US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta removes military ban on women in combat, opening thousands of front line positions

That is just awful. Women are not made for combat, not mentally or physically.

A draft is almost always a bad thing. It's only needed when there's a ton of ground forces needed.

The reality is the combat readiness of the average man or woman in the USA is abysmally low. Many Americans are obese. Most have no upper body strength, even young people.
[link to www.chicagomag.com]
[link to sportsmedicine.about.com]
[link to www.nytimes.com]

The new recuits are a product of video games and not hiking, canoeing, rock climbing, regular and disciplined physical education.

What we should be doing is improving the physical fitness of all Americans, most certainly young Americans by the reward method of reducing college tuition. We should encourage young Americans to enter military academies and become career soldiers. While some women could be combat ready, making a blanket change at a time of poor combat readiness is FOOLISH. Some may be able to serve with honor and distinction. Don't make ALL do something to satisfy an agenda of equality.

Creating professional soldiers just as we create any professionals like physicians will result in better soldiers. Would you use a draft to get a doctor? HELL NO! Would you use a draft to create farmers? HELL NO! Why would you ever use a draft to create a fighting force? Answer: you need people to take point and take the first hit or hit the first landmine. It's asinine.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/23/2013 07:57 PM

well, initial induction and basic training are all a weeding-out process, and between the men and women, all tolled,
we should be able to muster enough combat troops to get the job done.

YEP, I reckon, but read the articles. The reduced the physical fitness exam. It's a sham and a shame at least to this old educated country boy. I added more while you were typing.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/23/2013 07:56 PM

and, anyway, every military doctrine in the world these days says:
"when you run out of troops, use nukes."

I'll never go out with, have a relationship with, or marry any girl or woman that has ever been in the military or law enforcement. Whatever they say, something has been broken that cannot be repaired.

This is disgusting and shows BO's true colors. The "man" is a cretin - a lowlife that would throw women into a caldron of rape and sacrilege. This is an announcement of further wars to come.

A decent president or leader keeps us out of wars.

I expect a military draft. The younger generation has no idea how this will change everything. Now we have to keep our women safe from OUR government as well as those of other countries.

The bastard is beyond forgiveness.

What job? A nation that uses its military has already lost.

put them on the matt furey combat conditioning plan and an eat or starve all healthy diet . 90 days them blobbery fucks would be in combat readey shape.
I am closer to 50 than 30 and I can knock out 500 500 squats push ups from the training program , took two years to get there, but damn am i am good shape. even 100/100 right off the bat with proper form is a good workout ranger friends tell me.

It seems, as if maybe even more naive, easily deployable and disposable living "cannon fodder" (alias precious human beings) is/are needed and/or wanted (in the (near) future) in order to serve the ruthless "elite" and their countless sinister goals and all of this is (and makes me) infinitely sad.

i thought women were always able to have a combat trade
and be in war

thought it was like that for a good 12+ years

War is WRONG - always. It indicates that the "leader" was too incompetent or too egotistical to avoid the war.

Girls with guns:

I am sure there are alot of women who didn't ask for this. That being said, I don't think it is a good idea, at all. I know there are some pretty tough women out there that could probably handle it, but it just doesn't seem a place for a woman to want to be. Maybe that is just ME, talking for ME...I don't know. The world is changing at a rapid rate...I am happy staying where I am, I guess.

Any woman that voted for 0bama should absolutely be drafted. Why not???

Perhaps. There's some wisdom in that. War is expensive. That's something a ton of the executive and legislative branch have forgotten.

The military doesn't create wealth, it costs wealth by protecting wealth through security. If we put too many dollars in security and not enough in creating goods and services (as we are doing in the USA) then it's not capitalism, is it?

Using a sledgehammer to put in a nail is stupid. Using cluster bombs is stupid. You excise the tumor, not kill the entire body. Police actions are stupid. They foster more and more insurgency. It would be better to do a scorched earth policy as abhorrant as that is versus a sustained police action that costs a nation in soldiers, ancilary personnel, high taxes, materials, etc.

It ruins the infrastructure of an occupied nation. The goal might be total war, but occupations in history seldom worked. Assimilation worked for a long time in Roman times, but that was so far back and probably isn't effective anymore. To do that would be to absorb nations not create puppet regimes.

In those days they pillaged and took back all the wealth. That's one of the only ways in history that militaries paid for their actions. That disabled the occupied nation and eventual absorbed assimilated nation was so weakened as to not be able to muster soldiers.

Otherwise, in modern history in WW2, the USA sold armaments and ultimately made security worse by that process. It did however create wealth, but now is dooming us.
...
Bringing in women in this way, you have to ask, "Why now?" We're cutting Defense spending? We're lowering troop strengths. We're retaining less officers. Why now add women into a mix in such a decline?

One possibility is an anticipated World War scenario in which a lot of ground forces would be needed. That should make a lot of people shudder.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/23/2013 08:46 PM

I'm guessing neither of you have any military experience that certainly sounds like the problem, but it actually had more to do with the fact women on the front line wouldn't be taken as serious or as a threat by enemy troops.

Rape did play some role in it but not from the Muslims, rather their own men since people get so lonely and so crazy being away from home and loved ones and being in steady combat not knowing if you're going to make it through the day alive. Even for women not in front line active combat, sexual assaults and rapes take place all the time with the attackers being their peers or ranking officers, most victims don't come forward because military policy means both get punished and because of fear of retribution for speaking up. The Navy being the worst for these kinds of incidents. Take a look at some of the documentaries on women and the armed forces it's made real clear.

^ This

There are certainn complications with women in combat positions. here are a few:

1. Generally, women are only about 60% as strong as men, so they suffer a serious disadvantage on the battlefield when having to perform physical tasks and fighting against men on the other side. If your battle buddy takes a dirt nap, you must be prepared to carry him (or her) out of harms way to a medic. If your battle buddy is a small girl, she might not be able to carry you out of harm's way to a medic. That is a problem.

2. Women and men like to form emotional attachments to one-another that are often a distraction on the battlefield. If your girlfriend beside you gets her head blown off in a firefight, you might become a little too distracted to continue the fight. Plus men will be fighting each other for the affections of a pretty girl in the unit. It can lead to unnecessary emotional tension and moral problems within the organization. Everyone will hate the boyfriend of the pretty girl on the squad if he too is on the squad, as he'll be the only one getting laid while everyone else will have to suffer with hearing all the action. This will cause resentment, jealosy and sometimes violence within the unit. Everyone will want a piece of the action.

3. Mixed sexes together on guard duty at night (gays too) will sometimes be paying more attention to each other than to their security, which will compromise their mission.

4. That will sometimes lead to pregnancies, which will weaken the fighting force unit cohesion when they have to take off for maturnity leave.

5. Life on the front lines is often very austere, without luxuries such as bathrooms and showers, so there will often be a severe lack of privacy for the women. She might have to take a dump out in the open in front of all the men, lol. And shower or sponge bathe outside with them too.

6. In urban and jungle environments, often combat is done in very close proximity with the enemy. In such situations, your sense of smell can be an asset. And odors can be a liability. If you can smell cigarette smoke, you know someone is near was was near not long ago. The same goes with perfume, deoderant, cooked food, and body odor/menstration, chewing tobacco, etc. Personal hygeine often seriously lacks on the battlefield, with a lack of water to wash with, and time and other resources to shower. Everyone is dirty, grungy and generally in a nasty condition, so that could be a problem.

These are just a few examples of the complications of adding women to the battlefield. I'm sure there are others.

the point is, that they can put women in combat whenever they want to or need to. but, they will have guns, and
they can shoot the enemy whenever they feel like it.

All completely true and on target.

In history, women were actually in prostitution as a way of controlling disease for soldiers. That's the ugly truth.



"There were 800,000 women who served in the Soviet Armed Forces during the war.[1] Nearly 200,000 were decorated and 89 eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. "
One in Four were decorated for valor and that cannot be ignored.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Only in 1940+ were women used, and then only because of dire need based upon a lack of sufficient men to be drafted as soldiers. Probably the largest use is arguably in the ex-Soviet Union during WW2 where very brave ordinary women served with honor and distinction. And no I'm not a Red, I'm as Conservative and as much a Tea Party person as possible.

Bringing women in at a time when we don't require them is a social experiment. No thanks! The mental cost of having women in body bags is not worth it.

If they're planning a major offensive such that we need women in combat, we're screwed, because the military-industrial complex completely devalues human life. We are their slaves and they don't care how many it takes to consolidate wealth for the fat cats. It's not about empire for nations, it's about empire for 150 corporations.

Last Edited by Don'tBeAfraid on 01/23/2013 09:01 PM

Yes, they can shoot well, but there's more to war than shooting. There's getting in, and out, and lot's of tough physical assertion, and hauling wounded troops, not to mention having the mental compartmetnalization to be willing to kill people. Anyone who is too compassionate has no place in a combat role. Many women are very compassionate.

Dunno..? might work.. women can be pretty fierce in battle, with their sonic oral attacks, efficient use of kitchen & household objects as weapons with their multitasking skills & of course the 'ace' up their sleeve.., being sarcastic when dressed to kill. The only giveaway is that women would never be able to execute a 'surprise' attack, due their insistence in wearing noisy sounding high heels to sneak up on the enemy. Quiet women wearing trainers armed with office supplies would be 'lethal.'

Good.. It's about time that these cunts accept the negative aspects of "equality" along with all of the benefits.

So what are TPTB planning? Why do they need so many more warm bodies at this time?

Even in non-combat roles, military women in military schools are judged with lower standards than men. But they don't have that luxury on the battlefield. Only death awaits them there.

If they want women as equals on the battlefield, they need to judge everyone by the same standards: the same push-up scores, the same sit-up scores, the same chin-up/pull-up scores, the same run time scores, etc.

But that will never happen. It's all just an illusion of equality.

Now that is genuine wit, something rare and to be encouraged on GLP. Would give you green karma for it. Why not make an account?

What a nightmare...