Panetta to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

[TreeA10]

Adding women has done wonders for our military. During the first go round in the desert, 1,200 women, an entire battalion's worth, were lost due to pregnancy. Admittedly, those were "non-combat" fields. That was years ago and I'm sure there are better stats out there somewhere because I'm sure women don't get pregnant any more being the more enlightened and diversity-centric military that we are now.

[Guest]

A few questions for NSplayr:

You say that “I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do.”

OK fine. Then why not disabled people? We don’t even let them apply to the military. Are they not as patriotic as other Americans who can serve? Can you provide me a rational explanation, based on your logic of allowing women to serve in infantry units, why handicapped people cannot? As long as a handicapped individual, whatever ailment they have, can meet some minimum physical standard they should be allowed in, right? Why should they be excluded from the top tiers of military leadership because of some condition that is not their fault? And we should ignore whatever cost is involved with accommodating them because we don’t want to infringe on ‘equality of opportunity’.

Though my name isn't NSplayr, I do have an answer for you: we do accept and retain members, "As long as [they] can meet some minimum physical standard."

There is a several hundred page Aircrew Waiver Guide and a separate, lengthy Medical Evaluation Board process that is utilized and applied to many handicapped, injured, or ill Active Duty (and Guard/Reserve) persons daily (and a less common ETP for Accessions). There are MANY people who would normally be separated or blocked from entry, but the AFPC/DPANM has decided they meet a minimum standard and can either keep their current position, or receive waiver, and/or be given an Assignment Limitation Code (see AFI 41-210). In fact, these ALC's become quite common for higher ranking personnel, who are expected to be in a less physically demanding role, and their "Commander's Letter" reflects those new duties.

[Guest one]

Did I miss the announcement of your promotion to CoS or your announcement for running for Congress or POTUS? Otherwise how exactly do you suggest we stop "letting" leadership get away with this?

Leadership should not be intimidated by a female making false accusations. If they back down to this type of threat they are inviting other females to do the same. Do you really think it is okay for leadership to let someone succeed in their career by threats alone?

Neither of those suggestions ever had to do with physical ability (well blacks might have but that was easily disproven) and homosexuals had to do more with morale and unit cohesion. No the military doesn't need to catch up with society if it will make it weaker.

Does everyone really have to latch on to the straw man of needing to lower standards for females. I would be against lowering standards and just about anyone with any sense would. I am saying let them fail. If ten or twenty women in the entire military can meet the standards and doesn't quit they probably can contribute to the mission in someway or another. It might be beneficial to have a couple female rangers/infantry in a unit that is required to interact with the local populous in one way or another. Searching female suspects could be useful.

Edited January 30, 2013 by one

[Fuzz]

NO it is not, but that is the reality of today's AF (Am I speaking latin here?), risk/lawsuit adverse, and somewhat rightly too because in the media and public circles, the mention of sexual harassment (even false ones) is a loosing battle for the AF out of the gate.

Dude everyone wants the same standards! The fact of the matter is there is a 99.69% chance the standards will be lowered or there will be the behind closed doors stuff mentioned earlier with UPT washouts and likes. Its a pipe dream to think otherwise.

[Guest one]

Adding women has done wonders for our military. During the first go round in the desert, 1,200 women, an entire battalion's worth, were lost due to pregnancy. Admittedly, those were "non-combat" fields. That was years ago and I'm sure there are better stats out there somewhere because I'm sure women don't get pregnant any more being the more enlightened and diversity-centric military that we are now.

How many of the father's do you think were military? You are right, women are 100% more likely to get pregnant than men. Good point.

In 2004 U.S. Army in Europe had 1,300 DUIs, an entire battalion's worth. Well over 90% of them were men. I am sure their DUI had a negative impact on the mission too. So we lost as many men to DUI as we did to pregnancy. Should we ban alcohol?

See, I can make points that don't relate to women serving in combat units too.

NO it is not, but that is the reality of today's AF (Am I speaking latin here?), risk/lawsuit adverse, and somewhat rightly too because in the media and public circles, the mention of sexual harassment (even false ones) is a loosing battle for the AF out of the gate.

Dude everyone wants the same standards! The fact of the matter is there is a 99.69% chance the standards will be lowered or there will be the behind closed doors stuff mentioned earlier with UPT washouts and likes. Its a pipe dream to think otherwise.

I think we almost agree. Sexual harassment is a whole other issue. The biggest problem with sexual harassment is the military has a horrible history. How many horrible BMT scandals has there been. Many. The important factor is those were legitimate. The Air Force's desire to avoid sexual harassment is a separate issue altogether.

I agree that it will be difficult but the policy is a reality. I think it would have been better to spring this on the military after we leave Afghanistan but Panetta did it walking out of the door. This is an easier thing to manage when you don't have your focus on something as important as our operation in Afghanistan.

[Fuzz]

I think we almost agree. Sexual harassment is a whole other issue. The biggest problem with sexual harassment is the military has a horrible history. How many horrible BMT scandals has there been. Many. The important factor is those were legitimate. The Air Force's desire to avoid sexual harassment is a separate issue altogether.

I agree that it will be difficult but the policy is a reality. I think it would have been better to spring this on the military after we leave Afghanistan but Panetta did it walking out of the door. This is an easier thing to manage when you don't have your focus on something as important as our operation in Afghanistan.

I don't think anyone on here is saying there isn't a problem, but the fact is there are few in leadership with the balls to combat the BS claims, and by opening a door to schools that have a very high washout rate, given the track record, some females may earn their way in, and other may threaten their way in, which hurts the units even more. Therefore whether officially or unofficially lower standards and sub-quality candidates will be allowed into those career fields.

As for your second point I wholeheartedly agree, while I don't think it will work nor should it be implemented, there was a better time and place to do it, which I mentioned earlier and Nsplyr shot down.

[HeloDude]

How many of the father's do you think were military? You are right, women are 100% more likely to get pregnant than men. Good point.

In 2004 U.S. Army in Europe had 1,300 DUIs, an entire battalion's worth. Well over 90% of them were men. I am sure their DUI had a negative impact on the mission too. So we lost as many men to DUI as we did to pregnancy. Should we ban alcohol?

See, I can make points that don't relate to women serving in combat units too.

So Tree brings up being deployed in the desert/combat environment and your response is that guys not in the desert/combat environment got DUI's. How many guys are getting DUI's in Iraq (when we were there) and Afghanistan? I'm sure it happened a few times, but I doubt it happened much.

Here's the deal man for you and your liberal friends--if folks on the left want to allow women to serve in direct/offensive ground combat roles (infantry, SOF, etc) because they believe it's the 'fair' thing to do, then that's your opinion and I'm cool with it as then it's just a difference of opinion, and regardless of what decisions are made we have salute and follow orders. My problem is when people try to sell that this is needed to make those units better or that there won't be any mission degradation because of this decision...even Nsplayr said it won't add to mission effectiveness (though he said it will in the long run, but he didn't give any examples as to how or why). Can women fight in the infantry, of course they can--and so can 65 year old dudes and guys who are 4'5". But are we that hard up for people that we are having to change who we allow into/able to compete for those roles? I seriously doubt we would have done any better in Afghanistan if women had been allowed to fight in infantry units or SOF teams.

So once again, I ask--is this decision one of 'fairness' or one that will make us a stronger fighting force?

[TreeA10]

In 2008, the female military populace had a 10% unintended pregnancy rate. Seriously? Unintended? Like to know how that stat is arrived at. DUI's is the best you got? You can hand someone with a DUI conviction an assault rifle (the real one not the media "assault rifle") and put that person on the front line. You can not put a pregnant woman on the front line. Try again.

[Guest one]

So Tree brings up being deployed in the desert/combat environment and your response is that guys not in the desert/combat environment got DUI's. How many guys are getting DUI's in Iraq (when we were there) and Afghanistan? I'm sure it happened a few times, but I doubt it happened much.

Here's the deal man for you and your liberal friends--if folks on the left want to allow women to serve in direct/offensive ground combat roles (infantry, SOF, etc) because they believe it's the 'fair' thing to do, then that's your opinion and I'm cool with it as then it's just a difference of opinion, and regardless of what decisions are made we have salute and follow orders. My problem is when people try to sell that this is needed to make those units better or that there won't be any mission degradation because of this decision...even Nsplayr said it won't add to mission effectiveness (though he said it will in the long run, but he didn't give any examples as to how or why). Can women fight in the infantry, of course they can--and so can 65 year old dudes and guys who are 4'5". But are we that hard up for people that we are having to change who we allow into/able to compete for those roles? I seriously doubt we would have done any better in Afghanistan if women had been allowed to fight in infantry units or SOF teams.

So once again, I ask--is this decision one of 'fairness' or one that will make us a stronger fighting force?

The reason why there was such a huge influx of soldiers in Germany was because they were on their way to Iraq. Most of the people "stationed" in Germany spent much more time in Iraq than Europe. I know one guy who was in Germany for 6 months out of the 36 months he spent "stationed" in Germany. The rest of the time was in Iraq or on R and R. I admit, I am not sure if a DUI got you out of deploying or kicked out at that time but nowadays it might. The only reason I brought it up was because there is very little relevance with his point. The only way you could say it was relevant is if you think that a woman who some how amazingly met the standards of becoming a Ranger, would go through all that hard work and anguish just to purposely get pregnant to avoid a deployment. Really?

I think there can be valuable uses for women in combat if they can hack it. I brought up dealing with and searching females that are Muslim. It is hard for a male to search women in Afghanistan and it might be useful. Just one thing that I think a woman can bring to the table if they can meet the same standards of men.

Once again, you bring up the straw man that we have to lower the standards to let women TRY to join a combat unit. A 65 old that is 4'5" most likely can't meet the standards to be in the military nonetheless meet the standards to be a Ranger.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[Guest one]

In 2008, the female military populace had a 10% unintended pregnancy rate. Seriously? Unintended? Like to know how that stat is arrived at. DUI's is the best you got? You can hand someone with a DUI conviction an assault rifle (the real one not the media "assault rifle") and put that person on the front line. You can not put a pregnant woman on the front line. Try again.

Yeah, my argument was just about as relevant as yours.

The only way you could say your point is relevant is if you think that a woman who some how amazingly met the standards of becoming a Ranger, would go through all that hard work and anguish just to purposely get pregnant to avoid a deployment.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[HeloDude]

Once again, you bring up the straw man that we have to lower the standards to let women TRY to join a combat unit. A 65 old that is 4'5" most likely can't meet the standards to be in the military nonetheless meet the standards to be a Ranger.

You need to read what I wrote--I have never once said that I think there is not a single woman out there that can hack the training, I definitely know there are at least a few. What I have said is that there are plenty of other people who can hack those same standards that we refuse to let in...dudes with full blown diabetes for example, dudes who are past the age limit, etc, but we typically don't let those people in those jobs. And if we want/need more women to serve those roles (who can not make the standards), then let's let in other folks who can not make the current standards. I also said that shaking up the entire organization just to let a few women in does not IMO improve mission effectiveness. If it's about fairness fine...just don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. It's called risk vs benefit analysis.

Interesting point about the women searching women...tell me then (since you seem to be well versed in the subject), what do the Army units do now to overcome this lack of ability that you point out? Would we doing better in Afghansitan if Clinton's Administration had came out with this decision back in 1997?

My main arguement this entire time is that women have other biological issues (one that is a regular occurrence that can lead to an inability of doing strenuous activities that day) that men do not have. That is a fact, no denying it...and that's irrelevant of whether a woman 'plays that card' or she is just legitimately in pain that day. Sure men in the off chance can get prostate cancer, but women can get breast cancer, so that argument is a wash. If the county is cool with adding another physical variable (ie cycles or potential pregnancy) to things that can adversary affect training or hardous combat deployments of a SOF or infantry unit, then so be it. I have no doubt we aren't allowing some awesome dudes become pilots who have diabetes or who are too old, but hey, life's not fair...though it seems to be getting that way, regardless of the consequence.

Edited January 31, 2013 by HeloDude

[TreeA10]

Yeah, my argument was just about as relevant as yours.

The only way you could say your point is relevant is if you think that a woman who some how amazingly met the standards of becoming a Ranger, would go through all that hard work and anguish just to purposely get pregnant to avoid a deployment.

So a woman completing Ranger training is immune from pregnancy? I guess the other 10% that unintendedly get pregnant lack the wisdom, knowledge, and dedication of any woman completing Ranger training. Do they teach contraception only in Ranger school? Must be an SCI program.

[Guest one]

I don't think it is fair to compare a 65 year old or someone with a major health problem with a woman. We might simply disagree. I look at age and health as standards...Women have to meet those just like any male. I don't view having a dick as being a standard. It was in the past but the reality is a dick in working order is no longer a standard. I know women have disadvantages but in my view, if you meet the standards, there is a place for you.

I wasn't saying that the Army can't search a female that they believe is a threat without a female soldier. We have captured and detained many women. It would just cause less of an uproar with the locals if a woman would do it especially when you are in the middle of some small village. I was just giving a quick example off the top of my head that would make a woman an asset.

We all have to remember that each individual unit can seek a waiver to not allow women in their unit. Most units that have a need to be male only will get a waiver with little push back. The new policy only denies whole career fields from being limited. Can you really say that one or two combat units can't find a few purposes for women. I think we should have a whole SOF unit with women only that has Kill Bill/Charlie's Angels style training. I think you guys would change your tune then.

So a woman completing Ranger training is immune from pregnancy? I guess the other 10% that unintendedly get pregnant lack the wisdom, knowledge, and dedication of any woman completing Ranger training. Do they teach contraception only in Ranger school? Must be an SCI program.

I think we are making some headway. So you think if we sterilized women you would allow them to serve in combat units? Maybe we could cut off their tits for good measure. Being capable of getting pregnant is not a reason to limit someone from combat units. If that was valid, women shouldn't be in the military period. A fighter pilot that is pregnant and can't deploy is just as useless as a Ranger pregnant and not able to deploy.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[TreeA10]

And finally, you are right. Pregnant women can't deploy. 900 women were unable to deploy in the same 2008 study. Those positions went unfilled and the excess workload picked up by those that could deploy or that position was filled by someone else who might have stayed home. Either way, someone got hosed, Is this fair? Is our nations defense so desparate that we need to even worry about this? From a liberal point of view, it is fair if we hose others, the non-protected class, in the name of fairness.

Your point regarding pregnant fighter pilots or Rangers is absolutely correct. Both are useless. Pilots are and Rangers would be immediately removed from operations.

[Stank]

Though my name isn't NSplayr, I do have an answer for you: we do accept and retain members, "As long as [they] can meet some minimum physical standard."

There is a several hundred page Aircrew Waiver Guide and a separate, lengthy Medical Evaluation Board process that is utilized and applied to many handicapped, injured, or ill Active Duty (and Guard/Reserve) persons daily (and a less common ETP for Accessions). There are MANY people who would normally be separated or blocked from entry, but the AFPC/DPANM has decided they meet a minimum standard and can either keep their current position, or receive waiver, and/or be given an Assignment Limitation Code (see AFI 41-210). In fact, these ALC's become quite common for higher ranking personnel, who are expected to be in a less physically demanding role, and their "Commander's Letter" reflects those new duties.

Uhhh....thanks. I really wasn't looking for specific regulations and that's a lot of useless knowledge that you're carrying with you. Up until a few days ago there was also a rule that prohibited women from joining infantry, armor, artillery, and special ops units in the armed forces. That rule (you can go find the specific reg or AFI for me since you're into that) has been rescinded and is no longer valid. So rules really don't matter in this discussion, because Sec Def Panetta can get rid of them in the name of fairness and equality. By this logic, and by nsplayr's logic, anyone, literally anyone, who can pass the minimum standard of that particular branch or MOS, such as infantry, should be allowed to serve, to include: women, elderly, 'little people', and folks afflicted with various ailments or conditions that I will label as 'disabled' or 'handicapped.' I'd like an answer from nsplayr if he would also allow all of those folks entry into the infantry if they could meet the minimum standard.

[HeloDude]

I don't think it is fair to compare a 65 year old or someone with a major health problem with a woman.

I'm sorry that you don't think I'm being fair. It is funny how you're cool with being 'fair' when it comes to gender but not 'fair' when it comes to age...I mean, hey, if standards are standards then it shouldn't be a problem? And I'm not talking 65...the military starts age discriminating much much earlier.

We might simply disagree. I look at age and health as standards...Women have to meet those just like any male.

What planet are you living on?? The physical standards are less for women in every service. Are you really this clueless?

I know women have disadvantages...

Ok, you're finally doing better here.

...but in my view, if you meet the standards, there is a place for you.

...and then you go and screw it up. You were so close. The standards are not the same--see above.

You have yet to disagree with anything I said concerning menstrual cycles, pregnancies, etc. You just keep talking about dicks and standards. I guess if a chick has surgery in order to not have her menstruate or be allowed to get pregnant then the discussion would change a bit. As it stands, allowing women to serve (especially if they serve in offensive ground forces) brings on more risk than if it were only men, even with all other things being equal. But yet you're saying it's worth taking on they additional risk when it comes to our most strenuous jobs, especially the ones that take on the most riskier missions...and that increased risk is ok in the interest of 'fairness'??

I wasn't saying that the Army can't search a female that they believe is a threat without a female. We have captured and detained multiple women. It would just cause less of an uproar with the locals if a woman would do it. I was just giving a quick example of the top of my head that would make a woman an asset.

Oh good...I was worried that our Army was in trouble when it came to local women in combat zones.

I think we should have a whole SOF unit with women only that has Kill Bill/Charlie's Angels style training. I think you guys would change your tune then.

I'd like my job to be like the movies everyday too man...unfortunatey that's why they call it the movies. My parents made me grow up years ago.

[Rifleman96]

Anybody here gone through Ranger School? It's not just about meeting the standards. Most are washed out in the first week because they don't have the mental fortitude to gut through it. Yes the official answer with the fitness test is so many push ups/situps/pull ups; but it is also a test of the mind. Guys are typically knocking out 90+ push ups in that event because the grader will mess w/ them and not count push ups. A candidate will continue to knock them out until they have achieved the minimum number. The grader will mark down the 65 push ups required but as I said before they more than likely knocked out 90+. The same goes for the rest of the test with the exception of the 5 mile run in 40 min's. Ranger school is all about a gut check. A lot of guys who make it past the first week, who are at the top of their game physically, will not make it due to some form of leg/knee injury from all the rucking that they do. Then there is also peer evaluations. So how do you think a woman will make it through the peer evals (that will be out the door). Anybody ever watch any of the documentaries on Ranger School. To quote my wife, "women are already loopy from the start." Men are working on almost pure instinct by the point that it gets to where guys start hallucinating. I don't see a woman even making it through Infantry Training which I have been through. If we are looking at full equality. Then I would suggest that there is just one PT standard which males currently do, true equality since there is no real difference between a man and a woman. As a father of a daughter, I am completely against it especially since this will create a possibility that she has no choice but to enter military service. I do not believe in equality. Some are made stronger, faster and smarter and good on them. In the realm of ground battle, men have the obvious advantages that are necessary for winning battles as quickly and efficiently as possible. I can remember my Parachute Infantry Regiment Company Commander almost disowning me because I had purchased GI Jane. I thought it was a half entertaining movie. But I knew it was fiction and could never happen. I know it won't happen until they lower the standards for the sake of equality and giving in to the whining women that want leadership positions just for the sake of the title. It will be harder to operate and win quickly and efficiently w/ women in the combat units.

[Guest one]

I'm sorry that you don't think I'm being fair. It is funny how you're cool with being 'fair' when it comes to gender but not 'fair' when it comes to age...I mean, hey, if standards are standards then it shouldn't be a problem? And I'm not talking 65...the military starts age discriminating much much earlier.

What planet are you living on?? The physical standards are less for women in every service. Are you really this clueless

The basic PT standards we have in the Air Force are used to keep people healthy and ensure they are fit enough to deploy. The Air Force has different standards for females because a healthy above average female might only be as strong and fast as a slightly below average male. The PT standards are more or less to prevent the Air Force from getting fat and lazy and keeling over at 36 from a heart attack. It is not to see if we can be bad asses. For a woman to meet the standards a SEAL is faced with, they would have to be in Olympic athlete type condition. We are talking freak of nature type stuff. If you have thorough screening and a woman gets through, let her go to training.

For example, to be an STO or CRO you have to take a PT test at your unit that screens you for swimming, running, push-ups, crunches, pull ups, flutter kicks, and I forget what else...But it is thorough. If you pass this test you are able to go to Florida and go through a screening process that is similar paced as indoc for PJs and combat controllers. If you pass all the events you get to have your ass kicked for ten weeks at the indoctrination course. If you pass that you can enter the pipeline and start your other training with the possibility of failing out at anytime. If a woman was able to actually get to indoc I would shit myself but to actually make it through.... That would be insane. I don't see the problem screening them. It won't cost that much at all. The major point is, at no time can the military budge on their standards. The mental and physical pain is important. The standards are there for a reason. Only the best should get through.

