Results 1 to 20 of 256

Thread: Women in Military Service & Combat (not just USA)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default Panetta Lifts Ban on Women in Combat

    http://news.msn.com/politics/panetta...omen-in-combat

    Call me a sexist, old fashioned or whatever, but personally I don't like decision and believe due to political correctness and "gender norming" will degrade the force overall. But, if my daughter suddenly decided she wanted to be a riflman in the Marine Corps I would support her 100%. WTF is happening!

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2

    Default I'll tell you what is happening to you!

    You have lost you're mind and become Politically Correct (PC)! I hope they welcome you on the dark side.

  3. #3
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Fortunately, I don't have to worry about it - she is 100% girl and has no interest in that stuff. So, I get to remain old fashioned and not PC.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Even if the standards were to be the same, I still wouldn't like it. Yet, knowing the army, they will not be the same. Men will die when they are too heavy in kit to be drug to cover by a female in their fire team, or she herself will get shot. How is the average female going to affect the load plan for a 3 day operation? Can she, on average, bear the 40kg load with enough juice in the tank to sprint to cover or bound? Is the average female the one you want in front of you in a stack?

    I dont see the fascination civilian committees have with all manner of changes to the military that have nothing to do with increasing our lethality on the battle field. If the changes wont make you more lethal/effective, why even consider it?

  5. #5
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyatt View Post
    Even if the standards were to be the same, I still wouldn't like it. Yet, knowing the army, they will not be the same. Men will die when they are too heavy in kit to be drug to cover by a female in their fire team, or she herself will get shot. How is the average female going to affect the load plan for a 3 day operation? Can she, on average, bear the 40kg load with enough juice in the tank to sprint to cover or bound? Is the average female the one you want in front of you in a stack?

    I dont see the fascination civilian committees have with all manner of changes to the military that have nothing to do with increasing our lethality on the battle field. If the changes wont make you more lethal/effective, why even consider it?
    yep, I agree with you. There will be different standards - this is only the beginning. I want to puke.

Similar Threads

  1. Mass Insanity: Latest Trend in Army Doctrine
    By Bob's World in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 10-14-2012, 09:23 PM
  2. Specially Protected Persons in Combat Situations (new title)
    By Tukhachevskii in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 119
    Last Post: 10-11-2010, 07:26 PM
  3. Impacts on Finland/EU/NATO of renewed IW/COIN focus of US military
    By charlyjsp in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 05:43 PM
  4. Appreciation for the military from the civilians
    By yamiyugikun in forum Small Wars Council / Journal
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 05-07-2009, 10:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •