Despite living in a country "where some still think women should stay in the kitchen," Werner feels accepted by male colleagues.

Because God forbid a woman actually stays home to raise a family. Instead we'll send them off to fight the government's wars and leave their children to be raised by the government in public schools. What could possibly go wrong?

The sad joke is that women have already been in combat for years. They have been coming home with the injuries and PTSD, but not getting any of the recognition.

Sen. McCarthy thinks women should use regular rifles, that they will be enough in combat.

Diane,

You are dead on the bullseye on that. I remember an article about a female medic from Texas, a few years ago, who is the recipient of the Silver Star, for actions in the sandbox. After reading the citation, myself being a Vietnam veteran, something just didn't seem right, she had without a doubt went, 'Above and beyond the call of duty', which is the standard for the Medal of Honor. I researched how she had went into live enemy fire, exposing herself, dragging fellow soldiers out of harms way, then going back again, and again, doing the same thing, then shielding them with her body while trying to tend to wounds to keep her buddies alive, to bring them home. That is what a soldier does, you bring your buddies home, it's a big thing, the biggest we have, a good soldier ALWAYS has their buddies back. So, I researched the citations for the Medal of Honor, read many of them, all were above and beyond the call of duty, except one from the Civil War, and it was political, given to a Doctor. I have no doubt that this female soldier was cheated just because of her gender, it reflects poorly on Congress, the Department of Defense, and the Department of the Army, her citation for the Silver Star exceeded all requirements for the Medal of Honor. I was disappointed, and it has stuck in my mind, she should be a recipient of the Medal of Honor, nothing less. But that happens once politics and bureaucracy get involved in our military. I have a close friend who was put in for the Medal of Honor, it was downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross, and he met all the requirements as well, our government in actions, I suppose.

"It comes down to 18-to-22-year-old boys (and girls) not being able to ignore (that) fact.

Integrating combat units and concentrating on making space for (both) also "doesn't fit with the practicality of closing with and killing the enemy,"

You can't take nature out of the equation, especially at 18-to-22 years of age! There will be consequences, some good, many, not so good!

There will always be a few hardy women that will hold their own, not being timid on the front lines, being able to pack like mules, not needing any bathroom breaks, etc. On the other hand it could turn the other way, the elite men may leave, discrimination would definitely not go away, things could go ugly..

ugly..

It's a free country (supposedly) and so if women want to go fight unnecessary wars - they are free to.

But cut this crap of brothers and sisters. The fact is 1/3rd of those women are raped by their fellow male counterparts.

Israel has women in combat units because they are a small country surrounded by a large Muslim world hell bent on driving them into the sea. They don't have enough men for a large army, so they must add women to it to survive. On the other hand we will do it just because we are stupid.

It turns out that Panetta had data from a survey of existing marines and 17-22% of male marines said that they would leave the marines if women were put in combat positions. Way to go Paneeta and Obummer.

Terry, you are right on one point, but wrong on the rest of it. You were right about Israel being a small country surrounded by enemies, but the tone of your comment insinuates that having women in combat roles in some ways dilutes the effectiveness of the Israeli military. Quite the contrary. Israel has most likely the most elite fighting machine in the world. The United States could learn a lot from the Israeli military.

Yeah all is good..until a few of them lose their heads, or are captured and tortured. There are some things women should not be doing, just as there are some things men should let women handle.

how about we get the root problem...stop the wars lol....that will never happen...so i say let the women join the party

To those arguing that "18 thru twenty something males" will rape or lose their train of thought around women combat soldiers.............

those males are the types of military personnel that should NOT be serving in the first place.

If those "macho" males can't serve with honor, self control, and discipline, and treat female members with the same respect as their male counterparts, then they should be booted out of the service.

The argument that "well, the males can't control themselves, so women shouldn't be allowed around them", is RIDICULOUS.

Basic training(or advanced mental evaluations) should be weeding out those who can't control themselves, and serve with honor/respect to ALL of their comrades in arms(male/female).

Bandit, what are you saying are the things women should handle, could that be cooking, cleaning, and looking hot and sexy for when her conquering hero comes home from the wars?

Problem laughingcat is most men in the militaries are not going to be equal match if it comes down to hand to hand combat. Most women cannot carry the full weight of gear required either. Aside from that the women who can and volunteer to do so i say go for it. My 12 year old daughter can shoot a rifle so can any women. also alot of combat jobs are mechanized which dont require being a foot soldier either.

I am a veteran 1972-1976. If it doesn't make our military a more effective fighting force or save lives then we shouldn't do it. Having women in combat units does neither. The argument that women are already getting killed in our wars is irrelevant, they are not in combat units and they get killed because @!$%# happens and always has. Putting women in combat units will cost lives. It the country wants to do it, we will survive, a lot of young people that didn't have a say in it won't survive who otherwise would have. Our country has been in some pretty nasty wars since WW2 but none of them have actually been a threat to invasion, occupation, and survival of our country, and I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future either. So we will survive this as a country, but a lot of our young men and women will not.

Just imagine a platoon of GI Janes, all with PMS and all carrying assault rifles. You go girls.

@Pizza&Wings, combat would be joke if it weren't for its devastating effects against humanity and mother earth. It's a sad sad day that women have lowered themselves to be cold calculating murderers just like so many young men have been forced to do. And for what, to expand the wealth and breadth of the Oil, Banking and Corporate cartels hegemony.

Since World War II, 90% of the casualties of war are unarmed civilians. 1/3 of them children. Our victims have done nothing to us. From Palestine to Afghanistan to Iraq to Somalia to Mali to wherever our next target may be, their murders are not collateral damage, they are the nature of modern warfare. They don't hate us because of our freedoms. They hate us because every day we are funding and committing crimes against humanity. The so-called "war on terror" is a cover for our military aggression to gain control of the resources of western Asia and Africa.

This is sending the poor of this country to kill the poor of those Muslim countries. This is trading blood for oil. This is genocide, and to most of the world, we are the terrorists. In these times, remaining silent on our responsibility to the world and its future is criminal. And in light of our complicity in the supreme crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ongoing violations of the U.N. Charter in International Law, how dare any American criticize the actions of legitimate resistance to illegal occupation.

Many of our soldiers don't fight for America, they fight for their lives and their buddies beside them, because we put them in a war zone. They're not defending our freedoms, they're laying the foundation for permanent military bases to defend the freedoms of Exxon Mobil and British Petroleum.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" Henry Kissinger

You can add women to Henry's glowing praise of what the elite think of military men and women.

Yes, women can pull a trigger. However, true mortal combat? Give me a break, few are truly capable of that. This is more of the liberal "Grand Delusion".

I have no problem with women fighting,but I think the sexes should be seperated into different units and not fight together. The reason for this is because these are young people, hormones raging, and those distractions have no place in a war, thinking of anything besides what is coming at you will get you killed. A young man feels he should protect a woman, a man and woman develop feelings for each other and those feeling will effect how they fight.

I have no problem with women in combat- directly. The "trigger" is the great equalizer (so says the gun lobby). What I have a problem with is the picture up above. Sexual identification; either men should be allowed to the appearance standards that women are allowed or women need to conform to the appearance standards of men. Cut the damn hair or allow men to put theirs in a bun or pony tail. Personally I would go with the later. The point here is uniformity; killing is a uni-sexual opportunity, in a parade all I want to see is soldiers.

We ain't Israel. We ain't Canada. But we will put everyone everywhere 'cause it's the PC thing to do...damn the consequences.

God bless Clara Barton but this isn't the frontier nor is it the time where we need every man, woman or child on the lines carrying a rifle. Israel is a minuscule piece of land out massed and out numbered, they gotta do what they gotta do. I get it. We ain't Israel...although I do think the left, which typically hates Israel, is once again hilarious for using them as an example for good only when it suits their purpose.

And just to say it...I have nothing but regard for the ladies that do serve, in any role. But, every one that I know and served with, say the same thing..."yea I would, but I don't want to!"

The left loves to tout all the PTSD and suicide rates etc of the fella's on the "line" and the young ladies in their ancillary roles. What happens when society sees all of these women returning in FAR greater numbers with these issues? This is only a small piece of the unintended consequences.

Ladies, thank you! For everything you do! We know you're not cowards, we know you're brave, we know what you can do. But let us do what we have to do, that's all.

I would have a problem with a team mate who I knew could not drag me back to safety if I was wounded. This goes against all normal thinking.... YEAH, let's put in a weak link into a unit and see what happens.....

This will cost lives..... I know it is great for a feel good about yourself story, but not matter how much Politically Correct BUTTER you put on it... it is still a bad idea.

Panetta--- go F yourself and all the PC politicians in Washington.

DaveM-877764 - Panetta--- go F yourself and all the PC politicians in Washington.

Why do you think Secretary of Defense Leon Penetta is Tendering his Letter of Resignation.

Panetta: Used to pick 'em all the time. My dad used to have a pole and hook, and shake every one of these branches, and hit the walnuts. And my brother and I used to be underneath collecting the walnuts, putting 'em in sacks. And, you know, my dad often said I was well-trained to go to Washington because I'd been dodging these nuts all my life.

Just like Secretary of Defense Gates, regardless of President Obama requesting he stay on, Tendered his Letter of Resignation as opposed to President Obama as Commander In Chief Ordering the chop of the US Military by 50%. If you were Secretary of Defense would you want to be blamed for the Destruction of the US Military and US Military Capabilities.

Used to be there were not enough women to fight and repopulate America, times have changed. I am pleased that our government now has equality in combat, but saddened that women are being duped into fighting Corporate Wars in the name of Capitalistic Greed. As long as you can carry my injured butt out of that foxhole, I'd be proud to fight next to any man, woman or gay person for a just cause.

I'm sure that some women can handle themselves in combat.................. I'm sure that the United States Military will not train these women on a slided scale ?????????????

The main question I have is. How are we going to take it when a female soldier is killed, when she's two, three, or even four months pregnant and she didn't tell anyone????????????

I'm pretty sure, That men and women can handle and not handle combat............

Combat is something that must be done from time to time, but if the human race had half a brain

........... We could settle our differences, without going into COMBAT ( My left wing view ) ..............

And if we can't, THAN RELEASE THE DOGS OF WAR AND KILL THE ENEMY AT ALL COSTS ( My right wing view )..........

It's really that simple if you think about it...........

Women have no place in direct combat units. They just are not physically able to do what a man can do. Israel has women in combat out of necessity, not because they are as good a soldier as a man.

Independent non-thinker, we don't occupy Turkey. We have an embassy there--they have an embassy here. Would you prefer we refused to acknowledge them as a country?

Jim: women make better sharpshooters and snipers. The problem is carrying extreme weight over rugged terrain.

TrustVerify, that little Muslim terrorist, believes that it's okay for women to be suicide bombers--guaranteeing that they will die with their victims. The rest of the words are just crocodile tears. No Muslim cares about women--especially if they don't stay barefoot and pregnant in their mud-floored huts.

There were a lot of similar arguments when women wanted to become firefighters and police officers. As long as the standards are the same, that's all that matters. Not all men can cut it, nor will all women be able to. As for concerns about rampant sexuality issues, that's where discipline enters the picture. There were concerns there would be sex in the firehouse too but that has not proven to be the big stumbling block so many feared. They said a female firefighter couldn't carry out a male overwhelmed by smoke, but again, it's working out just fine. There will be random issues that some will point to and yell "failure," but life is full of random issues. Many fine women have proven themselves in law enforcements and firefighting, so it makes sense to take the next step. Anyone who wants to serve, is fit to serve and can pass the standards should be allowed to serve.

to you people who say the wars are for oil and capitalism you are right but you forget you also benefit from the greed. If you really believe what you say you would be in a totally communist or socialist country. there is nothing stopping you from leaving the u.s. so please leave at your earliest convenience. i'm tired of people complaining about the american way and trying to change it into their idea of utopian ways. we would not be in the shape we are in if we had stuck to the capitalistic ideology that made us great. if you research who started giving our tax dollars to foreign countries who opened the trade to china which gave the right to off shore our jobs who let illegals become eligible for benefits they did not pay into and you will find it was the dems in office at the time that must have said hey this will eventually be the downfall of america and we can restart as a socialist country. meanwhile we are giving other socialist countries our tax dollars to feed their people. end of rant

Note to Devil Worshiping War Mongering Christians:

It does not matter if you are male, female, black, white, brown, yellow, gay, lesbian, or trans-gender as far as the right/responsibility to bear arms is concerned.

Women have fought in combate since day one. Women have led armies since day one. Women and minorities were excluded from the U.S. military as a function of deranged Puritan values.

If you doubt it for one moment, look at the record of women who fought in the pivotal battle of World history: Stalingrad.

Women will be OK on the front line if our enemies are using their women in the same capacity. Unfortunately, that it is usually not the case. We are going to see some real butt-kicking and utilization of other troops to make up this difference.

You wanted it girls. Now, you will rue the day.

@Miss Copper's Mom
Just imagine a platoon of GI Janes, all with PMS and all carrying assault rifles. You go girls.

Please, there's an age requirement to be in the military. You only get PMS after a certain age. I hate this ridiculous argument about PMS, because most of the women with PMS will be the ones who generally complain about everything.

@ laughingcat
well, would you say that to a well trained Marine or special forces OP who was say, 5 ft 8, 150-160 lbs, and trained to kill you sixteen ways from Thursday?

How many 5'8 women are there in the service? That's certainly not the average height.

@American Lobo
To those arguing that "18 thru twenty something males" will rape or lose their train of thought around women combat soldiers.............Basic training(or advanced mental evaluations) should be weeding out those who can't control themselves,

Basic training doesn't weed anyone out.

@trust2112. As long as you can carry my injured butt out of that foxhole, I'd be proud to fight next to any man, woman or gay person for a just cause.

Most of them cant

In the old days, women wouldn't be allowed to work in offices because they'd be a constant distraction. All you guys who don't want women out there are deep down just hoping for those days to return.

If men can't control themselves around women, then they have no right to hold weapons of killing. Jeez, what kind of morons do you right-wingers want in the military? People fight for ideals, not flags, and that means fighting for freedom, equality, and democracy. But if you keep calling real people ragheads, then you're no better than the KKK--or the Taliban--you racist pukes.

Here's where I see the problem will be just like the civilian sector of working woman, I work construction have for a while now, woman have been pouring into the construction field like crazy the last 10 years, I don't have a problem with any woman's right's to work, fight, vote they should have equal rights to any other human being, period, that should even be a debate.

So here's the problem, guys are guys let's face it, we are pigs, dirty, raunchy, perv's. We all are, maybe not to a degree those words picture, but who doesn't make the comments like, nice headlights on that girl(to his buddy). Because it may be true!! Let's face it, a nice rack and azz is good to look at. Oh sorry sidetracked by boobs again.

Ok the problem is guys just need to be guys sometimes and having woman around makes that extremely hard, most of you woman will think this is sexist, it's not, it's that guys like making jokes about crude things and maybe female body parts, it's how we bond sometimes, having a woman around changes that dynamic, and not for the better I've noticed in my field. I've noticed whenever a girl comes around a group of guys ever single of one them, you can frankly see it in their faces, their spinker puckers and everyone clams up, no one wants to get sued or have some sort of sexual harassament suit brought against them for just joking around, lets face it, guys talk a tough game sexually but it's a joke. We all need to laugh and blow off steam, we can't anymore because of fear of lawsuits that weren't serious in the first place, I've seen it first hand. So now take that into a military setting stuck in a crap-hole backwater region and you are messing with your buddy about some joke, didn't see the woman behind you, she gets offended and reports you for something you where blowing off steam for, making for a hard work enviornment.

If you are going to work construction or the military or whatever, let's the people around you be themselves, they need to blow off steam too, and not feel like they can't say anything because a female is around, can go both ways too, I know a few chicks in the construction field that are just one of the guys and they don't have a problem with the way guys talk and people don't clam up around them. Just don't be the other lady and get all uptight about everything. If you can do that without sexual harassment suits and whatever. (ok not condoning rape or actual inapproriate touching and actual real sexual harassment, like a boss says you must sleep with him for a raise of some @!$%# like that) I'm talking about the harmless bantar that is mostly guy talk, fit in with your group, don't change the group dynamic because you might be offended.

Some of this will make sense to some, other just won't understand a word I just said.

political correctness gone to its ultimate absurdity.girls aren't just like guys.they don't belong in combat

okie, capitalism has landed us where we are...greedy business owners looking for the cheapest labor and turning their backs on the consumer market which keeps the entire world afloat...us.

More or less combat now refers to 'soft war'; there is little hand to hand combat so ability to fire weaponry, fly missions or run tank, etc... ground or sea fire isn't an issue. Of course any woman is equal to any man on this level. And, ... in the military especially, there shouldn't be an issue of obesity, so manys' 'fox hole drag and save' shouldn't be any issue; women aren't weak. Again, 'soft war' .... this isn't our fathers' warring; we now have to be PC, give every opportunity for the enemy to show aggression, 5 chances to back down, wait to be shot in the head first and much else..... BEFORE we are allowed to act.

This IS NOT WAR. This IS NOT HOW TO SURVIVE AND WIN. This is perpetual money making, perpetual diversionary tactics. Not ONE of these 'wars' , once declared and decidely undertaken to go to this extreme, other options off the table.... 'war', should have EVER lasted more than a few months as once the extreme, Extreme declaration of battle, war, (whatever you label it) is made then it's no holds barred as deaths WILL ensue on both sides and NO OTHER OPTION is left. Extreme is all I can say.

That aside (sorry, a bit of ranting but please.... no one else?) the issue of women serving equally to men across the boad only brings in cost analysis; seperation IS necessary.

You're talking about young adults, hormones still in control. Young adults with hormones in control still maturing. Young adults, with hormones in control still maturing, with ideals of romanticism and emotional extremes. Young adults with hormones in control, still maturing, with ideals of romanticism and emotional extremes NOW facing potential death, mortality. I could go on... but I think most get the point.

Much, much can go wrong for reasons many of us can use 2 pages to list. Equality is firmly believed in here, however... so compromise is the only solution. Many thought of the same when gay in the military; feelings of love, romance, etc... can compromise lives in many situations. I'd certainly save my wife while my neighbors and their loved ones died.... it's how human animals are. We have intelligence, will fight for a 'cause' or what's 'right', but in the end love, relationships take precedence.

So now, I do believe units of sexes must be kept seperate; women can and do have every right to place themselves in harms way, die for a cause just as men. Kill for the same cause (that is war, right? We did go to this extreme?) but allowing intermingling, as members of units do become close, between the sexes is only asking for trouble, trouble, trouble.

It can happen between men, too.... not remotely limited to 'gay in the military' but close bonds, friendships that can and do cloud judgements. Having what I've listed initially here combined with opposite sex attraction, the likelyhood of it becoming job affecting, life affecting, ...... it's really there's been a reason for opposing women and men together, closely, in the same units most especially.... in combat and service.

What's the old saying? 'Keep you personal life and work seperate'? When you're young, hormonally hyper, still maturing, romanticising, facing life and death challenges, taking lives, and so, soooo much else - why even attempt to throw more into the mix?

This whole article is nothing more than ridiculous propaganda. For instance take the statement "The United Kingdom is almost alone among Western European countries in not allowing women into front-line combat roles." Really??? Because there only 8 countries GLOBALLY that allow females into front line combat roles. Yes only 8...GLOBALLY. Take away Israel and Canada and you're down to 6.

The article's characterization of the Israeli military, it's "integration" of units and the Caracal Battalion is completely bogus also. You see women in the Israeli military who are assigned "combat roles" are almost exclusively assigned to one single unit, the Caracal Battalion. They are not interspersed throughout the military at large. The Caracal Battalion is 70% female. And their job? It is to guard the border, or rather a portion of the border. But you see it's not one of the more particularly dangerous portions of the border. In fact it's probably the least dangerous. It's not the border with Syria. It's not the border with Lebanon. It's not the border with the West Bank. It's not the border with the Gaza Strip. It's not even the border with Egypt. Their role is to guard the safest portion of the border with Jordan. So the reality is their "combat role" is to guard the safest portion of the border with a friendly nation. And even then -- in a New York Times article -- with a relatively safe assignment this same Cpl. Werner admits to still guilting men into doing the heavy lifting. That article also insinuates that the men and women in that unit rarely actually train together.

If you want a real evaluation of male-female integrated units, all one has to do is look at the reviews Israel did after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War -- the only time there have been truly male-female integrated front line units that saw combat regularly. The results were disastrous. The studies showed that instead of focusing on their own mission, men assisted and protected women rather than continue their attack. While doing so, they put their own lives in greater danger and also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. Studies have also shown there were severe negative impacts on the morale of the units as men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.

That doesn't even account for the physiological differences. Women in Iraq and Afghanistan have had twice the rate of stress fractures than men...and they weren't even in front line units that require much more heavy lifting. Put women on the side of a mountain in the middle of nowhere Afghanistan humping a 120 pound ruck and that stress fracture rate goes up to what...10 times...20 times the rate of men? Want the real scoop on physiology and women in front line combat roles from a woman who has actually been there? Here's the words of a female captain in the U.S. Marines who formerly was a strong advocate of allowing women in front line roles...until she actually was in one (sort of). No window dressing. No PC cheerleading. No "Look at the emperor's beautiful clothes!". Just honest fact.

So rationalize all you want and join in with the rest of the crowd with their rah-rah cheerleading, but understand something...in spite of what you want to see, the emperor does not in fact have clothes and the effects of this is going to shorten the lives of males in front line combat roles. Male front line soldiers are going to die to appease the fragile egos of a handful of women and ignoring physiology for the sake of their egos..

BTW, wouldn't it be interesting to see the consensus of what the wives of front line soldiers think about this?

Well, I don't know about sexy but someone should be home seeing to domestic affairs, which often includes children and their needs. If that person manning the homefront was a man, and his spouse is deployed far away, so be it. A parent, not a surrogate, should defintely be the one answering and helping with the difficulties child rearing.

As to the simple question should a woman be deployed ina combat unit, I'm not in favor of such. Certainly, many women could handle every assignment put their way. Furthermore, many women are extremely strong-willed and physically fit enough to hack it when the @!$%# hits the fan. Having said all that, I don't think combat is a good role for women in general, nor is it beneficial to our society. My reasoning is similar to others who feel our society isn't ready to see the fairer sex torn limb from limb, or perhaps captured and raped, and then paraded in front of a camera while ominous looking men with hidden faces stand behind holding battle rifles and machetes.

As to how are men soldiers would react to a women sharing a fox hole? Well, if the woman was profecient with their training, which of course strongly includes marksmanship, then the man sharing the fox hole should feel confident.

As to hanky panky going on, of course it's going to happen from time to time, but probably not in a fox hole and certainly not in a firefight where sex has got to be the last thing on one's mind. So, it's not a matter of whether a woman could handle herself amongst a bunch of tough guys, I think a woman could. No, as I said earlier, it's a question of what to we want our society to be. If we're so perpetually at war that logistics call for mom or the prom queen to march off to the battle field, a place much less romantic then any recruitment ad, then we really need to take a step back and evaluate what kind of war we fight and whether the battles are worth the blood sacrifice, especially when the sacrifice happens not just to our strapping young men, but also to the beautiful and delicate flowers of our fields.

I wish all war would go away. I know it won't and it seems even as current wars run their course, sinister individuals plot another. So, we do what is painfully hard and give over our young men to fight battles that sometimes seem necessary, but in reality are all too often, folly. As to the fairer sex, I'm not saying a woman's place is in the kitchen or anything like that. I want women or any human to succeed in all endearvors. I just prefer that women abstain from hardcore combat, not because they couldn't handle such, but because, call me selfish, I don't like the idea of a young lady, who only yesterday was learning to drive, or had the ability to melt a young man's heart simply from a smile and a look, being destined to being torn apart by a bomb or bullet. Those people go home in a C-130s whereupon arrival are wheeled out in silver boxes on the blacktop at Dover. I don't know much but I know that no ones' destiny, expecially that of young lady's, should end as a mangled remain, held in silver box on the blacktop at Dover. War and combat don't serve our young men well which es bad enough without also exposing our dear daughters to such destruction.

bryan;, there's a bit to what you've said.

I've worked in machine shops and have seen the 'changes in the law' over time; no more girly pics in tool box, no more off colored jokes or words, no more this and that... not because any one woman EVER complained but because of the Kroyers of Lawyers they POTENTIALLY could complain and bring lawsuit.

Women, alike, couldn't have guy pic's in their tool boxes or work areas.... so all was outlawed. Some see this as a positive, take a moral high ground, but I say BS. Human animals are human animals, plain and simple as are other animals.

Many men and women alike LOOK for the differences between the sexes; this is what makes us even consider being tolerant of one another when we can't get hardly get along for periods of time with either sex! Taking a look on the brighter side, that work flirtation ( I know, wrong....) or blowing off steam by noticing what both sexes are geared towards noticing is now considered wrong because of Kroyer. Not real offenses and not harrassament, but not allowed to be human.

Much goes back to my first post, too, though..... any that have been around for some time KNOW that's an inevetability, and will add to compromise. Beside the Kroyer BS and venting, talking freely outlet.....

"More or less combat now refers to 'soft war'; there is little hand to hand combat so ability to fire weaponry, fly missions or run tank, etc... ground or sea fire isn't an issue." - ModerationInAllThings

You need to watch the documentary "Restrepo". So many soldiers in FOPs on sides of mountains in BFE Afghanistan getting shot at multiple times a day and humping equipment in daily foot patrols up and down those mountainsides. You seem to think everybody gets to stay in the Green Zone occasionally going out on Humvee patrols. That's not how it usually works for front line units.

Perhaps I presented it wrongly or you've got an extreme position Mike, but what I meant by 'soft war' is that those on the ground are very, very limited as to allowance of what to do. We've more or less declared perpetual war, can only do limited activities, instead of once having actually put troops on the ground, endangering their lives and dissrupting entire nations having accepted the consequences of what war really is, what it really does, the ramifications of war and survival and accepting all of this.... including other casualties.

More or less, my belief is that none cannot go to war, occupy and fight, whatever you may call it... WHILE maintaining PC rules, attempting to limit casualties on the 'enemies' side (that is what they are, correct? There must be an enemy in war...). War is and should always be considered an extreme solution, not taken lightly, and is and always will be ugly. If one calls war something other than war but exhibits the same characteristics, that's only playing semantics.

Soft war is in reference to our government, what our Service members are permitted, engagements allowed, and all the PC that goes along with that. NOT pertaining to what our service members go through, have to do, etc.... .

But, since I believe you misunderstood, and you've felt confident enough to give yourself a vote, I'll be PC and give you another.....

What is the prime directive of every creature? Is it to be a physician and heal bodies and minds? Is it to be a scientist and advance the human race? Is it to be religious teacher to improve our character? Is it to be a soldier to fight for right?

Nope, none of the above? The prime directive of all creatures is the procreation of their species. If you are not in this group, you are a waste of food, water and shelter.

It's the "mainstream" media pushing it's PC agenda. To libs, there are no differences between men and women. No moral judgements. No rational thought. No common sense. Only what they think is right. If you have a differing opinion, they marginalize you. Make you out to be crazy or stupid.

This is the "open-minded" liberal. Only their opinion matters.

TrustVerify, I understand what you're saying. I'm a disabled Vietnam combat veteran (67-68), and what bothers me is that women are happy, cheering, and celebrating because now they will be allowed to go into combat. Then the title of this thread about brothers and sisters in arms. Why would anyone with any kind of brain be happy about being able to go into combat? This isn't a reality tv game show, you don't get voted off or quit when you had too much. If you're tired or a little sick, you can't call in sick, you have to keep on going. When you smell of human and animal waste, and you haven't showered or brushed your teeth for 3 weeks, or changed your clothes, you have to keep on going. And finally, when you have seen your weapon kill someone, it ain't a glorious thing. Seeing your own people badly wounded or killed isn't so exciting either. Women are already equal, going into combat isn't going to make them "more equal". Women are smart and usually senseable, and no female anywhere is ugly. They're all beautiful, but going into combat can (most likely will) change all of that very fast and if they are still alive, that change will last for their entire lifetime.

The Evil Tessmacher---stop the political snipes loser, you try to leave the impression Dems are the only ones to go to war, nincompoop is a better word for you. Everyone has the opportunity to go to war it is a voluntary military. I say put them out there on the front line, right now, apply the standards as they exist and forget about it. That is not what is going to happen though, they are already restructuring the standards, exploring integration, lowering the standards. Since women are so much smarter they will be able to win the war right away then be able to talk about how they feel. Do it right now no review of the standards, just do it.

Hi,

This put the women in battle and on the front lines looks like a cover to get us to stop looking at how the politicians are cutting back the military to try to save money.

Ever notice how when the politicians spend to much money they try to cover it up with cutbacks to the military.

It is all a coverup on the politicains over spending on the budget, the freezing of our wages, and the instant gratification of their $900 raise during this terrible time. Ever notice how we the people have to cut back on thier over spending, but they still gives themselves raises.

The American people are a joke, they don't have any gonads, they are totally into thier Iwhats, and don't pay any attention to what is going on around them, this is seen every day by the new generation wrecking cars, walking into poles, or other people while looking at their iwhats.

In other words don't bother me I got my iwhat and that is all I care about. They will finally wake up when they can not afford to get the newest iwhat out there.

When will we stand up and tell our elected over spending officials, enough, you have taken so much off of us that we can't afford it anymore. We have one elected official who runs a city of 47000 people, who just spend 10.5 million dollars to add 3 more lanes to a street, that he calls the grand entrance into a city, he just raised our taxes and can't understand while people are grumbling, well mayor lets look at it logically, the city is dead, your great ploy of building a movie theatre and a playground is a very moot point. What the people need in this city is jobs, the movie theater gave 15 low paying jobs to the city. The average wage is about 24 - 28 thousand year. Your wage Mr. Mayor is about from what I heard about $850,000 a year. The payment of this new road as the grand entrance to the city which by the way the city is about as dead as your save the hotel project, will cost the citizans of the city about $223.40 for this useless project if all 47000 people paid it at once.

Wouldn't it be better to just lower taxes and try to bring industry back into the city. People are looking for jobs, not parks and movie theaters, if you brought industry back into the city, more people would move in, giving you more of a tax base at a lower rate. Instead you increased taxes and now more people are trying to move out.

Like I said people look at your elected officials, they are spending money unwisely, and we are paying for it in higher taxes.

Now they are trying to avert your attention by putting women in combat, get them talking about something else, so they won't notice the tax increases that we put on for our over spending.

Wake UP

The debate over women in combat will continue until the first woman is taken captive and brutally beaten and raped while being taped for the media by enemy combatants. Then everyone will be trying to distance themselves from the finger pointing. I have no doubt that there are some women who would make excellent combat soldiers, but there are also many that wouldn't that will end up on the front lines because of equal opportunity laws. This is a huge mistake for the military and our society, but what the hell we've torn up and dishonored every other facet of life why not this as well. God have mercy on our souls!

"No moral judgements. No rational thought. No common sense. Only what they think is right. If you have a differing opinion, they marginalize you. Make you out to be crazy or stupid. This is the "open-minded" liberal. Only their opinion matters"

--From my perspective, this statement proves that you're trying to do exactly what you are criticizing. As it happens, I do try to be open minded, so I accept that you feel persecuted by the fact that other people have opinions that differ from your own. What you need to realize is that we feel that we're right too, and that we arrive at our moral judgements based on a combination of logic and feeling. I hope you do too. Maybe we can't all hold hands and sing "cumbaya", but we each deserve a right to our opinion.

Hmm the evil, as usual, you are full of it. Anyone can check, republicans make up the majority of the military. Good thing there is a first amendment right? The problem is that the only way we can keep the first, is by use of the second and it's looking shaky.

This is more political correctness BS. Yes there are some really good female service members, I knew a few in ROTC. But then again I also saw the ones that couldn't carry any form of combat load, even including their own weight under hot weather conditions. During training at Ft Bragg, we had 10% of our platoon drop from heat exhaustion by noon one day. All females. The only load that they were carrying was an M16, two canteens, a poncho, a couple magazines of blanks, gas mask and a helmet. How would they have performed if they had been in body armor and carrying a pack? Not well would be my guess. I was carrying the PRC-77 radio and called in the medics whenever one of them dropped. When I went to Airborne School, the affirmative action female stick leader (the equivalent of a squad leader) was about to fall out of the mandatory 4 mile run until my bunk mate and I grabbed her arms and dragged/carried her the last two miles. She had told us that she had been offered the slot because the school had more training slots than people so she took it. Did she really belong there? or should that training slot have been given to someone who was physically and mentally capable of keeping up? One of the instructors told us to drop her and let her fail. We refused saying that our stick started together and we were damn well going to finish together. Likewise, there are jobs that most women can't do because they are physiologically incapable of them. A 155 mm howitzer round weighs around 98 lbs give or take a couple of lbs. 13B cannon artillery men frequently have to carry them from one location to another. An 8 inch round weighs double that. One of the sergeants that I worked with could carry an 8 inch round on each shoulder. Most could carry a 155 mm round on each shoulder. ALL of them could carry at least one 155 mm round from one gun or ammo carrier to the next. How many women can carry that kind of weight 50 yards repeatedly without injury?

We need to stop treating the military like a social experiment and realize that it's job is to kill people and break things. Everything else is support for that mission.

For those who whine about civilians being killed in wars, grow up. Civilians have ALWAYS been killed in wars. The difference between the US military and terrorist organizations is that we don't target them. Civilians get caught in the cross fire. Cities, not villages, were burned to the ground in WWII. There is a military purpose to this and it is to deteriorate morale of the enemy and reduce their will to fight. This helps reduce casualties on BOTH sides. High casualty counts only occur in protracted wars, not short ones. If you truly want to reduce casualties on both sides, support your side AND demand that they use as much force as possible as early in the conflict as possible. Causing the enemy to accept defeat and withdraw from the field of battle as quickly as possible is the surest means by which to reduce casualties across the board. If you are going to go into a war, go into it with the intention of WINNING it as quickly as possible, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. Otherwise you have more people injured on both sides than you need to.

A few things...

Men do have frontal lobes that control their impulses, ergo they CAN keep from dropping trow and humping the first female thing they see. There are also disciplinary measures in place for this issue. If certain men/women can't follow them, then keep them out of combat as THEY are not fit, as opposed to women in general. It's an internal affairs matter that has nothing to do with combat, as it could be used to keep women out of EVERY profession.

Men are tortured and raped by the enemy also. Why is a female worthy of more concern then a man in regards to this?

This isn't about the women who CAN'T make it. After all, there are many men who can't. This is about the few who can. Why do we allow all men to try knowing some will fail and allow no women to try knowing that some will pass?

If they can meet the same physical requirements, there is no logical reason to not allow this.

ENOUGH! Women SHOULD be able to fight as much as a man on the battlefield and they will do it, regardless of whether sexist jerk males like it or not. However, as for you women who choose to fight, please be sure to not end up being feminist jerks or I will have no respect for you at all, period. You men and you women who support the men that hate women being in combat, let me tell you that one of the people that was responsible for some of the most revolutionary forms of combat was indeed a woman. Who was that woman, you might ask? The answer is that woman was a woman by the name of Deborah in the Bible. In addition to being a housewife of sorts, she was also a prophetess, a de facto leader of the nation of Israel, the de facto general of all of the military forces of the nation of Israel, and the inventor of the pincer formation, guerilla warfare, and night time warfare, just to name a few of the brilliant techniques that she pioneered, in addition to being a brilliant military planner and strategist. This information is also confirmed by non-Biblical sources if you are too squeamish, prideful, and arrogant to take the information from the Bible, though, to the credit of people who live the Bible or not, it also provides more detailed information on the battles and how the techniques were employed. Finally, to The Integral, way to be arrogant, stereotypical, intolerant, elitist, immature, judgmental, narcissistic, and hypocritical. People like you worship Lucifer far more willing than you are willing to admit and you are also the bigest warmongers of all, period. Ted DiBiase once said, "Everybody has got a price." My question to you is what price will YOU pay to sell yourself to a gun and other forms of violence? The question is not IF it will be done but WHEN it will be done. Women will always be in combat simply because they, like men, will fight for a cause, they will defend their families and friends, and they wil fight for their beliefs and freedom. This will never change, regardless of how much legislation is passed for or against the women. This is the flat out truth and it must be accepted as such in your lives.

Most couldnt meet the same standards.. The standards have been dummied down over the years. Since this whole political correctness has swept over america, we now need to have X amount of minorities and females in the mix , because if you dont your labeled as a racist. Forget about if they cant pass physical agility tests, we just lower the number of reps, or decrease the weight that needs to be lifted and carried, or the questions on the tests are made so easy that the answers are practically given to you in the question.

People seem to think that House work is not important. The traditional stay at home mom has one of the toughest jobs on earth, and the position is not respected enough from us men. We should be giving praise to our women who work so hard, and taking care of our children while we are out making money for our family.

This while gender neutral thing is crazy.. Men are men and women are women. We are all human, we are equal in many ways, but we also are not the same in many ways. We need to make sure we keep ourselves defined and stop letting America say were all the same.

I would love to read a news story in the near future, where high-ranking members of al Qaeda groups, armed to the teeth and protected by dozens of their trained, hand-picked men, were captured or killed by just a handful of female soldiers, or taken down by one or a few female U.S. military snipers. (Statistically, women in the military are better sharpshooters than men).

Just imagine the psychological humiliation, rationalizations and denials that will occur to the strong, seasoned men of the Taliban, when they receive word of that firefight, where they were killed in battle and sent to meet the judgement of Allah ...by girls.

I am a veteran 1972-1976. If it doesn't make our military a more effective fighting force or save lives then we shouldn't do it. Having women in combat units does neither.

@Terry ... as a veteran, your opinion carries weight. But, can you say that your experience of 40 years ago is entirely relevant to this issue? The military has changed. Two generations have had careers during that time. Young people today are different than those who were 18 in 1972.

The argument that women are already getting killed in our wars is irrelevant, they are not in combat units and they get killed because @!$%# happens and always has.

It isn't irrelevant. The women are not officially assigned to combat units, but many are ATTACHED to them. That distinction doesn't keep them from being killed, but it doesn't benefit them on their service record. Women ARE on in combat. Let's stop trying to pretend that they're not and give them the credit that they deserve.

We ain't Israel. We ain't Canada. But we will put everyone everywhere 'cause it's the PC thing to do...damn the consequences.

That's right, we're not Israel. We can afford to make mistakes with our military without endangering our national survival. Israel can't. Therefore, I think that the fact that women do serve in combat, effectively, in the Israeli military carries a lot of weight.

It simply amuses me how a bunch of liberal pacifists and all of the media sissies, who despise military service don't know an M16 from a latrine, are such f**king experts on whether or not women should be allowed in combat. Come to think of it, how would the present commander-in-chief know?????

@Barry-NJ - MY experience is quite a bit closer than 40 years ago. While I won't disagree that woman can be incorporated into some combat arms jobs, there are many jobs where there are going to be very few women who can be incorporated into them for my Marine Corps, 0311s humping rucks weighing 75lbs while wearing 40 pounds of body armor kills male bones and 0811s loading 98.5 lb artillery shells is going to rule out most women. Pretending that there are no physiological differences

Some information on load on the average grunt: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2008/01/marine_lightenload_080122/

Where we have placed artificial blocks on allowing women into a role such as a vehical role or not allowing women to fly aircraft into combat (such an idiotic rule), we should absolutely make changes immediately. But rushing women into the roles where physical strength and bone structure supporting heavy weight are required is akin to doing something dumb like mandating women on the line in the NFL.

Spider, the way you talk with your false bravado I guarantee you have never seen combat!

Believe it or not this question is harder than it looks on the surface. On one hand it is a really good idea to have women fight because women more than men cut the ground under each others feet because they have never been put into a situation where getting along is the difference between life and death. In the military one has to watch each others back and look after each others well being. Women are never put into situations where getting along is encouraged. You are always in hard core competition. Combat is the only break we Americans get from our "market mentality" of no one is a friend just a competitor. So in a back handed sort of way war is the only activity where Americans are kind to other Americans other wise we compete.

The flip side of this coin is that most women in the military over compensate for themselves by being more tough than the boys. I remember all the talk from men in the military saying you never want a female drill Sgt. They tend to be harder than the male drill Sgt. Than there is the missed ideal of men in the military doing something that only men do. This is an evolutionary fact that no one today wants to admit but should be given play, even if later out voted. The idea of men going to war and being considered strong and brave goes way back to tribal times. The idea that a man has a special strength and bravery is appealing to the side that likes chivalry. Men get the joy of having something special about them. This is not to be chauvinist but some see it as romantic.

As you see I gave play to both sides of this argument because it is deep and two sided and much thought should be taken into account on this issue. Do not get angry at either side of the issue I raised because I tried to give both sides play and fair time.

Foolish, expensive and just a bad idea in general. Nothing is wrong with female pilots, artillery, tank or armored fighting vehicle operators, but not side by side in foxholes or jungles. Out on the battle fields there are no separate sleeping or toilet facilities, and men do tend to be over protective of women.

I just don't understand how women, who are humanity's nurturers, can shoot a gun and kill another human being. Is money that motivating a factor?

Women in the foxholes. Next comes keg beer and Tbone Steaks. Throw in some good music, dance floor and a disco ball and we've got a real war. People, save your daughters from this crap. Stop these stupid politicians before they put women in the draft system. You and I both know its not just about being able to shoot and hump some gear. The 1st time a mortar or RPG lands within a 100 yrds little miss GI jane will drop a load in her cotton undies and won't be able to think straight.

I see what's going on here. This is just another example of the govt. "Think Tank" using their psychology through their buddy, the media, to bombard us with stories like these in order to get us to change and accept the idea of women being in battle because they sense we will need all the help we can get in a not too distant world war. Hey, if Blackenstein says change is good then all should acknowledge with a bow, extinguish our torches, and put our pitch forks away.

"More or less combat now refers to 'soft war'; there is little hand to hand combat so ability to fire weaponry, fly missions or run tank, etc... ground or sea fire isn't an issue. Of course any woman is equal to any man on this level." - ModerationInAllThings

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"But, since I believe you misunderstood, and you've felt confident enough to give yourself a vote, I'll be PC and give you another....." - ModerationInAllThings

I don't need another vote. I was responding directly to the first statement. While I agree that war fighting has gotten too PC, there are hundreds of thousands of troops and former troops who have been stuck in FOPs in BFE Afghanistan over the last decade who will disagree with the statement that "there is little hand to hand combat so ability to fire weaponry, fly missions or run tank, etc... ground or sea fire isn't an issue."

I like the idea. Can you feel the love? Maybe all the armies of the world will get infected and we can bypass the stupidity that is war.

Cynical, yeah, I know. But war is the ultimate waste of energy. Were we to bypass the destruction and simply get on with the rebuilding, people, happy, would be able to carry on with a decent life.

People who hate their lives don't care. When one hasn't got basic necessities they will fight for these. It would be so much less expensive in so many ways to simply provide. If you want to get angry about gov't waste of our TAX dollars research on the internet how much it actually costs to kill an 'enemy combatant' in war. Then add in the cost of taking care of our shredded veterans when they come home in pieces mentally and or physically. Then factor in the cost of keeping a military. Oh it gets so ridiculous. See quickly how it would be so much more cost effective to simply help out fellow nations with bread and clean water and medical education.

"If they can meet the same physical requirements, there is no logical reason to not allow this." - Sarah

Read my post #1.48...seriously. Pay close attention to stress fracture rates and the article by Capt. Katie Petronio. In fact, I misstated the stress fracture rate for women (foolishly accepting the Time article as a unbiased source). The actual study shows that once in permanent units, women have nearly 3 times the rate of stress fracture as men and that is with women in much less physically demanding jobs and missions. Yes, a group of women may be able to pass a single PT test that is a requirement for access to certain front line units, but their physiology will still be such that their bone density will not be able to handle the day to day stress put on their skeletons.

Their physiology will also be such that they will not be able to maintain fitness as well as their male counterparts losing muscle mass and weakening much more quickly than the males. On top of that, studies show that in 2010 the hospitalization rate for females was also more than 3 times that of males. Even when pregnancy and childbirth was stripped out (and note to Sarah, females have libidos too you know), hospitalizations were still 33% higher for females -- again with the females being in much less physically taxing and/or dangerous roles as their male counterparts.

The only 3 categories in which males were hospitalized at a greater rate than females were "injuries and poisonings", "musculoskeletal/connective tissue disorders" and "skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders" all of which will occur with astronomically higher frequency when you are humping rucks on foot patrols getting shot at on the side of some mountain in Afghanistan. Yet incredibly the rates that males were hospitalized in those categories was not much higher than women's rates at all even with women having much less taxing roles and duties. The idea that women in front line units will not greatly surpass their male counterparts in rate of hospitalizations in these categories is just idiocy.

Now I'm sure in your mind you're thinking, "What's the problem? It's the woman's own body. If she's willing to accept the injury risk, than she should be able to." The problem is whether it is a female who is slow on patrol because she's starting to feel the effects of the stress fracture she hasn't told the medic about, or the female who experiences repeated muscle failures when lifting needed crates of ammo because her muscles have atrophied at a much faster rate than her male counterparts, or females who leave holes in units by suddenly being taken from their FOP assignments and hospitalized for whatever reason...all of these make units less effective and more more dangerous for their male counterparts. Men will die because of these things, all because some people -- like you -- want to ignore physiology in a vein attempt to soothe the egos of a handful of women. Nice.

Hope you're not one of their moms.

"Cynical, yeah, I know. But war is the ultimate waste of energy. Were we to bypass the destruction and simply get on with the rebuilding, people, happy, would be able to carry on with a decent life." - Hope

I bet Europe didn't think war was a waste of energy in the early 1940's. Well, apparently France did and just let Hitler in to exterminate their Jews too. There will always be bad people who will try to hurt and kill good people. Your position is ridiculously naive.

#1.79 Mike - There will always be bad people who will try to hurt and kill good people. Your position is ridiculously naive.

I would alter your post and replace 'people' with 'governments'. People don't wage war, they are just the means for governments to wage war, for profit. 'Ridiculously naive' people are the only hope for ending war, which is ridiculous because it doesn't work.

NEWS FLASH!

Women are all ready on the front lines of war and have been.

What this means is now they are able to advance within their chosen career, at the same amount of pay, equipment, and training that their male counter parts do.

As a former Navy man myself I can tell you any pig headed man that even thought of giving a Sr. female officer any grief thought twice after doing so. Females can be a lot stricter & disciplined than some of their male counter parts.....Maybe that's what the men are afraid of.

If they can put up with child birth and the likes of the ego's of men that act like children they can certainly be on the front lines.

We are still playing up the fact that we are all created equal, when we are not! Yes,there are women that are capable of meeting the same standards that are set for men, The unfortunate fact is that the military has had Physical Fitness Test standards that are not equal for both genders! All you need to do is Look up the Physical Fitness Tests for the Marines[Mpft], Army[Apft], the Navy[Navy-prt], and the Air Force[Air Force-pt]! You will see that there are discrepancies in those standards, and I can only hope that these standards are not softened to make everyone equal. This will possibly put our soldiers at risk as we will not be as strong in ability as previously required! There has also been documentation that women also have a higher record of seeking medical help over their male counterparts! I am not saying that women do not belong in the military, or to belittle their service! I am saying that there are serious reasons not to endanger our soldiers unneccessarily, in the name of equality!!

It simply amuses me how a bunch of liberal pacifists and all of the media sissies, who despise military service don't know an M16 from a latrine, are such f**king experts on whether or not women should be allowed in combat. Come to think of it, how would the present commander-in-chief know?????

Because he has an entire military apparatus with dozens of generals and other experts to advise him?

How would YOU know? Because of your personal, subjective experience? That makes you an expert?

TrustVerify, that little Muslim terrorist, believes that it's okay for women to be suicide bombers--guaranteeing that they will die with their victims. The rest of the words are just crocodile tears. No Muslim cares about women--especially if they don't stay barefoot and pregnant in their mud-floored huts.

No Muslim? Not even a Muslim woman? How about the few million American Muslim women? Do they live in mud-floored huts, barefoot and pregnant?

Please see a psychologist. There is something very wrong with you, if you are serious about what you wrote.

Science says males and females are biologically, genetically, physiologically, hormonally, ... different. Even their brains are different. And these differences are significant. The question is whether these differences will make a difference in the armed forces ability to be successful in combat. In so far as the combat is waged by purely technological means, the differences shouldn't have much impact. However the physical aspects are a question mark. On this "Super Bowl Sunday" an appropriate analogy might be to imagine what the outcomes would be of games between the Atlanta Ravens of the IWFL and the Baltimore Ravens of the NFL or the LA Amazons of the WFA and the SF 49ers of the NFL when the games are played for a life or death outcome. And there is also the issue of whether it is in the best interest of a society to define the role of women, traditionally the nurturers of the young, as combat killers. And what does this mean as far as what path a civilization has chosen to go down. Do we now hold power and dominance (the essence of military competence) as the most esteemed values in our culture? Who will be the caretakers, nurturers, custodians of the delicate, gentleness and grace?

Pandora6

Science says males and females are biologically, genetically, physiologically, hormonally, ... different. Even their brains are different. And these differences are significant.

Very true...but what you did not point out is that women are better at handling stress than are men. That is why they live longer.

So while your quick to point out the differences, please note the ones that are of benefit, as well as weakness's on both sides.

You also have this "June Cleaver" vision of female gender roles.

Steve-3564331

I only stated that there are differences and did not attribute a comparative value to them as you have done. I think that it is good that there are differences and that we should celebrate them rather than make them into a competition. The fact that they exist makes the world more interesting and diverse. You have this judgemental vision of the world where you feel you must place a value on differences as being "beneficial" or confering "weakness". I don't think there is any scientific proof that women live longer because they "handle stress better than men. You also seem to have a bias in your vision of "gender roles". I only asked a question about how society will maintain values which are inherently human. Please try not to project your biases onto others in the future.

Stop having men and women in the service. Have soldiers. Have the same haircut requirements, the same PT requirements, the same latrines, the same showers, the same everything.

Do not treat men and women different. Treat soldiers the same.

WTF....

Why are you using an avatar that violates the US Flag Code?

WTF!-6649602

You should have stayed in Vietnam !

Say What?,

You should read the flag code at least once, before you speak. That is NOT a violation of the flag code, it is the official sign of distress when the US flag is flown upside down.

torrens,

At least he was in Vietnam, not doing what you probably did, run to Canada with you tail between your legs, or bribe the draft board for a deferment. But, I'll give WTF this, at least he is no coward, he went, he served, and he paid his price. So, STFU, SMFH!!!

Andy Blackwood

I am a Korea war Vet.

to hell with america, i fly my flag upside down too, we are a country of political terroism and freaks. mex-obama, go back to mex, bring it on, we are ready for you wetbacks. im sooo ready to take out a few.

SayWhat shows profound ignorance once again--

An upside down flag is the symbol for "America in Distress" and all flags shoud be flown as such--

Getting close to 17 Trillion in debt -- Red Alert!

WTF,

Being that Being on Point amounted to death sentence in Viet Nam when you were in Charlie county, that is a pretty nasty thing to say.

BTW, you lost.

Were you addicted to heroin when you returned from Nam?

Did you survive by shooting the idiot 2nd Lieutenant who wanted to get you all killed an blaming it on Charlie? That was pretty popular after the Tet Offensive.

I was on point a lot and I didn't like that. I was also a "tunnel rat" and on an LP for many a times. Why these females are happy and cheering about being able to go into combat is a mystery to me.

Hey The Integral, as a disabled Vietnam combat veteran, I think you need to be taught a few things. You sound like a low life punk.

Say What?

There is nothing about his avatar that breaks the flag code! In fact flying the flag upside down as represented in the picture is a distress signal. I think that with our current situation it is perfectly justified.

Integral: Walked point for over a year in Vietnam. Good instincts, great power of observation so did not find it a death sentence. Still to this day when out and about I always ask myself what does not belong. Remember if it does not look right it isn't.

For your information Say What?, WTF! is using the flag correctly, the image shown is to show when our country is in distress and right now, what I have seen going on with this administration, our country is dire distress. Get some coffee, put down that bong and clear you head.

Amen.

mellowfellow, If you have doubts about the ability of a woman in hand to hand combat, challenge even just a simple infantry female soldier in the aforementioned Israeli army, then after you get out of the hospital, you can proceed to eat your words.

Those of you who think of women as the weaker, more gentle sex, never knew women. We can be ruthless and vicious - a woman who wants to be in the front lines, who can handle the weight of a pack and can shoot the enemy between the eyes, should be able to be a soldier. I know a lot of men who could never do such a thing. But it's assumed that men have the killing/warrior instinct. Lots of them don't.

My question is will women now be required to be in active combat, and would they no longer be exempt from selective service? Will women between 18-25 be required to register?

Hey John, your comment needs some clarification. Take a fuly trained female soldier and a fully trained male soldier, and my money is on the male. Not to say there are not some females who could carry their own weight, but they are far and few between. I have the utmost respect ofr all our military, both male nad female, but to say that "all" women should be allowed to enter "combat" is just silly.

Mellowfellow's comment comes close, but still doesn't quite hit 'the mark'. Women CAN absolutely DO the things that are involved in Combat Arms, Artillery, and Armor...the 'combat' branches.

The problem is that until things, such as physics, change considerably, VERY FEW women can CONTINUE to do many of the tasks common to combat units. Everything in infantry, artillery, and armor is HEAVY. Personal equipment, large guns, ammunition for large guns, armored vehicle hatches and components such as road wheels and tracks, etc. Doing these jobs takes practically everything strong young men can put into it, with emphasis on young. You're not going to find very many soldiers who reenlist if they already haven't promoted out of the lower pay grades where they have to do all of the hard physical labor. Maybe 30% of men who go into the combat branches will end up with chronic injuries resulting from repetitive lifting and bearing of extremely heavy loads.

Where the problem comes is that soldiers do not just sit around waiting for a war to happen. They train continuously, doing just what they would have to do in time of war. This includes lifting, loading, and carrying all the ammunition, gear, and iron that would be moved around in actual warfighting. Not all of the men who end up with chronic injuries receive medical discharges, but there are a number who are hurt badly enough from too much heavy lifting that they are no longer fit for duty and the money and resources spent on their training is largely wasted as it returns no national defense benefit for the people of the United States. The American taxpayer may very well be paying for taking care of that injured soldier for many years afterward. With women, it could very well be 80% attrition rate from routine training alone. That's a serious waste of defense resources and isn't fair to the US taxpayer nor to the women who are hurt in training rather than in actual combat.

Women have done very well in combat as Military Police and similar positions where they're well armed and trained but not carrying or moving extremely heavy loads of gear and equipment day in and day out. Women also can make excellent air crew members, and once the Air Force was able to get aircraft that were reliable (anything in the inventory today) and had ejector seats that didn't beat the pilot to a pulp when deployed (and keep in mind that most of those old 'jet jocks' were prime physical specimens who also played football; they'd often end up in the hospital for an extended period of time from a 'punch out') such as the new Advanced Crew Escape System (ACES) seats do, women have proven to be very good fighter pilots.

There is nothing wrong with women fighting, just as long as they can be matched to positions that are not going to leave them with permanent physical injuries before they ever have a chance to defend the nation with the skills they developed. If the technology to create thick armor and large guns from lightweight materials were perfected, then maybe we could see women successfully complete careers started in artillery or armor. Much has lightened in infantry, now that leather and canvas has been replaced with Nylon and other polymers...unfortunately, today's troops just carry more of the lighter weight gear! In the end, nothing has really changed there.

TiGor,

Here is the joke.

Women are going to be assigned combat roles at the same time that two "wars" are ending, the DoD is finally out of money, all the neocons are in the bunkers drinking Kool Aid, and combat roles are going to be assigned to robots.

Do you get it? The war of the future is a cyber war, an economic war, and a robotic war.

Heavy armour, heavy artillery, heavy weapons, set piece battles, close air support, mechanized infantry, armoured spearheads, etc.; it was all invented by Hitler, perfected by the USSR, and it is SO OBSOLETE.

Where is the victory that the trillions of dollars worth of "heavy arms" provided?

I see a bankrupt country. I do not see any victory parades.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!

At the sign of triumph Satan's host doth flee;
on then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell's foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
brothers, lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.

I can't believe I used to sign such garbage. When I was six I figured out that Episcopalians, the US Navy, and nuclear weapons are completely insane. Then 54 years working in the Devil's workshops to prove that I was "good for something". Freedom came at sixty. It was worth the wait. Lots of "inside" information, if you know what I mean.

John Bryant, I don't doubt the capabilities of the women trained to fight in the IDF, when I was a member of the 5th SF Group, 1961-63, at Ft. Bragg we had soldiers from other countries train with us, like the S.A.S. We also had some IDF personnel some of which were women. They were definitely tough, capable and motivated. But, they were still women and reached the limits of physical performance sooner than the men. Anyway, my point is, and remains; Men and women evolved capabilities that make one gender superior to the other in certain areas, and, down and dirty combat isn't a role that a woman can excel in or even match.

As a field artillery officer, I wouldn't want a woman on my gun line. They would be perfectly fine in the FDC, and probably make good forward observers, but artillery shells are heavy and most women wouldn't be able to lift them into the howitzer's ammo racks. Now they could be MLRS operators since those things are loaded using a built in crane.

Integral: I can't believe you did either. You do not by any chance live under a bridge do you?

Do you get it? The war of the future is a cyber war, an economic war, and a robotic war.

Seriously? What I GET is that the most vital and effective aspects of World War II were not the armor and artillery engagements you remind us were invented by the Germans and perfected by the Soviets, but the espionage, sabotage, and underground resistance movements that were going on behind the scenes and that it really was an economic war that was, at its heart, a war over petroleum and other resources, as most wars ultimately are. Future 'cyber' wars and robotic warriors are merely an extension of that. They can be used for clandestine fighting between nations that are not technically at war, or they can be used to augment conventional forces, but they cannot replace conventional ground forces in conventional warfare, and conventional warfare is exactly what you get when one side decides to invade the other side's territory.

One of the episodes of The New Captain Scarlet that aired in the UK about half a dozen years ago does a good job of illustrating a critical aspect of this. I believe the title of the episode was Circles of Doom and can probably be found in one or more places around the internet for viewing. I recall the plot was that a cyber attacker was using some system that disabled digital logic systems, affecting all computer systems in a given area and resulting in total chaos since everything in that future setting was computer controlled. The resolution was to use an archaic and low-tech approach to strike back which was not at all affected because it involved no computers whatsoever!

There's no question that much damage can be done electronically and through economic sanctions both overt and covert. But it will be a long, long time if ever before anything will truly replace the infantry soldier occupying a given piece of ground as a means of controlling it.

My question is will women now be required to be in active combat, and would they no longer be exempt from selective service? Will women between 18-25 be required to register?

Women serving in combat is a military decision. Selective Service registration is a Congressional matter. They're not directly connected. Selective Service registration should be dropped. I'm suprised that the spending-resistant GOP hasn't looked at the hundreds of millions spent on this over the past 30+ years.

If the draft were ever to be reinstated, the realities of our society today would require that women be subject to the draft, even if they didn't serve in combat (there are MANY, MANY non-combat positions in the military). With women competing in the educational and corporate world, it would be difficult to justify requiring men to serve in the military while allowing women to get a two-year jump on them career-wise.

As a field artillery officer, I wouldn't want a woman on my gun line. They would be perfectly fine in the FDC, and probably make good forward observers, but artillery shells are heavy and most women wouldn't be able to lift them into the howitzer's ammo racks.

@Lt .. but not EVERY man can lift heavy artillery shells, either. Would you want them in your unit? I doubt it. Why not accept people based on their abilities, and not gender stereotypes?

Is the fact that a 5'11" 190 pound man can do more than a 5'4" 125 pound woman a sterotype? Of course it's stereotyping and it's valid. Abilities are taught based on the assumed capabilities.

Is the fact that a 5'11" 190 pound man can do more than a 5'4" 125 pound woman a sterotype? Of course it's stereotyping and it's valid.

No, a stereotype is that because someone is male that he is better suited for a combat than a female. Not every male is 5'11" and not every female is 5'4".

Large formation, multi-service armored assault was introduced by the German Army and it was known as Blitzkreig.

But. perfected by the Soviets? You seem to have forgotten George Patton, a practitioner extraordinaire and the single Allied commander to warrant a mention in the German War Diary, on account of the threat he was considered.

Aussie, you might find, in German war records, that Field Marshall Montgomery is mentioned, when he fought and stopped Rommel at Al Alamein, in North Africa. Which victory stopped the German North African campaign from moving into Egypt, taking Cairo. Agreed that Patton was mentioned, but as the commander of the fake army used to take German interest away from Normandy where the Allies finally landed. As for the Red Army Tank Corps, well, they did perfect the Blitzkrieg, lol, they used more tanks. Hell, when the German 6th army under the command of Paulus attacked Stalingrad the Soviets were turning out tanks by the dozen, not even painted when they were sent to Stalingrad, lol, sometimes only a few hundred yards from the factory to the front.

Mellow, I've no doubt that German war records included reference to a host of notables. But I referred to the official War Diary, administered by the German High Command.

The diversion of German men and materiel to the Eastern Front, the Italian Navy skulking in port thus allowing the Royal Navy a free hand in the Mediterranean and the Torch landings in the African north west is what led to the demise of the Afrika Korps. Not any single action by Monty at all...

Those in the Wehrmacht showed considerable, albeit grudging, respect for the abilities of General Patton as an armored formation commander, in the vein of their own Guderian, Rommel, Model et al. Following the 'great deception' in south east England during the lead up to D-Day that you spoke of, it was Patton who first broke out of the Normandy bridgehead and started his 3rd Army rampage through France, while Monty remained bogged down at Caen.

Months after D-Day, Patton was quite bemused when Monty boldly stated that he was going to slice through the German defences in Holland like a 'knife through butter' during Operation Market Garden, and thereby enter the Rhineland aimed at the heart of Germany to end the war. Despite RAF recon detection, supported by eyes and ears on the ground, of seasoned SS armored units from the Eastern Front refitting in the target area, Monty's pet airborne operation went ahead, with Ike's endorsement. Of course, any 'slicing' just didn't happen on that occasion, rather a costly withdrawal ensued.

And then, following the late-1944 last-ditch German offensive in the West through the Ardennes, it was Patton who rapidly wheeled 3rd Army from its original 'course' to deal with the threat, duly relieving the beleagured 101st Airborne Division garrison at Bastogne in the process. Military historians note that the complete switch in direction of a formation as large as 3rd Army while engaged in offensive operations was a feat of considerable expertise.

And as far as the capability of the Red Army at the time is concerned. weight of numbers does not make for perfection of the Blitzkreig doctrine. Granted, a number of senior Soviet commanders had mastered the concept, but perfection, I hardly think so.

To other readers, kindly excuse this going off on a tangent. I simply responded to some bald statements from various other posters.

Most historians point to Al Alamein as one of the turning points in North Africa and the war, and, the breakout of the Red Army from Stalingrad. Of course Patton had a hand to play in the European Theatre of Operations. I do think that Montgomery faced heavier opposition when the German army moved more experienced and battle-hardened formations from the Eastern Front to the West. Anyway, all that is for the historians to argue over, I personally think that the war in Europe went against Germany when it attacked into the Soviet Union and then of course Patton's attack up through Italy showed that the German army was not invincible. Lol, I've heard it said that the Garand M1 rifle, the Jeep, the Studebaker trucks really won the war in Europe.

As for going off on a tangent on my part, well, I respond to comments, reply to replies and make no excuses, folks can read them or ignore them as they choose.

Don't forget it was Patton that melded all those green GIs arriving in North Africa from Stateside during 1942 early '43 into a fighting force that was second to none.

But good on ya Mellow, seems we're on the right track overall.

Right Aussie, Patton was the hammer that molded the steel of the 3rd Army. Well, it sounds cool anyway, but, he didn't "Hang the moon." As for the American Army being a fighting force "Second to none," well, that's debatable. We played a major role in winning the war but it was our geographical location and industrial strength that played a more major part in that. We fought a war on two major fronts but they were separated by two oceans and thanks to the British and American navies we didn't endure a land invasion, except for when the Japanese took a couple of places in the Aleutians. Germany fought a war on two fronts also but was susceptible to land invasion, which came to be with the Normandy landings and a resurgence of strength of the Red Army. At the time the German army fighting across Poland and into the Soviet Union was considered to be 2nd to none, the Red Army invading West into Germany was considered to be 2nd to none. Today the American army, military, is really 2nd to none because we have the experience in fighting more than major wars, we also fight small wars and maybe fighting small wars like Korea, Vietnam and small events (Small events on the world stage) has kept the military 2nd to none. Most, if not all of the major nations having a military establishement can boast of having a experienced military. All some of them can do is look at how a few units have fared; The South Korean Tiger Division is an example, and they did good in Vietnam when given the job of helping pacify the area along Highway 1. So, am I saying then that small wars are necessary? Damn right, lol, "Practice makes perfect." Better for America to keep it's military honed than to be sucked into a big war and find the cutting edge dull. Yeah well, so far we've been lucky.

Right Aussie, Patton was the hammer that molded the steel of the 3rd Army. Well, it sounds cool anyway, but, he didn't "Hang the moon." As for the American Army being a fighting force "Second to none," well, that's debatable. We played a major role in winning the war but it was our geographical location and industrial strength that played a more major part in that. We fought a war on two major fronts but they were separated by two oceans and thanks to the British and American navies we didn't endure a land invasion, except for when the Japanese took a couple of places in the Aleutians. Germany fought a war on two fronts also but was susceptible to land invasion, which came to be with the Normandy landings and a resurgence of strength of the Red Army. At the time the German army fighting across Poland and into the Soviet Union was considered to be 2nd to none, the Red Army invading West into Germany was considered to be 2nd to none. Today the American army, military, is really 2nd to none because we have the experience in fighting more than major wars, we also fight small wars and maybe fighting small wars like Korea, Vietnam and small events (Small events on the world stage) has kept the military 2nd to none. Most, if not all of the major nations having a military establishement can boast of having a experienced military. All some of them can do is look at how a few units have fared; The South Korean Tiger Division is an example, and they did good in Vietnam when given the job of helping pacify the area along Highway 1. So, am I saying then that small wars are necessary? Damn right, lol, "Practice makes perfect." Better for America to keep it's military honed than to be sucked into a big war and find the cutting edge dull. Yeah well, so far we've been lucky.

Hey, I didn't do it, lol, the outfit running this operation posted my comment twice.

Aussie Guy and mellowfello1526615

Hey been following your discussion for a bit now, pretty interesting stuff. I do have just one comment though, being that in my experience all this talk about who’s military is second-to-none almost always takes a nationalistic trend. That in short if you asked a Brit who has the best in the world, (depending on how nationalistic they are) they’d say Britton and explain why, if you asked an Israeli they’d say Israel and so on and so forth. Personally I find that in the case of western militaries they are so inter-connected (training and equipment) that the only things that separate them is their historical experience (which does form their psychology) and their doctrines. Thus to try and say who has the best (or who’s’ second-to-none) is a fruitless task.

It may be fruitless, a exercise in futility, but when it comes down to maintaining security in our world being the best, 2nd to none is the first priority. At times, just having the image of being the "Baddest of the bad" works. But, lol, eventually some predator nation is going to give it a shot, and then we need to be able to back up our image.

mellowfello1526615

“but when it comes down to maintaining security in our world being the best, 2nd to none is the first priority. At times, just having the image of being the "Baddest of the bad" works”

If you say so, although that sounds more like a safety blanket idea to me, (so something to make you feel all warm and fuzzy whilst not really doing anything in reality) after all every nation thinks it has “the baddest of the bad” military and simply telling them that you do doesn’t convince, whereas showing them would be far too costly and pointless.

Yeah, ok. I agree that all nations think they have the best. National pride and all that. As for showing them, and it being too costly, well, how much more costly would it be if we didn't make the attempt? We're seen as a "Paper tiger" so now and then we get a nip, bite here and there just so that some third-rate nation can show the world, and maybe it's sponsor, how tough and fearless they are. It might be costly but it sure wouldn't be pointless, unless, lol, they didn't get the point. Anyway, as for war, well, nobody wants it but as George Orwell said; "The quickest was to end a war is to lose it."

Well, Charlize, Scarl Jo, J Lo, LiLo, Kim, Chloe, Sofia, Emma, the Jessicas, that new blonde on "Vegas", and Carrie Moss, Doutzen Kroes, and the entire Sports Illusrated Swimsuit models (They're Coming, so to speak, in the next few weeks, men and lezzies!) even the Cougars like Cox and Fox among several others are very special.....I hope to christ they don't volunteer.

And that's the crux of it: In volunteer army they can do as they like the real fun begins when women are DRAFTED and now have to serve whether they like it or not. Can't wait for that eventuality for the real crazy @!$%# to happen.

You called?

No mention anywhere in this discussion of the estimated 19,000 rapes that took place in the military last year.

Yes, this should mean that women now register for the Selective Service so they can be called upon during a draft.

Ladies, you should really back away from this one. There is no glory in war. You are demanding equality for something that will leave you equally miserable and destroyed emotionally.

Good point Atlas, I wonder how many women were actually asked; "Do you want to suit up and have a combat role?" Lol, aside from a few posturing while they wave a N.O.W. playbook around I doubt that any woman is willing to do it. Culture after culture shows a history of women being protected by men. I guess some women just can't handle that; "By gawd, I don't need no damn man to protect me, I can protect myself!" Well, it's official now, women can serve in combat, so, good luck to you lady warriors manning a position as the enemy takes it, with their dicks in their hands, lol. You will have come a long way baby.

Yes Mellow..I feel the same way. There might be a FEW out there who want that option but for the most part, I doubt that many women will be lining up for the training. And even fewer who will pass that training w/o some lowering of standards.

Therein lies the problem If we do indeed break that barrier, does that also mean that women will be required to sign up for selective service? And if THAT is done, will ALL women be required to serve their country if a draft comes into play?

There's more to this than letting a few women fight in combat.

good luck to you lady warriors manning a position as the enemy takes it, with their dicks in their hands, lol. You will have come a long way baby.

There will be some surprised taliban as she cuts off his dick, hands it to him and pulls the trigger...she won't be stupid enough enough to piss on the corpse!

Network, I sure hope that it never comes to that but like I said; "Good luck." Keep your knife sharp.

Absolutely right on, hell, they KNOW they're special, they don't need reminding, lol.

Lol, that post came up out of place, it was meant for the poster who suggests that the topic be given a rest.

Therein lies the problem If we do indeed break that barrier, does that also mean that women will be required to sign up for selective service? And if THAT is done, will ALL women be required to serve their country if a draft comes into play?

The answer is yes, I believe. But, that would be true even without eligibility to serve in combat (think of all the women already serving in the military). In 2013, unlike 1973, I think it would be unfair to allow women to get a two-year jump on men in the workforce. Also, for many, serving in the military would be an economic loss, with military pay being less than they could earn in the civivlian world. in a time when men earned significantly more than women, asking men, and men alone, to pay that "tax" might not have been unreasonable. But, now, it would be hard to justify.

GM Stonepipe.

Having spent a career in the military, I have no problem with a female in the ranks in combat areas. As long as they and the males can meet the standards that are required in the training. Besides, another rifle in the firefight is always welcome.

However, Murphy's Law of Combat comes into play here: Don't ever share a defensive fighting position with someone who is braver than you! It draws too much enemy fire!!!

Great morning to you Jack. Don't worry, when she's fired up I am in my own foxhole! Thanks for your service and great posts.

Justice, have you heard of a new thing they've tried in the military? It's called martial arts. A person that's proficient in them can easily overpower a much larger and stronger assailant. I know quite a few women that I would be happy to have by my side in a firefight.

John, there's an old maxim - "A good big man will beat a good little man every time."

I'm 6'2" and my arms are 42" long. I'd have almost 8 inches of reach on a tall female (up to 5'8"). Being a black belt in anything doesn't do much good if your opponent can pick you up by the hair and hold your feet off the ground while remaining out of your reach.

On the other hand, after teaching my wife to shoot handguns, her steady hands and laser reflexes have become both my pride and despair, as she now outshoots me 7 times out of 10, and I find I have nothing left to teach her on the subject.

Agnomad... all things equal, the more powerful person wins... power generated by mass x speed. I'll take speed anytime over mass.... the biggest guy has no advantage against a smaller faster person if you are talking about martial arts. Oh, note that MMA stops fights when someone is accidentally kicked in the balls... don't expect such courtesy in a real fight. You should try to pick up any black belt up by the hair, including most of the women black belts I know. I want to watch.

I'm 6'2" and my arms are 42" long. I'd have almost 8 inches of reach on a tall female (up to 5'8").

Well, that'd be true, too, if your opponent was a male 5'8" tall.

I don't think men even have an instinctive need to protect women. In all my 50+ years, I have never seen it.

Cookie, it's a cultural thing that is taught from childhood on up, taught in tribal culture where women produce the numbers and do the motherly things. Protect the women because they carry the future of the tribe. What do you think is the basis for "Women and children first?" "Women and children to the rear?" Lol, on that note; We send women into combat we're jeopardizing the future of the culture, tribe, whatever. It may well be that in the natural order of things some things just aren't done. But, lol, it's fun and cool to be the first. So ladies, suit on up, we're off to war.

Cookie, it's a cultural thing that is taught from childhood on up, taught in tribal culture where women produce the numbers and do the motherly things. Protect the women because they carry the future of the tribe. What do you think is the basis for "Women and children first?"

Women and children first was a Victorian construct that was fine on the Titanic. These days, they would men would expect to have an equal chance of rescue as women, as they should.

We send women into combat we're jeopardizing the future of the culture, tribe, whatever.

Really? How is that? Because they might get killed? I think that we'd still have plenty of women to continue breeding the tribe.

Barry, when we send men off to war the men are usually the "Cream of the crop." If a lot of them are killed the future generations are genetically in danger. The French discovered that in WWI when the flower of French manhood died on Flanders Field. Sending women to war can result in the same thing. Lose the best and what is left for future generations?

"Women and children first" may have been a Victorian construct but it's based on years of cultural history all over the world. It's valid for more than sinking ships, it's also valid in war. The English found that out during the Blitz, even back in the days of the Franco-Prussian War when Paris was beseiged women were treated and protected better. Bottom line I guess is that society values women more so it tries to protect them. Anyway, it just seems to be the natural order of things; It's the male Bisons who herd the females to the center of the herd when danger threatens. Well, that's how I see it, others see it differently but that is taught in our world thanks to the agenda of equality for men and women. There's a difference between being a man or woman and being a citizen with equal rights regardless of gender. Lol, one is natural and one is constructed.

Sending women to war can result in the same thing. Lose the best and what is left for future generations?

Well, to be practical about, if more women are killed then probably fewer men will be killed, so the damage to the gene pool will be about the same either way. It might even be better for society because it will lessen the risk of a big imbalance in the number of men vs. women.

Cool, I believe in being practical, and the natural order of things is practical because it has stood the test of time. I don't know much about a imbalance of the sexes, last I heard there were more women than men. Lol, at 72 I really couldn't care less now. Anyway, if more men are in combat more men will be killded, if more women are in combat more women will be killed. I suppose some analyst could make some kind of statistical analysis from that. Either way it doesn't negate the natural order of things and out of necessity nature dictates. Dictates what? The survival of the species, culture, tribe whatever. A lot of study, I guess, has gone into all this and it seems that the more something is studied the more that something will change, change to suit the agenda of the people doing the studying. Man seems to have a desire to change the obvious, everything is to be questioned and disproved. So hell, why not try to change the very nature of nature. "Shooting oneself in the foot" comes to mind.

Hey windwalker, did you even read the article?? The original story was a profile of a WOMAN in a COMBAT unit in Israel. In the case of Israel, a woman could die just as dead while she's cooking breakfast as she could executing a raid on a terrorist stronghold.

Windtalker,

The fight for women in combat was led by women who were in combat and were not getting credit for being in combat.

There is no front line in Afghanistan.

The US in in "hedgehog" positions, just like the Nazis west of Moscow in January of 1942. Doctors fill sandbags. It is a real mess.

I am a very combat tested Marine, combat is not a social experiment , it is the most horrible experience I have ever had. keep your medals give me back my friends.

The biggest problem is the damage to moral. Soldiers are traumatized in war when their comrades are blown to tatters in front of them... But when you throw a cultural aspect of "women and children are most important" into the mix, it becomes very hazardous.

We live in a culture that glorifies how important it is to defend women and children, when your female comrade gets shredded to pieces by an explosion, the effect is devastating on the mind.

A similar situation actually led to my discharge from Afghanistan due to PTSD. My squad was helping some Canadian forces move some supplies to what would eventually become an FOB. A mortar strike hit our position from a nearby hill and hit a girl that had just been deployed for the first time at 19. She lost both of her legs and one of her hands and was still alive after that for a few minutes while I pulled her behind a Deuce. The only thing I could do was slip an NPA into her nose to help her breath easier before she died.

I've seen a bunch of guys shot, one or two die during Anaconda, but when I saw that, I absolutely lost my f**king sh*t. I couldn't hold anything for months without my hands trembling, the way I walked changed, and the nightmares and flashbacks were constant. The VA of course tried to give me as much crap as they could spew like they do for everyone with PTSD.

I am fine with women in combat, but you better be ready to fork over those tax dollars and get some strong reforms for the VA. A lightning storm of mental trauma is going to come out of this.

For those of you feminists out there, remember, it's in a guy's nature to play the hero for the lady.

I am a very combat tested Marine, combat is not a social experiment , it is the most horrible experience I have ever had. keep your medals give me back my friends.

I think that's going to be my favorite quote of all time.

Go back to Beijing University and learn better english! "win battle"!?! Say your GD PRONOUNS!

I don't know what's worse, your post or three people giving you an up arrow. As far as bar fights go, I would rather jump into a lion cage wearing a meat suit as break up two WOMEN fighting.

When I was living in Seattle, I saw a man slapping the crap out of his girlfriend at closing time, I went to help her and the guy took a punch at me, I dropped him, then the woman who was getting beat up kicked me in the junk. It must have been foreplay because they left together.

Stonepipe2, I guarantee you would rather jump in a lion cage than break up a woman fight I am watching. That's rare enough as it is. RRRRRRRRRawww. Yeah baby!

worn out - that's why cops hate domestic violence calls so much, at least you tried.

I know, my dad is a cop and almost every time they get a domestic call the woman is telling the cop not to arrest the abuser and actually gets mad at the officer. Makes no sense. The woman's face can be bruised up and everything and she's yelling and screaming at the officer trying to help her.

Choirboy, I hate it when the mud flies!

Wow, so you worked (as a air base Warrior) with hot meals, showers, and the PX daily - you must have suffered from the stress of knowing combat was just 300 miles away - but you could watch the news every night. There's one thing about being in an admin job that's newly opened to women and another about taking a bayonet and ripping someone's stomach open. You can be proud of your accomplishments but you weren't a combat participant and can not comment on women's suitability. As a platoon leader if that girl can't hump her 80 pound pack, she's getting left behind for the enemy I can't spare three men to carry her.

80 pound pack? Must be a short patrol . . . : )~ There were times where I felt like I was carrying 80 pounds in ammo alone . . . and glad of every round.

Not every woman could do everything I did but neither could every man.

Exactly. A person's eligiblity for a particular assignment should be based on capabilities, not stereotypes.

atelier: I, too, was a "first" for women in the military. I was one of the first women who was a jet engine mechanic for women in the Air Force. Sea2see and I are pioneers for the women of TODAY in the military. We did it many years ago when it was much, much harder for women when the vets of today were in diapers or before they were born. It is because we were competent in our jobs, that were typically thought of as male oriented, that more and more jobs became available to females. Females that want combat jobs will be weeded out at MEPS. They'll either be able to pass the physical or they won't. In the meantime, have respect for us old female vets. We earned every bit of it.

With all of the huge technological benefits the US has made maybe its time to send retirees into combat, where the loss of life or limb is not as tragic as with an 18 year old. As for women in the military, they on average are smaller targets and as such may have combat advantages. But clearly the Afghan military trained by the West, should be all female, for only women will fight and die for the rights of their daughters. Afghan men seem less willing to do so.

I think you ask a very valid question, that is also one of my concerns. I am also concerned about the reasons we sometimes go to war. I believe our 2 party system is broken--there are corporations that donate to both Repubs and Demos so that they have a foot in no matter who wins an election. Who knows how deep that goes? Regardless of politics, I believe that we need to love and support our soldiers. That includes doing the best we can at the voting booths to vote in people who don't take their service for granted, or that don't view them as pawns.

If women serve at all levels, then if follows that we shouldn't have a problem with women being drafted ..

Women would have to be drafted. Fifty years ago, men had advantages in society that could be used to justify drafting them alone, while allowing women the choice of serving in certain capacities. Those advantages, if they still exist, are disappearing fast. Drafting men, while allowing women to move ahead in their careers, could not justified. This is especially true because so many jobs in the military are open to women.

get back to us when that happens gary. lol. Heck a lot of straight guys are turned on by the idea of two lesbians together, so according to your "logic" we'll be flooded with volunteers. :)

Hey, "vermontguy

Don’t you get it Vermont lesbians are lesbian for a reason… They do not want to have sex with dumb as Vermonters like you.

Hey! Hey! Break it up. We're all lesbians.

Carrol, the legality or illegality of a war is decided by the victor. And, lol, maybe by the historians.

Nope, wars remain illegal most all the time. We don't have to believe the historians who are told what to write and we don't have to believe the tyrants who send our "volunteers" to kill for corporate profit
under the guise of "spreading democracy". We need to think for ourselves, see the con for what it is. Just ask Smedley Butler. I wish I read his book before i joined the Corps.

All wars may be illegal to some people but some people don't constitute the majority in a society, the majority decide if a war, or wars, are legal or illegal. Now, the morality of war is another matter and then it becomes "Who started it?" Anyway, morality is a individual perspective.

"the majority decide if a war"

No MellowFello it is a dominant minority who have decided that war is legal. It's for their corrupt global plans. These plans have been around for a long long time. Killing using propaganda to gain support of a people is an old technique.

good point. i don't think the majority of females are of the mind to be on the front lines as the msm tries to make us believe. if there was a draft we would really hear what the majority want not a few ramboets once again the msm is telling falsehoods to serve a few rather than the masses. if the feminist want equality then why are they not in the military proving they are not hypocrites? i think if a woman wants to be in a combat position she has not been in the reality but the fantasy. i would rather have been in the fantasy in 72 than in the reality. to be fair the same goes for our young men if they really knew the truth about war they would rather be in school

okie

if the feminist want equality then why are they not in the military proving they are not hypocrites?

Well I'm 56 so I think I'm not qualified. Women are fighting for the opportunity to earn any job that a man can earn, not so we can all have that job but so the women who want it have that chance. To fight for equality is to guarantee us the right to choose for ourselves.

...she obviously believes that israel is more important than her birth country, the Unites States of America. She should be chastized for it and not praised, sorry...

Foreign born soldiers serve in the US military. Non-citizen males with permanent residency are also subject to Selective Service registration. Should they also be chastised for serving another country?

The same way obama is financially destroying U.S.

This move will destroy our military!!!

gary, you mean how congress, including the gop-controlled house, is destroying our country financially? you do understand that congress controls spending, not the president? hmmm, apparently not.

that's the problem with our country..idiots who know nothing about gov't.

You got your revenue, now it's time for my cuts!!!!

You are comrade obama's minister and determine'r of intelligence???

LMAO!!!

Ted...

Thank you for insulting all the WACs, WAVEs, BAMs, and SPARs

The women's movement is about the right to be treated as a human being so that we can support ourselves and our families when the man bails out on us. If men behaved reliably and honorably, women would not need to take on the role of provider-but this is not reality. In reality we have to survive and we have to make sure our children survive in spite of the unreliability and moral bankruptcy of men. Since this is the reality, we need to be treated fairly while doing it. The posts on here are full of men ranting about the evils of the women's movement and I cannot help but wonder how many of these same men have abandoned their wives and children in pursuit of the trophy wife or the stripper? How many of them are raging abusive drunks?

Back to the topic at hand, very few women are capable of a full role in combat physically but if they are--without modifications--they should be allowed to participate. Its when the government gets bogged-down by stupid rules and PC thinking, instead of facing the truth that things turn bad. Women who cannot physically qualify for combat readiness should be utilized elsewhere in an efficient manner.

As far as not being able to handle the brutality of it emotionally--you delude yourselves. Women can be horribly fierce when they must.

Women who cannot physically qualify for combat readiness should be utilized elsewhere in an efficient manner.

As should men. Our military will be at its strongest when we use people, ALL people, in the capacities that best suit them. Their sex shouldn't be a consideration.

This move will destroy our military!!!

According to the conservatives, allowing gays to serve was going to destroy the military. If gays are going to destroy the military, how can allowing women to serve in combat going to make things any worse? Destroyed is destroyed.

februaryjones - don't know or can't speak for the other branches of the military but the US Army turns all into Soldiers First. There were just as many males to fall out as women when I went through

When did you Serve in the US Army.

The standard for the "front press" was the same for females in your training unit? And the "chin up"?

There was no "gender normalization guidelines" posted for PT?

I'm with david-string-o'-numbers . . . When did you serve?

I don't see what testosterone has to do with things like PTSD. if you are worried about the effects of war on soldiers, vote for democrats who are far less likely to send ANYONE into a major war like iraq.

that's why I prefer the dems in terms of national defense. The current GOP is just itchin' to start more full scale wars.

vermontguy - vote for democrats who are far less likely to send ANYONE into a major war like iraq.

Stick with things you KNOW about:

McCullough: We are raising children in America today who are by and large historically illiterate.

As the polite way of saying "smart as a box of rocks". You and the President you hired, so because you don't know the Facts and Refuse to listen to the Historically Documented Facts, you have NO idea how the fix the problems nor handle the situations and just continue to state uneducated, no experience, non factual, emotive, OPINIONS (politically correct way of saying LYING like a MO FO).

FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE (SURVIVING MISSIONS).

BASIC KNOWLEDGE: US LAWS, US POLICIES, PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS DO NOT GO AWAY UNTIL REPEALED, OR COMPLETED.

President Clinton's US Law H.R.4655 Section 3 US POLICY OVERTHROW OF PRESIDENT HUSSEIN.

Section 2 Findings (Justifications) WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" with US Congressional Appropriations (the other Demoncrap lie, Unfunded) as demanded by President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address "Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Overthrow President Hussein as US Policy"(including getting the US involved with Bosnia):

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1057063/posts

President Clinton's (NOT BUSH (43) "tried to kill my daddy" (Bush (41)) as more Demoncraps LIES, President Clinton's H.R.4655 Section 2:

(6) In April 1993, Iraq orchestrated a failed plot to assassinate former President George Bush during his April 14-16, 1993, visit to Kuwait.

Full Text of President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union Address (Courtesy Congressional Record):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou98.htm

President Clinton believed that the Cold War Era US Defense, US Intelligence Agencies (previously built up by Director of the CIA Bush, later President (41)), US Military were no longer needed.

President Clinton Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies that left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading to the 9/11 2001 Attacks (Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission (Committee) Investigations, Findings and Recommendations, former President Clinton saying "I'm a so sorry". The local Pro US intelligence assets Worldwide were no longer funded, so Intelligence from Afghanistan was no longer available (where Osama Bin Laden was or what he was doing). The US had to rely on information from "Potentally Hostile" Nations like Pakistan, Jordan, etc. as to where Osama Bin Laden was after President Clinton released Osama Bin Laden after the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings.

Those of us that were the US Military Training Teams to US Ally Iraq during the Iran Iraq Wars stated our opposition, as we knew from firsthand experience that President Hussein was the Counterbalance to the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran, using his own Iraqis Oil Wealth and the lives of the Iraqis Citizens of the Iraqis Military. We were threatened with UCMJ Actions, Detentions, Relief from Command, etc. so instead of jail;

In 1998 we went into Iraq and hired about a hundred thousand Shia Iraqis mostly from Iran as Illegal Aliens at Iraq to Overthrow Sunnis President Hussein. As Asymmetric Warfare using hatred and real or perceived injustices of groups to start a Civil War or Overthrow.

Due to President Clinton's Gutting of the US Intelligence Agencies, there were no local Pro US Iraqis intelligence assets to link up with, as they were no longer funded; so to survive and make money to feed their families, most of the previous Pro US Iraqis Intelligence assets had become Iraqis Counter Intelligence Agents, Iraqis Military Intelligence, Iraqis Law Enforcement (or Iraqis Secret Police), and they were waiting for us to attempt something. So the almost hundred thousand Shia Iraqis we hired as assassins and insurgents were captured, tried, executed as "Traitors" and dumped into mass graves. President Clinton spun this to "Dictator Massacred His Own People".

Because of President Clinton's Failure, the next was his as Commander In Chief Ordered 1998 US Military Operation Desert Fox. It was President Clinton's belief that by targeting the Iraqis Political Leadership, he would not have anyone to negotiate Peace (the step down of President Hussein from the Presidency of Iraq), so he Ordered the Airstrikes and Cruise Missile Attacks of the Crowded Urban Poor Areas of Baghdad. Again from experience, you do NOT f**k with the Poor of Islam, we then opposed and were restricted from Targeting, and only Target Damage Assessments. The Results thousands of the Poor of Islam died during the Airstrikes and Cruise Missile Attacks, Worldwide the over 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers condemn the US as the Great Satan. Osama Bin Laden starts planning the 9/11 2001 Attacks (same targets as during the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombings).

FROM FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE (SURVIVING) THE WAR AT IRAQ STARTED WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S US POLICY, OVERTHROW OF PRESIDENT HUSSEIN AND US LAW WITH US CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATIONS. As since 1998 as President Clinton's US Policy we have been at Iraq conducting Overt and Covert Activities to Overthrow President Hussein.

Finally, after 2001 Operation Viking Hammer, 2002 Operation Hotel California, President Clinton's US Law H.R. 4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" as 2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom, President Bush (43) as Commander In Chief has the US Military and NATO Military Forces complete the President Clinton US Policy of the Overthrow of President Hussein:

Unedited Transcript of the President Bush (43) Mission Accomplished Speech (Not the Bullsh!t Demoncrap Propaganda) Five (5) Pages (read all pages):

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-05-01/us/bush.transcript_1_general-franks-major-combat-allies?_s=PM:US

After reading the Facts above "coalition" (UN Mission, US, NATO Military and even the unarmed Japanese Defense Force Engineers), the President Obama LIE during the Reelection Presidential Debates, "Bush US Military Unilateral Invasion of Iraq" (youtube.com), also President Clinton (42) called this a "Liberation" not President Obama's (44) "Invasion".

KEEP ON DENYING THE HISTORICALLY DOCUMENTED FACTS, vermontguy , THINGS ON THE INTERNET NEVER GO AWAY.

Abraham Lincoln - Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt

And before you or anyone else starts name calling, Obey the Rules set on you by President Obama, from 2013 Inaugural Speech:

We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate.

Those of us that did not vote for President Obama, nor anyone else do not have to obey that.

And instead of name calling, posting uneducated emotive opinions, etc. dispute the FACTS and Historically Documented References. I can prove the rest of your, Demoncrap, President Obama lies, if you want pages, plus the links, historically documented references, transcripts, testimony, etc..

You are so full of @!$%# worm.

oh yeah, that was it, uh-huh, just keep telling yourself that.

There were all sorts of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) thrown around concerning the ERA, including claims that it would mandate unisex bathrooms. That's what helped kill it.

If it were introduced today, it would be much less controversial. But, I think that the immediate need for it is less because so much legislation is in place to achieve approximately the same results.

@bryan-2744138 So women can make it in the military (and construction!) if they just don't get mad about the menz joking about their titties? So is that why we've been barred from so many sectors in the past, cause our lady-part having selves just can't take a joke? Thank you for enlightening me!

In all seriousness you need to talk to my grandfather. Y'all would be beeeestttt friends. He said similar things when he had to start working around Black people in the mid 1960s and his little ol's Southern heart just couldn't understand why "the Blacks" at work were so touchy about his n*gger jokes. It's not like he was being really racist and lynching them or anything.

Welcome to the world most of us live in now, a world in which you don't get to go to work ( you know WORK, where you should be working) and blow off steam by disrespecting other people like a seventh grade mean girl. Most adults can do it every single day. I'm sure construction workers and military dudes can do it too! Just kept telling yourself that it's the 21st century and you'll soon be obsolete if you don't. That should make it easier!

K, done with rant at troll. On the article's topic. I think women will be fine in combat IF they can meet the standards already there, which I do not think should be altered for women at all. Statistically fewer women, and perhaps far fewer women, would meet the standards than men, but the ones that can meet them . . . let them fight. And as for facing rape, men face it too when captured especially in some of the "enlightened" cultures we've been fighting. I would expect any woman who went into combat would understand that risk.

joejoe

There are some woman that may pass the tests they have to go through but not many. Woman just are not strong enough to pass the hand to hand part of the combat part.

Nobody is saying there will be a lot of women who can cut it but 4 women failing the tests does not justify your statement that women just aren't strong enough.

They do get pregnant all the time in order to skip the deployments. It will happen.

I know i saw it when deployed over sea's. The ones that didn't want to be there just got pregnant and got sent back home.