{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/23/2013 9:31:26 PM
21
US Secretary Of Defence removes military ban on women serving in combat.
[quote][url=http://news.yahoo.com/panetta-removes-military-ban-women-serving-combat-202235351.html]WASHINGTON - Senior U. S. defence officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.[/url][/quote]
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it's a good idea?
-
I'm fine with it More people to remove kebabs
-
1 Replythe should be put to the same standards of the men. if they cant pass then they dont get the job. 2 women were going to infantry in the marines and they did not pass so they washed out. yorkie
-
23 RepliesWell, women are already serving in makeshift infantry jobs in Afghanistan. They should get the right to be officially recognized as such. OK, so my younger brother was like many of you. He said that women couldn't serve in the front lines. He brought up the menstrual cycle, weaker musculature, weaker psyche, the fear of -blam!- by enemy combatants, sexual misconduct...you name it, he had a laundry list of reasons why women should never be allowed in combat. He was then commissioned as an O-1 (2nd LT) in the US Army National Guard as a MP. His unit was tapped to go to Afghanistan and he did see combat. This is second hand, so please forgive any inaccuracies. His unit was called on to clear a checkpoint that was suspected to be the target of suicide bombers. He moved in and cleared the building. Two soldiers in his unit were injured, the insurgents were all KIA. In his AAR he noticed that not only were his best soldiers the women, but they were the reason the two injured soldiers survived at all. Then he started to pay attention. His two best squad leaders, women. The most decorated soldiers, women. The funniest thing to him was that they didn't make a big deal about it. They didn't ask for any recognition at all. Forget asking to be treated the same as the men, they were embarrassed that they got any at all. I talked to him about them, and he has only two reasons why they shouldn't be out there: Its harder for them to pee while doing a patrol in a MRAP, and still sexual misconduct. He concedes both can be overcome with proper training. So, so long as she can pass the same tests as a man, with as high of scores, then by all means, they can have the Green Beret, the Ranger Tab or my precious Blue Braid.
-
this would be good if the same PT and conduct standards were used and enforced. but they're not.
-
Just like women being in the fire department with me. I have no problem with it so long as they can do the job. I would have a problem with a lowering of standards to get a guy in no matter how cool he is and I have the same feeling about women. I am all for equality but individuals who can't handle a job should not get the job.
-
This is good. I'm glad to see that the US is moving towards equality in some areas.
-
Women belong in the kitchen not the battlefield. Unless they somehow know how to make sandwiches in the middle of a firefight. Then maybe.
-
[url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C_VheAwZBuQ]YYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!! [/url][url=http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs]YYYESSSSSSSS!!!!![/url]
-
I don't see a problem here.
-
So is the next step registering women for the draft?
-
Good. Equal rights for all. No special treatment.
-
1 ReplyIf they want equal rights, they ought to be willing to pay for those rights with the same set of social responsibilities that men are expected to fulfill. We sign draft cards at age 18. If the draft is ever re-instituted, we're all expected to do our part. Women don't have to do that. So I don't know how I feel about this, but I know how I feel about [i]that[/i].
-
Edited by Der Todesengel: 1/23/2013 10:12:03 PMAs long as they have to meet the same physical standards as the men and can carry all the same equipment. Average load carried by soldiers in the field runs from 80-120lbs... - Der
-
10 RepliesBad idea. Women, physically, are not geared properly for combat. They are, like it or not, inferior for a combat role. [url=http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal]There are quite a few women in service who acknowledge that[/url].
-
3 RepliesI'm very satisfied with this decision, I believe it was a good one made in good conscience.
-
If it either has no impact on, or increases, the effectiveness of the military, it's a good idea.
-
I don't have an issue with this, provided the woman (not women in general) can do the job/meet the requirements. I do think if they are going to function in combat roles they have to meet the male PT standards, which some women could most certainly do.
-
eh, i dont know how to feel about this. on one hand: yeah equal rights and whatnot OTOH: i have heard some of the arguments against it, mostly from my military serving family who are also split on if it is a smart decision.
-
2 Repliesyey for equal rights!!!! For serious though, I don't see why this wasn't done earlier. For me, personally, it wouldn't matter if it was a male or female battling next to me as long as they received the same training and passed the same physical/mental exams I did.
-
Edited by Adamal123: 1/23/2013 9:47:29 PMAs long as they are able to get the job done. EDIT: Actually, im mixed about this. The only good side to this is all the equal rights fight between men and women. I also think that a cannot perform to the required standard as a man can. Of course, the only women you really see preaching about how women should serve in the front lines are women who have never been in the military, which baffles me.
-
2 RepliesNo. Now all our women are going to die and the birth rate with drastically fall and humans will become extinct.
