[Dr. Sivana]

It's an all-volunteer military these days.

I know it's an all-volunteer military these days. There were women volunteers in WWII, as well, and we didn't put them in situations where body armor was called for.

Again, Why would we purposely put women in a position where such is necessary?

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm convinced that it's an effort to increase pacifism. If society sees women getting killed, getting maimed, being taken prisoner and raped, then society starts thinking "War is bad. Let's not do it any more."

The people who want Western Civilization to give up and stop defending itself are the people who think putting women into combat is a step in the right direction.

[Gamecock]

There were women volunteers in WWII, as well, and we didn't put them in situations where body armor was called for.

Granted some women have been allowed in MOSs that pevious generations weren't, but at the same time there were front lines in WWII.

[Allegra]

There were women volunteers in WWII, as well, and we didn't put them in situations where body armor was called for.

This is a different kind of war from WWII. Where's the front line?

Body armor has had to be worn by everybody on base at times during the days of heavy incoming fire.

Body armor must be worn when going through the red zone in armored convoys from one base to another or on helicopters doing the same because we *have* been shot at.

We complain mightily about what a pain that body armor is, but when the mortars and rockets are landing, or when we're on the road never knowing where a sniper or an IED might be lurking, we're glad to have it.

This goes equally for both genders.