ETA: There is other stuff you need to do to be selected for STO or CRO screening but that is the general stuff for PT.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[HeloDude]

I mention all the services, and you come back with the Air Force. So the Marine PT test has nothing to do with physical endurance to accomplish their jobs? What about the Army?

Dude, here's some free advice--just stop talking. You want women to be able to fight in direct ground offensive roles because you think it's the 'fair' thing to do, regardless if it in fact reduces mission effetiveness. Got it. You make a lot of people in other countries very happy...and I'm not referring to our allies.

[old crow]

Find your username in the black bar on the top right of the screen.

Click the drop down menu.

Select "Manage Ignore Prefs".

Type the username you wish to ignore in the box under "Add a new user to your list".

Example: "one"

Crack a beer and enjoy browsing the forum.

Big thanks. I can now ignore the illogical, nonsensical, long-winded ramblings of the morons that post on this forum more than they seem to work....cough NSPLAYR cough

[ThreeHoler]

And finally, you are right. Pregnant women can't deploy. 900 women were unable to deploy in the same 2008 study. Those positions went unfilled and the excess workload picked up by those that could deploy or that position was filled by someone else who might have stayed home. Either way, someone got hosed, Is this fair? Is our nations defense so desparate that we need to even worry about this? From a liberal point of view, it is fair if we hose others, the non-protected class, in the name of fairness.

Your point regarding pregnant fighter pilots or Rangers is absolutely correct. Both are useless. Pilots are and Rangers would be immediately removed from operations.

So are all female sailors on sea duty who get pregnant. Someone has to backfill their position on the ship or the spot goes unfilled (thanks JPME Level 1!!!).

[Guest one]

I mention all the services, and you come back with the Air Force. So the Marine PT test has nothing to do with physical endurance to accomplish their jobs? What about the Army?

Dude, here's some free advice--just stop talking. You want women to be able to fight in direct ground offensive roles because you think it's the 'fair' thing to do, regardless if it in fact reduces mission effetiveness. Got it. You make a lot of people in other countries very happy...and I'm not referring to our allies.

I honestly do not know the standards of marines that serve in combat roles (Infantry vs. intel for example). The basic PT test for the Army, Air Force, and Navy all seem to be more about fitness than functional purposes. Besides the basic PT standards I am sure every type of combat role has different requirements. Just like how TACP, SERE, and PJs all have different standards. Those standards have more of a functional purpose compared to basic PT tests.

I could care less about the "fair" thing. Right now it is policy. I just feel that history has shown that fighting societal progression in the military is pointless because things never go in reverse. For example, there will likely never be a policy that strikes homosexuals from openly serving...It would be too easy to fight. This issue is similar. Once it is policy, especially once women actually serve in those roles, they will never be able to reverse it because of all the political implications. Instead of military members moaning and groaning about it, it is best to focus on how to make the policy work. Talking about the standards women should face is a better debate than "women get pregnant and have periods so they can't serve in combat roles". Standing fast on standards is key.

The military will always be more conservative than the general population and that is a good thing but once the military makes a big liberal change they normally stick.

Edited January 31, 2013 by one

[Stank]

Once again, you bring up the straw man that we have to lower the standards to let women TRY to join a combat unit. A 65 old that is 4'5" most likely can't meet the standards to be in the military nonetheless meet the standards to be a Ranger.

Its not a straw man argument. It is likely a reality that standards will be lowered through political pressure. How can you not see this?

Also, its not likely that a female can meet the standards of infantry service, either, but you want them to be able to try. Even if 99% of them fail, regardless of the cost, right? I think a 60 yr old male, or a 4'5" male is probably more likely to meet the standards of infantry service than a female. Why not let them in, then?

I don't view having a dick as being a standard. It was in the past but the reality is a dick in working order is no longer a standard. I know women have disadvantages but in my view, if you meet the standards, there is a place for you.

Its not about having a penis you moron. Its about the other differences between males and females. I know that a liberal like you thinks that a man can become a woman by cutting off his penis and getting a boob job, but us conservatives just think he's a fvcked up man. Its about more muscles, stronger muscles, stronger bones, greater stamina, and all of recorded history showing that males are far superior soldiers. Letting women even try is just stupid for the sake of political correctness.

I'd like my job to be like the movies everyday too man...unfortunatey that's why they call it the movies. My parents made me grow up years ago.

Hey one, can you read this a few times? Has it started to sink in, yet? We're concerned about soldier's lives while you envision some spank-fest amazon movie and liberal utopia?

[busdriver]

Forget it

Edited February 1, 2013 by busdriver

[nsplayr]

A few questions for NSplayr: You say that “I value equality of opportunity and don't support limitations based on gender or sexual orientation or race or whatever. That's the root of it and why I think it's the right thing to do.” OK fine. Then why not disabled people? We don’t even let them apply to the military.

Incorrect. Was addressed by deaddebate, but if you meet the physical standards to join the service, you are allowed to give it a shot. My community had a dude at the schoolhouse get his leg crushed in a motorcycle accident (I'm light on exact details here, only sorta know of him). Well guess what, you need 2 legs to be a U-28 pilot. So he got kicked out right, now that he's "disabled." Nope, got a prosthetic, demonstrated he could handle the aircraft controls with it vice a real leg, and he's GTG and mission qual'd.

As long as a handicapped individual, whatever ailment they have, can meet some minimum physical standard they should be allowed in, right?

Yes, and there is an extensive medical screening process that I seem to remember going through that certifies whether or not you can join the service and whether or not you're qual'd for certain positions or not (i.e. pilot/nav/etc.). Never was in the Army or the infantry so I'm not sure if there are special medial quals to be a grunt vice a regular Joe in the army.

What about old people? I’m sure there are many patriotic 60 year old men who could probably pass the MINIMUM standards for infantry service. Shouldn’t we allow them the equality of opportunity as well?

Sure, if they can meet the standards let them serve; I was never a fan of up or out anyways. If you're 67, look like this, and really want to kick down doors in Iraq, by all means, have at it.

I don't think one shitty female should be the way you look at developing policy. There are likely many females that have pulled this same stunt. They do this because of one simple fact...They can get away with it without much risk. Good leadership could have avoided this situation because good leadership requires holding people accountable for their actions.

Amen...if your community is passing people who aren't competent you have no one to blame but yourselves (and your leadership most likely). Do something about it at your level and/or don't let yourself or your peers make the same mistakes when you're higher-level leaders someday.

As for your second point I wholeheartedly agree, while I don't think it will work nor should it be implemented, there was a better time and place to do it, which I mentioned earlier and Nsplyr shot down.

Never a better time than the present to get the policy right IMHO.

So once again, I ask--is this decision one of 'fairness' or one that will make us a stronger fighting force?

Equality of opportunity immediately, stronger fighting force in the long-term. If a woman really could gut it through infantry school, a couple years in a regular unit, ranger school, SF training, etc. etc., don't you think you'd want that person on your team? Sounds like a certifiable bad ass to me. My point is not that I want women on the front lines (ya know, more than they are now) kicking down doors, I want them to have the ability to try out rather than be banned from doing so because of what's between their legs rather than their abilities on the battlefield.

I think there can be valuable uses for women in combat if they can hack it. I brought up dealing with and searching females that are Muslim. It is hard for a male to search women in Afghanistan and it might be useful. Just one thing that I think a woman can bring to the table if they can meet the same standards of men.

The funny thing is that there are already women fulfilling this role, they just don't get a CIB out of it because they're "attached" to front-line units rather than "assigned" to them.

Those positions went unfilled and the excess workload picked up by those that could deploy or that position was filled by someone else who might have stayed home. Either way, someone got hosed, Is this fair? Is our nations defense so desparate that we need to even worry about this?

Do guys in your squadron not miss training/deployments/etc. due to weddings, childbirth, parents dying/getting sick, etc.? Should we only let single men with no desire to father children, certifiably healthy parents and no worldly possessions into our combat units? There is no need for warrior-monks here man, people fall out for all kinds of reasons otherwise knows as "life" and I don't begrudge them for it. On the other hand if "life" becomes a habitual problem to fulfilling your work duties then that's an issue that should be solved via leadership, not some kind of blanket policy of discrimination from on high.

Big thanks. I can now ignore the illogical, nonsensical, long-winded ramblings of the morons that post on this forum more than they seem to work....cough NSPLAYR cough

Enjoy more free time ya old man! I will continue to enjoy your avatar, thanks for that at least.

Edited January 31, 2013 by nsplayr