force to overcome an armed opponent. This country has already suffered with the extra cost of having Half cops on duty in Police departments all over the country. There’s always a video out there of a female Half Cop being man handled by a large suspect. And what is the typical response multiple male officers are always called in to protect the little girls on the force. Judgement is of course clouded by the fact that a couple of the guys are sleeping with and most of the other guys want to sleep with the cute little girl Half Cop. How many payroll dollars have been wasted over the years on these Half Cops. What a huge mistake leave it up to Obama and Leon Panetta to screw up the strongest combat force on the face of the earth.


7 posted on 02/03/2013 9:45:26 AM PST by cquiggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE
it’s a piece that fits seamlessly into the modern sex-role puzzle. And it’s not surprising if a majority of Americans support the policy; they are sex-role puzzled.<<

Good in theory...Weak on facts...Man hasn't evolved enough yet..its as simple as that...

8 posted on 02/03/2013 10:14:00 AM PST by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

This argument is just so easy to refute. Many of you may have heard of a little dustup called World War II. At the peak of United States involvement in that war there were 16 ½ million personnel in uniform, many of them women. We also had over 400,000 personnel killed in the line of duty, against the toughest battlefield enemies this country has ever had to face, ones that were capable of and often did inflict shattering BATTLEFIELD defeats upon our sea, land and air forces. Despite this no one saw any need to place women into combat roles that had the responsibility to directly close with, engage, and destroy the enemy..

Today with a much smaller and almost hand picked elite Armed Forces, and a population base that is more than twice as large as that during World War II, there is even less need for it now than then.

This entire idiocy is being propelled by the demand for selfish feminists to qualify for chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nothing more and nothing less than that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the ability of the Armed Forces to fight, rather it will weaken it if for no other reason than the logistics strain that it will place on the Armed Forces for separate housing and the like.

The effort required to obtain a relative few qualified women will not result in anything remotely resembling any accepted model of effeciency, but since that is NOT the object any way, why worry about that? This is merely another sop to the perverted Cultural Marxist notion of fairness and equality and another step on the road of “fundamental transformation” of the vital institutions of this nation.


9 posted on 02/03/2013 10:27:43 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

“And now, what is going to prevent girls turning 18 from having to register and face the draft, if it were to be needed?”

Not a damn thing. Say goodbye to your mommy kids, she is headed to the front lines!!!

All it will take is one American female soldier’s burned, raped body to be dragged down a dirt road and then hung from a bridge for those libs and feminists to start screaming.


10 posted on 02/03/2013 10:38:23 AM PST by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
All it will take is one American female soldier’s burned, raped body to be dragged down a dirt road and then hung from a bridge for those libs and feminists to start screaming.

Unless it is a Republican that does the burning, raping, or dragging down a dirt road, or hanging from a bridge of the dead female soldier, the feminists will be as quite as a church mouse. Of all the reported atrocities by other cultures, islam for one, can you recall the indignation that the feminists demonestrated?

The one exception could be if the act happened in a Republican Administration. But since the Democrats perfected their art of stealing elections in 2012, the chances of this happening are slim to none.

11 posted on 02/03/2013 10:51:13 AM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

It was bound to happen. The liberal dogma is that women and men are just the same, and the only reason women don’t perform as well as men in some areas is discrimination. So eeevvvillll men who hate women kept them out of those choice combat positions.
That explains why there are separate men’s and women’s basketball, baseball and hockey teams. Liberals are idiots.


12 posted on 02/03/2013 10:54:17 AM PST by I want the USA back (Liberalism is a malfunction of the brain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Everyone knows girls are much better than guys. I used to watch “Charlies Angels” beat up men every week.

Just a few days ago I watched a dvd where Lois Lane beat up two elite troops wearing armor.

I mean I see that just about every day.


13 posted on 02/03/2013 10:58:06 AM PST by yarddog (One shot one miss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sport
And you left out squads of “Patty Hursts” going at our men in combat; those women that have been repeatedly raped into submission.
14 posted on 02/03/2013 10:59:45 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Reality: Perimeter guard...2 or 3 GI’s per bunker...night...need I say more?


15 posted on 02/03/2013 11:05:54 AM PST by LZ_Bayonet ( I AM THE TEA PARTY LEADER !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

I’m thinking this will start suppressing the numbers of women volunteering for the Armed Services. At this point, plenty of women are in the National Guard, and in the regular Armed Services, but if they realize that with this change, they can be sent into direct combat, I think they will be much less willing to volunteer. This is when the Democrats will start pushing harder for a draft, because they will not want the numbers of women in the military to drop. It would make them look bad.


16 posted on 02/03/2013 11:46:05 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

I’m thinking this will start suppressing the numbers of women volunteering for the Armed Services. At this point, plenty of women are in the National Guard, and in the regular Armed Services, but if they realize that with this change, they can be sent into direct combat, I think they will be much less willing to volunteer. This is when the Democrats will start pushing harder for a draft, because they will not want the numbers of women in the military to drop. It would make them look bad.


17 posted on 02/03/2013 11:46:15 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Sorry about the double post. Don’t know what happened.


18 posted on 02/03/2013 11:47:34 AM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

their reasoning:: “women end up sometimes in combat roles anyway...”(media quote)
and people end up in fires some times, so let’s tell everyone they’re fire fighters!

“not everyone can be a combat soldier, but everyone should have the chance”. (Panetta)
I guess Congress will need to involve us in even more foreign entanglements so EVERYONE gets their chance!

“they’re fighting and dying together already”.
yeah. at about a ratio of 1:500. make it 1:3 and then you’ll have the all-important “fairness” and “equality” they seek,right ? since they’ll never get the volunteers needed, that means a draft, right?


19 posted on 02/03/2013 11:54:02 AM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

We have all done it. Usually I know the instant I double post but then you can’t take it back.

Every now and then I get one which just makes me wonder what happened.


20 posted on 02/03/2013 11:59:24 AM PST by yarddog (One shot one miss.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: WesternPacific

All discussions of such pregnancies fail to address a major component: the father. Somebody contributed, and has a base natural interest in the outcome - even if he remains anonymous.


21 posted on 02/03/2013 12:13:06 PM PST by ctdonath2 (End of debate. Your move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All


Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


22 posted on 02/03/2013 12:14:24 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

If that were to happen, only non-muslims will be forced to report for the draft.

Muslims do not want to owe allegiance to non-muslim countries.


23 posted on 02/03/2013 1:25:47 PM PST by 353FMG ( I refuse to specify whether I am serious or sarcastic -- I respect FReepers too much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson